Talk:Emergency medical responder levels by U.S. state

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

Started List[edit]

Hi, Just started the list and will be adding more states as quickly as I can. I'll added it to the EMS pages as soon as I get all of the states put in. Please don't tag with orphan status until the list is complied. If you want to add your state, please include a reference. If you don't know how to set it up, put the URL for your states EMS office here and I'll do it. JPINFV (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


TOC[edit]

Why NOTOC ? Seems like it would make the page flow better. Needs some paragraphs or something as well. Its a very hard page to read, but good work. Brentoli (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used NoToc because I thought having 50 different topics (1 for each state) would be too much. Is there a way to make it so that the TOC has more than one line like the ref-list? As far as being hard to read, part of the problem is the complete lack of standardization. There's nothing to say that an EMT-Intermediate, for example, from one state is the same as an EMT-I in another state. Even the same level (for example, paramedic) can have different names (EMT-Advanced, Paramedic Specialist, EMT-Paramedic off the top of my head). JPINFV (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found a state TOC templateJPINFV (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EMT?[edit]

If this is Emergency Medical Technician by state, shouldn't "First Responder" and "First Aider" and the like (anything that's not EMT-B / EMT-1 or above) be removed? Or perhaps a move to Emergency Medical Response Certification Levels by state instead? Just a thought... wondering what others think. • VigilancePrime • • • 02:51 (UTC) 30 Mar '08

I could go with a rename. I was more trying to get something that the general public could understand without perpetuating the myth that all prehospital workers are paramedics. It also doesn't help that some states designate their first responders as "EMT-First Responder" (They're EMTs per their state. If we limit it to EMT-B and up, do we cut them off too? If not, what about the non-"EMT" FRs?).-JPINFV (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay as it is now, but that should be an option later on. As an inclusionist (generally), I'm all for the additional information. I'd just hate for someone else to come along with their staunch, unthingink deletionist attitude and crop out a bunch of the work because they read "EMT" and don't know better and don't have anything better to do on Wikipedia. (And yes, Virginia, those people do exist!) • VigilancePrime • • • 03:36 (UTC) 30 Mar '08
I've always worked with the idea that undo and revert with a "See talk page" comment works best with that stuff. Most people aren't passionate to pursue it past the first edit anyways. JPINFV (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NREMT[edit]

Also, NREMT should be mentioned at the start along with the first section being the NREMT levels, since the majority of states use the NREMT exams and whatnot. That would help the reader understand later on what "analogous to EMT-B" actually means by setting up the basic, NREMT standard at the article's outset. Thoughts? • VigilancePrime • • • 02:54 (UTC) 30 Mar '08

I don't think that NREMT has anything to do with it (unless someone wants to go through and throw in which states use the NR test). The levels themselves, and the basis of the NREMT tests, is actually the NHTSA standard, which is mentioned in the header. Unfortunately, with all of the different names, using something like "analogous to" is the only way to compare an EMT-I (EMT-1) to an EMT to an EMT-Basic. --JPINFV (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except for being the major creditation organization. True, they do not technically credential, but last I read somewhere in the 40-something states use their exams. In other words, if you're Nationally Registered, you're certified in the state. Including if a state uses NREMT exams/standards, as you mention, is a good idea. Something like this:
Oregon
Oregon uses the NREMT certifications for its EMT levels and requires an intensive course of study for Paramedic certification, courses that lead to an Associate's degree. The three levels of EMT certification in Oregon are:
  • EMT-Basic (standard NREMT guidelines)
  • EMT-Intermediate (NREMT/99 with additional state specific requirements)
  • EMT-Paramedic (as stated above)
Something like that. And that format could be used on each entry. "STATE uses the WHATEVER standards/certifications...The NUMBER levels of EMT certification in STATE are:"
That would also make the page slightly more standardized for readability... Just a thought. I LIKE THIS PAGE! Much better than trying to cram half this info on the EMT pages, as it once was... Good Job! • VigilancePrime • • • 03:36 (UTC) 30 Mar '08
Part of the problem, though, is finding the information. Granted, I don't think this is the type of page to bring out the {{fact}} tag, but it would be nice to verify everything. Probably something around half of the states are fairlyeasy to find (first page or reciprocity page, or certification page), but some of the states are atrocious when it comes to data (Delaware comes to mind). EMT-B and EMT-P certification, though, can be found under one source (NREMT 2006 report map distinguishes between non-registry and registry with a note about which states only accept basic or only accepts paramedic. Nothing about intermediates).

Thank you, by the way. I was trying to get something that was both usable without directly quoting 5 or 6 different pages and also something that could serve as a disambiguation style page. If someone wants to make a page about their state's special level (e.g. AEMT-CC), then the EMT-I and EMT pages can link here vs a link for every intermediate level there. It's also nice to see some of the nuances in some states (I went "WTF?" first time I saw "EMT-Mining") that aren't going for 15 different certs/endorsements. On that note, I was also attempting to keep the endorsements to official names. Technically one state requires an "ambulance" endorsement (20 documented calls, but no extra scope), but since it doesn't add anything besides the ability to work on an ambulance I considered it unimportant. Of course, now that the hard part is done (initial research, links, etc), it can be tweaked and fine tuned.JPINFV (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EMT-Mining? Gotta know more someday! Anyway, I agree with your comment above re: Reverting. I really like this page and hope to help it fine-tune as well, though I am very WikiTired lately (too much WikiDrama!), so it may or may not happen soon. BTW: Loved your userpage!!! I earlier today made an EMT-B userbox - {{User:VigilancePrime/Templates/EMT-B}} - that you may )or may not) like better too... I'll be tweaking it to match most of the other userboxes I've created, if you want to take a look. I plan on adding some of the ones you have to my page eventually. (I find that's the best way to find good ones ... see what others are using!) Back to the topic, I think keeping any level of cert is a good idea, including EMT-Ambulance (is that a modern, politically-correct term for "Ambulance Driver"?) and even First Responder and the like.
Have a great day/weekend, and again, Thank You for creating and researching this page! • VigilancePrime • • • 05:08 (UTC) 30 Mar '08 (Secondary note: 20 documented calls? I have 18 calls in only two 12-hour ridealongs... and one was a baby delivery in the back of the ambulance, code 3, lights and siren, driving fast... I actually helped in the delivery!)
Yea, it was either 15 or 20. I had 4 calls in 16 hours when I did my ride alongs. --JPINFV (talk) 30 March 2008 (UTC)
That's why I chose to ride along with the company my father worked for... they're probably the busiest ambulance service in Oregon (hands-down) and one of the busiest in the PacNW (Seattle excluded). Awesome stuff. No traumas though, which is a good thing, really! Still, 12 calls in 12 hours... including a baby delivery... it was a rough, busy, but not-long-at-all night! • VigilancePrime • • • 06:39 (UTC) 30 Mar '08
  • To close out this section, I added a bit about the NREMT and added an asterisk next to the basic/paramedic levels that use it using the 2006 NREMT report.--JPINFV (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

Great work. I just wanted to say that this is location-specific licensing info, so it's rated low for project-wide improvement priority (compared to, say, diseases or therapies), not because we don't appreciate your hard work. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I kinda of figured that was what the rating would be (what, not a B? :) ), but I figured that it wouldn't necessarily be a good idea to assess it myself. -JPINFV (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could see this list, with alot of hard work, formatting, and a little bit of an expanded scope, possibly being a FA in a EMS project. I don't know about the current one though. Brentoli (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added Tennessee Levels[edit]

I added two items to the Tennessee section on this page.

The first is Emergency Medical Dispatcher. These are a licensed profession under the TN BoEMS, and required for anyone providing Priority Dispatch protocol information to callers. (Protocols for Pre-Arrival First Aid instruction and call triage.) The second one was a small clippet reguarding the CCEMT-P/APEMT-P program being developed in Tennessee by the BoEMS. The justification for this is the TN BoEMS page @ http://health.tn.us/ems, as well as the Board Meeting Information from the same page. 198.254.16.200 (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Chance Gearheart, EMT-IV, LeBonheur Childrens Medical Center Pedi-Flite Critical Care Team[reply]

Sourced a link to CCEMT-P document. Unfortunately EMDs aren't really responders, and thus are outside of the scope of the article. You can't really compare them to EMTs (B, P, or between) since they don't render direct aid. That doesn't mean that they aren't important though. -JPINFV (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JPINFV, they are, however, a licensed level of Emergency Care provider by the Tennesee State Board of EMS, and should be listed here as such. And they do provide care, in the form of Pre-arrival. 198.254.16.200 (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Chance Gearheart, EMT-IV, LeBonheur Childrens Medical Center Pedi-Flite Critical Care Team[reply]
Sorry it's taken a bit for me to respond, I've been busy with school. The problem, though, is where do we stop? Should MICNs who provide medical direction be listed also? They're licensed by local EMS authorities where I worked. How do we compare people who do not provide direct patient care, but advice over the phone/radio? If a EMD can advise a patient to take aspirin, then are they considered higher than an EMT-B who can't do so? I think that the best thing for this list is for it to list field providers only, including, in the few cases, providers who are above EMT-P or below EMT-B. -JPINFV (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Layout[edit]

How does this chart look for a layout?

Talk:Emergency medical responder levels by U.S. state/draft -JPINFV (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a good start. I'm going to work on it a bit, too. --Scott Alter 00:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should discuss the fields to include. State, levels, and number of providers are fine. Requirements and reciprocity could probably be better organized and contain more information. Besides the hours of training required, the requirements for certification would also be good to include in the same field (eg. a field called "Certification requirements" and contain something like "120 hours and NREMT-B exam"). Then, there could be a field called "Reciprocity," which could contain reciprocity requirements and automatic reciprocities with other states or the NR. What do you think? --Scott Alter 01:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely open to other column titles, but I've got two concerns. First, some of the information is going to be hard to come by. Sure, if there were 50 interested people representing their own state, this could be put together in no time. On the other hand, finding just a list of providers for some states took 15 minutes or longer due to a lack of website design. My second concern is just simple space issues. Even with the current design, the table takes up most of the width of my screen. I'd hate to see it at a lower resolution. -JPINFV (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed the columns a bit. Even if we do not have all of the data, we can still implement all of the fields. We'd just tag the page with {{Expand list}}. Since there is no deadline, it is okay to have a partially completed page. --Scott Alter 06:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

Since this is particular to the United States, the article title should really reflect that, and avoid unqualified use of the word "state", which is confusing given "international" use of same. I've not strong feelings as to how to do this: perhaps United States emergency medical responder levels by U.S. state or emergency medical responder levels of the United States, by state would be better than the one I've moved it to, pro temps.

Incidentally, the MoS requires that section headers not be linked. Not sure how best to deal with that in this context, since there's no natural occurrence of the state name in the section body to move the link to... Alai (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the name change. On one hand, I'm kinda of neutral about the wikilinks for the section titles to begin with. I've always slightly felt that links tend to be over used. On the other hand, it'll be a non-issue when the new chart layout gets finalized, completed, and rolled out. -JPINFV (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, an eventual resolution is fine by me, especially as I don't really have a better idea, anyway. Grand! Alai (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia[edit]

I heard mention from my Paramedic instructor that as of 2013, Georgia will no longer be using the EMT-B/EMT-I titles and will use EMT(for basic) and A-EMT (Advanced) Someone care to make a footnote or look into it? KyprosNighthawk (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My paramedic instructor said that Georgia will be using the EMT-B/EMT-I. EMT-B will stay as is but EMT-I will no longer be able to be obtained. Those who have an EMT-I certification will be grandfathered in but all new certifications must be either EMT-B, EMT-A, or Paramedic. Cbassett1 (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

District of Columbia[edit]

I am looking for information on the District of Columbia's level of care. Does anyone have any information?

Thank you. ConorLaHiff (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added EMR to NJ[edit]

i don't know why No one added this yet. But there are EMR's in NJ i am soon taking the course to be one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amtrak049 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EMR is not a NJ state-recognized level, so I removed it from this list. It looks like the squad you are taking the course through has its own EMR course...but it does not result in a state-recognized certification, so is inappropriate for this list. --Scott Alter (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Were is your source to that We had frist responders in my State for years, Show me a source please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amtrak049 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you have it backwards. The onus is on you to provide a source for information you would like to add. Additionally, you need to provide a source that it does exist, rather than me sourcing that it does not exist. The link you provided ([1]) is to the website of a volunteer FAS, which has 1 sentence saying they graduated first responders, and is not a sufficient reference to say that there is a first responder level provider recognized throughout the state. This one website does not mention what curriculum or standards participants were trained to, and if there was any resulting certification process. If you read the state regulations, no where does it describe a state-recognized emergency medical responder level. NJAC 8:40 describes BLS services, NJAC 8:40a describes EMT-B training/certification, NJAC 8:41 describes ALS services, and NJAC 8:41a describes paramedic training/certification. EMR is not mentioned because it does not exist as a state-recognized level. Although this FAS may have provided a legitimate nationally recognized course (or maybe not), that is not evidence that the certification is recognized by the state. Yes, there is a Red Cross Emergency Medical Response course, and the National Registry does provide testing for the EMR level. However, even if you take both the course and examination in NJ, the State Department of Health and Office of EMS do not recognize this level of provider. Anyone with no training can say they are a first responder in NJ. A volunteer FAS can have no EMTs, train members in-house, and claim to be first responders without any certification. In any case, EMR is still not a state-recognized level. --Scott Alter (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CCEMTP for MD[edit]

CCEMTP is not really a certification or licensure level in MD. It is a certification that many inter-facility paramedics hold, however it is not granted by the state or a local jurisdiction. Thoughts on removal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panaumann (talk • contribs) 09:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on Emergency medical responder levels by U.S. state. 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) 14:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emergency_medical_responder_levels_by_U.S._state&oldid=1201744348"