Daniel Freeman Paramedic School

[daedalus]

To make a comment more on topic, I disagree (partly) with the comment about rigorous selection will stem the tied of poor providers. You may lessen it a little, but fact of the matter is academic programs use academic standards for entry, and anyone who has been out in the field for very long knows those geniuses who can recite the damn textbook by heart but fall apart completely soon as a patient shows up. Same thing happens at every level of training.

I don't agree, but you seem to be set on it.

It really is my opinion that someone with education in the basic medical sciences will be a far better provider than someone who is trained in the field with street smarts. The ability to really understand altered physiology and pathogenesis of disease, and than to apply your knowledge of physical examination and pharmacology to fix the problem is the trait of a good provider and someone who provides good patient care. (by understanding of pharmacology, I do not mean that one can say lidocaine numbs the heart to borrow and example from another poster).

Are biology and chemistry classes really important? You tell me. Can you explain to your patient in detail why prolonged sun exposure is bad? Is statistics important? Can you break down and interpret a study?
Is biochemistry important? Physiology?

I think they are.

 

[daedalus]

What do you considered difficult pre-req's that are going to make a difference clinically?

I'll use medical school as it may help illustrate my point. I don't think anyone would argue that med students are some of the most academically talented students coming out of UG (on average matriculating medical school classes represent the top 1% of students nationwide). Yet even with extremely difficult screening/selection processes people enter their 3rd year at the top of their class, with extraordinary board scores and do miserably the last 2 years. Why? Because all this information your taught means nothing if you can't apply it. Rigorous pre-req's won't fix that.

Some (not all by any means) medical students have never touched a patient before 3rd year. True. They have spent two years learning the basic medical sciences (some schools now have internships where a student spends some time doing an history and physical with a family practice doc during their first or second year so even that is not true anymore).

So, some are "handicapped" their third year when they get thrown into the hospital. I argue they really are not handicapped. Sure, they may have not taken vital signs on real patients yet, or started IVs, or any other "skills", but they rapidly catch up to everyone else with "skills" and than have the added bonus of knowing how and why.

But this is not about medical school, it is about EMS. You two can sit here and say the internet is not about being serious all you want. You can call me a nerd or loser or whatever pleases you. But if not here on an EMS forum, where do you suppose these ideas are presented to our peers? This is the "Education and Training" sub forum, and it is dedicated to discussion of such topics. Since you two obviously are not into serious discussions or discussions about education, perhaps the "EMS Lounge" is a better place for you to direct your posting energy. Clever graphics and sayings do not impress me or others who come here to talk about bettering ourselves.

 

[triemal04]

Some (not all by any means) medical students have never touched a patient before 3rd year. True. They have spent two years learning the basic medical sciences (some schools now have internships where a student spends some time doing an history and physical with a family practice doc during their first or second year so even that is not true anymore).

So, some are "handicapped" their third year when they get thrown into the hospital. I argue they really are not handicapped. Sure, they may have not taken vital signs on real patients yet, or started IVs, or any other "skills", but they rapidly catch up to everyone else with "skills" and than have the added bonus of knowing how and why.

But this is not about medical school, it is about EMS. You two can sit here and say the internet is not about being serious all you want. You can call me a nerd or loser or whatever pleases you. But if not here on an EMS forum, where do you suppose these ideas are presented to our peers? This is the "Education and Training" sub forum, and it is dedicated to discussion of such topics. Since you two obviously are not into serious discussions or discussions about education, perhaps the "EMS Lounge" is a better place for you to direct your posting energy. Clever graphics and sayings do not impress me or others who come here to talk about bettering ourselves.

The only one mentioning "skills" here is you. Forget skills. Ignore them for a minute if you can. (or ignore me, don't care which) I can't speak for atkinsje, but what I'm talking about is the ability to apply what you learned in class to the physical reality of pt care; to be able to interact with a pt and be able to communicate with them, ask the appropriate questions/test the right things at the right time, interpret the answers/results and then formulate and act on a course of treatment, as well as interpret the results to that treatment, the problems that occur from it, know what to do when things don't work, or you can't do them and so on. The ability to do that takes time to learn, and while having multiple pre-reqs before entering into the actual paramedic courses (or medical school, or nursing school or whatever) will help you understand what you are learning, it won't necessarily help you apply that knowledge in the field, or be a good indicator as to if you CAN apply that knowledge.

That's where the dilemma is. Should pre-reqs be required? Absolutely without a doubt. But, right now, in the vast majority of cases, there isn't a system in place to judge how someone will work in the field, OR a system to help them correct their deficiencies; I do believe another posted here was recently dropped from his internship because of that. There needs to be some set way to help people overcome problems they encounter, and/or determine if they are suited for this profession. If not, many people who otherwise would be good providers won't make it because they can't figure out a way to translate the classroom into the field. It is unfortunately an aspect of our education that is sadly overlooked and underappreciated.

As far as the rest...don't worry. Anyone reading this thread is very much getting an education. Just not in what you want them to. Doesn't make it any less valuable though. Alike a face to face conversation, people won't always follow your narrow rules about what you think can and can't be said. Doesn't make things any less valid though.

 

[JPINFV]

What do you considered difficult pre-req's that are going to make a difference clinically?

Chemistry, college level intro bio, physics, psychology to name 3 that will directly affect the providers ability to critically think during calls. Depending on the program and what is taught, I'll throw on college level bio chemistry, anatomy, and physiology as well. The problem at all levels is the ability to apply those courses to patient care.

As far as clinically, again, want to compare the worst medical student to the worst EMT student? 3rd year for medical students is essentially the same as clinicals for EMS students. There are going to be some on both sides of the fence who have never dealt with patients before in there life. How ever, I'd argue that the people who make it into medical school are going to be better able to evaluate their performance and adjust themselves accordingly. In large part I'd argue that the quality of the filter leading into the program (prereqs, competition, etc) is going to raise the bar (both average and minimum performance) compared to less rigorous preparatory work.

 

[JPINFV]

The easiest solution is to start having the students (any student in a fieldhttp://emtlife.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=186344 that interacts with pt's) interact with pt's very early so they can get used to it and become more proficient as time goes on and their knowledge increases.

I will definitely agree with that. We started working with our standardized patients the second week of school and have already had 4 patient encounters with them. The objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE. For example, our first OSCE 20 minutes to conduct a full medical history and review of systems with a 7 minute follow up period to add/adjust our subjective note on it) makes up the vast majority of our grade for Introduction to Clinical Medicine.

 

[daedalus]

The only one mentioning "skills" here is you. Forget skills. Ignore them for a minute if you can. (or ignore me, don't care which) I can't speak for atkinsje, but what I'm talking about is the ability to apply what you learned in class to the physical reality of pt care; to be able to interact with a pt and be able to communicate with them, ask the appropriate questions/test the right things at the right time, interpret the answers/results and then formulate and act on a course of treatment, as well as interpret the results to that treatment, the problems that occur from it, know what to do when things don't work, or you can't do them and so on. The ability to do that takes time to learn, and while having multiple pre-reqs before entering into the actual paramedic courses (or medical school, or nursing school or whatever) will help you understand what you are learning, it won't necessarily help you apply that knowledge in the field, or be a good indicator as to if you CAN apply that knowledge.

That's where the dilemma is. Should pre-reqs be required? Absolutely without a doubt. But, right now, in the vast majority of cases, there isn't a system in place to judge how someone will work in the field, OR a system to help them correct their deficiencies; I do believe another posted here was recently dropped from his internship because of that. There needs to be some set way to help people overcome problems they encounter, and/or determine if they are suited for this profession. If not, many people who otherwise would be good providers won't make it because they can't figure out a way to translate the classroom into the field. It is unfortunately an aspect of our education that is sadly overlooked and underappreciated.

As far as the rest...don't worry. Anyone reading this thread is very much getting an education. Just not in what you want them to. Doesn't make it any less valuable though. Alike a face to face conversation, people won't always follow your narrow rules about what you think can and can't be said. Doesn't make things any less valid though.

I am not for limited exchange of ideas or "my way or the highway". I just think that it is possible to have a serious discussion on the internet about the education of prehospital providers.

I am also not saying you are absolutely wrong. I believe there is clinical value in biology and chemistry classes, psychology and stats and the like. I would not be taking said classes if I did not believe it. One of the big reasons I even want to go to medical school is because I feel like I am missing the big foundation of a broad education in the basic sciences.

However, one should not think that just because they have read an entire organic chemistry book that they will be able to provide quality patient care.

 

[triemal04]

I will definitely agree with that. We started working with our standardized patients the second week of school and have already had 4 patient encounters with them. The objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE. For example, our first OSCE 20 minutes to conduct a full medical history and review of systems with a 7 minute follow up period to add/adjust our subjective note on it) makes up the vast majority of our grade for Introduction to Clinical Medicine.

Cool. As long as there's meaningful feedback and the instructor is able to help those who are struggling, then that's a good way to go about doing it. Perhaps paramedic schools should take another clue and get their act together...

However, one should not think that just because they have read an entire organic chemistry book that they will be able to provide quality patient care.

So...then you do agree that all the pre-req's in the world won't be the only deciding factor in if someone becomes a good provider? That's been the only point started by that nice "lowly" basic a couple pages back and added onto by myself and others; having to take multiple pre-req's is GOOD, but there is more to becoming a good paramedic/whatever (much, much more) than that. Personal motivation, retention, communication skills, ability to think/function under duress, etc etc and ad infinitum all matter. Point being, that just because a particular school does or doesn't do something does not automatically mean that someone will be a great, or lousy paramedic.

 

[JPINFV]

Cool. As long as there's meaningful feedback and the instructor is able to help those who are struggling, then that's a good way to go about doing it. Perhaps paramedic schools should take another clue and get their act together...

Yea. Outside of the OSCEs, the standardized patient gives feedback as well as a facilitator that watches the interaction (interview, or physical, or what ever else we're doing) on closed circuit TV.

 

[Dwindlin]

Too many responses to quote them all so if my responses seem disjointed my bad.

Overall I think there should much more emphasis placed on patient contact prior to beginning any schooling in medical sciences (including med school). When you talk about 3rd years catching up, thats not what I meant. Yes, thats the case for many, but for some (on average between 5 - 10% of the class will fail/tank 3rd and 4th year) they never get to a point they can apply everything they were taught in the 1st 2 years (This differs at some programs, mine however is the standard 2 year pre-clin, 2 year clinical).

Also to speak more broadly about the pre-recs you mentioned. In my experience (which for those of you that don't know I am currently a medical student, and in getting there I managed to earn an A.S., two B.S. and a M.S. so I have some experience in the classroom) the most relavent and useful class you mentioned as a pre-req was stats. Exactally for the reason you mentioned. The rest of them you mentioned will be of little to no value in and of themselves.

Intro bio will teach you almost nothing useful (intro bio will cover no topic in the detail necessary to acurately apply to human physio), gen chem same deal (I got no directly relatable chemistry until I took a 400 level Biochem course). I suppose O-chem is arguable, however for those who think your going to walk away with an understanding of pharmocology I wouldn't hold your breath. Most UG Ochem programs are focused on very, very basic knowledge of functional group chemistry only thing I got out of it was a slightly better understanding of nomeclature (ie. I could picture better what the drug actually looked like, not much help practically). Physics I meantioned in another thread but I'll mention it here. Useless. Unless you want to be a radiologist, even then you really only need to understand magnetism and some nuclear physics. I've heard the argument about understanding forces when dealing with MOI but honestly when's the last time you saw a trauma surgeon calculating and resolving forces involved in an accident?

Now do I think pre-req's are unecessary? No. Being able to gauge whether someone has the ability to make it through the curriculum is important (which no matter what anyone tells you I assure you that's all pre-med pre-reqs are for, once in medical school you won't need hardly any of it). However, I don't think increasing the difficulty or amount of pre-req's makes a better clinician. Makes a better student? Absolutely. But again, hang around long enough and you'll find those people have all the book smarts in the world, but for some reason can't ever make the adjustment to applying it.

Edit: Ok my edit tag is a little lie because I'm adding this. Even at the medical school level I don't know how many times I've already heard "You won't learn any real medicine until you get to the wards..." Which to just add to my points experience in our business is king. I don't care how much education you have, chances are there is someone with less education, and more experience who can still mop the floor with you as a provider.

 

[daedalus]

You make some great points (by the way, I never refer to basics as "lowly"). However, at this point in time paramedics are required to have no knowledge of chemistry or biology. I can think of two things that would have helped some class mates of mine in medic school if they had taken these things: cellular metabolism in bio and the chemistry of solutions in general chemistry. Some people had to learn that for the first time and when the physiology of shock and concepts in fluid administration comes up, they become important.

There is also the issue of clinical experience. Yes, real patient experience "on the wards" is king. This works well for medical students because on the wards there are attending and residents and highly educated RNs and allied staff to learn from. In the field, you may be learning from another tech school grad. There needs to be better standards in EMS, for both basics and medics. I only push this so we can all provide better care for our patients and so we can all feel a little more proud of our education.

 

[JPINFV]

Exactally for the reason you mentioned. The rest of them you mentioned will be of little to no value in and of themselves.

Intro bio will teach you almost nothing useful (intro bio will cover no topic in the detail necessary to acurately apply to human physio), gen chem same deal (I got no directly relatable chemistry until I took a 400 level Biochem course). I suppose O-chem is arguable, however for those who think your going to walk away with an understanding of pharmocology I wouldn't hold your breath. Most UG Ochem programs are focused on very, very basic knowledge of functional group chemistry only thing I got out of it was a slightly better understanding of nomeclature (ie. I could picture better what the drug actually looked like, not much help practically). Physics I meantioned in another thread but I'll mention it here. Useless. Unless you want to be a radiologist, even then you really only need to understand magnetism and some nuclear physics. I've heard the argument about understanding forces when dealing with MOI but honestly when's the last time you saw a trauma surgeon calculating and resolving forces involved in an accident?

I'd argue that O Chem is a relatively useless class, hence I didn't mention it at all (and I did much better in O Chem than G Chem). However, between discussions on forums and when doing my SMP, the concepts covered in G Chem was extremely useful. The thing is with most of these courses is that you don't necessarily connect what you're applying to the actual course you learned it in. If you're in a physiology course talking about synaptic clefts, then the concepts regarding receptor activation and destruction of neurotransmitters really comes back to what is learned regarding enzyme dynamics in G Chem. Same thing with, say, glucose transporters, diabetes, and glucose in the urine (clinical correlate from G Chem).

As far as the trauma surgeon calculating, why would he need to? He doesn't need a hard number, just an understanding of the concepts involved.

Edit: Ok my edit tag is a little lie because I'm adding this. Even at the medical school level I don't know how many times I've already heard "You won't learn any real medicine until you get to the wards..." Which to just add to my points experience in our business is king. I don't care how much education you have, chances are there is someone with less education, and more experience who can still mop the floor with you as a provider.

Yea... I actually haven't heard that at all. Maybe it'll change when we start getting into the systems, but I'd be more than willing to bet that the trauma surgeon who is one of the faculty facilitators for gross anatomy lab would disagree that we aren't learning "real medicine" yet. Similarly, I highly doubt that the people running the standardized patient program thinks that what their teaching isn't "real medicine" either.

 

[triemal04]

You make some great points (by the way, I never refer to basics as "lowly"). However, at this point in time paramedics are required to have no knowledge of chemistry or biology. I can think of two things that would have helped some class mates of mine in medic school if they had taken these things: cellular metabolism in bio and the chemistry of solutions in general chemistry. Some people had to learn that for the first time and when the physiology of shock and concepts in fluid administration comes up, they become important.

There is also the issue of clinical experience. Yes, real patient experience "on the wards" is king. This works well for medical students because on the wards there are attending and residents and highly educated RNs and allied staff to learn from. In the field, you may be learning from another tech school grad. There needs to be better standards in EMS, for both basics and medics. I only push this so we can all provide better care for our patients and so we can all feel a little more proud of our education.

Actually, as has been said, a general chem and bio class will do exactly squat for someone in the paramedic class; having taken both I'm speaking from experience and that of my classmates and many others. What WILL help is a full A&P series, and therein is part of the problem; a pre-req is only good if it's applicable to the class. Yes, some will always be "filler" if you are going for a degree, but if the emphasis is placed on courses that don't matter...see where I'm going with this?

For the rest...yep...everyone goes to a tech school and doesn't know anything...just like every resident helping an intern and every attending helping both knows everything and is king of all and an excellent teacher. Can I stop the sarcasm now? Stop falling into the trap of thinking that every OTHER profession is perfect and without fault; that isn't the case. That's not to say that some don't do things better than us (they often do).

 

[daedalus]

An over riding theme of my posting in this thread is that educated people are far less likely to teach bad medicine. You are putting words in my mouth if you think that I said that every tech school grad is stupid, or that every tech school grad who teaches future paramedics will turn them into the pulp of bad paramedicine. Similarly, I do not believe just because somebody has taken a full body of science classes, that they will be automatically better than somebody who has not. I am able to think for myself and will not fall into traps of thinking that every other health profession is automatically better.

What I mean is that people who understand the sciences behind what they are practicing and teaching will be better paramedics and better paramedic preceptors/teachers. I really believe this. I did not used to believe it, but now I do. And, I also disagree with your assessment that college level general chemistry and biology is useless. I have also taken these classes. I have taken them as pre-reqs to get into general anatomy/histology and a human physio class and I took them as pre-reqs to medical school. While I may not be a medical student (yet), I have taken most of the classes required and I am able to apply them even to paramedic education.

I will agree that human anatomy and physiology has been far more useful for me, however crack open any A&P book and the first few chapters are reviews of chemistry and cell biology/genetics.

 

[triemal04]

An over riding theme of my posting in this thread is that educated people are far less likely to teach bad medicine. You are putting words in my mouth if you think that I said that every tech school grad is stupid, or that every tech school grad who teaches future paramedics will turn them into the pulp of bad paramedicine. Similarly, I do not believe just because somebody has taken a full body of science classes, that they will be automatically better than somebody who has not. I am able to think for myself and will not fall into traps of thinking that every other health profession is automatically better.

What I mean is that people who understand the sciences behind what they are practicing and teaching will be better paramedics and better paramedic preceptors/teachers. I really believe this. I did not used to believe it, but now I do. And, I also disagree with your assessment that college level general chemistry and biology is useless. I have also taken these classes. I have taken them as pre-reqs to get into general anatomy/histology and a human physio class and I took them as pre-reqs to medical school. While I may not be a medical student (yet), I have taken most of the classes required and I am able to apply them even to paramedic education.

I will agree that human anatomy and physiology has been far more useful for me, however crack open any A&P book and the first few chapters are reviews of chemistry and cell biology/genetics.

So then what did you mean by "This works well for medical students because on the wards there are attending and residents and highly educated RNs and allied staff to learn from. In the field, you may be learning from another tech school grad." Because that would appear to be you saying that having a "tech school grad" as a preceptor would lead to a poor experience. Or by saying "It really is my opinion that someone with education in the basic medical sciences will be a far better provider than someone who is trained in the field with street smarts." Kind of contradicts what you just said above doesn't it? I mean, you did it in this post; look at the the first 2 paragraph's! You openly contradict yourself! What you mean comes across very clearely; you say it again and again in multiple places. Dear god...

 

[daedalus]

So then what did you mean by "This works well for medical students because on the wards there are attending and residents and highly educated RNs and allied staff to learn from. In the field, you may be learning from another tech school grad." Because that would appear to be you saying that having a "tech school grad" as a preceptor would lead to a poor experience. Or by saying "It really is my opinion that someone with education in the basic medical sciences will be a far better provider than someone who is trained in the field with street smarts." Kind of contradicts what you just said above doesn't it? I mean, you did it in this post; look at the the first 2 paragraph's! You openly contradict yourself! What you mean comes across very clearely; you say it again and again in multiple places. Dear god...

"This works well for medical students because on the wards there are attending and residents and highly educated RNs and allied staff to learn from. In the field, you may be learning from another tech school grad"

Where did I say this student is automatically disadvantaged? I didn't.
They are much more likely to be disadvantaged, in my opinion. But they are not, and I did not say they are, automatically worse off.

"It really is my opinion that someone with education in the basic medical sciences will be a far better provider than someone who is trained in the field with street smarts"

This is my opinion, and to every rule there are exceptions.

Now, can we cut the crud? Instead of picking apart my posts, you could have recognized that for the most part, I am not steadfastly saying you are wrong. I think there is middle ground. You offer another view on the topic, which I am, and other readers are, benefited by.

I really doubt that you believe that the standards for paramedic education, the way they are right now, cannot be improved.

 

[triemal04]

"This works well for medical students because on the wards there are attending and residents and highly educated RNs and allied staff to learn from. In the field, you may be learning from another tech school grad"

Where did I say this student is automatically disadvantaged? I didn't.
They are much more likely to be disadvantaged, in my opinion. But they are not, and I did not say they are, automatically worse off.

"It really is my opinion that someone with education in the basic medical sciences will be a far better provider than someone who is trained in the field with street smarts"

This is my opinion, and to every rule there are exceptions.

Now, can we cut the crud? Instead of picking apart my posts, you could have recognized that for the most part, I am not steadfastly saying you are wrong. I think there is middle ground. You offer another view on the topic, which I am, and other readers are, benefited by.

I really doubt that you believe that the standards for paramedic education, the way they are right now, cannot be improved.

Oh dear god no, I don't believe that at all; the educational standards for paramedics need a huge amount of improvement to reach an appropriate level; don't take what I'm saying to mean otherwise in the least.

What I am saying is that your attitude statements are, often, silly, ignorant, and contradict themselves. And it get's really old hearing the same statements over and over when it's fairly clear that you aren't contemplating the entire picture, or even understand it.

You are putting words in my mouth if you think that I said that every tech school grad is stupid, or that every tech school grad who teaches future paramedics will turn them into the pulp of bad paramedicine.

There is also the issue of clinical experience. Yes, real patient experience "on the wards" is king. This works well for medical students because on the wards there are attending and residents and highly educated RNs and allied staff to learn from. In the field, you may be learning from another tech school grad.

So...really, what exactly did you mean by that? Explain in detail, because you seem to be backtracking in your last post. It's pretty clear that you feel the preceptor, as a "tech school" grad would not be able to do an adequate job and thus put the preceptee at a disadvantage.

Similarly, I do not believe just because somebody has taken a full body of science classes, that they will be automatically better than somebody who has not.

It really is my opinion that someone with education in the basic medical sciences will be a far better provider than someone who is trained in the field with street smarts.

So wait...taking lot's of extra classes doesn't make someone a better medic...but wait...yes it does. Hmmm...

Perhaps start thinking about what it is you are saying.

 

[Dwindlin]

While I may not be a medical student (yet), I have taken most of the classes required and I am able to apply them even to paramedic education.

I found Bio/Chem useless for medic school, and were extra useless in M1.

Only classes from UG that helped me at all were Biochem, and some...like miniscule amount of O-chem, and A&P

 

[daedalus]

So wait...taking lot's of extra classes doesn't make someone a better medic...but wait...yes it does. Hmmm...

Perhaps start thinking about what it is you are saying.

You can understand the concept that poor medics can come from any type of program. I believe that a lot fewer poor medics come from programs requiring a science background. Those two concepts can exist together and be valid. I am not contradicting myself.

My background and the state of EMS in my geographic area:

I am in Southern California, and a very large number of people in paramedic schools are in paramedic school to boast their chances of getting picked up by the Fire Department. Most of my friends in EMS are looking to go to the Fire Departments, and openly admit that if they could get away with only going to EMT school along with the Fire Academy, they would skip medic school. Now, I leave that to others to decide if that is a good or bad thing for medics and medic students to have an outlook like that. Personally, I think being a paramedic entails quite a bit of responsibility and one should have a drive to enter and do well in a paramedic program. The Fire Service is a noble career and those guys work hard to get picked up by departments. Between the CPAT, FF Academy, Fire science degree, EMT school, and Paramedic School, they have a lot on their plate. Very few of the fire bound guys (fire bound guys make up the majority of so cal paramedic students) opt for the degree option for paramedicine. It is easy to see why. They prefer the tech schools to get their medic out of the way so they can quickly continue to pursue employment as a firefighter.

So, I find that others who opt to pursue the degree option (which requires college coursework, of course) are much more interested in just being a paramedic. These programs are generally more academically rigorous because of the expanded list of courses you must take, and generally have accesses to better resources (better hospital affiliations, access to financial aid, college libraries, counseling, anatomy labs, etc) and are cheaper than tech schools because the California Community College System sets limits on price per academic unit.

I prefer to be in the company of people who want to talk about field medicine in class, and not hoses and engines (nothing wrong with that, not my thing). I prefer to get a college degree with the completion of my paramedic education.

Straight up, I believe that community college degree programs better prepare future paramedics. I am sure there are great paramedics from tech schools, and some poor paramedics from college programs. I believe that the college programs turn out a higher ratio of competent medics than the tech schools. I would also rather be precepted by someone with a college degree in the field they are teaching me. You do not have to agree with me, I keep an open mind and I subscribe to no dogma. If I find out that the real world does not match these beliefs, I will change them.

Comparing medical students on rotations and paramedic interns was a bad comparison. I probably should have thought that one out better. My preference is to have access to preceptors who went though the degree programs because that guarantees that they had anatomy and physiology at the very least. As I said earlier, NCTI only requires their 5 day A&P course, and Daniel Freeman along with most tech schools do not require any A&P.

A college program at least guarantees that somebody sat through a A&P class, where as other programs cannot say the same thing.

 

[triemal04]

Daedalus-

This whole discussion and your answers have become ridiculous. As it pertains to this topic, where you are from does not matter one tiny bit...nobody cares, and all you are doing is displaying just how big the chip on your shoulder is. You have contradicted yourself repeatedly in this thread, that becomes clearer with every post as you continue to do it. I don't know if I can say it any plainer than that.

Have your opinion. Stand up for your opinion. Back up your opinion with facts and accurate information not rumor, speculation, experiences that represent a infinitesimally small slice of EMS, conjecture and rhetoric. And for f's sake...stop saying one thing and then almost immediately the exact opposite. Lose the attitude while you're at it.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[daedalus]

Daedalus-

This whole discussion and your answers have become ridiculous. As it pertains to this topic, where you are from does not matter one tiny bit...nobody cares, and all you are doing is displaying just how big the chip on your shoulder is. You have contradicted yourself repeatedly in this thread, that becomes clearer with every post as you continue to do it. I don't know if I can say it any plainer than that.

Have your opinion. Stand up for your opinion. Back up your opinion with facts and accurate information not rumor, speculation, experiences that represent a infinitesimally small slice of EMS, conjecture and rhetoric. And for f's sake...stop saying one thing and then almost immediately the exact opposite. Lose the attitude while you're at it.

That's all I'm saying.

I was looking forward to hearing your ideas on how paramedic education could be changed, since you do not agree with my approach. It seems you are going down a different path. I have tried to explain my side to you and yo took it the wrong way from the beginning, so I have had to explain it to you a different way which you now seem to think I am flip flopping.

I cannot think on how else to make it clear to you that I believe that paramedic programs requiring a set of pre-requisite science classes will produce better prepared paramedics on average than a tech school that requires no pre-requisite classes.

I cannot think on how else to make it clear to you that I concede to the fact that poor paramedics can be produced in a college degree paramedic program, and good paramedics can come from tech/trade programs however, the school with a stronger pre-requisite program will produce less poor paramedics than a tech school.
This is my opinion, I have had it since the beginning of this thread.

And I also ask, while I do not have data to support my opinion, can you provide data to back your statements?

I would much rather a productive debate about what we can do to educate better paramedics. So, if you will, re-read this post, and assume that this has been what I have been trying to tell you since the beginning. I want to know how you would do things differently.

(By the way, my philosophy on life is that people's thoughts, opinions, values, and beliefs are based on the sum of their experiences in life. The reason I explained to you where I live and what EMS is like around here is to give you the background to see what I see. I am not so ignorant to believe things are done like this everywhere, however my experiences have given me the belief that single role paramedic systems are superior to fire based. This is not a knock an FFs, who I have a deep respect for)