Talk:Emergency medical technician

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incomplete History[edit]

This article starts its history of US EMS in the 70's, when it is clear that EMS as we know it started well before that. I point to 1966 The white paper "Accidental Death and Disability: The Neglected Disease of Modern Society" , The freedom House project in the mid 1960's too. Then there is the Seattle Medic One project, the Miami FF programs, and many many more examples. For that matter, there were fire departments running "resuscitator" calls in the 1930's. This completely neglects the role of military medicine in WWII on to influencing the development of EMS. The discussion of the "alexander" program is based more on "Emergency Medicine" as a professional specialty of physicians rather than any history of EMS. Croaker260 (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC) croaker260[reply]

Incorrect information[edit]

All EMT-B students learn under National Registry guidelines how to assist the patient with the administration of his or her own EpiPen, nitroglycerin, and MDI. They may also administer glucose and activated charcol. Medicines can be administered either when ordered by medical control or where standing orders are in place. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

EMTs have not been trained to use MAST pants for at least a decade. They were never supportied by sciencific evidence, and anyone using them is in danger of being exposed to malpractice. https://www.nremt.org/nremt/about/psychomotor_exam_emt.asp Nstanaway (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Nstanaway[reply]

Feel free to begin adding this information. Don't forget to cite sources. While the NREMT has their standards, local medical directors don't always allow for what you stated. If your PMD doesn't allow it then you can't do it- no matter how you're trained. I know this feeling and it's frustrating. Bstone 04:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
just as a follow up, most protocols (those standing orders we are allowed to do) are NOT developed by a single overseeing medical director (one that allows EMTs to practice) but usually developed by a group of medical directors (Council) for that specific area, like this one that I'm a part of Susquehanna Regional EMS Council. But Bstone is correct in stating that what ever is authorized is only what can be practiced in the field. Medicellis (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certification vs. Licensure[edit]

In the United States, most paramedics (and E.M.T.s) are certified, not licensed, by a state EMS (Emergency Medical Service) agency. Only a few states currently license Paramedics.

The National Registry is a voluntary standards and testing body and does not have authority to certify or license paramedics.

Robert Haggerty, paramedic (NY) HaggertyRD@earthlink.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.9 (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2003 (UTC)[reply]

New England states I know all have state licencure requirements. Few states use only NREMT. Check your facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.235.69 (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, many states and local agencies who do license paramedics recognize the National Registry's standards as legally binding in their jurisdictions. Where do you get the idea that only a few states currently license paramedics? Not saying you're wrong, mind, but in California a paramedic has to maintain a state cert and a local cert from the county as well in order to work. clarka 7 April 2004
I believe Robert is referring to the fact that, legally speaking, certification is not exactly the same thing as licensure. WyldStallionRyder 08:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, legally they are two separate things. Certification is completion of a task/class/test where license is approval by a governmental entity to practice--Crainial 05:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in general you could be certified (i.e., meet the training requirements) and never be licensed (meet the administrative requirements). For example, you might pass the training and testing and and receive a certificate, but if you don't pay the annual fees, or you're not a resident of the jurisdication, or you're not a full-time medic, or you violate some other local rule, you don't get licensed. In some places you may not NEED a license, where a certificate suffices (until it expires), or where only private practitioners are licensed (e.g., not required for firefighters/ paramedics/volunteers).Lupinelawyer 04:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Illinois and Wisconsin REQUIRE licensure, although in Wisconsin the NREMT is used exclusively. Illinois uses it's own state test, but the NREMT certification is accepted for use to obtain a license--Crainial 05:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every state requires a license, or "authorization to work" in that state. VERY FEW accept only NREMT. 68.0.232.112 —Preceding comment was added at 22:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFR and EMT-B[edit]

Hello,

can someone tell a poor french boy whether there is a difference between a CFR and an EMT-B? I read that "The first responder training is intended to fill the gap between First Aid and EMT-Basic", but what are these differences?

Cdang 12:59, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll use New York State as an example, because that's where I'm certified. A CFR does not receive the depth of training for initial patient assessment that an EMT receives. Also, a CFR may not apply a traction splint for a fractured femur, nor may they give or assist in the administration of medications that an EMT-Basic may give or assist in, such as epinephrine for anaphylaxis or Nitroglycerine tablets for heart-related chest pain. Other variations may exist in other areas or jurisdictions; for specific differences, query the certifying agency for your area. --N5iln 19:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC), EMT-B[reply]

Why this article DOES NOT need to be rewritten to a worldwide view[edit]

Some bozo put the Globalize template in this article. I'm taking it out because the concept of the EMT is apparently exclusive to the United States. Other countries have paramedics or mere ambulance drivers. --Coolcaesar 07:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put the Globalize template on, may I refer you to Wikipedia:No personal attacks? FYI here's a link to the London Ambulance Service training program for EMTs. Sapient 20:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Add Canada to the list of nations that have EMTs. I put the template back - I think this article is terribly US-centric and I live in the US! --N5UWY/9 - plaws 21:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC), ex-NREMT-P[reply]
Wrong! Or at least outdated info- EMTs and, in fact all Emergency Responders are now called ParamedicsCuvtixo (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WRONG! Alberta has EMT's that are not known in Albeta as paramedics, but are considered paramedics by the rest of the provinces. Perhaps you could contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive way by writing one of the following articles. Primary Care Paramedic, Advanced Care Paramedic, or Critical Care Paramedic? Fr33kMan (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any practical way to globalize something like this. Providing complete accurate information on how EMTs are trained, certified/licensed, and employed globally would be a gargantuan task. Even this "US-centric" page is an incomplete representation of this one country. We all know how much training and scope of practice can vary from state-to-state, county-to-county, and in my experience even city-to-city. You can't make everyone happy without either undertaking the massive task of documenting all that information, or making things excessively ambiguous in order to not give any one place more exposure than another. Middle-ground perhaps? Add an "International EMT" section if you're that upset. --User:takingheat 18:36 (PST) May 16, 2006, current California Firefighter II and EMT-ID/AA
I agree with takingheat. St.isaac 23:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC), NREMT-B[reply]
I concur with both of you. Well argued. --Coolcaesar 04:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree and HAVE globalized it, successfully Fr33kMan (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EMS varies widely from one country to the next, and writing out the nature of every country's EMS practitioners would create an impossibly long article. The solution may be to create a general article that addresses the common factors in worldwide EMS (need for trasporting a patient to a hospital, fact that medical calls are more common than trauma (unlike what we see on TV and in the movies) the varied levels of training, the increasing capabilities of EMS practitioners, etc; and move the bulk of this article into one whose title cleraly indicates that it refers to EMTs in the United States. --Badger151 05:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the article does need to be globalized, or at least a reduction of the purely US view point. The UK has EMTs as well. 86.139.152.25 22:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see (and add to) Emergency Medical Services in the United States --Badger151 23:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know why there's so much on South Africa in this article? If no one objects, I'll remove it- it's basically the same as everywhere else, and I see no reason to state that South African EMT's need a valid driver's liscense --Michaelp7 17:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer the second half of this notability issue: It appears[who?] that it's almost impossible to get a valid driver's license in South Africa[citation needed]. Fakes are sold on the black market[citation needed], but the driving test is inhumanly strict[citation needed]. For example, you are supposed to check your rearview mirrors every seven seconds[citation needed], and if you have an eight-second interval once during the test, then you flunk[citation needed]. Requiring a valid driver's license is a major barrier to entry[citation needed]. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Tries to Keeps it Simple: EMTs are Paramedics EMA-1 Canada has tried to simplify public understanding of emergency medical certification levels - and cut down on syllables - by referring to all levels of training as paramedics. Within the common term of paramedic, Canada uses the terms EMA-1, EMA-2, etc. EMA stands for emergency medical attendant. Generally, the training for emergency medical attendants in Canada is longer than that of similarly certified EMTs in the US. Cuvtixo (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a basic section on EMT's in the UK (both from an NHS and private ambulance point of view) as a basis for getting this article improved, rather than just talking about it. As such, would one of you all from Canada do likewise for a Canadian section and South Africa the same. We can then put the US stuff into a US section and then point to pages for EMT-B, EMT-I, EMT-P and similar for a solely US centric point of view for those levels of EMT. The UK section already points to the IHCD Technician and HPC Paramedic pages (when they are done). Seems to me that this page can an must be made to be globalized because EMT is worldwide, EMT-B/I/P etc might be only USA but then those pages can be USA centric, but EMT generally shouldn't be. Fr33kMan (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans?[edit]

Is the information of only 6 Ambulances for the entirety of 500,000 citizens correct? Seems like a pretty low ratio to me. For instance in Vienna there are over 30 active ambulances for 1,6mio citizens (avg. response-time 5-10min) .... --80.123.47.28 13:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This claim should be removed unless it can be substantiated with a citation. --N5UWY/9 - plaws 21:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC), ex-NREMT-P[reply]
I too suspect this number to be inaccurate, based on my own experiences. The city of Syracuse, New York maintains no fewer than nine ambulances on duty between 10am and 6pm on weekdays, and has a population of around 150,000 people.
This should be taken out until evidence is in place--Crainial 05:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the section since this has been questioned for well over 2 years. JPINFV (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff[edit]

It appears that with some/most classes of EMT within the US, if you get certified, you are entered into the NREMT [1]. More details on this?

Also, I've seen a designation EMT-LP referenced, anyone know what that means?
~ender 2006-05-10 19:59:PM MST

Some states use the NREMT as their examining and certifying body; Oklahoma is one example. There, prospective EMTs are tested using the NREMT standards, and on successfully passing the practical and written examinations are both issued their state certifications and enrolled in the Registry.--N5iln 19:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I know it's from a few years ago, there might as well be an answer in here. Without knowing which state you are talking about, it's hard to give an answer. Some states (Texas, for example, has an EMT-Paramedic level and a Licensed Paramedic level. The difference being post-secondary education (AA in an EMS field or a BS in anything) use the term "Licensed Paramedic" which could be your EMT-LP. JPINFV (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

some states do use the NREMT as their testing body, bhut generally have their own requirements in addition. for example, in RI, to become an EMT-B you must pass the NREMT exam, but your training must also include the use of an EOA (Esophogeal Obturator Airway) and MAST (Military Anti-Shock Trousers) Trousers [also known as PASG-Pneumatic Anti Shock Garment), both of which are rarely used, btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.235.69 (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added "standing orders" to the Medical Direction section. This differs slightly from "by protocol," in that standing orders are issued by a medical director for a specific agency or department, and protocol refers to more global orders issued by a larger governing body or medical authority.

I do believe that prior to Hurricane Katrina the busiest EMS service in the US was the City of Philadelphia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.144.2 (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing world wide view tag[edit]

Its most people agree the article has enough span. I'm removing the tag. If you disagree after look through the discussion, please contact me. St.isaac 23:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NREMT[edit]

I added information about the NREMT, including the frustrations felt by EMTs who have had to deal with them. Bstone 09:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Someone deleted this entire section, so I reentered it with changed to appear more content neutral. If you are going to edit sections, please have courtesy to discuss it here. Bstone 19:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just being WP:BOLD and removing defamatory, libelous personal opinion which was not backed up with WP:RS. Leuko 19:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made some minor edits to this section, including stating that the NREMT is a private, for-profit organization. This statement is factual, indisputable and pertinent. I again ask that when an editor makes changes to a section they PLEASE make a note of it here. I have twice but there have been two more edits by Leuko which have not been noted. Bstone 20:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's very disputable, since it is not cited with a WP:RS. I've requested a citation of the material, and if not provided it will removed it in accordance with WP:V and WP:NOR. Also, there is no wikipedia requirement to note all edits made to an article in its talk page. That would become quite cumbersome and useless - that's what the article's history is for. The talk page is used for discussing disputed changes, not removing unreferenced POV material. Leuko 22:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link which states, quite plainly, that the NREMT is a private organization. "In sum, the National Registry is a private certifying organization." http://nremt.org/about/Legal_Opinion.asp I will update the description. As for your other statement, while it is not required to note here what your edits are, when you delete and make significant changes to an entire section it is considered good form. Bstone 05:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the reference you provided states the NREMT is a private organization, not a "for-profit company." I don't see any mention of that in there. The fact that the reference provided is an opinion by some random lawyer, and thus amounts to WP:OR is another issue entirely, but I don't really care enough to pursue it further. Leuko 20:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot be possible that you reject a statement concerning a company's functioning when it comes from their contracted legal counsel. It certainly does not amount to WP:OR. As for the "for-profit" issue, while that source does not indicate the for-profit or not-for-profit status of the NREMT, a simple search of Ohio's Sec of State's website would reveal they are a for-profit company. Would this be acceptable to you? Bstone 05:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course a governmental website would be a WP:RS, and therefore acceptable for citation. Feel free to add it, don't have the time to look for it. Leuko 03:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to point out that the NREMT section current says that 46 states use NREMT as their sole method of certification. This is not entirely true. 46 states use NREMT for some level of certificaiton, but many use it only for Basic and not paramedic. I believe this statement should be removed. I'll wait 48 hours for comment before proceeding. Bstone 20:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, I've edited it to be more in line with that reality. Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Leuko 22:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little confused why you seem to be lecturing me on the basic points of editing in wikipedia. I am an experienced editor. As well, this is best for my talk page. Bstone 05:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't mean to lecture, just educate. Sorry, but the type of edits which were made are generally made by new users unaware of Wikipedia policies such as WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Leuko 20:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to discuss the possibility of creating a section of "criticism of the NREMT". Since the NREMT has de facto control over credentialing in almost the entire country there are bound to be actual and legit gripes. I have found many posts on web forums detailing seemingly systemic issues surrounding the NREMT. Comments? Bstone 06:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure there are. You are welcome to add such a section if 1) you do so in a WP:NPOV manner, and 2) WP:CITE the fact that the opinions you would like to add are in fact widespread by using published articles from a WP:RS. Something like an article from JEMS would be an acceptable source, but posts on web forums are not acceptable. Leuko 20:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Country-specific EMS[edit]

In looking over this and other EMS related articles (consider ambulance, for example) I'm seeing a lot of information that is country-specific. I also note that some articles are becoming lengthy, in part due to the inclusion of country-specific information, but fail to adequately cover common aspects of their subjects. What do people think about culling the country-specific information from the EMS, EMT, ambulance &c articles and placing this info in country-specific emergency_medicine/ EMS/ title to-be-determined articles? --Badger151 21:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NFPA[edit]

Be careful when citing NFPA standards as "regulations". NFPA is not a regulatory agency. To be fair, though, (US) regulatory agencies such as PESH, NIOSH, and OSHA often cite NFPA standards when developing or reviewing regulations, because NFPA's standards are developed through a peer-reviewed process and (arguably) not subject to business or political pressures. Alan 20:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I/O Systems[edit]

I/O Systems is a competitor to the NREMT. Mass, Kansas and Illinois have switched from the NREMT exam to the I/O Systems one. A JEMS article on it is here: http://www.jems.com/emsinsider/23-9/13358/ We may want to consider adding in that there is another certification agency, albeit much smaller than the NREMT. Bstone 04:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to adding information on I/O Systems as a certification agency, as they are a company that provides computer-adaptive testing, not an organization that sets and maintains standards of training. Based on a review of their web site, their sole goal is to compete directly with NREMT to provide testing services and sites to states. Alan 12:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I/O Systems is indeed a private certification company. They develop their own exams and offer certification credentials to those who successfully pass. Indeed, at least three states rely upon I/O Systems certification as a means to licensure in those states. If I took Illinois' EMT-Intermediate exam (written by I/O Systems) I would be able to travel to Mass and get a license there based on the fact that the two states use the same certification service. That said, I am going to work on how to add I/O Systems to the article, but will wait until their website comes back up (it currently says "More to come soon. Please stay tuned."). Bstone 12:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Their website has been down for construction for a very long period of time. Guess I won't be updating the article with this information for a while. Bstone 10:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movement to increase education and professionalism[edit]

I would like opinion on whether there should be a paragraph at the end on the efforts of the EMS community to increase educational and professional standards in the field as to better be recognized as health professionals. It would satisfy those who are leading the efforts and communicate the efforts to other EMTs to may read the article...it can only be good for EMS. AnthonyM83 05:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed B46778848 (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global article now in place[edit]

I have done some work on the main article and have added a UK section and have made a US section out of what was there. I've made two new articles called EMT Basic and EMT Intermediate which can now be used to provide a solely US point of view on those certifications which are US alone. We now need to work on getting the article up to scratch as an article in an encyclopedia. I'll come back later and rework the references and add them for the UK section. Can some helpful Canadian do likewise and can those from countries with EMT's do the same? Comments? Thanks Fr33kMan (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an abbreviated Canadian Paramedic section, to cover "Emergency Response Technician" (ERT) which is roughly the equivalent of EMT-B. I have also removed the global marker. I am not sure what the terms and legal positions are for "EMTs" throughout the rest of the Anglophone world. I know it is an incredible headache to keep track of the different English and French terms and different Province laws and rules WITHIN Canada alone. Canadian paramedic websites still aren't bilingual. So this is probably as "global" as this article is going to get for the near future, although the Canadian section here could use more citations(Please!). I think its likely other countries also use the term "Paramedic" generically and their Emergency Medical Professionals can fit into those articles. Cuvtixo (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Edit[edit]

Before I attempt to start adjusting the page, I want to be able to get rid of the copy edit and clean up tags. I've already gone through the introduction and consolidated and reworded it while keeping the general essence and structure. Any feed back before I move further into the article? JPINFV (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Started working on the "US EMT" section. Comments, concerns? JPINFV (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paperwork Section[edit]

Is there even a reason for this section, or can I delete it? It seems painfully obvious that they (we) do that and paperwork isn't referenced in the section for physicians, nurses, or respiratory therapists, all of which do much more documentation than any EMS crew. If I don't get a response by next Friday (3/14/08), then I'm going to assume that no one objects and either agrees with it or doesn't care. JPINFV (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources[edit]

Don't copy and paste original sources into the article, especially one that is already referenced (first reference in this case, US DOL Bureau of Labor Statistics profile). If you want to edit, feel free to do so. Also feel free to take up any ideas or issues to the talk page.JPINFV (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote Employment section and other goodies[edit]

With the rewrite of the employment section, almost the entire page has received a face lift. Due to that, I felt that removal of the copy edit and cleanup tags were justified. Tomorrow (Friday 3/14/08), I'm going to remove the paper work section seeing as there hasn't been any objections since I posted about it last Friday. Pending expanding the EMT-I85/99 sections (examples of procedures, education class hours), I will be submitting this to Wikiprojects: Medicine for a reevaluation. JPINFV (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EMT-I/85[edit]

Does anyone have any links to a SOP to source this section? There's no more information about training programs or SOP on the NHTSA website for the I/85 now.

EMT-I/85 is slowly going away. In the US, there is a big effort on the national level to go the "National Scope of Practice" model for levels of certification. The new AEMT level is likely to replace EMT-I/85 and EMT-I/99 in many states.75.213.68.34 (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

What the article really needs is to have other countries represented. I see that you've been making an effort in that direction, and I know that it's difficult.

I did a bit of minor copyediting. Personally, I would reduce the number of sub-sub-sections like "EMT-B", primarily to make the Table of Contents easier to parse. I'd merge them with the bullets under "Levels of EMTs". Also, the "See also" section would benefit from half-sentence explanations of how each item relates. For example "* NREMT, a certification used in several US states." I'd also shorten the "See also" section so that it doesn't include anything that's explained in the main text (like paramedic), or, if you want to keep a longer list, perhaps I'd reorganize it into groups: all the US-specific stuff together, all the general information alphabetized.

Just my thoughts: you don't have to agree with me or implement them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think its likely other countries also use the term "Paramedic" generically and their Emergency Medical Professionals can fit into those articles. I've added an abbreviated Canadian Paramedic section, to cover "Emergency Response Technician" (ERT) which is roughly the equivalent of EMT-B. I have also removed the global marker. I am not sure what the terms and legal positions are for "EMTs" throughout the rest of the Anglophone world. I know it is an incredible headache to keep track of the different English and French terms and different Province laws and rules WITHIN Canada alone. Canadian and specifically Quebec paramedic websites still aren't bilingua! So this is probably as "global" as this article is going to get for the near future, although the Canadian section here could use more citations(Please!). Cuvtixo (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EMT-B, EMT-I, EMT-I/85&99, EMT-P sub headings[edit]

Those were removed upon suggestion to keep the table of contents organized. Since this is an international article, there is no reason to clutter the table of contents with sub groups that hold all of 4 sentences.JPINFV (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merge of EMT Basic skills to this page[edit]

Oppose First, if anything, it should be merged with the EMT Basic page. That page is the proper page for information regarding EMT-Basics in the United States. The current Emergency Medical Technician page is more of an international clearing house of prehospital provider pages (hence EMT-Paramedic having a bit of space even though it also have the Paramedic page. Second (which I'll get around to expanding the scope section of the EMT-B page), the information should be condensed and converted to paragraph form. Third, most of the information isn't really needed for an encyclopedia. Do we need a list of procedures performed by emergency physicians? No, nor do we need a list of procedures done by EMT-Basics. This page should really either be directed towards EMT Basic or deleted. No one outside of the field cares about DCAPBTLS (a lot of people in the field don't care for it either). JPINFV (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MyBad. I didn't think (you can place the period there at your option) to go to the Basic page... it wasn't long ago that B, I, and P were all in this one page. I'm so behind the times...! • VigilancePrime • • • 05:12 (UTC) 27 Mar '08
Cool, that takes out one of my reasons for opposing.JPINFV (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Intensive Care Unit (MICU)[edit]

We just had an IP editor add a blurb about MICUs in the US staffing section. While I've heard of the term before, the term itself wasn't in use where I worked. I've always taken the term to essentially mean the same as a paramedic unit, but when I did a Google search on the term the results were less definate. At least one website used the term to describe an ambulance in general, regardless of BLS or ALS staffing level. Another website used it to describe paramedic intercept units. Still a third used it to describe a pediatric/neonate specialty transport unit. So, is there enough consensus out there to label a particular level (i.e. synonym for ALS), type of unit (i.e. paramedic staffed ambulances only), or type of service (critical care units versus 911 units versus interfacility versus specialty care) to include it on the page? -JPINFV (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, I would understand this to be an ambulance used solely for urgent transfers between hospitals, carrying critical patients. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 12:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of article titles[edit]

Was there any discussion about the renaming of this article? Based on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, "The first letter of the first word, letters in acronyms, and the first letter of proper nouns are capitalized; all other letters are in lower case" and from the Wikipedia:Naming conventions, "Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is almost always capitalized in English (for example, proper names)." Emergency medical technician is not a proper noun, so it should not be capitalized. Most acronyms are all capital letters, but that does not mean the individual letters when spelled out should be capitalized. Once the history of this page is merged (necessary because of the prior improper move), I think the article should be moved back to Emergency medical technician. Similarly, the new Emergency Medical Technician Levels by State should be renamed to Emergency medical technician levels by state.

Additionally, the titles of many other EMS-related articles need to be discussed. The new articles EMT Basic and EMT Intermediate should be changed so that EMT is spelled out and a dash used to denote the level. They should probably be named like "Emergency medical technician-intermediate," but could also be like "Emergency medical technician - intermediate."

Most other articles seem to be okay. I just moved Advanced Life Support to Advanced life support. Advanced Trauma Life Support and Pediatric Advanced Life Support are appropriately capitalized - they are registered trademarks. I do not think Advanced cardiac life support is a trademark, so it is appropriately in lowercase. --Scott Alter 00:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the level by state page. It also needed a slight name tweak due to the scope of the page anyways (Technician to responder since it includes first responders)-JPINFV (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I moved this page to Emergency Medical Technician because it's a proper title for a person the same as Doctor or Nurse. Therefore I feel that it should be E M T and not E m t. The same holds true for ACLS not being Acls because it's an internationally recognized qualification that is ALWAYS upper case! I think you guys should undo your work, if not I'll take care of it in a week or so, thanks! :-) fr33kman (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from here) Hi, just to point out, the reason I moved from Emt to EMT is that EMT is a proper noun, it is a title. It's the same as Doctor or Nurse and so all words within the title should be capitalized. Please put the article back as you found it, thanks! :-) fr33kman (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, EMT is just like Doctor, Nurse, Nurse practitioner, Physician assistant, Licensed practical nurse, or any other person in any field (Police officer, etc). These all can be used as titles before a name (ie "Emergency Medical Technician John Doe" or "Doctor Jane Doe"). However, when not used as a title, all of these nouns should be in lowercase. When used in a sentence, it would be, "Joe is an emergency medical technician" or "A doctor works in an ED." In these uses, the terms should not be capitalized. When using any of these occupations in a sentence and not as a title, they should all be lowercase. The articles are named for the occupations, and not the titles. Therefore, all of these should be lowercase. The only reason the first letter in each of the articles is capitalized is because that is how Wikipedia works. That is why this article (and all the aforementioned articles) should be and remain lowercase.
Usually, any abbreviations of anything are in capitals. So using EMT in capitals does not necessarily mean that emergency medical technician should be capitalized. Think about CPR. When writing it in a sentence, you would use "cardiopulmonary resuscitation" - not "CardioPulmonary Resuscitation." The same goes for ACLS. In a sentence, you would use "advanced cardiac life support," as ACLS is not copyrighted. There are several organizations that provide certification in ACLS. This is contrary to PALS, which is a proprietary program of the AHA. PALS should always be spelled with capital letters ("Pediatric Advanced Life Support"). If you still have objections, please comment here so the discussion is open to others. --Scott Alter 02:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that Emergency medical technician is more appropriate than capitalised version. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 11:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CCEMTP[edit]

I have added the certification of the Critical Care Emergency Medical Transport Program, which gains EMT-P additional certification in critical care transport. This program was developed and maintained by UMBC (University of Maryland at Baltimore). This IS NOT advertising but notes were the orginal program was developed and can be taken. I suggest that a another wiki page developed to explore more indepth into what a CCEMTP can and cannot due. Medicellis (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the CCEMTP information is best suited for the Paramedics in the United States article. It is not needed, and should not be duplicated on Emergency medical technician and Paramedic. From my understanding, no states actually license people at the CCEMTP level. Rather, it is a education course like ACLS, PALS, PEPP, PHTLS, ITLS, etc. Some of these certifications may be required to be employed in a specific position, but in themselves, they are not a level of state licensure. For this reason, I am going to move the CCEMTP section in the "Levels of EMTs" of this article to Paramedics in the United States.
While I did not make the advertising comment, I believe it was solely regarding the link added to the "external links" section, as that was what was reverted. The EMT article is not a place to link to every single course offering for EMTs in the world. The CCEMTP course is nothing special, and is no more worthy of a link than ACLS, PALS, etc. The only appropriate place to link to the CCEMTP program web site would be on the CCEMTP article. You have suggested that this page be created, so go ahead, be bold, and create Critical Care Emergency Medical Transport Program. --Scott Alter 03:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than move the content to Paramedics in the United States, I am going to create Critical Care Emergency Medical Transport Program. --Scott Alter 03:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I know that currently Tennessee is indeed certifying at the CCEMTP level, and other states are considering an "advanced practice" level of certification of one name or another. The UMBC program is just one curricula out of several that will provider a pathway to this level. Croaker260 (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

consider adding a link to the Health Workforce Information Center guide on EMTs and Paramedics[edit]

Please consider adding a link to the Health Workforce Information Center guide on EMTs and Paramedics - http://www.healthworkforceinfo.org/topics/introduction.php?id=77. HWIC provides links to funding programs, organizations, publications and news related to the EMT workforce. HWIC is a free, federally funded service to help people find information about health workforce. More on HWIC’s selection guidelines here: http://www.healthworkforceinfo.org/other/disclaimer.php Mrsand (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EMT-Tactical[edit]

How about a mention on the EMT-T certification?


About US and Uk English Terms in Emergency Care imprecise Terminology and Ambulance Personals calling induced confusion[edit]

Ambulance Technician Attendant or even Emergency Medical Technicians for First care giver Rescuers whoud be much better than the confuse "Para Medic" , neologic term comming from Militar Vietnam Medic that is a despreciative informal term in US English (Longman) and even in US Spanish (medico) (Longman). The better international english terminology to be worldwide Understood and Traduisible would be for Public Health Registered Ambulance Care givers should or Paramemedical Ambulance Professionals. This new Care Paraprofessional has to be integrated in other Parmedical Professions as Registered Nurses that can be also used as Ambulance Professions.


"Emergency Medical Services" "EMS" as used in US and UK Services are not traduisible if they do not integrate all other Care Givers and Services that are in charge of all Emergency Medical Care steps even ilf renapmed Prehospital EMS because Primary care professions treat many medical emergencies. For eviting these misunderstandings induced by EMS with US UK restricted signification it could be by used Integrated Medical Emergency Services IEMS that is the exact traduction of SIUM Servicios Integrados de Urgencias Medicas used first by Cuban Public Health. --90.24.186.168 (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you could keep your argument to a single talk page place, making it easier for editors to follow. For any editors here - this is a continuation of a discussion at Talk:Emergency medical services, where any opinions would be welcomed. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 07:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EMT vs paramedic[edit]

What is the difference between an EMT and a paramedic? Are they same thing? Or is one a special type of the other? I get the impression "EMT" is primarily a North American term, and "paramedic" is more global. Should this article be merged to paramedic? Or paramedic merged to this article? Or at least, at the start of each article, explain the difference between them, and why we have separate articles for each? SJK (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EMT is a general term for the people working on the ambulance. A paramedic is an EMT with a specific education. --|EPO| da: 13:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no. A paramedic is NOT an EMT in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.36.190 (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it should be stated clearly in the first paragraph of each article. Also, if we are to keep separate EMT and paramedic articles, the section in this article entitled "Paramedics in Canada", should either be moved to the paramedic article, or have its title changed. SJK (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proper nouns[edit]

"Emergency Medical Technician", "Ambulance Technician" etc are not proper nouns so why are we using initial caps?--ukexpat (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted those recent changes.--ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Emergency medical technician. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Emergency medical technician. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emergency medical technician. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EMTs in Canada[edit]

EMTs do not exist in Canada - only EMRs and Paramedics

Canadian licensing material will be moved to "EMS in Canada" article, and Canadian section will be replaced with common EMT skills. B46778848 (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emergency_medical_technician&oldid=1216774049"