Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:18:31.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of EMS Continuing Education for Paramedics in the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Linda L. Herman ,
Paula J. Willoughby ,
Max D. Koenigsberg ,
Sharon Ward  and
Cary C. McDonald
Linda L. Herman
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois EMS Fellow, 1990–1991
Paula J. Willoughby*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois Department of Emergency Medicine, Illinois Masonic Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois Society for Academic Emergency Medicine/Physio-Control Emergency Medical Services Fellow, 1995–1996
Max D. Koenigsberg
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois Department of Emergency Medicine, Illinois Masonic Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
Sharon Ward
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Illinois Masonic Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
Cary C. McDonald
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois EMS Fellow, 1990–1991
*
4923 1/2 S. Greenwood Ave., Chicago, IL 60615
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To determine characteristics of continuing education programs for paramedics in large metropolitan areas, and to make recommendations for changes in the Chicago Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system.

Design:

A survey of 95 metropolitan areas from each state in the United States.

Participants:

EMS medical directors, coordinators, and administrators.

Results:

The survey population included 56 respondents. Within this group, 23% were from areas of 1 million people or more, 61% in areas with populations of 100,000 to 1 million and 16% from areas populated by < 100,000 people. Several system types were represented in the survey. In the systems surveyed, 98% mandate didactic continuing education requirements. Clinical continuing education was required by 34% of the systems. Ten systems (18%) awarded continuing education hours for documented in-field experience. This method did not have a specific structure by the majority of users. Both written and skills testing were used by most EMS systems to evaluate paramedic competency. No statistically significant differences (p >0.05) could be found among population subgroups or EMS system types when evaluating the use of these various methods.

Conclusion:

EMS systems primarily use didactic sessions to meet their continuing education requirements. Nearly half of the systems requiring clinical continuing education use in-field credit to fulfill these requirements. In-field credit systems are poorly developed to date. This mechanism may be an effective alternative to usual clinical experiences for paramedics and deserves further investigation.

Keywords

continuing educationEMS systems, medical directorparamedic, recertificationsurvey, testing
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , December 1996 , pp. 292 - 295
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Grays, MS: Recertification and relicensure in the allied health professions. J Allied Health 1984;13:22–30.Google Scholar
2. Cypert, DG, Grant, S, Nagel, EI, et al. : Open forum: recertification of paramedics. Emergency Medical Services 1976; 5: 50–52, 56–57.Google ScholarPubMed
3. Falk, DS, Weisfeld, N: To assure continuing competence. A report of the National Commission for Health Certifying Agencies 1981; Department of Health and Human Services publication No. (HRA) 81–85.Google Scholar
4. Conover, RM, Clinchy, RA, Harrington, B, et al. : Should EMTs be required to attend refresher courses for recertification? Emergency Medical Services 1984;13:13–19.Google Scholar
5. Ampolsk, AG: Paramedics, EMTs push for licensing. Emergency 1990;69:49–51.Google Scholar
6. Latman, NS, Wooley, K: Knowledge and skill retention of emergency care attendants, EMT-As and EMT-Ps. Ann Emerg Med 1980;9:183–189.Google Scholar
7. Mandel, B: Back to basics. Journal of Emergency Medical Services 1983;4:39–41.Google Scholar
8. Zautcke, JL, Lee, RW, Ethington, NA: Paramedic skill decay. Journal of Emergency Medicine 1987;5:505–512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Walters, G, Gluckman, E: Retention of skills by advanced trained ambulance staff: implications for monitoring and retraining. BMJ 1989;298:649–650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Werman, HA, Keseg, DR, Glimcher, M, et al. : Retention of basic trauma life support skills. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1990;5:137–144.Google Scholar
11. Moser, DK, Coleman, S: Recommendations for improving cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills retention. Heart Lung 1992;21:372–379.Google Scholar
12. Ramsey, PG, Carline, JD, Inui, TS, et al. : Changes over time in the knowledge base of practicing internists. JAMA 1991;266:1103–1107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Elling, R: A stitch in time: Rethinking refresher courses. Journal of Emergency Medical Services 1992;17:111–112.Google ScholarPubMed
14. Habben, DM: Continuing education. Who needs it? Journal of Emergency Medical Services 1991; 16:5, 10–11.Google Scholar