disassociative
Forum Captain
- 331
- 0
- 0
Well, considering the fact that he is in TN; where EMT-IV's are starting IV's and doing more advanced skills--this isn't the program to take shortcuts in.
Should I do the 2 week EMT program?
- Thread starter MedicineMan
- Start date
JPINFV
Gadfly
- 12,681
- 197
- 63
There shouldn't be shortcuts for people providing care regardless of what state they may be in.
disassociative
Forum Captain
- 331
- 0
- 0
I am forced to agree with that 100%(even if I were not forced, I would still agree 100%).
StarOfLife
Forum Crew Member
- 40
- 0
- 0
The school I attended in that 28-day program has an 88% first time pass success rate with the NREMT basic exam.
It can be done well, it simply depends on the quality of the school.
Holy crap! A two week course????? Yeeouch.
Here in Utah, the EMT-B course at the University of Utah is 12 weeks long, sixteen classroom hours a week, IIRC. (Back when I took it in 1985 it was an entire college quarter, four hours classroom time on tues and thurs, eight hours practical field work on saturday for eleven weeks.)
Honestly, I wouldn't entrust the well-being of my goldfish to someone with two weeks training.
Here in Utah, the EMT-B course at the University of Utah is 12 weeks long, sixteen classroom hours a week, IIRC. (Back when I took it in 1985 it was an entire college quarter, four hours classroom time on tues and thurs, eight hours practical field work on saturday for eleven weeks.)
Honestly, I wouldn't entrust the well-being of my goldfish to someone with two weeks training.
StarOfLife
Forum Crew Member
- 40
- 0
- 0
I understand your concern, but there is an exam that is standardized. I'm not saying it is perfect, but it measures every EMT candidate the same and if you know the material the NR deems to be necessary to practice as an EMT, then you are not necessarily worse off than your peers that have more classroom time.
My gripe with our EMT-B requirements is not the classroom time, but with the clinical time invested. I think 10 hours is ridiculous. I am currently doing ride time with the local ambulance I want to work for because I am a firm believer that practical experience is key to understanding all classroom concepts and interventions.
JMHO.
And I understand where you are coming from. However, consider the implication in a two week course, even if it has a standardized exam. Any schmoe with a Brady guide could memorize the material, but does it mean they can handle the real world?
Don't get me wrong; I'm not one of those EMS-snobs with a "my training is superior to your training" attitudes. However, I'm a strong believer in the importance of field training. Any municipality that would entrust the lives of its public to someone with two weeks of classroom training is inviting disaster.
Knowing the material is not the same as experiencing it.
JPINFV
Gadfly
- 12,681
- 197
- 63
Assuming that the class hours are the same between a 3 month and 3 week program, why should the 3 month be any more adapt than a 3 week EMT-B? Most of the care an EMT-B providers is basic to advanced first aid.
I know I'm new here, and I'm probably stomping on toes, but for crissakes, how can you compare a 3 week course with a three month course, as there is simply not sufficient time for clinical hours? Classroom is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't mean much if you don't get out and do it for real.
You need time in an ER, learning the use of extrication equipment, A&P, Mass Casualty, comm, etc. You don't learn that in a classroom. You learn that in practicals.
When I was an instructor, I found the best way to teach was to get those students up to their elbows in it.
Maybe I'm old, and set in my ways, but I stand by my opinion that a two week course would churn out nothing but liabilities on the hoof.
JPINFV
Gadfly
- 12,681
- 197
- 63
There is no guarentee that the 3 month program has any long clinical time. I took a semester long program and only was required to have 8 hours on an ambulance and 8 hours in the ER.
Now I'll be honest, I'll be the first one to come out and state that the EMT-B cirriculum is too short, both diadatic and clinical time. You simply can't learn the science during clinicals and you can't learn how to apply the science during diadatics. Hence both should be longer. I would love to see an extensive amount of time on A/P and would love to see clinicals in places outside of the ER and ambulance [psych ward, for example].
I don't necessarily buy, though, that 2 courses with the same amount of hours is going to necessarily differ because one is spread out over 3 months and the other is condensed.
Now I'll be honest, I'll be the first one to come out and state that the EMT-B cirriculum is too short, both diadatic and clinical time. You simply can't learn the science during clinicals and you can't learn how to apply the science during diadatics. Hence both should be longer. I would love to see an extensive amount of time on A/P and would love to see clinicals in places outside of the ER and ambulance [psych ward, for example].
I don't necessarily buy, though, that 2 courses with the same amount of hours is going to necessarily differ because one is spread out over 3 months and the other is condensed.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think, perhaps, we are arguing semantics.
My point was, no one can get sufficient training in two weeks regardless of the amount of class hours. I don't care if you go eight hours a day, for fourteen days. It's not going to work, not without concurrent practical time.
In the Army, their most basic course, the Combat Life Saver, which every soldier must pass, includes 40 hours of practical field time after an extensive classroom course.
Why should civilian medics be any less trained? Granted, we're not working in a combat theater of operations, but many of the injuries we respond to are similar.
Perhaps the issue isn't that it's only two weeks long. It's that there is simply no way to properly train in that amount of time.
My point was, no one can get sufficient training in two weeks regardless of the amount of class hours. I don't care if you go eight hours a day, for fourteen days. It's not going to work, not without concurrent practical time.
In the Army, their most basic course, the Combat Life Saver, which every soldier must pass, includes 40 hours of practical field time after an extensive classroom course.
Why should civilian medics be any less trained? Granted, we're not working in a combat theater of operations, but many of the injuries we respond to are similar.
Perhaps the issue isn't that it's only two weeks long. It's that there is simply no way to properly train in that amount of time.
JPINFV
Gadfly
- 12,681
- 197
- 63
I'll definately agree that any course that can be fit in 2 weeks (be it 2 weeks or spread out in 3 months) is two short for a medical provider.
So. IL Medic
Forum Lieutenant
- 135
- 2
- 0
Medicine Man, something to consider...
The best physicians, PA's, and nurses I have worked with 'came up through the ranks.' That is, they were medics before they went on for further training. It shows in their demeanor, their superior patient relationships, their wider knowledge base, their ability to handle stressfull, hard calls, their skills.
It might help you in the long run to dive into EMS for a few years before med school. When you start med school, you'll have an advantage in your grasp of clinical thinking, skills, and patient care. AS a better student, you can become a better physician.
The best physicians, PA's, and nurses I have worked with 'came up through the ranks.' That is, they were medics before they went on for further training. It shows in their demeanor, their superior patient relationships, their wider knowledge base, their ability to handle stressfull, hard calls, their skills.
It might help you in the long run to dive into EMS for a few years before med school. When you start med school, you'll have an advantage in your grasp of clinical thinking, skills, and patient care. AS a better student, you can become a better physician.
I would disagree in delaying med school to work as an EMT or even a Paramedic.
There is a big difference from the clinical thinking done in the field and the Critical Care thinking needed to be a physician. That is why some Paramedics also have a difficult time making the transition to being on CCT or a nurse in a critical care unit.
12 years of one's life will be invested in medical school and residency. Being a nurse or paramedic is not a prerequisite. Many believe that working in the field first helps them and it may offer some advantages. But, eventually time slips away and they still find themselves not going for the med school dream. If the chance to go to med school is now, then do it. In med school there'll be opportunities for you to get hours in various clinics to get hands on patient experience long before you start residency.
Taking an EMT course is not that big of a deal if you want an introductory to a few basic rescue skills. You could also pick up a lot of the same stuff at the Red Cross on weekends and do volunteer work for them. Your goals seem to be bigger than working full time for an ambulance and there is nothing wrong with exploring different modalities in healthcare even if it is for a short time.
If your life's ambition was to be a Paramedic, then yes you should build a more solid foundation. But, your foundation is already in the sciences with the prep you have probably already done in high school to beef up your academic resume for entrance into a decent pre-med program which is even heavier. For you, reading 100 - 200 pages and retaining the information every day is probably no big deal for you by now.
Maybe you should visit the campus of a medical school and talk to people who have actually "been there and done that". You would be surprised at what ambitious people can do when they have a dream.
Being Pre-Med I'd assume you would have absolutely no problems with the "book" work side of the course. EMT-B is not very in depth and frankly does not require much if any background knowledge to utilize.
The real challenge for EMT-B is the skills, and combining them with the book concepts. Assessment, immobilization, patient interaction, ALS assist, etc.
The best way to learn and master these skills is by doing. If you truly understand the "book" side of the course when you exit the program and can find a service which is willing and able to give you substantial on the job training, I don't see why you couldn't become a good EMT. The key is this, understanding that the books are only half (Some would argue less) of the equation.
It all depends on the person, their motivation, and their work ethic.
The real challenge for EMT-B is the skills, and combining them with the book concepts. Assessment, immobilization, patient interaction, ALS assist, etc.
The best way to learn and master these skills is by doing. If you truly understand the "book" side of the course when you exit the program and can find a service which is willing and able to give you substantial on the job training, I don't see why you couldn't become a good EMT. The key is this, understanding that the books are only half (Some would argue less) of the equation.
It all depends on the person, their motivation, and their work ethic.
griz1974
Forum Ride Along
- 7
- 0
- 0
2 weeks
i think two weeks is a short time for alot of info pre med or not remember doctors usually dont see pt in the field and we really dont want them to but it is up to u and how comfortalbe u fell with it all we can do is give advice good or bad good luck and god bless
i think two weeks is a short time for alot of info pre med or not remember doctors usually dont see pt in the field and we really dont want them to but it is up to u and how comfortalbe u fell with it all we can do is give advice good or bad good luck and god bless