Guest guest Posted July 1, 2011 Report Share Posted July 1, 2011 Yea it's TV's fault funny but my generation of EMSers (as in came in to the field in early 1980's) blame TV too. Two Guys from some west coast FIRE DEPARTMENT no less. Yep EMS is in the state it is due to TV. That or it is GWB's fault? Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/EMT-B/FSI/EMSI Freelance Consultant/Trainer/Author/Journalist/Fire Protection Consultant Training Program Manager, Fire and Safety Specialists, Inc. (www.fireandsafetyspecialsits.com) Technical Editor, Industrial Fire World (www.fireworld.com) LNMolino@... Lou@... (IFW/FSS Office) (IFW/FSS Fax) (Cell Phone) IFW/FSS Office Address: 540 Graham Road, College Station, Texas 77845 IFW/FSS Mailing Address: Post Office Box 9161, College Station, Texas 77842 In a message dated 7/1/2011 1:34:19 P.M. Central Daylight Time, summedic@... writes: Considering the rate of decline in potential EMS students, especially after this new Dennis Leary series, it shouldn't be too long from now. Sent from my iPhone McGee, EMT-P > Perhaps National should wait until all students, across the country, are in a lull or between classes, all at the same time, so that they don't need to use thier critical thinking skills to adapt to changes to appropriate standards. > > Pat Elmes > > > > > > > > I had no idea---- > > > > > > > > > > > > new NR skills sheets > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may have missed the post on here because I was gone to Europe for 3 > > > weeks but I asked around and other instructors and coordinators I spoke > > > with who I KNOW are on this list said they never saw anything posted > > > about this so here I go. I came back from Europe to see if NR had > > > posted the new skills sheet for Pediatric Respiratory Compromise for > > > all skills levels on their website yet and then opened a couple of > > > other skills sheets randomly that I needed to send to an instructor and > > > noticed that they were ALSO edited. So then I opened EVERY skills sheet > > > on the NR website under Practice Exam Information. Were you guys aware > > > that almost every skills sheet for BLS and Advanced has been edited in > > > some shape, form or fashion? To see which ones are edited to review, > > > open each one individually and look at the date in the lower right hand > > > column. All new sheets were edited either 05-11 or 06-11 - don't know > > > when they were posted. I am a Rep and STILL didn't know they were > > > posting almost ALL new/edited skills sheets, and I attended the webinar > > > for Reps in April - maybe I just missed that part??? I mean, I knew > > > they told us they were making lots of changes over the next few years, > > > and they told us they were adding new skills sheets but not that they > > > were editing everything now. New skills sheets for sure they told us > > > about are - > > > > > > Pediatric Respiratory Compromise > > > Cardiac Arrest with AED > > > Spinal Immobilization Supine (mandatory) > > > Two new in the Random Basic Skill as possibilities - Long Bone > > > Immobilization and Joint Immobilization > > > > > > I received my new NR Rep book but haven't opened it yet because I just > > > got back in the country but the fact that I was surprised when I went > > > to the website yet again means that I feel like many of you will be > > > surprised. But maybe I am wrong, and you guys knew all this because it > > > was all posted while I was gone and if so, I apologize for wasting your > > > time. > > > > > > Jane Dinsmore > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2011 Report Share Posted July 1, 2011 Many on this list couldn't give a flip but in fairness and out of respect for those at DSHS who might get inquiries regarding my comments, I have retired from the State of Texas and my comments and opinions are my own. I very much appreciated my 25 years with the state but have moved onto the National arena and am elated in my new area of EMS. Pat Elmes > > > > > > > > I had no idea---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new NR skills sheets > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I may have missed the post on here because I was gone to Europe for > 3 > > > > weeks but I asked around and other instructors and coordinators I > spoke > > > > with who I KNOW are on this list said they never saw anything posted > > > > about this so here I go. I came back from Europe to see if NR had > > > > posted the new skills sheet for Pediatric Respiratory Compromise for > > > > all skills levels on their website yet and then opened a couple of > > > > other skills sheets randomly that I needed to send to an instructor > and > > > > noticed that they were ALSO edited. So then I opened EVERY skills > sheet > > > > on the NR website under Practice Exam Information. Were you guys > aware > > > > that almost every skills sheet for BLS and Advanced has been edited > in > > > > some shape, form or fashion? To see which ones are edited to review, > > > > open each one individually and look at the date in the lower right > hand > > > > column. All new sheets were edited either 05-11 or 06-11 - don't > know > > > > when they were posted. I am a Rep and STILL didn't know they were > > > > posting almost ALL new/edited skills sheets, and I attended the > webinar > > > > for Reps in April - maybe I just missed that part??? I mean, I knew > > > > they told us they were making lots of changes over the next few > years, > > > > and they told us they were adding new skills sheets but not that > they > > > > were editing everything now. New skills sheets for sure they told us > > > > about are - > > > > > > > > Pediatric Respiratory Compromise > > > > Cardiac Arrest with AED > > > > Spinal Immobilization Supine (mandatory) > > > > Two new in the Random Basic Skill as possibilities - Long Bone > > > > Immobilization and Joint Immobilization > > > > > > > > I received my new NR Rep book but haven't opened it yet because I > just > > > > got back in the country but the fact that I was surprised when I > went > > > > to the website yet again means that I feel like many of you will be > > > > surprised. But maybe I am wrong, and you guys knew all this because > it > > > > was all posted while I was gone and if so, I apologize for wasting > your > > > > time. > > > > > > > > Jane Dinsmore > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2011 Report Share Posted July 1, 2011 I don't typically think about the " BLS " sheets much except for the ones that are used specifically for NR since many programs in Texas use their own approved BLS sheets that are not necessarily " NR " generated since they don't have to. Jane Dinsmore To: texasems-l From: mtgrill@... Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:33:49 -0600 Subject: RE: new NR skills sheets Yep - see 'em on the ALS sheets but not the BLS sheets. Thanks. Mg new NR skills sheets I may have missed the post on here because I was gone to Europe for 3 weeks but I asked around and other instructors and coordinators I spoke with who I KNOW are on this list said they never saw anything posted about this so here I go. I came back from Europe to see if NR had posted the new skills sheet for Pediatric Respiratory Compromise for all skills levels on their website yet and then opened a couple of other skills sheets randomly that I needed to send to an instructor and noticed that they were ALSO edited. So then I opened EVERY skills sheet on the NR website under Practice Exam Information. Were you guys aware that almost every skills sheet for BLS and Advanced has been edited in some shape, form or fashion? To see which ones are edited to review, open each one individually and look at the date in the lower right hand column. All new sheets were edited either 05-11 or 06-11 - don't know when they were posted. I am a Rep and STILL didn't know they were posting almost ALL new/edited skills sheets, and I attended the webinar for Reps in April - maybe I just missed that part??? I mean, I knew they told us they were making lots of changes over the next few years, and they told us they were adding new skills sheets but not that they were editing everything now. New skills sheets for sure they told us about are - Pediatric Respiratory Compromise Cardiac Arrest with AED Spinal Immobilization Supine (mandatory) Two new in the Random Basic Skill as possibilities - Long Bone Immobilization and Joint Immobilization I received my new NR Rep book but haven't opened it yet because I just got back in the country but the fact that I was surprised when I went to the website yet again means that I feel like many of you will be surprised. But maybe I am wrong, and you guys knew all this because it was all posted while I was gone and if so, I apologize for wasting your time. Jane Dinsmore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2011 Report Share Posted July 1, 2011 I think you guys missed my point all together. It didn't make any difference what was in or not in the webinar I attended (and I made constant notes of almost everything that was said and didn't hear anything that said that almost all of the advanced skills sheets would be changed and posted in May and June of this year; only that the new Cardiac Arrest and AED and the new Pediatric Respiratory Compromise sheets would be posted by then). Of course, who knows? I could have dozed off since I AM a dinosaur now. What DOES make a difference is what several of these other people have posted about the masses - whether it be consumers, instructors who teach those consumers, whatever... they need to have some notification. I am actually helping teach an Intermediate class right now and being in the middle of the class and discovering many of the skills sheets are slightly different that when we started in April shows the problem. The comment was made about instructor responsibility in checking the sheets but I tend to agree that it is unfair to think that a " good " instructor should check the website before, in the middle of, and again near the end of a class to see if anything has changed by opening each individual skills sheet to look for a date change is highly unfair to expect of anyone when simple communications would solve that problem. Checking before a class, yes, but the rest of the class on and off is just pushing things a little too far, don't you think? Many instructors teach full time or part time at various class levels, respond to EMS and fire calls and even work full time or part time EMS or fire shifts, are taking classes or degree programs themselves, have other jobs to be able to afford to feed their families, and have families to care for with all the responsibilities that entails. I believe myself a very good instructor, and if I was the average instructor (and not a Rep with a new Rep book), I could have easily been caught unawares and thereby led my students (the consumers) astray totally inadvertantly and not due to being a poor instructor. Folks, it is easy to lose sight of the problem trying to point fingers at each other as to why WE are at fault. Yes, instructors and coordinators have a certain amount of responsibility and SHOULD check the website for changes. Even students have a certain amount of responsibility to check to be sure they have all the correct items before they test. HOWEVER, it would solve the problem to push NR to PLEASE send notifications to the state EMS departments for distribution through their channels to the masses in their states, to put a LARGE notice on the main page of their OWN website for a reasonable period of time about new changes, to send emails to all of the registered account holders on their site, to put a large notice on the front page of all accounts so that it is noticeable when they sign in (ranging from candidate accounts to program director accounts, to Rep accounts), to putting the updated date each time in the link posted for each sheet to show the last time something was updated. None of these items is difficult and are extremely cost effective and would show the masses that NR is concerned about their customer base. Jane Dinsmore To: texasems-l From: harpdude59@... Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 17:39:08 +0000 Subject: Re: new NR skills sheets Well said, . Pat Elmes > > > > I had no idea---- > > > > > > > > new NR skills sheets > > > > > > > > > > > > I may have missed the post on here because I was gone to Europe for 3 > > weeks but I asked around and other instructors and coordinators I spoke > > with who I KNOW are on this list said they never saw anything posted > > about this so here I go. I came back from Europe to see if NR had > > posted the new skills sheet for Pediatric Respiratory Compromise for > > all skills levels on their website yet and then opened a couple of > > other skills sheets randomly that I needed to send to an instructor and > > noticed that they were ALSO edited. So then I opened EVERY skills sheet > > on the NR website under Practice Exam Information. Were you guys aware > > that almost every skills sheet for BLS and Advanced has been edited in > > some shape, form or fashion? To see which ones are edited to review, > > open each one individually and look at the date in the lower right hand > > column. All new sheets were edited either 05-11 or 06-11 - don't know > > when they were posted. I am a Rep and STILL didn't know they were > > posting almost ALL new/edited skills sheets, and I attended the webinar > > for Reps in April - maybe I just missed that part??? I mean, I knew > > they told us they were making lots of changes over the next few years, > > and they told us they were adding new skills sheets but not that they > > were editing everything now. New skills sheets for sure they told us > > about are - > > > > Pediatric Respiratory Compromise > > Cardiac Arrest with AED > > Spinal Immobilization Supine (mandatory) > > Two new in the Random Basic Skill as possibilities - Long Bone > > Immobilization and Joint Immobilization > > > > I received my new NR Rep book but haven't opened it yet because I just > > got back in the country but the fact that I was surprised when I went > > to the website yet again means that I feel like many of you will be > > surprised. But maybe I am wrong, and you guys knew all this because it > > was all posted while I was gone and if so, I apologize for wasting your > > time. > > > > Jane Dinsmore > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2011 Report Share Posted July 2, 2011 Kenny, How often must a coordinator or instructor look for updates? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? Quarterly? What would you consider to be due diligence by an instructor? Since I started my current courses NREMT has changed skill sheets twice, both times without notice. And yes, I do have my students download the NREMT skill sheets at the beginning of the course. But once they have done that, then should they, also, recheck again and again? Does the NREMT have NO duty to its " customers " other than to provide exams and testing, for a fee? HIstory shows that when monopolies exist, arrogance and bad customer service result. I personally feel that I get very little in return for my mandatory NREMT certifications. I agree that ultimate responsibility lies with the individual for staying up with standards and preparing for exams and skill testing. But for the money we pay NREMT, we're being short-changed. Their written exam does not reflect current standards in many ways (and I just took it a few months ago), and neither do the skill exams. So what do we get for our money? Guaranteed reciprocity? Nope. An exam process that's meaningful? Nope? A professional organization that works for the improvement of EMS? Hardly. I consider passing NREMT to be a rather meaningless exercise. It does serve as a threshold for elimination of a certain number of unqualified candidates, I admit, but those folks never should have reached point of NREMT testing to begin with. What we get is a delegation of the State's duty to do what it has the legal duty to do but cannot because of budget constraints. I don't blame DSHS for what the legislature has done to it budget-wise. I do blame it for blasting into NREMT land without following proper procedures and allowing public input on alternatives, of which there are many. And, BTW, I attended an in-person briefing here in Tucson last fall by a member of NREMT's staff about the changes that were being contemplated. There was much productive discussion about what needed to be done, but NOT ONE WORD of WHEN new skill sheets would be implemented or even what the projected time-line was. So I continue to say that NREMT has breached its duty to its constituents and call for it to measure up and at least use currently available and inexpensive measures to notify its constituents of significant changes in its policies and procedures. If politicians can notify me by email every time they sneeze, then NREMT could at least send a message: Check for new skill sheets, now at our website for downloading. That's all it would have taken. Gene Gandy Tucson Re: new NR skills sheets >>> That's fine, but how does that get out to the thousands of NREMT constituents (certificate holders) and educators who were not in the loop? Are the NR reps required to disseminate this to everybody? <<< Probably not any more required than the AHA is required to meet with EMS instructors and students ... or the Traumatic Brain Foundation ... or the PHTLS folks (NAEMT) ... or ... Perhaps the responsibility for preparing students for the testing phases lies with their instructors. Maybe instructors should be more proactive about updating their program before each class starts. At a minimum, the instuctor could have the student download the skill sheets directly from the NREMT website before the skills lab. In my opinion, the fact that individual instructors are unaware of changes in content and testing standards says more about the instructor than about the NREMT. When commented about NREMT accountability, I interpreted his remarks as an admission that, if he had a question about testing standards or procedures, he would just pick up the phone and call them. I admire instructors who work to keep themselves (and their students) current. Perhaps the NREMT could save themselves from a barraige of phone calls by communicating more clearly. But, we could make the same argument about any organization, instructor, or individual. Kenny Navarro Dallas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2011 Report Share Posted July 3, 2011 On Friday, July 1, 2011 02:00, " Wegandy " wegandy@...> said: > At one time, before Texas became a NREMT state, it was virtually impossible for a > Texas EMT or Paramedic to pass a NREMT skill exam. There were no NR reps in > Texas, so one had to go to Louisiana or Oklahoma to take the exams, and nobody > ever passed the first time. It was, to put it bluntly, a scam. Keep 'em coming > back and charge them the fees for retest. To be perfectly fair, I can't say that > there was a connection between the practices of the local examiners in those > states and NREMT. I suspect that there was not, but nevertheless, NREMT closed > its eyes to it. The folks at the top of NREMT will deny that this ever existed, > and so be it. Preach on, Gene. I guess more people noticed than I had thought. It was very definitely a scam. And those at the top did a consistent-but-unconvincing job of playing dumb. If it wasn't a collaboration with local examiners, then the local examiners were simply stupider than they seemed. Not that I doubt that possibility. Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2011 Report Share Posted July 3, 2011 On Friday, July 1, 2011 02:00, " Wegandy " wegandy@...> said: > At one time, before Texas became a NREMT state, it was virtually impossible for a > Texas EMT or Paramedic to pass a NREMT skill exam. There were no NR reps in > Texas, so one had to go to Louisiana or Oklahoma to take the exams, and nobody > ever passed the first time. It was, to put it bluntly, a scam. Keep 'em coming > back and charge them the fees for retest. To be perfectly fair, I can't say that > there was a connection between the practices of the local examiners in those > states and NREMT. I suspect that there was not, but nevertheless, NREMT closed > its eyes to it. The folks at the top of NREMT will deny that this ever existed, > and so be it. Preach on, Gene. I guess more people noticed than I had thought. It was very definitely a scam. And those at the top did a consistent-but-unconvincing job of playing dumb. If it wasn't a collaboration with local examiners, then the local examiners were simply stupider than they seemed. Not that I doubt that possibility. Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 I'm not aware of budget restraints being the basis for the utilization of the National exam. It was done to put out a Paramedic at least, to the minimum qualifications as the rest of the country. not to say they were not but there was no way to measure it. Something old time EMS seems to miss is " measurable standards " . The DSHS exam was neither measurable nor valid. It was not just a matter of hiring a person with a PhD. in education. A national test sampling makes it all the more valid. Now, whether or not they have good customer service or not may be an issue but the decision to use the exam was not a " sell out Pat Elmes > > > Kenny, > > > > > How often must a coordinator or instructor look for updates? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? Quarterly? What would you consider to be due diligence by an instructor? > > > Since I started my current courses NREMT has changed skill sheets twice, both times without notice. And yes, I do have my students download the NREMT skill sheets at the beginning of the course. But once they have done that, then should they, also, recheck again and again? Does the NREMT have NO duty to its " customers " other than to provide exams and testing, for a fee? > > > HIstory shows that when monopolies exist, arrogance and bad customer service result. I personally feel that I get very little in return for my mandatory NREMT certifications. > > > I agree that ultimate responsibility lies with the individual for staying up with standards and preparing for exams and skill testing. But for the money we pay NREMT, we're being short-changed. Their written exam does not reflect current standards in many ways (and I just took it a few months ago), and neither do the skill exams. So what do we get for our money? Guaranteed reciprocity? Nope. An exam process that's meaningful? Nope? A professional organization that works for the improvement of EMS? Hardly. I consider passing NREMT to be a rather meaningless exercise. It does serve as a threshold for elimination of a certain number of unqualified candidates, I admit, but those folks never should have reached point of NREMT testing to begin with. > > > What we get is a delegation of the State's duty to do what it has the legal duty to do but cannot because of budget constraints. I don't blame DSHS for what the legislature has done to it budget-wise. I do blame it for blasting into NREMT land without following proper procedures and allowing public input on alternatives, of which there are many. > > > And, BTW, I attended an in-person briefing here in Tucson last fall by a member of NREMT's staff about the changes that were being contemplated. There was much productive discussion about what needed to be done, but NOT ONE WORD of WHEN new skill sheets would be implemented or even what the projected time-line was. > > > So I continue to say that NREMT has breached its duty to its constituents and call for it to measure up and at least use currently available and inexpensive measures to notify its constituents of significant changes in its policies and procedures. If politicians can notify me by email every time they sneeze, then NREMT could at least send a message: Check for new skill sheets, now at our website for downloading. > > > That's all it would have taken. > > > Gene Gandy > Tucson > > > > > > Re: new NR skills sheets > > > > > > >>> That's fine, but how does that get out to the thousands of NREMT constituents (certificate holders) and educators who were not in the loop? Are the NR reps required to disseminate this to everybody? <<< > > Probably not any more required than the AHA is required to meet with EMS instructors and students ... or the Traumatic Brain Foundation ... or the PHTLS folks (NAEMT) ... or ... > > Perhaps the responsibility for preparing students for the testing phases lies with their instructors. Maybe instructors should be more proactive about updating their program before each class starts. At a minimum, the instuctor could have the student download the skill sheets directly from the NREMT website before the skills lab. In my opinion, the fact that individual instructors are unaware of changes in content and testing standards says more about the instructor than about the NREMT. > > When commented about NREMT accountability, I interpreted his remarks as an admission that, if he had a question about testing standards or procedures, he would just pick up the phone and call them. I admire instructors who work to keep themselves (and their students) current. > > Perhaps the NREMT could save themselves from a barraige of phone calls by communicating more clearly. But, we could make the same argument about any organization, instructor, or individual. > > Kenny Navarro > Dallas > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 I don't understand. Please forgive me if I am incorrect, as I have neither a PhD or a degree in education, but how can you say the old Texas EMS exam are neither measurable or valid. I could be wrong, but if someone can measure and compare say the multitude of college entrance exams such as the SAT, ACT, etc; I'm sure there is a way to compare those Texas exams against National Standard. I also thought that if a test was to be valid it's results had to be measurable, which I believe they should have been. Even if both of my non-educated assumptions are incorrect, then all that needed to be done was correct the question pool, but for God's sake, leave the testing structure as it is. Again, just my opinion. Sent from my iPhone McGee, EMT-P > I'm not aware of budget restraints being the basis for the utilization of the National exam. It was done to put out a Paramedic at least, to the minimum qualifications as the rest of the country. not to say they were not but there was no way to measure it. Something old time EMS seems to miss is " measurable standards " . The DSHS exam was neither measurable nor valid. It was not just a matter of hiring a person with a PhD. in education. A national test sampling makes it all the more valid. Now, whether or not they have good customer service or not may be an issue but the decision to use the exam was not a " sell out > > Pat Elmes > > > > > > > > Kenny, > > > > > > > > > > How often must a coordinator or instructor look for updates? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? Quarterly? What would you consider to be due diligence by an instructor? > > > > > > Since I started my current courses NREMT has changed skill sheets twice, both times without notice. And yes, I do have my students download the NREMT skill sheets at the beginning of the course. But once they have done that, then should they, also, recheck again and again? Does the NREMT have NO duty to its " customers " other than to provide exams and testing, for a fee? > > > > > > HIstory shows that when monopolies exist, arrogance and bad customer service result. I personally feel that I get very little in return for my mandatory NREMT certifications. > > > > > > I agree that ultimate responsibility lies with the individual for staying up with standards and preparing for exams and skill testing. But for the money we pay NREMT, we're being short-changed. Their written exam does not reflect current standards in many ways (and I just took it a few months ago), and neither do the skill exams. So what do we get for our money? Guaranteed reciprocity? Nope. An exam process that's meaningful? Nope? A professional organization that works for the improvement of EMS? Hardly. I consider passing NREMT to be a rather meaningless exercise. It does serve as a threshold for elimination of a certain number of unqualified candidates, I admit, but those folks never should have reached point of NREMT testing to begin with. > > > > > > What we get is a delegation of the State's duty to do what it has the legal duty to do but cannot because of budget constraints. I don't blame DSHS for what the legislature has done to it budget-wise. I do blame it for blasting into NREMT land without following proper procedures and allowing public input on alternatives, of which there are many. > > > > > > And, BTW, I attended an in-person briefing here in Tucson last fall by a member of NREMT's staff about the changes that were being contemplated. There was much productive discussion about what needed to be done, but NOT ONE WORD of WHEN new skill sheets would be implemented or even what the projected time-line was. > > > > > > So I continue to say that NREMT has breached its duty to its constituents and call for it to measure up and at least use currently available and inexpensive measures to notify its constituents of significant changes in its policies and procedures. If politicians can notify me by email every time they sneeze, then NREMT could at least send a message: Check for new skill sheets, now at our website for downloading. > > > > > > That's all it would have taken. > > > > > > Gene Gandy > > Tucson > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: new NR skills sheets > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That's fine, but how does that get out to the thousands of NREMT constituents (certificate holders) and educators who were not in the loop? Are the NR reps required to disseminate this to everybody? <<< > > > > Probably not any more required than the AHA is required to meet with EMS instructors and students ... or the Traumatic Brain Foundation ... or the PHTLS folks (NAEMT) ... or ... > > > > Perhaps the responsibility for preparing students for the testing phases lies with their instructors. Maybe instructors should be more proactive about updating their program before each class starts. At a minimum, the instuctor could have the student download the skill sheets directly from the NREMT website before the skills lab. In my opinion, the fact that individual instructors are unaware of changes in content and testing standards says more about the instructor than about the NREMT. > > > > When commented about NREMT accountability, I interpreted his remarks as an admission that, if he had a question about testing standards or procedures, he would just pick up the phone and call them. I admire instructors who work to keep themselves (and their students) current. > > > > Perhaps the NREMT could save themselves from a barraige of phone calls by communicating more clearly. But, we could make the same argument about any organization, instructor, or individual. > > > > Kenny Navarro > > Dallas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 I don't understand. Please forgive me if I am incorrect, as I have neither a PhD or a degree in education, but how can you say the old Texas EMS exam are neither measurable or valid. I could be wrong, but if someone can measure and compare say the multitude of college entrance exams such as the SAT, ACT, etc; I'm sure there is a way to compare those Texas exams against National Standard. I also thought that if a test was to be valid it's results had to be measurable, which I believe they should have been. Even if both of my non-educated assumptions are incorrect, then all that needed to be done was correct the question pool, but for God's sake, leave the testing structure as it is. Again, just my opinion. Sent from my iPhone McGee, EMT-P > I'm not aware of budget restraints being the basis for the utilization of the National exam. It was done to put out a Paramedic at least, to the minimum qualifications as the rest of the country. not to say they were not but there was no way to measure it. Something old time EMS seems to miss is " measurable standards " . The DSHS exam was neither measurable nor valid. It was not just a matter of hiring a person with a PhD. in education. A national test sampling makes it all the more valid. Now, whether or not they have good customer service or not may be an issue but the decision to use the exam was not a " sell out > > Pat Elmes > > > > > > > > Kenny, > > > > > > > > > > How often must a coordinator or instructor look for updates? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? Quarterly? What would you consider to be due diligence by an instructor? > > > > > > Since I started my current courses NREMT has changed skill sheets twice, both times without notice. And yes, I do have my students download the NREMT skill sheets at the beginning of the course. But once they have done that, then should they, also, recheck again and again? Does the NREMT have NO duty to its " customers " other than to provide exams and testing, for a fee? > > > > > > HIstory shows that when monopolies exist, arrogance and bad customer service result. I personally feel that I get very little in return for my mandatory NREMT certifications. > > > > > > I agree that ultimate responsibility lies with the individual for staying up with standards and preparing for exams and skill testing. But for the money we pay NREMT, we're being short-changed. Their written exam does not reflect current standards in many ways (and I just took it a few months ago), and neither do the skill exams. So what do we get for our money? Guaranteed reciprocity? Nope. An exam process that's meaningful? Nope? A professional organization that works for the improvement of EMS? Hardly. I consider passing NREMT to be a rather meaningless exercise. It does serve as a threshold for elimination of a certain number of unqualified candidates, I admit, but those folks never should have reached point of NREMT testing to begin with. > > > > > > What we get is a delegation of the State's duty to do what it has the legal duty to do but cannot because of budget constraints. I don't blame DSHS for what the legislature has done to it budget-wise. I do blame it for blasting into NREMT land without following proper procedures and allowing public input on alternatives, of which there are many. > > > > > > And, BTW, I attended an in-person briefing here in Tucson last fall by a member of NREMT's staff about the changes that were being contemplated. There was much productive discussion about what needed to be done, but NOT ONE WORD of WHEN new skill sheets would be implemented or even what the projected time-line was. > > > > > > So I continue to say that NREMT has breached its duty to its constituents and call for it to measure up and at least use currently available and inexpensive measures to notify its constituents of significant changes in its policies and procedures. If politicians can notify me by email every time they sneeze, then NREMT could at least send a message: Check for new skill sheets, now at our website for downloading. > > > > > > That's all it would have taken. > > > > > > Gene Gandy > > Tucson > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: new NR skills sheets > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That's fine, but how does that get out to the thousands of NREMT constituents (certificate holders) and educators who were not in the loop? Are the NR reps required to disseminate this to everybody? <<< > > > > Probably not any more required than the AHA is required to meet with EMS instructors and students ... or the Traumatic Brain Foundation ... or the PHTLS folks (NAEMT) ... or ... > > > > Perhaps the responsibility for preparing students for the testing phases lies with their instructors. Maybe instructors should be more proactive about updating their program before each class starts. At a minimum, the instuctor could have the student download the skill sheets directly from the NREMT website before the skills lab. In my opinion, the fact that individual instructors are unaware of changes in content and testing standards says more about the instructor than about the NREMT. > > > > When commented about NREMT accountability, I interpreted his remarks as an admission that, if he had a question about testing standards or procedures, he would just pick up the phone and call them. I admire instructors who work to keep themselves (and their students) current. > > > > Perhaps the NREMT could save themselves from a barraige of phone calls by communicating more clearly. But, we could make the same argument about any organization, instructor, or individual. > > > > Kenny Navarro > > Dallas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 Pat, Thank you for your comments. I am glad that your muzzle is off and you have the ability to say what you want. It is quite refreshening. Thank you also for your years of service to EMS. It was not always a pleasure to work with you, but you were always fair and honorable. I hope we do as well with your replacement. Kenny Navarro Dallas > > I'm not aware of budget restraints being the basis for the utilization of the National exam. It was done to put out a Paramedic at least, to the minimum qualifications as the rest of the country. not to say they were not but there was no way to measure it. Something old time EMS seems to miss is " measurable standards " . The DSHS exam was neither measurable nor valid. It was not just a matter of hiring a person with a PhD. in education. A national test sampling makes it all the more valid. Now, whether or not they have good customer service or not may be an issue but the decision to use the exam was not a " sell out > > Pat Elmes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 I think you made my point. There was no testing structure. SAT's require a great deal of staff, expertise and research to accomplish an appropriate standardized exam. Texas was not willing to pour in the funds or resouces to accomplish the very suggestions that you make. (you are correct in your assertions) Utilizing the National exam was not a matter of " could not " develop our own, it just was not cost effective. My point to Gene was that the change was not made due to losing budget funds it was due to a lack of willingness to increase them. If you or others would like to have Texas writing its' own exam and wish to fulfill the criteria which you have set below, then be willing find revenue resources and/or raise taxes. > > > > > > > > > Kenny, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How often must a coordinator or instructor look for updates? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? Quarterly? What would you consider to be due diligence by an instructor? > > > > > > > > > Since I started my current courses NREMT has changed skill sheets twice, both times without notice. And yes, I do have my students download the NREMT skill sheets at the beginning of the course. But once they have done that, then should they, also, recheck again and again? Does the NREMT have NO duty to its " customers " other than to provide exams and testing, for a fee? > > > > > > > > > HIstory shows that when monopolies exist, arrogance and bad customer service result. I personally feel that I get very little in return for my mandatory NREMT certifications. > > > > > > > > > I agree that ultimate responsibility lies with the individual for staying up with standards and preparing for exams and skill testing. But for the money we pay NREMT, we're being short-changed. Their written exam does not reflect current standards in many ways (and I just took it a few months ago), and neither do the skill exams. So what do we get for our money? Guaranteed reciprocity? Nope. An exam process that's meaningful? Nope? A professional organization that works for the improvement of EMS? Hardly. I consider passing NREMT to be a rather meaningless exercise. It does serve as a threshold for elimination of a certain number of unqualified candidates, I admit, but those folks never should have reached point of NREMT testing to begin with. > > > > > > > > > What we get is a delegation of the State's duty to do what it has the legal duty to do but cannot because of budget constraints. I don't blame DSHS for what the legislature has done to it budget-wise. I do blame it for blasting into NREMT land without following proper procedures and allowing public input on alternatives, of which there are many. > > > > > > > > > And, BTW, I attended an in-person briefing here in Tucson last fall by a member of NREMT's staff about the changes that were being contemplated. There was much productive discussion about what needed to be done, but NOT ONE WORD of WHEN new skill sheets would be implemented or even what the projected time-line was. > > > > > > > > > So I continue to say that NREMT has breached its duty to its constituents and call for it to measure up and at least use currently available and inexpensive measures to notify its constituents of significant changes in its policies and procedures. If politicians can notify me by email every time they sneeze, then NREMT could at least send a message: Check for new skill sheets, now at our website for downloading. > > > > > > > > > That's all it would have taken. > > > > > > > > > Gene Gandy > > > Tucson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: new NR skills sheets > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That's fine, but how does that get out to the thousands of NREMT constituents (certificate holders) and educators who were not in the loop? Are the NR reps required to disseminate this to everybody? <<< > > > > > > Probably not any more required than the AHA is required to meet with EMS instructors and students ... or the Traumatic Brain Foundation ... or the PHTLS folks (NAEMT) ... or ... > > > > > > Perhaps the responsibility for preparing students for the testing phases lies with their instructors. Maybe instructors should be more proactive about updating their program before each class starts. At a minimum, the instuctor could have the student download the skill sheets directly from the NREMT website before the skills lab. In my opinion, the fact that individual instructors are unaware of changes in content and testing standards says more about the instructor than about the NREMT. > > > > > > When commented about NREMT accountability, I interpreted his remarks as an admission that, if he had a question about testing standards or procedures, he would just pick up the phone and call them. I admire instructors who work to keep themselves (and their students) current. > > > > > > Perhaps the NREMT could save themselves from a barraige of phone calls by communicating more clearly. But, we could make the same argument about any organization, instructor, or individual. > > > > > > Kenny Navarro > > > Dallas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2011 Report Share Posted July 5, 2011 Right back atcha Kenny. I'm not very far away. Cantact me at ACEP anytime. > > > > I'm not aware of budget restraints being the basis for the utilization of the National exam. It was done to put out a Paramedic at least, to the minimum qualifications as the rest of the country. not to say they were not but there was no way to measure it. Something old time EMS seems to miss is " measurable standards " . The DSHS exam was neither measurable nor valid. It was not just a matter of hiring a person with a PhD. in education. A national test sampling makes it all the more valid. Now, whether or not they have good customer service or not may be an issue but the decision to use the exam was not a " sell out > > > > Pat Elmes > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 With all respect, there was a testing structure. The exams were developed by an ad hoc committee of which I was a member for a number of years. The questions were piloted and analyzed. Mr. Jarvis, now Dr. Jarvis, MD, was in charge of the program, and there were many active EMS educators involved in item writing. They were not amateurs. They were not ignorant of testing criteria. There were many career EMS educators involved in the process. The same process that the NREMT uses was employed in question writing, and it was just as effective if not more so. The process broke down when there was insufficient funding for the program to improve and expand. Some were afraid of lawsuits. They argued that NREMT had the expertise to defend where the State of Texas did not. They were dazzled by NREMT's assertions that its exams were fully validated and that they could prevail in any challenge. This was specious thinking since Texas is defended by the Attorney General, and the resources of Texas are at least equal to those of NREMT. Put simply, TDH just wanted to get rid of testing at a time when all agencies were downsizing. When you compare SATs and a state exam, it's comparing apples and oranges. According to your reasoning, Pat, no instructor's exams in any program, any high school, any college, or any university, are valid since they are not given to a large number of subjects nationally. If it were true, most of the exams given in EMT/Paramedic courses in Texas are invalid. Even the " canned " test banks that come with some of the texts can't meet your standards. You contradict yourself when you say first that Texas was not willing to pour in the funds or resources to accomplish the {development of a validated exam} but then you say that developing a Texas based exam was NOT made due to losing budget funds. You say that it was due to lack of willingness to increase them. That's true, but the lack of willingness was on the part of the legislature, not what was then TDH. TDH responded to the budget cuts in a way that was expedient but not good. I said that NREMT was chosen because of a lack of funding for a state-run exam program, and you have just agreed with me. I further said that the choice of NREMT was done outside the normal contracting process, and I stand by that until proved wrong by documents and facts. I do not know of any RFP that was promulgated by TDH for testing. If there is a formal contract with NREMT, I have not been able to discover it. The choice of NREMT was done in " panic mode " and outside the normal processes. I challenge you to refute this with facts and documents. I challenge you to provide information that shows that any other vendor than NREMT was given an opportunity to bid on the exam process. I may soon file an open records request for all documents and correspondence relative to this process, and we'll see what turns up. If there is a valid contract with NREMT, entered into through the legal processes prescribed by state law, then I call upon the appropriate people at DSHS to make it public. If there is not, then I ask, why not? This is not personal. This is debate. Gene Gandy, JD, LP, NREMT-P Tucson, AZ But still a Texan at heart. Re: new NR skills sheets > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That's fine, but how does that get out to the thousands of NREMT constituents (certificate holders) and educators who were not in the loop? Are the NR reps required to disseminate this to everybody? <<< > > > > > > Probably not any more required than the AHA is required to meet with EMS instructors and students ... or the Traumatic Brain Foundation ... or the PHTLS folks (NAEMT) ... or ... > > > > > > Perhaps the responsibility for preparing students for the testing phases lies with their instructors. Maybe instructors should be more proactive about updating their program before each class starts. At a minimum, the instuctor could have the student download the skill sheets directly from the NREMT website before the skills lab. In my opinion, the fact that individual instructors are unaware of changes in content and testing standards says more about the instructor than about the NREMT. > > > > > > When commented about NREMT accountability, I interpreted his remarks as an admission that, if he had a question about testing standards or procedures, he would just pick up the phone and call them. I admire instructors who work to keep themselves (and their students) current. > > > > > > Perhaps the NREMT could save themselves from a barraige of phone calls by communicating more clearly. But, we could make the same argument about any organization, instructor, or individual. > > > > > > Kenny Navarro > > > Dallas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 With all respect, there was a testing structure. The exams were developed by an ad hoc committee of which I was a member for a number of years. The questions were piloted and analyzed. Mr. Jarvis, now Dr. Jarvis, MD, was in charge of the program, and there were many active EMS educators involved in item writing. They were not amateurs. They were not ignorant of testing criteria. There were many career EMS educators involved in the process. The same process that the NREMT uses was employed in question writing, and it was just as effective if not more so. The process broke down when there was insufficient funding for the program to improve and expand. Some were afraid of lawsuits. They argued that NREMT had the expertise to defend where the State of Texas did not. They were dazzled by NREMT's assertions that its exams were fully validated and that they could prevail in any challenge. This was specious thinking since Texas is defended by the Attorney General, and the resources of Texas are at least equal to those of NREMT. Put simply, TDH just wanted to get rid of testing at a time when all agencies were downsizing. When you compare SATs and a state exam, it's comparing apples and oranges. According to your reasoning, Pat, no instructor's exams in any program, any high school, any college, or any university, are valid since they are not given to a large number of subjects nationally. If it were true, most of the exams given in EMT/Paramedic courses in Texas are invalid. Even the " canned " test banks that come with some of the texts can't meet your standards. You contradict yourself when you say first that Texas was not willing to pour in the funds or resources to accomplish the {development of a validated exam} but then you say that developing a Texas based exam was NOT made due to losing budget funds. You say that it was due to lack of willingness to increase them. That's true, but the lack of willingness was on the part of the legislature, not what was then TDH. TDH responded to the budget cuts in a way that was expedient but not good. I said that NREMT was chosen because of a lack of funding for a state-run exam program, and you have just agreed with me. I further said that the choice of NREMT was done outside the normal contracting process, and I stand by that until proved wrong by documents and facts. I do not know of any RFP that was promulgated by TDH for testing. If there is a formal contract with NREMT, I have not been able to discover it. The choice of NREMT was done in " panic mode " and outside the normal processes. I challenge you to refute this with facts and documents. I challenge you to provide information that shows that any other vendor than NREMT was given an opportunity to bid on the exam process. I may soon file an open records request for all documents and correspondence relative to this process, and we'll see what turns up. If there is a valid contract with NREMT, entered into through the legal processes prescribed by state law, then I call upon the appropriate people at DSHS to make it public. If there is not, then I ask, why not? This is not personal. This is debate. Gene Gandy, JD, LP, NREMT-P Tucson, AZ But still a Texan at heart. Re: new NR skills sheets > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That's fine, but how does that get out to the thousands of NREMT constituents (certificate holders) and educators who were not in the loop? Are the NR reps required to disseminate this to everybody? <<< > > > > > > Probably not any more required than the AHA is required to meet with EMS instructors and students ... or the Traumatic Brain Foundation ... or the PHTLS folks (NAEMT) ... or ... > > > > > > Perhaps the responsibility for preparing students for the testing phases lies with their instructors. Maybe instructors should be more proactive about updating their program before each class starts. At a minimum, the instuctor could have the student download the skill sheets directly from the NREMT website before the skills lab. In my opinion, the fact that individual instructors are unaware of changes in content and testing standards says more about the instructor than about the NREMT. > > > > > > When commented about NREMT accountability, I interpreted his remarks as an admission that, if he had a question about testing standards or procedures, he would just pick up the phone and call them. I admire instructors who work to keep themselves (and their students) current. > > > > > > Perhaps the NREMT could save themselves from a barraige of phone calls by communicating more clearly. But, we could make the same argument about any organization, instructor, or individual. > > > > > > Kenny Navarro > > > Dallas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 Nope, more simply put, you get what you pay for. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kenny, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How often must a coordinator or instructor look for updates? Daily? Weekly? > >Monthly? Quarterly? What would you consider to be due diligence by an > >instructor? > > > > > > > > > > > > Since I started my current courses NREMT has changed skill sheets twice, > >both times without notice. And yes, I do have my students download the NREMT > >skill sheets at the beginning of the course. But once they have done that, then > >should they, also, recheck again and again? Does the NREMT have NO duty to its > > " customers " other than to provide exams and testing, for a fee? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > HIstory shows that when monopolies exist, arrogance and bad customer > >service result. I personally feel that I get very little in return for my > >mandatory NREMT certifications. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that ultimate responsibility lies with the individual for staying > >up with standards and preparing for exams and skill testing. But for the money > >we pay NREMT, we're being short-changed. Their written exam does not reflect > >current standards in many ways (and I just took it a few months ago), and > >neither do the skill exams. So what do we get for our money? Guaranteed > >reciprocity? Nope. An exam process that's meaningful? Nope? A professional > >organization that works for the improvement of EMS? Hardly. I consider passing > >NREMT to be a rather meaningless exercise. It does serve as a threshold for > >elimination of a certain number of unqualified candidates, I admit, but those > >folks never should have reached point of NREMT testing to begin with. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What we get is a delegation of the State's duty to do what it has the legal > >duty to do but cannot because of budget constraints. I don't blame DSHS for what > >the legislature has done to it budget-wise. I do blame it for blasting into > >NREMT land without following proper procedures and allowing public input on > >alternatives, of which there are many. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And, BTW, I attended an in-person briefing here in Tucson last fall by a > >member of NREMT's staff about the changes that were being contemplated. There > >was much productive discussion about what needed to be done, but NOT ONE WORD of > >WHEN new skill sheets would be implemented or even what the projected time-line > >was. > > > > > > > > > > > > So I continue to say that NREMT has breached its duty to its constituents > >and call for it to measure up and at least use currently available and > >inexpensive measures to notify its constituents of significant changes in its > >policies and procedures. If politicians can notify me by email every time they > >sneeze, then NREMT could at least send a message: Check for new skill sheets, > >now at our website for downloading. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's all it would have taken. > > > > > > > > > > > > Gene Gandy > > > > Tucson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: new NR skills sheets > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That's fine, but how does that get out to the thousands of NREMT > >constituents (certificate holders) and educators who were not in the loop? Are > >the NR reps required to disseminate this to everybody? <<< > > > > > > > > Probably not any more required than the AHA is required to meet with EMS > >instructors and students ... or the Traumatic Brain Foundation ... or the PHTLS > >folks (NAEMT) ... or ... > > > > > > > > Perhaps the responsibility for preparing students for the testing phases > >lies with their instructors. Maybe instructors should be more proactive about > >updating their program before each class starts. At a minimum, the instuctor > >could have the student download the skill sheets directly from the NREMT website > >before the skills lab. In my opinion, the fact that individual instructors are > >unaware of changes in content and testing standards says more about the > >instructor than about the NREMT. > > > > > > > > When commented about NREMT accountability, I interpreted his remarks > >as an admission that, if he had a question about testing standards or > >procedures, he would just pick up the phone and call them. I admire instructors > >who work to keep themselves (and their students) current. > > > > > > > > Perhaps the NREMT could save themselves from a barraige of phone calls by > >communicating more clearly. But, we could make the same argument about any > >organization, instructor, or individual. > > > > > > > > Kenny Navarro > > > > Dallas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 Sent from my LG phone harpdude59@...> wrote: Nope, more simply put, you get what you pay for. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kenny, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How often must a coordinator or instructor look for updates? Daily? Weekly? > >Monthly? Quarterly? What would you consider to be due diligence by an > >instructor? > > > > > > > > > > > > Since I started my current courses NREMT has changed skill sheets twice, > >both times without notice. And yes, I do have my students download the NREMT > >skill sheets at the beginning of the course. But once they have done that, then > >should they, also, recheck again and again? Does the NREMT have NO duty to its > > " customers " other than to provide exams and testing, for a fee? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > HIstory shows that when monopolies exist, arrogance and bad customer > >service result. I personally feel that I get very little in return for my > >mandatory NREMT certifications. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that ultimate responsibility lies with the individual for staying > >up with standards and preparing for exams and skill testing. But for the money > >we pay NREMT, we're being short-changed. Their written exam does not reflect > >current standards in many ways (and I just took it a few months ago), and > >neither do the skill exams. So what do we get for our money? Guaranteed > >reciprocity? Nope. An exam process that's meaningful? Nope? A professional > >organization that works for the improvement of EMS? Hardly. I consider passing > >NREMT to be a rather meaningless exercise. It does serve as a threshold for > >elimination of a certain number of unqualified candidates, I admit, but those > >folks never should have reached point of NREMT testing to begin with. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What we get is a delegation of the State's duty to do what it has the legal > >duty to do but cannot because of budget constraints. I don't blame DSHS for what > >the legislature has done to it budget-wise. I do blame it for blasting into > >NREMT land without following proper procedures and allowing public input on > >alternatives, of which there are many. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And, BTW, I attended an in-person briefing here in Tucson last fall by a > >member of NREMT's staff about the changes that were being contemplated. There > >was much productive discussion about what needed to be done, but NOT ONE WORD of > >WHEN new skill sheets would be implemented or even what the projected time-line > >was. > > > > > > > > > > > > So I continue to say that NREMT has breached its duty to its constituents > >and call for it to measure up and at least use currently available and > >inexpensive measures to notify its constituents of significant changes in its > >policies and procedures. If politicians can notify me by email every time they > >sneeze, then NREMT could at least send a message: Check for new skill sheets, > >now at our website for downloading. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's all it would have taken. > > > > > > > > > > > > Gene Gandy > > > > Tucson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: new NR skills sheets > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That's fine, but how does that get out to the thousands of NREMT > >constituents (certificate holders) and educators who were not in the loop? Are > >the NR reps required to disseminate this to everybody? <<< > > > > > > > > Probably not any more required than the AHA is required to meet with EMS > >instructors and students ... or the Traumatic Brain Foundation ... or the PHTLS > >folks (NAEMT) ... or ... > > > > > > > > Perhaps the responsibility for preparing students for the testing phases > >lies with their instructors. Maybe instructors should be more proactive about > >updating their program before each class starts. At a minimum, the instuctor > >could have the student download the skill sheets directly from the NREMT website > >before the skills lab. In my opinion, the fact that individual instructors are > >unaware of changes in content and testing standards says more about the > >instructor than about the NREMT. > > > > > > > > When commented about NREMT accountability, I interpreted his remarks > >as an admission that, if he had a question about testing standards or > >procedures, he would just pick up the phone and call them. I admire instructors > >who work to keep themselves (and their students) current. > > > > > > > > Perhaps the NREMT could save themselves from a barraige of phone calls by > >communicating more clearly. But, we could make the same argument about any > >organization, instructor, or individual. > > > > > > > > Kenny Navarro > > > > Dallas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 Just FYI, the exams rarley, were issued within the appropriate timeframes. Since the test item bank was fairly small, many exams were just reshuffling of old questions. When these delays occurred, some students and organizations were sytematically memorizing the questions and putting together actual copies. LOL All in good fun, Gene, I guess you are in the " size does matter " camp. (amount of folks on an Ad Hoc committee) [P.S. Gene and I have known each other since around '79 or so] I must agree with Eddie too and there was some improvement after the College took over but it was too little, too late. The exams now are more convenient to take, much cheaper to administer, larger item bank, properly analyzed, and statistically more valid based on national data vs. a single state. Even without the validity of the exam it standardizes EMS nationally and gives Texas equal footing with the rest of the country through both reciprocity and current nationally accepted standards. This is good for both Texas and the U.S. When Texas began with the national registry it took a little while for Texas to come up to National averages and not quite there in some areas. The National exam required that critical thinking became predominant and reduced the easy way out of teaching to an exam. Coupled with Accredidation, lets hope Texas can move beyond it's a reputation connected to a dismal record in public education (getting worse), to an outstanding example in EMS Education nationwide. We will at least, be involved in a standard that is measurable providing a platform for improvement. In the long run, this will advance the profession, put more money and opportunity in pockets of EMS certificants across the state. Ahh and yes, I hear the cry now, " higher tuition, have to pay them more, our standards here were always great (couldn't measure them but they had to have been), and they don't understand how we do things here " . So, I appreciate every opinion offered here. Believe me, I heard many over the years. There is certainly valid reasoning regarding some of the ways things could have been done better and how the The Registry can improve its process currently. I have and would love to hear some suggestions, as to how that process improvement can occur. I got one: Hire more people! or Subcontract a phone bank company to field and triage questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kenny, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How often must a coordinator or instructor look for updates? Daily? Weekly? > >Monthly? Quarterly? What would you consider to be due diligence by an > >instructor? > > > > > > > > > > > > Since I started my current courses NREMT has changed skill sheets twice, > >both times without notice. And yes, I do have my students download the NREMT > >skill sheets at the beginning of the course. But once they have done that, then > >should they, also, recheck again and again? Does the NREMT have NO duty to its > > " customers " other than to provide exams and testing, for a fee? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > HIstory shows that when monopolies exist, arrogance and bad customer > >service result. I personally feel that I get very little in return for my > >mandatory NREMT certifications. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that ultimate responsibility lies with the individual for staying > >up with standards and preparing for exams and skill testing. But for the money > >we pay NREMT, we're being short-changed. Their written exam does not reflect > >current standards in many ways (and I just took it a few months ago), and > >neither do the skill exams. So what do we get for our money? Guaranteed > >reciprocity? Nope. An exam process that's meaningful? Nope? A professional > >organization that works for the improvement of EMS? Hardly. I consider passing > >NREMT to be a rather meaningless exercise. It does serve as a threshold for > >elimination of a certain number of unqualified candidates, I admit, but those > >folks never should have reached point of NREMT testing to begin with. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What we get is a delegation of the State's duty to do what it has the legal > >duty to do but cannot because of budget constraints. I don't blame DSHS for what > >the legislature has done to it budget-wise. I do blame it for blasting into > >NREMT land without following proper procedures and allowing public input on > >alternatives, of which there are many. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And, BTW, I attended an in-person briefing here in Tucson last fall by a > >member of NREMT's staff about the changes that were being contemplated. There > >was much productive discussion about what needed to be done, but NOT ONE WORD of > >WHEN new skill sheets would be implemented or even what the projected time-line > >was. > > > > > > > > > > > > So I continue to say that NREMT has breached its duty to its constituents > >and call for it to measure up and at least use currently available and > >inexpensive measures to notify its constituents of significant changes in its > >policies and procedures. If politicians can notify me by email every time they > >sneeze, then NREMT could at least send a message: Check for new skill sheets, > >now at our website for downloading. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's all it would have taken. > > > > > > > > > > > > Gene Gandy > > > > Tucson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: new NR skills sheets > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That's fine, but how does that get out to the thousands of NREMT > >constituents (certificate holders) and educators who were not in the loop? Are > >the NR reps required to disseminate this to everybody? <<< > > > > > > > > Probably not any more required than the AHA is required to meet with EMS > >instructors and students ... or the Traumatic Brain Foundation ... or the PHTLS > >folks (NAEMT) ... or ... > > > > > > > > Perhaps the responsibility for preparing students for the testing phases > >lies with their instructors. Maybe instructors should be more proactive about > >updating their program before each class starts. At a minimum, the instuctor > >could have the student download the skill sheets directly from the NREMT website > >before the skills lab. In my opinion, the fact that individual instructors are > >unaware of changes in content and testing standards says more about the > >instructor than about the NREMT. > > > > > > > > When commented about NREMT accountability, I interpreted his remarks > >as an admission that, if he had a question about testing standards or > >procedures, he would just pick up the phone and call them. I admire instructors > >who work to keep themselves (and their students) current. > > > > > > > > Perhaps the NREMT could save themselves from a barraige of phone calls by > >communicating more clearly. But, we could make the same argument about any > >organization, instructor, or individual. > > > > > > > > Kenny Navarro > > > > Dallas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 While debating the pros and cons of EMS education in Texas, I ask you to think just how far ahead Texas is from most of the rest of the country in both EMS education and delivery. When I moved to AZ, I was shaken by the poor quality of EMS service in the state as a whole, and in EMS education as well. I had the opportunity to help improve that in small part at one community college, but the state as a whole remains in the EMS dark ages. And it is not alone. Since I now have a student base that spans the country and the world, I find out every day just how far ahead Texas is. Texas is not perfect by any means, but it's a whole lot closer to it than lots of other places. I attribute that in large measure to the fact that we do not have mandatory state protocols in Texas nor do we have a mandatory base hospital system. Those are the two worst aspects of EMS in Arizona and they kill any efforts to improve. Not long ago I encountered the nurse EMS coordinator at one of the big base hospitals here. We were talking about teaching airway management, and I asked her which of the supraglottic airways she liked. She said, The only one I know about is the Combitube. " I said, " How about the King? " She said, " What's that? " I explained it to her, and she cut me short with, " I have no need to know about that because it's not in protocol. " Now you get the idea. Never, for God's sake, let this happen in Texas. As for education as a whole, our schools are doing a miserable job of basic education overall. I have become quite adept at teaching basic arithmetic to my students who never learned it. How sad. I have seen the decline over the last 30 years, and it has been hard to watch. Gene G. Re: new NR skills sheets > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That's fine, but how does that get out to the thousands of NREMT > >constituents (certificate holders) and educators who were not in the loop? Are > >the NR reps required to disseminate this to everybody? <<< > > > > > > > > Probably not any more required than the AHA is required to meet with EMS > >instructors and students ... or the Traumatic Brain Foundation ... or the PHTLS > >folks (NAEMT) ... or ... > > > > > > > > Perhaps the responsibility for preparing students for the testing phases > >lies with their instructors. Maybe instructors should be more proactive about > >updating their program before each class starts. At a minimum, the instuctor > >could have the student download the skill sheets directly from the NREMT website > >before the skills lab. In my opinion, the fact that individual instructors are > >unaware of changes in content and testing standards says more about the > >instructor than about the NREMT. > > > > > > > > When commented about NREMT accountability, I interpreted his remarks > >as an admission that, if he had a question about testing standards or > >procedures, he would just pick up the phone and call them. I admire instructors > >who work to keep themselves (and their students) current. > > > > > > > > Perhaps the NREMT could save themselves from a barraige of phone calls by > >communicating more clearly. But, we could make the same argument about any > >organization, instructor, or individual. > > > > > > > > Kenny Navarro > > > > Dallas > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 On Monday, July 11, 2011 23:12, " Wegandy " wegandy@...> said: > I do understand that NREMT is dedicated to improving its skill evaluation > procedures, and I agree with what's being done there. That brings me to a problem I've always had with both the state and NR. If you fail a given number of skills stations, you're out. No second chances, even if you ace the written. But if you blow the written out your arse, you get all sorts of chances to remediate and retest. Insane. No wonder so many people spend a career thinking that EMS is all about monkey skills. Skills will always improve with proper training and practice. But you can't fix stupid. You can, as already pointed out, memorise more test answers though. Apparently, that's good enough. Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 I hope NREMT is trying to fix the " monkey skill " aspect of its skill testing scheme. Right now, with enough bananas, almost anyone should be able to pass. GG Re: Re: new NR skills sheets On Monday, July 11, 2011 23:12, " Wegandy " wegandy@...> said: > I do understand that NREMT is dedicated to improving its skill evaluation > procedures, and I agree with what's being done there. That brings me to a problem I've always had with both the state and NR. If you fail a given number of skills stations, you're out. No second chances, even if you ace the written. But if you blow the written out your arse, you get all sorts of chances to remediate and retest. Insane. No wonder so many people spend a career thinking that EMS is all about monkey skills. Skills will always improve with proper training and practice. But you can't fix stupid. You can, as already pointed out, memorise more test answers though. Apparently, that's good enough. Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 state mandates, national curricula, etc are only good if they function as *floors* and *minimal requirements.* Sadly, they are more often cast in stone as 'all that is acceptable' or 'all that is required.' ck In a message dated 07/12/11 10:08:21 Central Daylight Time, delbert@... writes: >>>we do not have mandatory state protocols in Texas<<< Be careful about what you wish for (if that's what you're wishing for). Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 >>> Texas is not perfect by any means, but it's a whole lot closer to it than lots of other places. <<< And probably further away still than other places. >>> I attribute that in large measure to the fact that we do not have mandatory state protocols in Texas nor do we have a mandatory base hospital system. Those are the two worst aspects of EMS in Arizona and they kill any efforts to improve. <<< Are you talking about education or operations? I don't know of any educational prohibition against advanced anatomy, physiology, pathophysiology, or alternative interventions. The only thing that prevents an instructor from introducing students to new concepts is inadequate instructor qualification and lack of preparation. But, that is what happens when you let third graders teach second grade. >>> " I have no need to know about that because it's not in protocol. " Now you get the idea. Never, for God's sake, let this happen in Texas. <<< That attitude is not unique to nurses or Arizona. Kenny Navarro Dallas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 >>>we do not have mandatory state protocols in Texas<<< Be careful about what you wish for (if that's what you're wishing for). Don >>> knavarro141 kenneth.navarro@...> 7/12/2011 8:08 AM >>> >>> Texas is not perfect by any means, but it's a whole lot closer to it than lots of other places. <<< And probably further away still than other places. >>> I attribute that in large measure to the fact that we do not have mandatory state protocols in Texas nor do we have a mandatory base hospital system. Those are the two worst aspects of EMS in Arizona and they kill any efforts to improve. <<< Are you talking about education or operations? I don't know of any educational prohibition against advanced anatomy, physiology, pathophysiology, or alternative interventions. The only thing that prevents an instructor from introducing students to new concepts is inadequate instructor qualification and lack of preparation. But, that is what happens when you let third graders teach second grade. >>> " I have no need to know about that because it's not in protocol. " Now you get the idea. Never, for God's sake, let this happen in Texas. <<< That attitude is not unique to nurses or Arizona. Kenny Navarro Dallas =========================================================== This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are notified that the dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your computer. ETMC has implemented secure messaging for certain types of messages. For more information about our secure messaging system, go to: http://www.etmc.org/mail/ Thank you. =========================================================== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 I'm talking about operations, Kenny. AZ has mandatory state protocols. We're free to teach whatever we want, but most of the programs tend to teach to the protocols and nothing else. I did a little informal experiment sometime ago. I asked the medics at the fire station that serves me to take my paramedic final exams. The highest grade was 42, and they expressed amazement at the number of things that were on it that they had never heard of, one being the concept of doing a right-sided ECG on a patient with signs of an inferior MI. Little things like that. And this nurse is not just ANY nurse. She is the person who runs the EMS system at that base hospital, is in charge of training, and so forth. But it's a dry heat. GG Re: new NR skills sheets >>> Texas is not perfect by any means, but it's a whole lot closer to it than lots of other places. <<< And probably further away still than other places. >>> I attribute that in large measure to the fact that we do not have mandatory state protocols in Texas nor do we have a mandatory base hospital system. Those are the two worst aspects of EMS in Arizona and they kill any efforts to improve. <<< Are you talking about education or operations? I don't know of any educational prohibition against advanced anatomy, physiology, pathophysiology, or alternative interventions. The only thing that prevents an instructor from introducing students to new concepts is inadequate instructor qualification and lack of preparation. But, that is what happens when you let third graders teach second grade. >>> " I have no need to know about that because it's not in protocol. " Now you get the idea. Never, for God's sake, let this happen in Texas. <<< That attitude is not unique to nurses or Arizona. Kenny Navarro Dallas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.