In the past decade EMS has seen a perceptible shift in how it approaches education. The EMS Education Agenda for the Future provided a roadmap for future development, and the National EMS Education Standards have refined what is being taught in the classroom.
However, as this report points out, medical practice continues to evolve at a faster pace than what goes on in the classroom. Critical care EMS personnel have been playing educational catch-up. Training requirements range widely, from barely anything to weeks of classroom time. Meanwhile, the technology continues to mature rapidly, and the expectations of what CCT personnel can be expected to handle on their own continue to rise.
It can make for a very risky situation for the CCT provider, as Mike McEvoy pointed out in his article last month. While we might pride ourselves on being great at overcoming obstacles, the last place you want to try that model is in the back of a CCT when there is a catastrophic failure of critical equipment or a dramatic downturn in the patient’s status.
There are a few CCT curricula out there, none of which are mandated universally. Back in the 1990s, stakeholders who were involved in the National EMS Scope of Practice avoided defining the CCT level of EMS provider. Enough time has gone by that the concept should be revisited.
Meanwhile, I’ll echo what my friend Chris Nollette says in the article. There are many of us who are asked to do more with less. And we do. But don’t get to the point where it’s dangerous to your career or your patient.
