emtbill
Forum Crew Member
- 90
- 0
- 0
C.A.R.S. is a highly progressive and well respected EMS agency within Virginia. They run over 10,000 calls a year with 24/7 ALS coverage with volunteers all without billing a cent. They are also the technical rescue providers in this obviously populous area so it is necessary for all of their members to have basic understanding of what is going on at a rescue scene. You're all misconstruing what this news article said about an EMT-B instructor. She didn't teach the EMT class, but was rather an adjunctive instructor for the rescue portion. As the first woman to be released as both a driver and operator of the squad's two largest crash trucks, she is well qualified for the position. You can find the requirements for this level of responsibility on their website.
In Virginia, to host and teach an EMT-B class, you have to be an EMT Instructor, which is a separate certification issued by the state. It requires a minimum of 2 years active experience as an EMT, and passing of written and practical exams. The pretest for this certification has less than a 50% pass rate and the written essays and practicals are even worse. Furthermore, training in methods of instruction are required, which are taught biannually at our start technical rescue college and at spring convention.
I think it's excellent that C.A.R.S. is requiring more out of their EMT class by teaching this rescue training. While you can make the argument that they should apply this time to more A&P, you have to keep in mind that these EMT's (and most across the state) are not instantly released to run BLS calls when they get their card. There is a lengthy apprenticeship with a senior member where the EMT's collect calls, gain more knowledge, and are critiqued on their skills before they're released as a technician. It's more beneficial to teach these students introductions to rescue than it is more medical knowledge that is probably outside their scope of practice anyway. One person in this thread gave an example of an EMT not knowing how to care for a stroke patient because of this rescue training. What? Within their scope of practice, an EMT would do the same thing for a stroke patient as a neurologist would. The "super" EMT's receive plenty of training for the interventions they are allowed. What if grandma's car was over an embankment on fire? I'm pretty sure you would rather have a "super" EMT there who could rappel down with a fire extinguisher than one with more A&P.
Of course, I'm not saying more medical training is not beneficial for an EMT-B, just not that what this agency is doing is worthless. If this were a paramedic program, where the providers could do more than put oxygen on you and hold your hand, then I think this extra time would be better spent elsewhere.
In Virginia, to host and teach an EMT-B class, you have to be an EMT Instructor, which is a separate certification issued by the state. It requires a minimum of 2 years active experience as an EMT, and passing of written and practical exams. The pretest for this certification has less than a 50% pass rate and the written essays and practicals are even worse. Furthermore, training in methods of instruction are required, which are taught biannually at our start technical rescue college and at spring convention.
I think it's excellent that C.A.R.S. is requiring more out of their EMT class by teaching this rescue training. While you can make the argument that they should apply this time to more A&P, you have to keep in mind that these EMT's (and most across the state) are not instantly released to run BLS calls when they get their card. There is a lengthy apprenticeship with a senior member where the EMT's collect calls, gain more knowledge, and are critiqued on their skills before they're released as a technician. It's more beneficial to teach these students introductions to rescue than it is more medical knowledge that is probably outside their scope of practice anyway. One person in this thread gave an example of an EMT not knowing how to care for a stroke patient because of this rescue training. What? Within their scope of practice, an EMT would do the same thing for a stroke patient as a neurologist would. The "super" EMT's receive plenty of training for the interventions they are allowed. What if grandma's car was over an embankment on fire? I'm pretty sure you would rather have a "super" EMT there who could rappel down with a fire extinguisher than one with more A&P.
Of course, I'm not saying more medical training is not beneficial for an EMT-B, just not that what this agency is doing is worthless. If this were a paramedic program, where the providers could do more than put oxygen on you and hold your hand, then I think this extra time would be better spent elsewhere.