AEMT's, good Idea or Bad idea.

The point to be careful is having the rural staffing mantra: "well we can do with less medics now that we have some AEMTs"
 
Kavsuvb said:
That's why Tigger, I think AEMT's are great for Rural communities and even rural states like Alaska, New Hampshire, Vermont, Montana, and Maine. I am talking about towns in Northern New England states such as Fort Kent, Maine, Houlton Maine, Eastport Maine, Pittsburg New Hampshire, and Derby Vermont. On top of that AEMT's would be great for the Islands such as Block Island and Nantucket as well.

If you have ever been up to Northern Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire, you would know how long it would take to get a paramedic to you. If you have a paramedic dispatch ETA of 30 mins or more, then an AEMT would be great to get things going while en route to the Hospital or a paramedic intercept.
Click to expand...
Yea maybe. If they can do more than start a line and put an iGel in. I have spent lots of time in northern New England. Plenty of the above areas have access to paramedics if not full time, paid paramedic ambulance services.

I covered a 600 mile district with three ambulances for years. Minimal tax base. We still were full time, paid ok, and sent a paramedic to every call.
 
At my agency, we heavily use AEMTs in our response system. We've found the highest level of utilization in staffing our transport units with AEMTs and having a chase medic support them. This allows the medic to cover a larger area and respond accordingly to the needs of each call, preventing them from being tied to BLS calls as an ambulance crew member.

Our data has been clear: many situations that are dispatched as ALS can be effectively managed by an AEMT. This not only makes the best use of our medics but ensures that resources are directed where they're most needed.

In short, using AEMTs alongside chase medics has been a game-changer for us. It's a streamlined approach that ensures efficient, data driven care for our community.
 
NomadicMedic said:
At my agency, we heavily use AEMTs in our response system. We've found the highest level of utilization in staffing our transport units with AEMTs and having a chase medic support them. This allows the medic to cover a larger area and respond accordingly to the needs of each call, preventing them from being tied to BLS calls as an ambulance crew member.

Our data has been clear: many situations that are dispatched as ALS can be effectively managed by an AEMT. This not only makes the best use of our medics but ensures that resources are directed where they're most needed.

In short, using AEMTs alongside chase medics has been a game-changer for us. It's a streamlined approach that ensures efficient, data driven care for our community.
Click to expand...
My agency needs to drive to this model but are afraid to seriously consider it.
 
NomadicMedic said:
At my agency, we heavily use AEMTs in our response system. We've found the highest level of utilization in staffing our transport units with AEMTs and having a chase medic support them. This allows the medic to cover a larger area and respond accordingly to the needs of each call, preventing them from being tied to BLS calls as an ambulance crew member.

Our data has been clear: many situations that are dispatched as ALS can be effectively managed by an AEMT. This not only makes the best use of our medics but ensures that resources are directed where they're most needed.

In short, using AEMTs alongside chase medics has been a game-changer for us. It's a streamlined approach that ensures efficient, data driven care for our community.
Click to expand...
This is kind of what I thought makes the most sense for most systems. Not only do they still get ALS care, they get “standard” ALS treatments provided. Reducing the number of paramedics would probably add more value to the paramedic profile in turn.

Curious if your system has a hard cap on the number of paramedics it staffs. All you hear nowadays are paramedic shortages anyhow, so why not study how this actually impacts day to day prehospital systems. In that, what is the actual role of a paramedic in 2023 and beyond? It seems clear to me that the job itself is going to, or can go far beyond prehospital care.

And to the medics who don’t want it to. Many (not all) lack the desire to affect change in their profession or personally. I doubt they’re aware they’re already participating at the AEMT level. I don’t think adding more paramedics to any system is the answer any longer.
 
PotatoMedic said:
My agency needs to drive to this model but are afraid to seriously consider it.
Click to expand...
I think it’s ahead of its time and should be largely adopted. Sadly, it’s EMS. Evolution Made Slowly. Maybe in another 4 decades.

I agree though, and think it would fit our model. I’ve long believed if fire wants to provide ALS care, AEMT fits that model perfectly. Heck LA and OC pretty much already do. And again, day-to-day most paramedics in general I would think.
 
VentMonkey said:
This is kind of what I thought makes the most sense for most systems. Not only do they still get ALS care, they get “standard” ALS treatments provided. Reducing the number of paramedics would probably add more value to the paramedic profile in turn.

Curious if your system has a hard cap on the number of paramedics it staffs. All you hear nowadays are paramedic shortages anyhow, so why not study how this actually impacts day to day prehospital systems. In that, what is the actual role of a paramedic in 2023 and beyond? It seems clear to me that the job itself is going to, or can go far beyond prehospital care.

And to the medics who don’t want it to. Many (not all) lack the desire to affect change in their profession or personally. I doubt they’re aware they’re already participating at the AEMT level. I don’t think adding more paramedics to any system is the answer any longer.
Click to expand...

My agency runs 4500 calls a year, and we staff 2 medics during the day, one overnight. Dayside we have a primary medic and it’s usually me or a Lt as the secondary. We have LOTS of mutual aid around us, and I’ve found that to be the right number. About 35% of our call volume is responding as the ALS chase to other areas. We are backfilling for other agencies that can‘t hire medics.

At the moment, I am fully staffed with medics, and only have one part time opening that I’ve been filling with PRN medics. I’d like a person to fill that shift on a regular basis. Culture, staffing model and pay make this a great place to work. Once I became the chief, I changed a lot of things and the grapevine quickly spread the news. I have more applicants than I have openings, which allows me to be very selective in who I bring on board.

And yes, for years I’ve been preaching that fewer paramedics make for better paramedics. Let them see more sick people and let EMTs and As function at the full extent of their scope. I’m lucky that I finally got to lead an agency where I can make the changes that work!
 
Last edited:
NomadicMedic said:
At my agency, we heavily use AEMTs in our response system. We've found the highest level of utilization in staffing our transport units with AEMTs and having a chase medic support them. This allows the medic to cover a larger area and respond accordingly to the needs of each call, preventing them from being tied to BLS calls as an ambulance crew member.

Our data has been clear: many situations that are dispatched as ALS can be effectively managed by an AEMT. This not only makes the best use of our medics but ensures that resources are directed where they're most needed.

In short, using AEMTs alongside chase medics has been a game-changer for us. It's a streamlined approach that ensures efficient, data driven care for our community.
Click to expand...
My state seriously needs a system like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top