Hello. This question is for EMT's in the Calgary area. Has anybody received training from or heard about the quality of training from Flatline Response? I haven't started my course yet, and I've heard that SAIT is rotten.
Back in 2004/05 there used to be many private ems training schools offering EMR courses. I had asked a few people about the various schools, and which ones were 'good'. Since many met provincial standards on paper, but would pass anyone no matter how poorly they performed; who could then go out with their certificates and work under OH&S without registering with ACP (Alberta College of Paramedics). Back then, if you did not register with the college, a physician could up-train you and you could work under a higher scope than if you registered with the college and decided to work under Public Health instead of OH&S. So you had to be careful, and what one meant by "good" meant different things to different people. I was told "If you want to be well trained, but risk losing your money -50/50 odds-, Flatline Response is difficult but 'good'. If you pass the EMR class at Flatline, you WILL easily pass the provincial exams with the college of paramedics, and are on your way to becoming a great practitioner. If you mean 'good' in the way of 'easily getting your ticket no matter how stupid you are, there are other 'schools' out there." The course was $1000, condensed into 90 days with your textbooks given some weeks prior to that. We were allowed ONE fail on any of six exams practical and theory. It did not matter which one you failed, you were allowed ONE re-do. 79% = FAIL, 80% = D- barely passed. If you failed a second exam of any kind, you were out of the course, thanks for the tuition, no refund. My very first impression upon getting my books was "oh! this looks like a 6 credit university class". Our first written exam, our instructor handed our grades back on pieces of paper. In my class were two 'nurses', two fire-guys, a cop, and a mix of others from kids to limo drivers etc. When I got my slip back and saw a grade of 82%, I panicked. I had passed, but barely and by the skin of my teeth. I wondered if I was heading in the wrong direction or not. Perhaps I should quit, get my tuition partly back, and change my name to 'Maurice" and learn to cut hair instead? So I sat there sweating and doubting myself. As I watched, he handed back about 15 other grade to my class mates, and I saw each sigh and look down. They discussed their grades amongst each other (ignoring me, sitting in the back quietly, with long hair, biting my nails), until finally one of the 'nurses' asked "did ANYONE pass the exam"? And he replied "yes. There was ONE pass". That was myself. That day put my lousy 82% into perspective. It wasn't as 'bad' as I had initially thought, but it also hammered home the standards and effort required necessary to succeed. So I had barely passed, and it meant that I would have to study and practice even harder if I were to have any confidence. The plus side for me and the down side for everyone else in my class, was that over the next week or two, I WAS able to focus exclusively on the next set of units we needed to cover, and so increase my grades into the 90s so that whenever I did an exam and estimated my minimal grade -a habit I have with all exams- in order to roughly guess my final grade range to a point where I could have reasonable confidence rather than worry, everyone else had to redouble, split their time re-covering what they had flunked, PLUS the new materials over the same amount of time. After that, I also had the luxury of still having a 're-do' or extra life should I botch an evaluation, while everyone else was on their last life. So, if you are good at self study, self-discipline and dedicated to self learning, then yes, Flatline was one of the best schools you could attend. And when I ignored my first employer's advice to NOT register with the college, I was used to the college standards already. ie 79%= F and 80% = D- pass. So it was good for having high standards, it was one of the more difficult training locations in Alberta at the time, and their course was condensed to be completed quickly -90 days vs half a year to a year at SAIT-. If however you are the type of person who requires structure, to have attendance and someone directing you, and handy to ask questions to ect, then the slower paced SAIT/NAIT courses were 'better'. If you did not really care what kind of practitioner you would become, and just wanted your ticket and to not lose your money, then there were several other 'schools' one may have considered better. Personally? I am great with theory and textbooks, but had to work extra hard to go from the comfort of textbook theory to scenarios and real life. Thankfully, I cut a deal with the two fire-guys. They approached me later that day at lunch time -I wondered if they were going to try and wedgie me- and accused me of being the 'smart kid'. I tried to downplay it and said it was 'just luck', you know, part of the exam was multiple choices, where your odds are 1:4 of guessing correctly at random, where you could usually cut two answers out completely fairly easily and increase your odds to 1:1 or 50/50. They shook their heads, and correctly said "no, you know this stuff. We hate this textbooks stuff, but you're good at it. However, you look like forest gump about to have a heart attack when practicing scenarios. So you are going to help us with this book stuff, and we are going to help you with the real life stuff.. deal'? And I agreed. Those two lads needed me to explain things to them conceptually in different words for a lot of things, and I really did need them to coach me through boot camp. These were men of action, whom I greatly admired. My brains went blank my first 'holy-****' calls, while they just naturally seemed to move and do everything instinctively somehow. I did the same for my EMT-a classes too. I chose the hardest, but fastest class I could find. For my EMT-a, I went to Lacombe Ambulance. They were ****s and terrible people as individuals, but they ran a super difficult course and told us straight up at the start: "Look at the person to your right, look at the person to your left. One of those people will not be here by the end of this course". They were the same, 79% = Fail, 80% = D- pass. So it is like asking if RNs who graduated post 1995 where RN programs were 3 year college degrees vs post and now, where RN programs are 4 year university courses. Human medicine has not changed, and we invent technology to make our jobs and lives EASIER, not more difficult. So really, the info RNs used to have to master in 3 years of college, is now spread out over 4 years of university, for more money, over more time, allowing slower learners and less quick nurses enter the field now, where a university course 50% = a pass D-, and you must flunk with 49%. So oddly enough, university educated RNs, are usually vastly less skilled and qualified than the older RNs who were able to cover that info in less time, and learn on the job without being exploited with unpayed 'practicum'. Practicum is a good idea. EMRs did not and do not have to do practicum, and so do not really know if they can do the job until they're up to bat. The older courses used to pay new practitioners a minimum wage at least until passing probation under supervised practice, vs unpaid practicum. Evaluations have since declined in EMS as well. EMRs no longer have to do a practical exam to register, only written. Prior to 2012, EMRs had to pass a written and either/or medical or trauma practical exam and achieve 80%. Now, they've reduced that to 70%, cut out the practical, charge $3000 for the course and require 9 months to get through it while not making any money. So fewer ppl can afford to enter the field, and slower people have lower bars to get over, and still no practicum. So I agree, SAIT and NAIT are 'terrible', and produce fewer, less qualified medics than places like Flatline and Lacombe Ambulance did, because they had good reputations to uphold. Hopefully, we will reverse some of these changes that provide less competent care for the public, while costing more, wasting more time and barring otherwise great potential practitioners from entering service, simply bc they have mortgages to pay and kids to feed. If anything, EMRs should have to do a supervised internship vs unpayed practicum.
