Should EMT & Paramedic initial classes be considered Education or Certification Prep courses?

[DrParasite]

I was talking with another instructor last week, and the topic drifted into whether EMT class should actually prepare them for the field of EMS, or prepare them to pass the state or NREMT exam. The reason for this was one of the adjunct instructors was teaching more than was in the book, in order to adequately prepare students for the real world. The lead instructor commented that it was too much, and we should only be teaching them what was in the book, in order to give them enough knowledge to pass the test.

So what do you guys think? are the initial EMS classes designed to be certification prep classes, or education?

 

[Old Tracker]

Both. Certification prep classes for sure, but more education is even more important. That, and the ride alongs/clinicals need to be more than just putting in hours. Much depends on were they are being educated. JMO.

 

[VentMonkey]

First off, kudos to the instructor for attempting to provide more than "here's what's in the book, here's what's on the tests, and here's what to expect when taking the exam...".

I think both are important, and I'm hopeful--like anything--over time the changing of the guard will reflect more in depth educational standards, even if this means tacking on a few extra modules at a time. Rome wasn't built in a day...

Like @Old Tracker said, I think they're theoretically meant to be (and realistically should be) both. I'm curious to know how the students felt about the instructor taking the time to go the extra mile. Were they overall receptive, or did they gripe about learning more than they had to in order to pass the exam? Was it a mix?

My opinion on the above would be along the lines of weeding out those that believe even the basic entry-level certification into this field should not be more inclusive that what the norm appears to be now. To me, it's definitely a decent "gauger" of who's fit be in a field that is extremely short on competently well-rounded folks, and instead overwhelmed by those who "just passed the test".

 

[Carlos Danger]

I was talking with another instructor last week, and the topic drifted into whether EMT class should actually prepare them for the field of EMS, or prepare them to pass the state or NREMT exam. The reason for this was one of the adjunct instructors was teaching more than was in the book, in order to adequately prepare students for the real world. The lead instructor commented that it was too much, and we should only be teaching them what was in the book, in order to give them enough knowledge to pass the test.

So what do you guys think? are the initial EMS classes designed to be certification prep classes, or education?

That's an interesting question. My knee-jerk reaction is "of course we should try to prepare students for the real world, rather than just the exam" but honestly, I don't know how realistic that is. Not in a 120-180 hour class, anyways. It works much better in a paramedic program, primarily because so much of it is real, hands-on experience.

I think at the intro level it's hard enough for many learners to both remember and really understand just the textbook version of things that people need to learn, nevermind at the same time grasping the "real world" implications of a given thing. To do that I think you are up in the "apply", maybe even the "analyze" part of Bloom's pyramid, which of course we want our students to get to, but probably takes more experience than they get in EMT class.

I'm sure there are some really good instructors who are able to do it, I just don't know how realistic of a goal it is across the board.

 

[DesertMedic66]

While I get both sides of the coin realistically there is barely enough time to cover the information to pass the test in most programs. What is the ultimate goal of the program, to get you to pass a test or to get you hired? That will be dependent on your school or program.

I used to try to teach students for the real life field and while I still try I realized that the main goal is to have students pass the NREMT. You can teach them everything about the field but if they are not able to pass testing they will never get into the field to learn.

 

[Old Tracker]

The book learning to pass the test is fine, but putting the knowledge to use will re-enforce it or will put it into a better context. Also, to a degree it will depend on the student, some can learn fine by reading, others will do better with a hands on application. If I remember, I will get back to this subject in a month or so. I am in the book learning part of AEMT now, getting ready for the hands on. But I can say the year and a half worth of real world experience, as a Basic, has helped me put the deeper subject matter (most of this was skimmed over in Basic) into context and visualize it much better.

 

[StCEMT]

I think the time constraints would make it hard to do at the level that we would like to see. However, I don't see why it can't appropriately be eased in at places. We would be doing students a favor to ditch the everyone gets 15lpm type blanket treatments that require 0 thought to start with.

 

[DrParasite]

What is the ultimate goal of the program, to get you to pass a test or to get you hired?

I wasn't even going that far; getting hired is one thing, and often caused by a multitude of factors unrelated to the actual course content; as long as you have the card, everything else is interview skills, job history, and supply and demand.

Let me give an example: one chapter in our current EMT textbook includes seizures, strokes, and hypoglycemia, all under a single chapter entitled "Diabetic emergencies and altered mental status." With a 4 hour class, can anyone cover all the students needs to know about every type of seizure, stroke, and diabetic emergency that a student may encounter in the field, as well as provide them with way to identify and treat them, and work out some hands on practice scenarios?

Is 4 hour an appropriate time frame? Is it enough to teach the basics to pass the test? maybe. is it enough to adequately prepare them to handle an AMS person, where the students needs to form a differential diagnosis in order to treat the patient or identify an appropriate transport decision? I don't think so.

 

[planetmike]

I'm struggling with this very issue right now in my Paramedic classes. We just had an entire lecture/lab sequence on material that isn't on national testing, either practical skills or written exam, or available to use in the local areas unless you are an Advanced Practice Paramedic. And that's frustrating. The time I spent on this "good to know" knowledge I feel would have been better invested in the "required to know" fields.

 

[VentMonkey]

I was recently watching a flight paramedic/ RT lecture on vent management to a class full of critical care paramedics.

At one point he mentions how they asked him to teach vent management in a few short hours. He snickered at this and said it's hardly enough, and that he wouldn't. I think my take away is that there's certainly many variables.

How much is too little? How much is, quite frankly, too much? Who is your general audience?

I still believe gradually increasing lectures at the basic level is a step in the right direction towards an actual education, and not just a "butt in the seat". 90% in depth lecture, and 10% "war stories" relative to the lecture is reasonable if you so wish to captivate your audience in this manner I suppose.