FP-C vs CCP-C

[akflightmedic]

Why do you assume I frown on more education? Just because I disagree with you on the value of a given credential?

I am very much a supporter of education. What I am not in favor of is "certifications" that imply a competency which very often doesn't exist.

To me, the FP-C is yet another example of paramedicine using a patch to try to compensate for a major deficit education.

Yes, you are frowning on more education because by requiring this challenging certification, it would certainly weed out the ricky rescues and typically the individuals who complete the course are very pro education, career oriented and highly motivated candidates.

It seems you have had some very bad personal experiences and paint with broad strokes. As with any "patch" or card in someone's wallet, it is the beginning. It is entry level, so an experienced hiring manager would not assume there is complete competency but instead would understand that this was a successful completion demonstrating basic competency in the course. It does not signify subject matter expertise.

As with all medicine, it is continuously evolving and we must evolve with it. The course/card/patch however does do as I stated earlier and weeds out a lot of wannabes. That is the first step. With what is left, you then have ability to choose from the cream.

 

[usalsfyre]

My take on it. If when interviewing I see FP-C and some CCT experience (honest CCT, not "I used the Autovent and transported dopamine every once in a while") then I tend to put those people high up in the order. If I see FP-C and no experience, we'll talk but you have no special leg up on anyone else.

Favorite question for those who come to an interview bragging about how much CCT experience they have with dubious credentials? "Tell me everything you know about balloon pumps...."

 

[TransportJockey]

My take on it. If when interviewing I see FP-C and some CCT experience (honest CCT, not "I used the Autovent and transported dopamine every once in a while") then I tend to put those people high up in the order. If I see FP-C and no experience, we'll talk but you have no special leg up on anyone else.

Favorite question for those who come to an interview bragging about how much CCT experience they have with dubious credentials? "Tell me everything you know about balloon pumps...."

Heh I have some honest CCT experience LTV1200 w/ multiple drips a couple times a week. But I get what you're saying and I appreciate it. Lol it's kinda funny cause balloon pumps scare the crap out of me so I've been reviewing all sorts of stuff on them cause I have no idea how much will be on the test. I've only seen one in person a few times, so I haven't gotten a lot of hands on time with them.

 

[usalsfyre]

Heh I have some honest CCT experience LTV1200 w/ multiple drips a couple times a week. But I get what you're saying and I appreciate it. Lol it's kinda funny cause balloon pumps scare the crap out of me so I've been reviewing all sorts of stuff on them cause I have no idea how much will be on the test. I've only seen one in person a few times, so I haven't gotten a lot of hands on time with them.

Not a lot on mine. Don't neglect the neo/peds stuff. My test had me going "Why the fark do I need to know this stuff?!? Don't we have Neo teams for a reason?!?"

 

[TransportJockey]

Not a lot on mine. Don't neglect the neo/peds stuff. My test had me going "Why the fark do I need to know this stuff?!? Don't we have Neo teams for a reason?!?"

Heh peds and neo I'm actually rather comfortable with. Between the extra studying for class and the STABLE and NRP courses I don't hate peds as much as I used to

 

[truetiger]

I too am studying for the FP-C exam. Purchased the ACE-SAT book, however noticed is dated 2008. I'm concerned some of the info may be outdated, anyone have any experience with this? For example, during a CEU class this week the instructor mentioned that the inverse ratios for ARDS are no longer recommended and pressure cycling is the new standard, I believe the book still suggests the 2:1 ratio, has the test been updated?

 

[TransportJockey]

I was wondering kinda the same thing, since I'm using ACE-SAT and the video series...

 

[Carlos Danger]

Yes, you are frowning on more education because by requiring this challenging certification

Huh?

I'm the one saying the credential is questionable precisely because it doesn't require any additional education.

You are the one arguing in favor of a system where all one needs to do is memorize (not actually learn) some stuff out of a textbook, take and pass an hour long exam, and suddenly become regarded as having done something special.

Which one of us is anti-education?

it would certainly weed out the ricky rescues and typically the individuals who complete the course are very pro education, career oriented and highly motivated candidates.

No, it doesn't weed out the Ricky Rescues. Some of them, sure. All it does is give them more reason to think they're special, when they haven't really done much of anything.

I'm sorry, but this credential just doesn't mean what you think it does.

I certainly don't mean to be insulting of those who have taken the FP-C or are planning to take it. But it needs to be viewed for what it is. How much value can something really have that requires nothing more than passing an hour-long written exam?

 

[Carlos Danger]

I too am studying for the FP-C exam. Purchased the ACE-SAT book, however noticed is dated 2008. I'm concerned some of the info may be outdated, anyone have any experience with this? For example, during a CEU class this week the instructor mentioned that the inverse ratios for ARDS are no longer recommended and pressure cycling is the new standard, I believe the book still suggests the 2:1 ratio, has the test been updated?

Recommendations for ARDS are all over the place. There's very little that has been proven to actually make a difference. Check out ardsnet.

 

[akflightmedic]

Huh?

I'm the one saying the credential is questionable precisely because it doesn't require any additional education.

You are the one arguing in favor of a system where all one needs to do is memorize (not actually learn) some stuff out of a textbook, take and pass an hour long exam, and suddenly become regarded as having done something special.

Which one of us is anti-education?




No, it doesn't weed out the Ricky Rescues. Some of them, sure. All it does is give them more reason to think they're special, when they haven't really done much of anything.

I'm sorry, but this credential just doesn't mean what you think it does.

I certainly don't mean to be insulting of those who have taken the FP-C or are planning to take it. But it needs to be viewed for what it is. How much value can something really have that requires nothing more than passing an hour-long written exam?

No I am not arguing in favor of a SYSTEM, however I am arguing for a course which demonstrates a higher degree of intelligence, education and possibly experience (most times). You cannot state that of the few thousand people who have completed the course, none of them are worthy or do not demonstrate the above qualities. The overwhelming majority do and those who do not typically are not employed as it will quickly be realized during the interview or skills process of the interview.

Those who spend the money, travel to take the class, prep for the class, pass the class in my opinion beat out any other candidate who does not when evaluating the area of personal drive (self motivation), desire to be better, hungry for knowledge. This is a small part of the total package I want on my team and representing my company.

Yes, completing this course IS something special in the sense that it gives more insight into a candidate's character. Could be good, could be bad but that is what the remaining of the interview process is for. I state again, requiring this course up front weeds out a LOT of candidates which increases potential talent pool.

If I had two candidates rate exactly the same on every other part of the process...presentation, likeability, written, practical, same years medic experience...completely identical, the deciding factor would then come down to extra courses and the person who demonstrates they went above and beyond...they would get the job.

But at the end of the day, we will agree to disagree, the original poster can evaluate the pros and cons as presented and make an informed decision. I am done with this conversation and wish you the best in your goal pursuit.

I have nothing more to contribute apparently as a medic of 20 years and a business owner (yes, one of which is a medevac service).

 

[Flight-LP]

Huh?

I'm the one saying the credential is questionable precisely because it doesn't require any additional education.

I'm sorry, but this credential just doesn't mean what you think it does.

I certainly don't mean to be insulting of those who have taken the FP-C or are planning to take it. But it needs to be viewed for what it is. How much value can something really have that requires nothing more than passing an hour-long written exam?

How is this any different from the CEN, CCRN, or CFRN exams? They certainly are not viewed in the same light as your opinion of the FP-C, yet are equaly as demanded and viewed as reputable credentials. Can you offer a logical explanation for this?

 

[ExpatMedic0]

According to the UMBC and its "levels of difficulty" it places the NREMT-P at par with the NCLEX, the CCEMT-P with the CEN, the CCP-C with the CFRN and CTRN and at the top for RN and Medic is the FP-C which ranks equally as difficult as the CCRN it claims.

The difference is that, we in EMS are still catching up to nursing when it comes to traditional formal higher education and its breadth requirements and classrooms. Although, knowledge is not always attained by sitting in front of a lecture, more and more universities are recognizing this by offering online learning. Even John Hopkins university offers masters degrees mostly online, with only testing taking place on campus. Most of the time this learning is student lead and self study but is equal in terms of the end result for any classes taken. In theory, the FP-C is like this in a way. The knowledge is still acquired, its just acquired by another learning method.

Although there are no mandatory degrees or hours for the FP-C, it should be very difficult for someone to attain with out many hours of interdisciplinary study and experience. The critical care transport books I have to study for the FP-C rival text I have for 300 or 400 level classes I have taken at university.
At the end of the day, its just a written multiple choice test that almost any paramedic can try. I think they should also do practical skills and require so many documented hours or classes before taking it.... This would certainly help nay-sayers from striking it down so quickly, and I agree I would like to see elements like that introduced to it. However, despite that, I still look at it as an achievement, and for what else we have to compare it to in EMS, our highest and most difficult certification to obtain. Especially if coupled with a CCEMT-P, which shows you at least took 80 hours of foundation lectures and skills training before taking the FP-C. I would be more proud of my bachelors degree, but I would still be very proud of passing the FP-C exam and I take people very seriously who obtain that.

 

[Carlos Danger]

How is this any different from the CEN, CCRN, or CFRN exams? They certainly are not viewed in the same light as your opinion of the FP-C, yet are equaly as demanded and viewed as reputable credentials. Can you offer a logical explanation for this?

CEN and CFRN are the same as FP-C. The only thing they indicate is that the credential holder was able to remember (not even necessarily understand) some stuff out of a textbook for just long enough to write it down on a multiple choice exam. They prove nothing as far as competency.

CCRN is a little different because it requires 1 year of verifiable critical care nursing experience, which normally means a lengthy and structured orientation as well as daily function in the environment one is being certified in. It'd be better still if they required structured experience objectives as well as skills verification, but it's far better than requiring no background at all. The AACN's reasoning for the experience requirement is simple: How can one be "certified" in something they've never even done before? If the BCCTPC and the ENA would apply such reasoning to their respective certification processes, they'd carry a lot more credibility.


I have an idea: Why don't we let EMT-B's who have never even been inside an ambulance, and who possess no ALS experience or education whatsoever become certified as paramedics, just by passing a 100-question clinical exam? That's right, we'll "certify" paramedics who have never snapped a laryngoscope blade onto a handle, never drawn a med up into a syringe, and never seen an EKG tracing other than in the textbook they studied to pass the written exam.

Would that be good for the paramedic profession?

Would it be good For EMS agencies?

Would it be good for the public?

Would it be good for the credibility of the title "paramedic"?

That's exactly what we are doing with "flight" and "critical care" paramedics. Calling oneself a FP-C or CCP communicates nothing. You might be smart as hell and have all kinds of great experience, or you may be a minimally experienced paramedic who has never done a critical care transport in your life. Who knows? You certainly can't tell from the credential. And if the credential doesn't communicate "competency", then what is the point of it?

 

[akflightmedic]

And if the credential doesn't communicate "competency", then what is the point of it?

NO credential communicates "competency"....not even the two letters of MD after one's name.

The guy who graduates last in Med School....yep, he is still called Doctor.

You have taken the point of this discussion and tried to twist it every way possible to demonstrate in your opinion it (the cert) means nothing. Fine, we acknowledge your disinterest and support for a course which thins the herd.

At the end of the day, the course is still valuable to the individual and an asset when it comes time to be interviewed and considered for positions. Does it guarantee a job? not at all. Does it mean you are super smart and the bestest of the best....not at all. But again it does demonstrate a desire to push oneself above the rest and the ability to complete successfully a higher level course. If you as a hiring manager fail to appreciate that fact about a candidate sitting in front of you and then consider his other merits in the interview process, then you suck as a hiring authority.

The best advice to a person trying to enter the field, regardless of how you personally feel about the course is to advise them to complete it, keep your ego in check, know that it doesn't earn a right to a job but also know that it does give you a slight edge over candidates who do not have it if all other qualities/experience are equal.

As with any badge, license, cert, degree in medicine....it is only a demonstration of having met the basic core competencies. It does not mean you will continue to meet them 3 years, 3 months or even 3 days from now...only that you did so when it mattered most and that was at the time of the test. The rest is up to you to continue to learn and grow and then of course demonstrate and prove naysayers like the one above how wrong he is.

 

[Carlos Danger]

we acknowledge your disinterest and support for a course which thins the herd.

regardless of how you personally feel about the course

At the end of the day, the course is still valuable

I'm curious why you keep calling the FP-C exam a "course"? That strikes me as odd. If it were a course, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

NO credential communicates "competency"....not even the two letters of MD after one's name.

Interesting that you start your post out by saying that, but then finish it by saying this:

​

with any badge, license, cert, degree in medicine....it is only a demonstration of having met the basic core competencies.

So, is the point of a credential to communicate a competency, or not? I say it is.

Add again, as I've asked before, how does a multiple choice exam evaluate the basic core competencies that a flight paramedic should possess?

If that is a valid approach, then why don't we substitute a multiple choice exam for paramedic programs?

If you as a hiring manager fail to appreciate that fact about a candidate sitting in front of you and then consider his other merits in the interview process, then you suck as a hiring authority.

Hmm. What I think makes a hiring manager "suck" is being lazy and using something objective but with little actual value to rank people. Using that approach, you could easily pass over a really good person who for whatever reason, just hasn't taken the exam yet.

What I think makes a hiring manager NOT suck is taking the time to periodically go through all 150 or more resumes that have accumulated, and reading them and evaluating the applicants by EXPERIENCE. Experience matters far more than exam scores.

Here is how we always approached this where I worked, and exactly how I would do it again. The process is identical for flight nurse and flight paramedic candidates, aside from obvious differences in the knowledge and competencies we expect them to come with. You can substitute CFRN for FP-C here:

• When looking at resumes, the people who have flight or solid CCT experience generally go to the top of the list, regardless of their credentials.
  
  
• Assuming you DO NOT have flight experience, if you have a neat looking resume that conveys several years of high quality ALS experience (high quality, not necessarily high volume; quality is always > than quantity, and it is often hard to have both), as well as involvement in things such as QA, protocol development, and teaching, I will probably want to interview you whether you have FP-C or not.
  
  
• On the other hand, I will not bother interviewing someone whose experience appears inadequate, just because they have FP-C
  
  
• When you come to interview, you will be judged on how you interact and communicate with people, your past experience, how well you do in simulation and oral scenarios, and by the overall feeling we get as to your level of competence, maturity as a clinician, ability to manage stress, ability to interact with with other clinicians and the public, and how you would fit in with the team and learn the job.
  
  
• If you do well on those things during the interview, you will probably be put on the hiring list, even if you don't have FP-C.
  
  
• If, on the other hand, you do poorly on those things during the interview, then you will NOT be put on the hiring list, no matter what initials you have behind your name.

So where in this process is there even any room for considering the importance (or lack thereof) of the FP-C credential, or any other credential for that matter? The qualities listed in bullet 4 are critical and mandatory, and cannot be conveyed at all by the FP-C exam, which is exactly why it means next to nothing when it comes to hiring newbies.

I would not want to be associated with a program that ranked FP-C, CFRN, CCEMTP, or any other merit badge as more important than quality experience and having the right personality for the job.

 

[akflightmedic]

I'm curious why you keep calling the FP-C exam a "course"? That strikes me as odd. If it were a course, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

It is a course in the sense that if you do not procure the study guide, review other supporting texts and perform some independent research and study...you will not pass. While it is not a structured in the classroom course, it is a course none the less.

Interesting that you start your post out by saying that, but then finish it by saying this:

​

​

So, is the point of a credential to communicate a competency, or not? I say it is.

As I stated, there is a difference between subject matter expertise versus basic core competency. This holds true for any degree, license or certification. Holding the license/cert demonstrates a basic competency whether it be a few hours or a few years, but it does demonstrate you retained the knowledge long enough to demonstrate that. However, retaining this particular knowledge to pass is far more difficult than say retaining enough knowledge to pass a CPR course or something as simple. By this I mean those who pass this exam, usually have worked hard and DO have the knowledge...do some barely skate by? Sure they do but this does not hold true for the majority.

Add again, as I've asked before, how does a multiple choice exam evaluate the basic core competencies that a flight paramedic should possess?

The same way a multiple choice exam validates every other medical profession. We are not unique in this requirement so I am unsure what the issue is. It does however assist in determining whether or not that candidate has the knowledge or not. It will be up to the employer to weed out the ones who somehow are idiots yet hold the title through other processes but this requirement is a great start to thin the applicant pool.

If that is a valid approach, then why don't we substitute a multiple choice exam for paramedic programs?

Because you are comparing apples to oranges. Your stretch at asking why don't EMTs with zero experience just test out as a medic is ludicrous. You know this which is why you presented this weak argument. A paramedic has already had a license and presumably experience before adding a little extra education via titles such as FP-C. Even if they do not have enough experience in your opinion to be seeking this title (FP-C), at the end of the day they are still competent in paramedic knowledge and skills. This was achieved by schooling, lectures, practicals and yes, multiple choice exams. The EMT scenario is not giving consideration to those other factors, therefore is not comparable.

Hmm. What I think makes a hiring manager "suck" is being lazy and using something objective but with little actual value to rank people. Using that approach, you could easily pass over a really good person who for whatever reason, just hasn't taken the exam yet.

Yes, a great candidate could be passed over however as a hiring manager this is not your issue, it is THEIR issue for not yet taking the exam to demonstrate that they are a desired candidate. There are plenty of desirable candidates who have taken the exam. And again, I did not say the title was the sole criteria but it certainly does assist in the initial screening of applicants.

What I think makes a hiring manager NOT suck is taking the time to periodically go through all 150 or more resumes that have accumulated, and reading them and evaluating the applicants by EXPERIENCE. Experience matters far more than exam scores.

Experience is a factor but not the entire consideration. There are people who have great "experience" on paper but have done little to improve themselves professionally. Part of the character assessment is evaluating what they have done on their own to grow and expand their knowledge and understanding. What challenges have they taken on willingly to make themselves standout. I have selected candidates on experience before and learned a valuable lesson the hard way. These days I am more inclined to take a fairly fresh recruit over an experienced one especially if they demonstrate a lot of energy and excitement about themselves and the profession. These are the people who will continue to improve personally which ultimately benefits the business. This is who I want out there representing my name.

Here is how we always approached this where I worked, and exactly how I would do it again. The process is identical for flight nurse and flight paramedic candidates, aside from obvious differences in the knowledge and competencies we expect them to come with. You can substitute CFRN for FP-C here:

• When looking at resumes, the people who have flight or solid CCT experience generally go to the top of the list, regardless of their credentials.
  
  
• Assuming you DO NOT have flight experience, if you have a neat looking resume that conveys several years of high quality ALS experience (high quality, not necessarily high volume; quality is always > than quantity, and it is often hard to have both), as well as involvement in things such as QA, protocol development, and teaching, I will probably want to interview you whether you have FP-C or not.
  
  
• On the other hand, I will not bother interviewing someone whose experience appears inadequate, just because they have FP-C
  
  
• When you come to interview, you will be judged on how you interact and communicate with people, your past experience, how well you do in simulation and oral scenarios, and by the overall feeling we get as to your level of competence, maturity as a clinician, ability to manage stress, ability to interact with with other clinicians and the public, and how you would fit in with the team and learn the job.
  
  
• If you do well on those things during the interview, you will probably be put on the hiring list, even if you don't have FP-C.
  
  
• If, on the other hand, you do poorly on those things during the interview, then you will NOT be put on the hiring list, no matter what initials you have behind your name.

So where in this process is there even any room for considering the importance (or lack thereof) of the FP-C credential, or any other credential for that matter? The qualities listed in bullet 4 are critical and mandatory, and cannot be conveyed at all by the FP-C exam, which is exactly why it means next to nothing when it comes to hiring newbies.

I would not want to be associated with a program that ranked FP-C, CFRN, CCEMTP, or any other merit badge as more important than quality experience and having the right personality for the job.

Everything you listed above is what I stated or implied as important. The total package. However to streamline the process and increase talent pool, having requirements before applying will give you all of those needs and more. You can then assess through the process who gets along, who performs well, who handles stress...

Do you require your candidates to have ACLS or CPR?

If not, why not? These courses mean next to nothing right? So why do you have them as job requirements? I mean there could be some really great candidates you are passing over all over a simple little multiple choice group effort test that has actual classroom time and scenarios....(should I stretch it any further?)

 

[Summit]

It is a course in the sense that if you do not procure the study guide, review other supporting texts and perform some independent research and study...you will not pass. While it is not a structured in the classroom course, it is a course none the less.

By your definition any board certification is a course. That is a weird definition of course. Course is normally something that involves organized and mandatory instruction. CCEMTP is a course. You are stretching hard to call FP-C a course and by your definition CEN or CFRN would also be courses but RNs call them certifications.

 

[akflightmedic]

By your definition any board certification is a course. That is a weird definition of course. Course is normally something that involves organized and mandatory instruction. CCEMTP is a course. You are stretching hard to call FP-C a course and by your definition CEN or CFRN would also be courses but RNs call them certifications.

Hate using Wikipedia however Google the certification and its relation to the word "course".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-C

Most candidates if not all take a course to complete the exam. While there is not one directly sponsored, there are many review courses available to attend to be successful at passing the exam.

I keep saying course and I attempted to explain it previously but maybe was not successful at doing so. It is a course in the sense that if you do not get organized, study the right associated material, and prepare, you will not pass. You are creating/designing a "course" for yourself to follow in order to pass successfully.

If you do not do any of the above, if you just walk in without structuring a course, a lesson plan, a study guide to follow, you will fail.

 

[ExpatMedic0]

Originally it was mentioned CCEMT-P with the FP-C, as a duo, was what many (not all) prefer.
CCEMT-P being a foundation course in the traditional since, and FP-C being a difficult test for experienced providers to challenge themselves with. We also seem to be drifting from the OP's questions and comments ;-)

 

[Summit]

Hate using Wikipedia however Google the certification and its relation to the word "course".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-C

Most candidates if not all take a course to complete the exam. While there is not one directly sponsored, there are many review courses available to attend to be successful at passing the exam.

I keep saying course and I attempted to explain it previously but maybe was not successful at doing so. It is a course in the sense that if you do not get organized, study the right associated material, and prepare, you will not pass. You are creating/designing a "course" for yourself to follow in order to pass successfully.

If you do not do any of the above, if you just walk in without structuring a course, a lesson plan, a study guide to follow, you will fail.

All your comments apply to CEN CCRN CFRN and most of the other nursing specialty board exams. Most people take review classes, structure their study, read books, and use study guides. Are they all courses by your interpretation?