RE: Another Interesting Bill

March 8, 2011

Hey, Larry, UTHSCSA will give credit for currently certified Paramedics who

enroll and complete in their B.S. in Emergency Health Services program. And to

my knowledge, it only depends on the fact that they are certified or licensed,

not where they went to school for that. They may make them take a test if they

didn't get college credit for it, not sure, but there is still a path.

Jane Dinsmore

To: texasems-l

From: lanelson1@...

Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 16:03:08 +0000

Subject: RE: Another interesting bill

While not directly teaching students, determining and refining the processes

that go with accreditation can result in a student that is better trained. It

may seem like 'navel contemplation' at one level, but if the best ideas emerge

from the process, that is all to the good.

In my case, having a program that is accredited by a national makes it

considerably easier to grant credit toward our BAAS in EMS Management. That is a

secondary gain to the students who wish to go on to a higher degree. Larry

MS, LP, NMCEMDirector, EMS Management ProgramEastern New Mexico

University - Portales

__________________________________________________________

Groupon™ Official Site

1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city's best!

http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4d76538ca8c16b051st03vuc

March 8, 2011

Kellow is a genius!

I spent 2 days in rural Texas last weekend in a FD that sure ain't

accredited but they are among some of the best I've seen in 30 plus years of

being

in the fire business. On the other hand I've seen Class 1's that make the

business look bad.

Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET

FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant

LNMolino@...

(Cell Phone)

(Office)

(Office Fax)

" A Texan with a Jersey Attitude "

" Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds

discuss people " Eleanor Roosevelt - US diplomat & reformer (1884 - 1962)

The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and

the author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or

organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless

I

specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only

for its stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential

materials retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public

domain by the original author.

In a message dated 3/8/2011 9:56:15 A.M. Central Standard Time,

kellow.bob@... writes:

I generally associate " quality " with clinical outcomes, rather than

academic

settings, accreditation and elitism. Quality is what quality does.

Bob

EMS Dinosaur

>

> , being that I am director of a private EMS Education Program and

> possible

> one of thiose " puppy mills " I would like you to explain your idea of

> " quality "

> education. Do you mean college based programs? Do you mean COAEMSP

> accredited

> programs? Do you mean college based programs that are COAEMSP

accredited? I

> am

> just wondering. Please explain.

>

> Eddie , EMT-P/EMSC

> Program Director

> Lefe EMS Academy

> El Paso, TX

>

> ________________________________

>

> To: texasems-l

> Sent: Tue, March 8, 2011 7:10:58 AM

> Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

>

> I don't know if you meant this for the list or not, nor was my opinion

> solicited, but I think the justification for the accreditation is to try

to

>

> eliminate the for-profit " puppy mills " that churn out Paramedics that

have

> limited knowledge and skills but some of whom can meet the bare minimums

of

> the

> registry test. The assumption is that " quality " training organizations

> won't

> have much difficulty finding a hospital or legitimate educational

> institution to

> affiliate with.

>

> I agree 100% with the goal, however I see serious flaws with the

execution.

> I

> think the expense of accreditation is going to be a real burden on the

> good/legitimate schools while will be little deterrent for a puppy mill.

I

> think

> requiring affiliation with a " legitimate " and accredited organization is

an

>

> excellent idea. I don't expect it will be difficult for organizations

> (particularly those with real needs, such as rural providers) to find

> someone to

> affiliate with (probably a hospital), particularly after they wrap their

> brain

> around the idea and communicate the necessity with those organizations.

> Again, I

> don't think it will be difficult for the mills to find an organization to

> work

> with (either by profit sharing, some sort of affiliation fees, or some

> other

> " arrangement " ).

>

> In summary, I think the theory is great but in the end the only people

who

> will

> win are the Registry and those who get to jet around to do site visits,

> while it

> will not meet it's goals at all.

>

> Austin

>

> > Jane,

> >

> > I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive

> behind

> > the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in

it?

> > Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

> > provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about

this

> > issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd students

> into

> > academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

> > training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare script

> them

> > here. LOL.

> >

> > Bob

> >

> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

> > texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC

last

> > > November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC

> equivalent in

> > > Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime

in

> 2018

> > > to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able

> to

> > > test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

> > > current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program

> become

> > > nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

> > > something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157

> rule

> > > but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just

> based

> > > on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

> > > registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked

for

> an

> > > extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did

> they

> > > give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

> > >

> > > The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

> > > testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the

> date in

> > > 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

> > >

> > > Interesting...

> > >

> > > Jane Dinsmore

> > >

> > > To: texasems-l

> > > From: wes.ogilvie@...

> > > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> > > Subject: Another interesting bill

> > >

> > > HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This

bill

> > > will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in

> Texas

> > > until 2018.

> > >

> > > There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> > > legislation regardless.

> > >

> > > -Wes Ogilvie

> > >

March 8, 2011

Bob, the EMS Dinosaur wrote: I generally associate " quality " with clinical

outcomes, rather than academic

settings, accreditation and elitism. Quality is what quality does.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you have a program that does provide a quality medic ( we

could debate the measure of that all day), it doesn't matter if it is in a

'brick and mortar' school, a fire station classroom or on line. I never had

anyone ask me where I went to school when I provided care. Larry-another EMS

Dinosaur

____________________________________________________________

Groupon™ Official Site

1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city's best!

http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4d7654fb8797cc37st04vuc

March 8, 2011

Currently, we are granting credit for license and or certification, regardless

of state. If there seems to be something odd we ask for syllabi. Larry

----- RE: Another interesting bill

While not directly teaching students, determining and refining the processes

that go with accreditation can result in a student that is better trained. It

may seem like 'navel contemplation' at one level, but if the best ideas emerge

from the process, that is all to the good.

In my case, having a program that is accredited by a national makes it

considerably easier to grant credit toward our BAAS in EMS Management. That is a

secondary gain to the students who wish to go on to a higher degree. Larry

MS, LP, NMCEMDirector, EMS Management ProgramEastern New Mexico

University - Portales

__________________________________________________________

Groupon™ Official Site

1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city's best!

http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4d76538ca8c16b051st03vuc

March 8, 2011

Puppy Mill = All State Career School, where I will note their google snippet

describes them as " Provides 3 accredited truck driving schools in Pennsylvania

and land. Also offers employment assistance throughout career. "

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! They also offer classes in Medical Assisting, Expanded

Function Dental Assisting (that scares me, knowing what they are allowed to do),

HVAC, Pharmacy Technician, EMT/Paramedic, Electrical Systems Technician, Medical

Billing and Coding, and Welding Technology. They're a damn -truck-driving

school- and well known for it.

They were -almost- shut down by the state for a variety of reasons, and from my

understanding they teach the test yet their first-time pass rate of Registry is

abysmal. I'm not saying passing Registry makes a great medic in any way, but

c'mon! If you -teach the test- and your people STILL FAIL? Maybe you're doing

Bad Things .

I'm being a bit sarcastic because I don't have an answer to your question

directly. I don't have a solution to the problem, I can just identify bad

schools when I run across/gain some experience with them. I don't think having

all the right accreditations makes a good school, just like holding all the

right cards doesn't make a good paramedic. It's really a long-term evaluation of

what you're doing and the product you're generating.

Austin

> , being that I am director of a private EMS Education Program and

possible

> one of thiose " puppy mills " I would like you to explain your idea of " quality "

> education. Do you mean college based programs? Do you mean COAEMSP accredited

> programs? Do you mean college based programs that are COAEMSP accredited? I am

> just wondering. Please explain.

>

> Eddie , EMT-P/EMSC

> Program Director

> Lefe EMS Academy

> El Paso, TX

>

> ________________________________

>

> To: texasems-l

> Sent: Tue, March 8, 2011 7:10:58 AM

> Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

>

> I don't know if you meant this for the list or not, nor was my opinion

> solicited, but I think the justification for the accreditation is to try to

> eliminate the for-profit " puppy mills " that churn out Paramedics that have

> limited knowledge and skills but some of whom can meet the bare minimums of

the

> registry test. The assumption is that " quality " training organizations won't

> have much difficulty finding a hospital or legitimate educational institution

to

> affiliate with.

>

> I agree 100% with the goal, however I see serious flaws with the execution. I

> think the expense of accreditation is going to be a real burden on the

> good/legitimate schools while will be little deterrent for a puppy mill. I

think

> requiring affiliation with a " legitimate " and accredited organization is an

> excellent idea. I don't expect it will be difficult for organizations

> (particularly those with real needs, such as rural providers) to find someone

to

> affiliate with (probably a hospital), particularly after they wrap their brain

> around the idea and communicate the necessity with those organizations. Again,

I

> don't think it will be difficult for the mills to find an organization to work

> with (either by profit sharing, some sort of affiliation fees, or some other

> " arrangement " ).

>

> In summary, I think the theory is great but in the end the only people who

will

> win are the Registry and those who get to jet around to do site visits, while

it

> will not meet it's goals at all.

>

> Austin

>

> > Jane,

> >

> > I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive behind

> > the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in it?

> > Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

> > provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about this

> > issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd students into

> > academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

> > training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare script them

> > here. LOL.

> >

> > Bob

> >

> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

> > texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

> > > November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent

in

> > > Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in

2018

> > > to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to

> > > test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

> > > current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program become

> > > nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

> > > something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157 rule

> > > but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just based

> > > on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

> > > registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked for an

> > > extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did they

> > > give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

> > >

> > > The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

> > > testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date

in

> > > 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

> > >

> > > Interesting...

> > >

> > > Jane Dinsmore

> > >

> > > To: texasems-l

> > > From: wes.ogilvie@...

> > > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> > > Subject: Another interesting bill

> > >

> > > HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

> > > will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas

> > > until 2018.

> > >

> > > There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> > > legislation regardless.

> > >

> > > -Wes Ogilvie

> > >

March 8, 2011

I guess with dinosaur status one also learns brevity, as I fumbled around

looking for the same answer. Of course, I'm younger and stupider, and sometimes

use ten words when two would have sufficed.

Austin

> I generally associate " quality " with clinical outcomes, rather than academic

> settings, accreditation and elitism. Quality is what quality does.

>

> Bob

> EMS Dinosaur

>

>>

>> , being that I am director of a private EMS Education Program and

>> possible

>> one of thiose " puppy mills " I would like you to explain your idea of

>> " quality "

>> education. Do you mean college based programs? Do you mean COAEMSP

>> accredited

>> programs? Do you mean college based programs that are COAEMSP accredited? I

>> am

>> just wondering. Please explain.

>>

>> Eddie , EMT-P/EMSC

>> Program Director

>> Lefe EMS Academy

>> El Paso, TX

>>

>> ________________________________

>>

>> To: texasems-l

>> Sent: Tue, March 8, 2011 7:10:58 AM

>> Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

>>

>> I don't know if you meant this for the list or not, nor was my opinion

>> solicited, but I think the justification for the accreditation is to try to

>>

>> eliminate the for-profit " puppy mills " that churn out Paramedics that have

>> limited knowledge and skills but some of whom can meet the bare minimums of

>> the

>> registry test. The assumption is that " quality " training organizations

>> won't

>> have much difficulty finding a hospital or legitimate educational

>> institution to

>> affiliate with.

>>

>> I agree 100% with the goal, however I see serious flaws with the execution.

>> I

>> think the expense of accreditation is going to be a real burden on the

>> good/legitimate schools while will be little deterrent for a puppy mill. I

>> think

>> requiring affiliation with a " legitimate " and accredited organization is an

>>

>> excellent idea. I don't expect it will be difficult for organizations

>> (particularly those with real needs, such as rural providers) to find

>> someone to

>> affiliate with (probably a hospital), particularly after they wrap their

>> brain

>> around the idea and communicate the necessity with those organizations.

>> Again, I

>> don't think it will be difficult for the mills to find an organization to

>> work

>> with (either by profit sharing, some sort of affiliation fees, or some

>> other

>> " arrangement " ).

>>

>> In summary, I think the theory is great but in the end the only people who

>> will

>> win are the Registry and those who get to jet around to do site visits,

>> while it

>> will not meet it's goals at all.

>>

>> Austin

>>

>>> Jane,

>>>

>>> I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive

>> behind

>>> the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in it?

>>> Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

>>> provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about this

>>> issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd students

>> into

>>> academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

>>> training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare script

>> them

>>> here. LOL.

>>>

>>> Bob

>>>

>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

>>> texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

>>>

>>>>

>>>> Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

>>>> November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC

>> equivalent in

>>>> Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in

>> 2018

>>>> to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able

>> to

>>>> test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

>>>> current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program

>> become

>>>> nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

>>>> something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157

>> rule

>>>> but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just

>> based

>>>> on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

>>>> registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked for

>> an

>>>> extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did

>> they

>>>> give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

>>>>

>>>> The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

>>>> testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the

>> date in

>>>> 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

>>>>

>>>> Interesting...

>>>>

>>>> Jane Dinsmore

>>>>

>>>> To: texasems-l

>>>> From: wes.ogilvie@...

>>>> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

>>>> Subject: Another interesting bill

>>>>

>>>> HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

>>>> will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in

>> Texas

>>>> until 2018.

>>>>

>>>> There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

>>>> legislation regardless.

>>>>

>>>> -Wes Ogilvie

>>>>

March 8, 2011

No Austin, " dinosaur status " reflects the inability to lace together ten

words when two are insufficient. LOL.

Bob

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:22 AM, B. Austin <

abaustin+yahoogroups@...> wrote:

>

> I guess with dinosaur status one also learns brevity, as I fumbled around

> looking for the same answer. Of course, I'm younger and stupider, and

> sometimes use ten words when two would have sufficed.

>

> Austin

>

> > I generally associate " quality " with clinical outcomes, rather than

> academic

> > settings, accreditation and elitism. Quality is what quality does.

> >

> > Bob

> > EMS Dinosaur

> >

> >>

> >> , being that I am director of a private EMS Education Program and

> >> possible

> >> one of thiose " puppy mills " I would like you to explain your idea of

> >> " quality "

> >> education. Do you mean college based programs? Do you mean COAEMSP

> >> accredited

> >> programs? Do you mean college based programs that are COAEMSP

> accredited? I

> >> am

> >> just wondering. Please explain.

> >>

> >> Eddie , EMT-P/EMSC

> >> Program Director

> >> Lefe EMS Academy

> >> El Paso, TX

> >>

> >> ________________________________

> >>

> >> To: texasems-l

> >> Sent: Tue, March 8, 2011 7:10:58 AM

> >> Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

> >>

> >> I don't know if you meant this for the list or not, nor was my opinion

> >> solicited, but I think the justification for the accreditation is to try

> to

> >>

> >> eliminate the for-profit " puppy mills " that churn out Paramedics that

> have

> >> limited knowledge and skills but some of whom can meet the bare minimums

> of

> >> the

> >> registry test. The assumption is that " quality " training organizations

> >> won't

> >> have much difficulty finding a hospital or legitimate educational

> >> institution to

> >> affiliate with.

> >>

> >> I agree 100% with the goal, however I see serious flaws with the

> execution.

> >> I

> >> think the expense of accreditation is going to be a real burden on the

> >> good/legitimate schools while will be little deterrent for a puppy mill.

> I

> >> think

> >> requiring affiliation with a " legitimate " and accredited organization is

> an

> >>

> >> excellent idea. I don't expect it will be difficult for organizations

> >> (particularly those with real needs, such as rural providers) to find

> >> someone to

> >> affiliate with (probably a hospital), particularly after they wrap their

> >> brain

> >> around the idea and communicate the necessity with those organizations.

> >> Again, I

> >> don't think it will be difficult for the mills to find an organization

> to

> >> work

> >> with (either by profit sharing, some sort of affiliation fees, or some

> >> other

> >> " arrangement " ).

> >>

> >> In summary, I think the theory is great but in the end the only people

> who

> >> will

> >> win are the Registry and those who get to jet around to do site visits,

> >> while it

> >> will not meet it's goals at all.

> >>

> >> Austin

> >>

> >>> Jane,

> >>>

> >>> I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive

> >> behind

> >>> the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in

> it?

> >>> Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

> >>> provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about

> this

> >>> issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd students

> >> into

> >>> academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

> >>> training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare script

> >> them

> >>> here. LOL.

> >>>

> >>> Bob

> >>>

> >>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

> >>> texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

> >>>

> >>>>

> >>>> Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC

> last

> >>>> November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC

> >> equivalent in

> >>>> Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime

> in

> >> 2018

> >>>> to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able

> >> to

> >>>> test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

> >>>> current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program

> >> become

> >>>> nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

> >>>> something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157

> >> rule

> >>>> but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just

> >> based

> >>>> on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

> >>>> registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked

> for

> >> an

> >>>> extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did

> >> they

> >>>> give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

> >>>>

> >>>> The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

> >>>> testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the

> >> date in

> >>>> 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

> >>>>

> >>>> Interesting...

> >>>>

> >>>> Jane Dinsmore

> >>>>

> >>>> To: texasems-l

> >>>> From: wes.ogilvie@...

> >>>> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> >>>> Subject: Another interesting bill

> >>>>

> >>>> HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This

> bill

> >>>> will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in

> >> Texas

> >>>> until 2018.

> >>>>

> >>>> There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> >>>> legislation regardless.

> >>>>

> >>>> -Wes Ogilvie

> >>>>

March 8, 2011

No Austin, " dinosaur status " reflects the inability to lace together ten

words when two are insufficient. LOL.

Bob

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:22 AM, B. Austin <

abaustin+yahoogroups@...> wrote:

>

> I guess with dinosaur status one also learns brevity, as I fumbled around

> looking for the same answer. Of course, I'm younger and stupider, and

> sometimes use ten words when two would have sufficed.

>

> Austin

>

> > I generally associate " quality " with clinical outcomes, rather than

> academic

> > settings, accreditation and elitism. Quality is what quality does.

> >

> > Bob

> > EMS Dinosaur

> >

> >>

> >> , being that I am director of a private EMS Education Program and

> >> possible

> >> one of thiose " puppy mills " I would like you to explain your idea of

> >> " quality "

> >> education. Do you mean college based programs? Do you mean COAEMSP

> >> accredited

> >> programs? Do you mean college based programs that are COAEMSP

> accredited? I

> >> am

> >> just wondering. Please explain.

> >>

> >> Eddie , EMT-P/EMSC

> >> Program Director

> >> Lefe EMS Academy

> >> El Paso, TX

> >>

> >> ________________________________

> >>

> >> To: texasems-l

> >> Sent: Tue, March 8, 2011 7:10:58 AM

> >> Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

> >>

> >> I don't know if you meant this for the list or not, nor was my opinion

> >> solicited, but I think the justification for the accreditation is to try

> to

> >>

> >> eliminate the for-profit " puppy mills " that churn out Paramedics that

> have

> >> limited knowledge and skills but some of whom can meet the bare minimums

> of

> >> the

> >> registry test. The assumption is that " quality " training organizations

> >> won't

> >> have much difficulty finding a hospital or legitimate educational

> >> institution to

> >> affiliate with.

> >>

> >> I agree 100% with the goal, however I see serious flaws with the

> execution.

> >> I

> >> think the expense of accreditation is going to be a real burden on the

> >> good/legitimate schools while will be little deterrent for a puppy mill.

> I

> >> think

> >> requiring affiliation with a " legitimate " and accredited organization is

> an

> >>

> >> excellent idea. I don't expect it will be difficult for organizations

> >> (particularly those with real needs, such as rural providers) to find

> >> someone to

> >> affiliate with (probably a hospital), particularly after they wrap their

> >> brain

> >> around the idea and communicate the necessity with those organizations.

> >> Again, I

> >> don't think it will be difficult for the mills to find an organization

> to

> >> work

> >> with (either by profit sharing, some sort of affiliation fees, or some

> >> other

> >> " arrangement " ).

> >>

> >> In summary, I think the theory is great but in the end the only people

> who

> >> will

> >> win are the Registry and those who get to jet around to do site visits,

> >> while it

> >> will not meet it's goals at all.

> >>

> >> Austin

> >>

> >>> Jane,

> >>>

> >>> I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive

> >> behind

> >>> the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in

> it?

> >>> Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

> >>> provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about

> this

> >>> issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd students

> >> into

> >>> academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

> >>> training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare script

> >> them

> >>> here. LOL.

> >>>

> >>> Bob

> >>>

> >>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

> >>> texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

> >>>

> >>>>

> >>>> Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC

> last

> >>>> November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC

> >> equivalent in

> >>>> Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime

> in

> >> 2018

> >>>> to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able

> >> to

> >>>> test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

> >>>> current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program

> >> become

> >>>> nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

> >>>> something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157

> >> rule

> >>>> but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just

> >> based

> >>>> on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

> >>>> registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked

> for

> >> an

> >>>> extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did

> >> they

> >>>> give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

> >>>>

> >>>> The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

> >>>> testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the

> >> date in

> >>>> 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

> >>>>

> >>>> Interesting...

> >>>>

> >>>> Jane Dinsmore

> >>>>

> >>>> To: texasems-l

> >>>> From: wes.ogilvie@...

> >>>> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> >>>> Subject: Another interesting bill

> >>>>

> >>>> HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This

> bill

> >>>> will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in

> >> Texas

> >>>> until 2018.

> >>>>

> >>>> There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> >>>> legislation regardless.

> >>>>

> >>>> -Wes Ogilvie

> >>>>

March 8, 2011

No Austin, " dinosaur status " reflects the inability to lace together ten

words when two are insufficient. LOL.

Bob

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:22 AM, B. Austin <

abaustin+yahoogroups@...> wrote:

>

> I guess with dinosaur status one also learns brevity, as I fumbled around

> looking for the same answer. Of course, I'm younger and stupider, and

> sometimes use ten words when two would have sufficed.

>

> Austin

>

> > I generally associate " quality " with clinical outcomes, rather than

> academic

> > settings, accreditation and elitism. Quality is what quality does.

> >

> > Bob

> > EMS Dinosaur

> >

> >>

> >> , being that I am director of a private EMS Education Program and

> >> possible

> >> one of thiose " puppy mills " I would like you to explain your idea of

> >> " quality "

> >> education. Do you mean college based programs? Do you mean COAEMSP

> >> accredited

> >> programs? Do you mean college based programs that are COAEMSP

> accredited? I

> >> am

> >> just wondering. Please explain.

> >>

> >> Eddie , EMT-P/EMSC

> >> Program Director

> >> Lefe EMS Academy

> >> El Paso, TX

> >>

> >> ________________________________

> >>

> >> To: texasems-l

> >> Sent: Tue, March 8, 2011 7:10:58 AM

> >> Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

> >>

> >> I don't know if you meant this for the list or not, nor was my opinion

> >> solicited, but I think the justification for the accreditation is to try

> to

> >>

> >> eliminate the for-profit " puppy mills " that churn out Paramedics that

> have

> >> limited knowledge and skills but some of whom can meet the bare minimums

> of

> >> the

> >> registry test. The assumption is that " quality " training organizations

> >> won't

> >> have much difficulty finding a hospital or legitimate educational

> >> institution to

> >> affiliate with.

> >>

> >> I agree 100% with the goal, however I see serious flaws with the

> execution.

> >> I

> >> think the expense of accreditation is going to be a real burden on the

> >> good/legitimate schools while will be little deterrent for a puppy mill.

> I

> >> think

> >> requiring affiliation with a " legitimate " and accredited organization is

> an

> >>

> >> excellent idea. I don't expect it will be difficult for organizations

> >> (particularly those with real needs, such as rural providers) to find

> >> someone to

> >> affiliate with (probably a hospital), particularly after they wrap their

> >> brain

> >> around the idea and communicate the necessity with those organizations.

> >> Again, I

> >> don't think it will be difficult for the mills to find an organization

> to

> >> work

> >> with (either by profit sharing, some sort of affiliation fees, or some

> >> other

> >> " arrangement " ).

> >>

> >> In summary, I think the theory is great but in the end the only people

> who

> >> will

> >> win are the Registry and those who get to jet around to do site visits,

> >> while it

> >> will not meet it's goals at all.

> >>

> >> Austin

> >>

> >>> Jane,

> >>>

> >>> I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive

> >> behind

> >>> the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in

> it?

> >>> Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

> >>> provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about

> this

> >>> issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd students

> >> into

> >>> academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

> >>> training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare script

> >> them

> >>> here. LOL.

> >>>

> >>> Bob

> >>>

> >>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

> >>> texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

> >>>

> >>>>

> >>>> Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC

> last

> >>>> November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC

> >> equivalent in

> >>>> Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime

> in

> >> 2018

> >>>> to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able

> >> to

> >>>> test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

> >>>> current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program

> >> become

> >>>> nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

> >>>> something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157

> >> rule

> >>>> but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just

> >> based

> >>>> on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

> >>>> registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked

> for

> >> an

> >>>> extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did

> >> they

> >>>> give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

> >>>>

> >>>> The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

> >>>> testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the

> >> date in

> >>>> 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

> >>>>

> >>>> Interesting...

> >>>>

> >>>> Jane Dinsmore

> >>>>

> >>>> To: texasems-l

> >>>> From: wes.ogilvie@...

> >>>> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> >>>> Subject: Another interesting bill

> >>>>

> >>>> HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This

> bill

> >>>> will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in

> >> Texas

> >>>> until 2018.

> >>>>

> >>>> There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> >>>> legislation regardless.

> >>>>

> >>>> -Wes Ogilvie

> >>>>

March 8, 2011

Jane,

I can't say I know anything about your school other then what I got from a

glance at your website, however from that I now certainly understand why the

question was addressed to you.

Whenever you try to do something " outside the box " one of the consequences that

you need to accept (as it sounds like you understand) is that easy things will

be difficult and difficult things are nearly impossible. I have huge concerns

with the online delivery of P-school, and I'm guessing that many of " my "

concerns were had by others who designed the accreditation process. While online

delivery may be beneficial in your specific case, especially since you/your

school seems to be well respected and with good outcomes, but would you deny the

abuse potential of that system for a school that cares little about their

product and only about their bottom line? And that's ignoring the economic

pressures of running any 'medic school in general. I've watched even great

schools " try a little harder " to help students get to graduation, or waive

prerequisite requirements because students were " close " .

That's not to say that " traditional " schools will have better outcomes or do a

better job teaching, nor that there is less room for abuse, but because it 'fits

the norm', it is easier to evaluate the program. Online education may be the

future in many ways, but right now traditional methods are better understood,

with potentially better metrics and ability to judge quality of education

delivered.

To be honest though, I am solidly biased in favor of traditional education

formats, so I'm not as open-minded as I should be, however this is a product of

my personal experience both from distance learning education as well as in

traditional programs/schools.

Austin

>

> Austin, I hate to burst your bubble but that process is not NEAR as easy as

your portray it to be. We ARE a legitimate company with an excellent reputation.

It took us MONTHS of back and forth with various organizations before we finally

came up with one to sponsor because most accredited schools (and even hospitals

and such) are reluctant to step outside of their box and be responsible for

monitoring anyone else in a formal contract or agreement. In fact, I would say

it took us about a year and a half to finally find sponsors and get the

contracts in place just in the nick of time. It's not that easy. The expense for

the accrediation application itself isn't near the problem. The largest expense

is in preparing all of the documents,methods, procedures, and then preparing for

the site visit which so far has cost our company well over 2,000 man hours and

we aren't near finished yet. These man hours are NOT being spent educating

students or doing anything to really improve student outcomes. They are spent to

prepare processes and methods and such to show procedures, not outcomes.

>

> Jane Dinsmore, PERCOM

>

> > To: texasems-l

> > From: abaustin+yahoogroups@...

> > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 09:10:58 -0500

> > Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

> >

> > I don't know if you meant this for the list or not, nor was my opinion

solicited, but I think the justification for the accreditation is to try to

eliminate the for-profit " puppy mills " that churn out Paramedics that have

limited knowledge and skills but some of whom can meet the bare minimums of the

registry test. The assumption is that " quality " training organizations won't

have much difficulty finding a hospital or legitimate educational institution to

affiliate with.

> >

> > I agree 100% with the goal, however I see serious flaws with the execution.

I think the expense of accreditation is going to be a real burden on the

good/legitimate schools while will be little deterrent for a puppy mill. I think

requiring affiliation with a " legitimate " and accredited organization is an

excellent idea. I don't expect it will be difficult for organizations

(particularly those with real needs, such as rural providers) to find someone to

affiliate with (probably a hospital), particularly after they wrap their brain

around the idea and communicate the necessity with those organizations. Again, I

don't think it will be difficult for the mills to find an organization to work

with (either by profit sharing, some sort of affiliation fees, or some other

" arrangement " ).

> >

> > In summary, I think the theory is great but in the end the only people who

will win are the Registry and those who get to jet around to do site visits,

while it will not meet it's goals at all.

> >

> > Austin

> >

> > > Jane,

> > >

> > > I'm not trying to open " Pandora's Box " , but what is the real motive behind

> > > the " national accreditation " movement and Bill Brown's involvement in it?

> > > Couldn't this pose as a serious impediment for rural and wilderness

> > > provider's access to EMS training programs? I know very little about this

> > > issue, but on first glance it appears to be an attempt to herd students

into

> > > academic centers, and away from non-academic-based or privately funded

> > > training programs. I'd like to know your thoughts - if you dare script

them

> > > here. LOL.

> > >

> > > Bob

> > >

> > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Jane Dinsmore

> > > texas.paramedic@...>wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Reallllllllyyyyy...... Wow, that brings up the discussion at GETAC last

> > > > November where the guy from Ohio said that their group (GETAC equivalent

in

> > > > Ohio I think) just called NR and asked and were given until sometime in

2018

> > > > to meet the NR requirements and that folks in Ohio will still be able to

> > > > test and register through NR until then. And by the way, there IS no

> > > > current requirement in rule in Texas that any EMS education program

become

> > > > nationally accredited. Seems funny to introduce legislation to stop

> > > > something that is not currently in rule. It SHOULD be in the TAC 157

rule

> > > > but it isn't at all yet. Our " requirement " in Texas for this is just

based

> > > > on the fact that NR won't allow Paramedics from Texas to test for NR

> > > > registration after the date in 2013 because they haven't been asked for

an

> > > > extension to my knowledge. And if they HAVE been asked, then why did

they

> > > > give the state of Ohio an extension but not Texas?

> > > >

> > > > The bill also states in summary that the Department MUST find another

> > > > testing organization that WILL test our folks if NR won't until the date

in

> > > > 2018 when all our programs must be accredited.

> > > >

> > > > Interesting...

> > > >

> > > > Jane Dinsmore

> > > >

> > > > To: texasems-l

> > > > From: wes.ogilvie@...

> > > > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 13:23:00 +0000

> > > > Subject: Another interesting bill

> > > >

> > > > HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

> > > > will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in

Texas

> > > > until 2018.

> > > >

> > > > There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> > > > legislation regardless.

> > > >

> > > > -Wes Ogilvie

> > > >

March 8, 2011

The college doesn't want to outlay the costs to create a specialized

program that has a limited audience. If the smaller program closes, the

college simply doesn't offer the course and isn't out the capital

expenses.

Barry

Barry Sharp, MSHP, CHES

Tobacco Prevention & Control Program Coordinator

Substance Abuse Services Unit

Mental Health and Substance Abuse Division

________________________________

From: texasems-l [mailto:texasems-l ] On

Behalf Of spiband@...

Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 10:08 AM

To: texasems-l

Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

Austin,

Why would a college agree to affiliate with a smaller program when the

college knows that if the smaller program is forced to close the

students and the $$$ will come to the college. Think of it as state

sponsored elimination of the competition.

Dave

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Another interesting bill

> >

> > HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This

bill

> > will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in

Texas

> > until 2018.

> >

> > There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> > legislation regardless.

> >

> > -Wes Ogilvie

> >

March 8, 2011

The college doesn't want to outlay the costs to create a specialized

program that has a limited audience. If the smaller program closes, the

college simply doesn't offer the course and isn't out the capital

expenses.

Barry

Barry Sharp, MSHP, CHES

Tobacco Prevention & Control Program Coordinator

Substance Abuse Services Unit

Mental Health and Substance Abuse Division

________________________________

From: texasems-l [mailto:texasems-l ] On

Behalf Of spiband@...

Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 10:08 AM

To: texasems-l

Subject: Re: Another interesting bill

Austin,

Why would a college agree to affiliate with a smaller program when the

college knows that if the smaller program is forced to close the

students and the $$$ will come to the college. Think of it as state

sponsored elimination of the competition.

Dave

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Another interesting bill

> >

> > HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This

bill

> > will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in

Texas

> > until 2018.

> >

> > There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> > legislation regardless.

> >

> > -Wes Ogilvie

> >

March 8, 2011

False dilemma. You aren't required to affiliate with a college, but could

instead affiliate with a JCAHO-accredited hospital that also has another

accredited health program, or graduate medical education, per CoAEMSP. Now, I am

not wholly in favor of how specific they are in that, because it's a stupid way

to do business. " You can only have an accredited program if another accredited

program exists in your facility " creates a hideous chicken and egg problem, so

there is room for improvement.

Austin

> Austin,

>

> Why would a college agree to affiliate with a smaller program when the college

knows that if the smaller program is forced to close the students and the $$$

will come to the college. Think of it as state sponsored elimination of the

competition.

>

> Dave

> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

>

> Another interesting bill

> > >

> > > HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

> > > will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas

> > > until 2018.

> > >

> > > There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> > > legislation regardless.

> > >

> > > -Wes Ogilvie

> > >

March 8, 2011

False dilemma. You aren't required to affiliate with a college, but could

instead affiliate with a JCAHO-accredited hospital that also has another

accredited health program, or graduate medical education, per CoAEMSP. Now, I am

not wholly in favor of how specific they are in that, because it's a stupid way

to do business. " You can only have an accredited program if another accredited

program exists in your facility " creates a hideous chicken and egg problem, so

there is room for improvement.

Austin

> Austin,

>

> Why would a college agree to affiliate with a smaller program when the college

knows that if the smaller program is forced to close the students and the $$$

will come to the college. Think of it as state sponsored elimination of the

competition.

>

> Dave

> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

>

> Another interesting bill

> > >

> > > HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

> > > will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas

> > > until 2018.

> > >

> > > There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> > > legislation regardless.

> > >

> > > -Wes Ogilvie

> > >

March 8, 2011

Of course it's an attempt to herd students into academic centers and away from

non-academic-based or privately funded programs.

We all know who the proponents of that are and always have been and Bill Brown

is one. He argues well for his position, but I think he is wrong in some ways,

particularly about distance learning and hybrid learning and (insert other

" education babble terms here " ).

When we were debating the LP issue, the original intent was to sooner or later

require an Associate Degree for paramedics. I was heavily involved in those

discussions and was, at times, on both sides of the fence. It became obvious

during the discussion that such a requirement would hamper the deliver of

instruction to many areas of Texas, and the provision was dropped.

While I firmly believe that education enhances one's abilities in innumerable

ways, there is no reliable evidence for the premise that students from

nationally accredited programs do any better on NREMT exams or in actual

delivery of care than others do. Neither is there any evidence that an

associate degree makes any real difference in performance.

Immediately I will be flogged with the argument that Cardiologists should be

able to be home schooled. What I am saying is that content is everything and

that there are different ways to deliver content. We must develop ways to

identify good programs without concentrating upon campus location. Buildings

and landscaping only add so much.

What I believe but cannot prove through data except for success rates on NREMT

exams is that instructional content and good teaching make all the difference.

That can occur either because of or in spite of accreditation. Good teaching

cannot be done through reading Power Point slides and paragraphs from a

textbook. It cannot be accomplished through the use of a single text and a set

of questions developed solely from that text. Yet that is what too many

" instructors " do, both in college level classes and in firehouse bay classes.

Having been through several accreditation processes at the junior college level

both from the Southern Association of Colleges and Universities and from the

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, I can say that the accreditation

process to some degree does help one focus on one's program and can produce some

positive results; however, much of the process is the sort of paper shuffling

that has, in my judgment, resulted in the failure of delivery of real

instruction at all levels in American education.

Perhaps we need an EMS Tea Party to shake up our thinking. Nah...........that

would require turning off the TV. What could I have been thinking?

Gene Gandy

Another interesting bill

>

> HB 2369 has been filed in the Texas House of Representatives. This bill

> will attempt to delay the EMS education accreditation requirement in Texas

> until 2018.

>

> There are pros and cons to this, but it's interesting to read the

> legislation regardless.

>

> -Wes Ogilvie

>

March 8, 2011