San Diego now has Advanced EMT.

[MrBrown]

This has all been worked out in the new scope of practice model, no? Why reinvent the wheel - again.

Because that wheel has a bunch of patches, is as bald as a babys bum and gonna fall apart sometime soon.

 

[karaya]

This has all been worked out in the new scope of practice model, no? Why reinvent the wheel - again.

It won't be reinvented. The new standards, scope of practice, etc. has been an undertaking for over ten years and has involved participation from every state, industry stake holders, EMS publishers, etc. One of the keys to keep this standardized was to get all of the publishers on board in which they participated as a stake holder.

This unified publishing participation pretty well forces educators to teach within the National Scope of Practice Model which only recognizes four levels of licensure - EMR, EMT, AEMT, and Paramedic. Every EMS textbook publisher is on-board with the new scope and currently many books that just came out last year are already working on new editions for the new standards. I've worked on several books since last year and I'm currently involved in several re-editions for this year.

However, states can certainly mandate that only paramedic certification will be accepted to work on an ambulance. Something to think about?

 

[EMSLaw]

Because that wheel has a bunch of patches, is as bald as a babys bum and gonna fall apart sometime soon.

Considering it's brand new and hasn't been road tested yet, I think that's a bit unfair, and probably part of your reflexive need to belittle the US EMS system at every opportunity. Generally, I tend to agree with your sentiments, but in this case, I think what's coming will be a marked improvement over what we have, and I don't think there will be another set of drastic changes immediately.

 

[triemal04]

It won't be reinvented. The new standards, scope of practice, etc. has been an undertaking for over ten years and has involved participation from every state, industry stake holders, EMS publishers, etc. One of the keys to keep this standardized was to get all of the publishers on board in which they participated as a stake holder.

This unified publishing participation pretty well forces educators to teach within the National Scope of Practice Model which only recognizes four levels of licensure - EMR, EMT, AEMT, and Paramedic. Every EMS textbook publisher is on-board with the new scope and currently many books that just came out last year are already working on new editions for the new standards. I've worked on several books since last year and I'm currently involved in several re-editions for this year.

However, states can certainly mandate that only paramedic certification will be accepted to work on an ambulance. Something to think about?

Please, stop saying that, or be sure to explicitly limit that type of comment to textbook publishers, which I don't even know is accurate. Nothing in the Scope of Practice Model forces any state to accept the new levels. Nothing forces any teacher, or school to teach to the new levels, or, if using a redesigned textbook, to teach all the material inside. If Joe Schmo the EMT Instructor wants to teach an EMT course that is no different than todays, as long as the state he teaches in has no issue with that, it's not a problem.

Nothing in the Scope of Practice Model is mandatory. If a state opts out of it, or decides to keep some of their own levels, they damn well can.

Part of why this is only a very, very small step in the right direction.

 

[karaya]

Please, stop saying that, or be sure to explicitly limit that type of comment to textbook publishers, which I don't even know is accurate. Nothing in the Scope of Practice Model forces any state to accept the new levels. Nothing forces any teacher, or school to teach to the new levels, or, if using a redesigned textbook, to teach all the material inside. If Joe Schmo the EMT Instructor wants to teach an EMT course that is no different than todays, as long as the state he teaches in has no issue with that, it's not a problem.

Nothing in the Scope of Practice Model is mandatory. If a state opts out of it, or decides to keep some of their own levels, they damn well can.

Part of why this is only a very, very small step in the right direction.

No, I will not stop saying what I said. I currently work for 4 major EMS text book publishers and I've been very involved with the standards committees for several years. As a matter of fact, several members of the committees are close working associates of mine, so don't haul in here hiding behind your moniker and challenge my credentials. That is why I use my real name in signature.

I was not trying to imply that states are forced to do anything, including educators. You are correct in that states can teach what ever they want in lieu of the new scope; however, they will have to pay to have an author and publisher to produce their textbook material since all of the major EMS publishers have agreed as stakeholders that they will not deviate from the new scope of practice. That was the whole point of having the publisher participate as stakeholders during the development of the new scope.

 

[triemal04]

No, I will not stop saying what I said. I currently work for 4 major EMS text book publishers and I've been very involved with the standards committees for several years. As a matter of fact, several members of the committees are close working associates of mine, so don't haul in here hiding behind your moniker and challenge my credentials. That is why I use my real name in signature.

I was not trying to imply that states are forced to do anything, including educators. You are correct in that states can teach what ever they want in lieu of the new scope; however, they will have to pay to have an author and publisher to produce their textbook material since all of the major EMS publishers have agreed as stakeholders that they will not deviate from the new scope of practice. That was the whole point of having the publisher participate as stakeholders during the development of the new scope.

Untwist your panties. I could really care less what you do, in this case who you are, or who you send pictures to. If you are right and some publishers are incorporating the new standards, then that's good. If you have real knowledge of that, then it's also good that you aren't just spouting rumors, so as I said, keep saying what you want. (Seriosuly, I do mean that.) Be really good if ALL publishers do what you've said. But, what you implied in the bolded portions of your initial comment was wrong. Sorry, but get over it.

And once again...it doesn't matter what someone prints in a textbook; just the fact that something is there does not mean that it will be taught. Again, you were wrong. And you don't actually think that every cert out there has it's own textbook do you? I'm sorry to be rude, but that's just laughable. Look at all the cert's Washington has (or had since they're apparently going away from that); you really think there was a text for EMT-IV/AIRWAY/MEDS? Please.

That's the problem with forums like this; anything can be said without any type of thought, proof, or accuracy. Annoying really.

 

[MrBrown]

Nothing in the Agenda or new standards is mandatory.

Those who do not wish to progress from Intermediate/99 to Paramedic will be downgraded to "Advanced EMT" which means they loose part of thier scope of practice.

Some states are choosing to implement the whole Agenda, others only part of it, others may choose to implement none of it.

I think it is a positive step which should eliminate the 50 gazillion levels some states have and bring about uniform terminology however the scopes of practice for EMT and A-EMT are still very limited, much below what is allowed here, in the UK/Ireland, Canada and Australia.

We'll see how things fare in 3-5 years.

 

[triemal04]

Nothing in the Agenda or new standards is mandatory. Correct.

Those who do not wish to progress from Intermediate/99 to Paramedic will be downgraded to "Advanced EMT" which means they loose part of thier scope of practice. Unless their state decides to keep that level, in which case nothing will change for them, except that they won't be able to be certified by the NREMT.

Some states are choosing to implement the whole Agenda, others only part of it, others may choose to implement none of it. Unfortunately, also correct.

I think it is a positive step which should eliminate the 50 gazillion levels some states have and bring about uniform terminology however the scopes of practice for EMT and A-EMT are still very limited, much below what is allowed here, in the UK/Ireland, Canada and Australia. Hopefully it will. But, along with the smaller scopes keep in mind that the educational level for the EMT/AEMT is similarly low.
We'll see how things fare in 3-5 years.

Yep. I'll give a bit of an apology to karaya for my responces, but on this site it has been implied, or flat out said, that the Scope of Practice is the end all fix-it for EMS so many times that it is thoroughly aggravating to hear anything like that. It's a small step in the right direction, but overall...won't come anywhere close to solving anything, and, unless it's immediately followed up on...won't do anything in the long run.

And most publishers always follow whatever the DOT/NHTSA set's as it's standards, so that's not exactly a huge revolution for EMS.

 

[CAOX3]

We dont even operate under the national registry. It isnt needed to be certifed here and no changes they are introducing are being adopted here.