Anyone know if AEMT training exists in CA?

CodyVector said:
Well, after I revert basic this year AEMT cert will be my next goal. I believe in progressive learning.

I hope California adopts it, as everything i've read indicates a need/use/advantage of having LALS providers at a fraction of the cost and time of going through full blown paramedic school.
Click to expand...


I don't believe it's progressive learning. I believe it's a patchwork of skills, without the true education necessary to make critical thinking behind those skills valid. Fewer ALS providers means that ALS is used only when it's truly needed. ALS providers will see more sick patients, and have more opportunities to perform ALS interventions.

It's my belief that there should be two levels of certification.

EMT – A, a provider who functions as an ambulance attendant and receives training more closely aligned with that of a CNA. These providers would not routinely respond alone to an emergency, but would be utilized to transport non-acute patients and interfacility calls

Paramedic. A degreed professional who is able to provide emergency care and treatment to sick and injured people. These professionals would work with the EMT-A to provide care to acutely ill patients or provide advanced care during interfacility transports.

That's it. Two levels of care.
 
DEmedic said:
I don't believe it's progressive learning. I believe it's a patchwork of skills, without the true education necessary to make critical thinking behind those skills valid. Fewer ALS providers means that ALS is used only when it's truly needed. ALS providers will see more sick patients, and have more opportunities to perform ALS interventions.

It's my belief that there should be two levels of certification.

EMT – A, a provider who functions as an ambulance attendant and receives training more closely aligned with that of a CNA. These providers would not routinely respond alone to an emergency, but would be utilized to transport non-acute patients and interfacility calls

Paramedic. A degreed professional who is able to provide emergency care and treatment to sick and injured people. These professionals would work with the EMT-A to provide care to acutely ill patients or provide advanced care during interfacility transports.

That's it. Two levels of care.
Click to expand...

I agree with your vision for fewer ALS providers to maintain skills, but perhaps see the world differently. The recent EMS managers I've spoken with have quoted that 70-80% of their emergency volume is BLS-- that is, mechanical falls, psych /EDPs and the like. EMD protocols have gotten sensitive and specific at identifying which patients may require advanced assessment and treatment but there is an important role for BLS providers in 911.

Every system is different, I understand that, but I think you need to consider the important role BLS has for 911, even of only first response before ALS (and beginning to transport for an intercept).

I am really intrigued by the AEMT level-- I like the emphasis on pathophysiology, and think the skills are reasonable without diluting the skills of paramedics. I still want to see them in action, and think the best place to start is as partners to senior paramedics. This allows for skill and assessment development under an (experienced) preceptor and more skilled assistant than PB of the defecation hits the ventilation (while waiting for a second paramedic).
I would love to see AEMT EMD guidelines, I'm not sure i understand how AEMT vehicles are dispatched.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It might be nice to consider AEMT for use like many places use EMT-D, EMT-IV, EMT-AA etc. Allow EMT B to staff BLS units but require an AEMT to partner with a medic. My system uses single medic units so having an EMT with a larger scope would be nice, IVs monitors etc. Even if you don't want an EMT interpreting, there are systems who allow EMTs to hook up, acquire and transmit. Just done simple stuff to take tasks off of the medics shoulders.

I used to work for an IFT company who required additional training and testing to show competence to staff a CCT unit exclusive for acute strokes and STEMIs. Obviously didn't expand your scope just made sure you knew how to do the things that feel under the "Set up ALS procedures" in the policies and understand things like basic rhythms, 12 lead set up, etc
 
DEmedic said:
I don't believe it's progressive learning. I believe it's a patchwork of skills, without the true education necessary to make critical thinking behind those skills valid. Fewer ALS providers means that ALS is used only when it's truly needed. ALS providers will see more sick patients, and have more opportunities to perform ALS interventions.

It's my belief that there should be two levels of certification.

EMT – A, a provider who functions as an ambulance attendant and receives training more closely aligned with that of a CNA. These providers would not routinely respond alone to an emergency, but would be utilized to transport non-acute patients and interfacility calls

Paramedic. A degreed professional who is able to provide emergency care and treatment to sick and injured people. These professionals would work with the EMT-A to provide care to acutely ill patients or provide advanced care during interfacility transports.

That's it. Two levels of care.
Click to expand...
I want to disagree. I'm not saying you're view doesn't have merit but I don't like the idea of the desperity between the two. I counter propose a third level. Similar to AEMT.

Make EMT B uncommon and used for like you suggest but maintain some emergency care skills nessicary for immediate life threats. Perfect for rural fire Dept, volly Dept's, IFT and non-emergency medical transport (gurney van).

The AEMT would be as common as EMTB is today, but a slightly higher scope to assist the medic. Keep in mind I'm basing this off of CA EMT scopes.

I would even like to consider options to raise the paramedic level of care, including a degree as you suggest.

In my perfect world.
 
The problem with AEMT is how it's used. Used as an EMT++, then it's great. Utilized as a lightweight, quasi-paramedic? Problematic. The problem is that it's more likely to be used as the latter than anything else.
 
I'm going to echo others sentiments. It is really about the need for the community of employers in a given area. Care level will depend upon demand and other choices. Larger cities are not going to need this level of care and that is why you hardly see training options for it in California.
 
As an interesting (at least to me) aside, you'll note that the overwhelming majority of those who think AEMT is a good idea are EMTs, while the overwhelming majority of those who don't are Paramedics.

Why do you reckon that is? I have my (typically cynical) opinion, but I'm interested in what others think.
 
Because EMTs believe with some extra training they can do it all and medics realize that even with medic school behind us, we're still woefully under educated?
 
DEmedic said:
Because EMTs believe with some extra training they can do it all and medics realize that even with medic school behind us, we're still woefully under educated?
Click to expand...

This sums it up very well
 
DEmedic said:
Because EMTs believe with some extra training they can do it all and medics realize that even with medic school behind us, we're still woefully under educated?
Click to expand...

That's a very tactful way of expressing what I was thinking. Much more so than I would have been able to come up with.

;)
 
Time to revisit this thread. Despite some interesting ideas on here, and years passing, my opinion hasn't changed.
AEMT training should be more prevalent. AEMT's can drop IV's, that's one less thing my partner has to do while juggling swords and torches.
It would make a good stepping-stone on the way to Medic.
Crawl, Walk, Run, Fly.
 
A 3 year dormant period. Impressive, at least you were in the initial discussion and not some new guy doing a necro thread bump.
 
You could have went through 3 paramedic programs in that 3 years...
 
CALEMT said:
A 3 year dormant period. Impressive, at least you were in the initial discussion and not some new guy doing a necro thread bump.
Click to expand...
Yep. Still stuck in the same mode of frustration I've experienced so many times in life. Coming back to the same self-evident conclusions; conclusions people, simply out of human nature, resist because of the ego's defense against change.
 
I realize this is an old thread but since im here and its bumped.

I worked in a system that had AEMT's and protocols for them to use. That was great, except, I have no idea what their scope of practice is because i was never an AEMT.

There are two types of patients. ALS and BLS. Imagining a 3rd type that I shall refer to as "Not quite ALS", seems like the answer to a question nobody asked.


As an EMT I once made the argument that if we could start IVs we could help our medic out. That was a stupid argument.

In reality juggling swords and torches while starting IV's isnt that hard.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
GMCmedic said:
I realize this is an old thread but since im here and its bumped.

I worked in a system that had AEMT's and protocols for them to use. That was great, except, I have no idea what their scope of practice is because i was never an AEMT.

There are two types of patients. ALS and BLS. Imagining a 3rd type that I shall refer to as "Not quite ALS", seems like the answer to a question nobody asked.


As an EMT I once made the argument that if we could start IVs we could help our medic out. That was a stupid argument.

In reality juggling swords and torches while starting IV's isnt that hard.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Meh. Progressive learning is just common-sense. If AEMT is "just a mishmash of skills" then it probably needs to be refined, and more well thought-out. California doesn't want to use it because California's rulers are narcissistic tyrants who are also know-it-alls, but I digress. There is no reason why an ALS EMT couldn't be an AEMT and help his Medic out a bit more while practice the art of prehospital medicine at a slightly higher level.
 
I actually enjoy having an AEMT as a partner. An extra set of hands to perform skills is nice, and it leaves me time to do my paramagic while he gets the IV.

But AEMT as "the als provider" on an ambulance. Nope.
 
AEMTs bring nothing critical to the table, plain and simple. Sure, its nice to have a partner you can delegate responsibilities too, but they don't have enough ALS skills to justify the rank. I guess I would rather have an A over a B as a partner if I couldn't work with a medic, but not by so much as to justify mandating their existence.

AEMTs were created as a stop gap measure for services that couldn't afford paramedics so that they could call themselves (and bill for) ALS services. They continue to exist for the same reason. I'm in no way saying they're valueless. What I'm saying is that their value is limited.

I agree with the nomad. An A in a P/A configuration, winning. B/A, unless you're working in a system where the medics exist, are coming, and will actually get there; all you're doing is pretending your ALS and that's not good medicine. Ive seen systems where the medics are intercept only, spread too thin, and are most likely not going to get anywhere in time to actually intervene in the patients status in a positive manner; but on paper they look good so the powers that be call it a working system.
 
hometownmedic5 said:
Ive seen systems where the medics are intercept only, spread too thin, and are most likely not going to get anywhere in time to actually intervene in the patients status in a positive manner; but on paper they look good so the powers that be call it a working system.
Click to expand...
IMG_0216.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top