EMT and Phlebotomist???????

[mikejames]

I want to become a phlebotomist and a EMT but I would like to know how much do they make in a year and how long will it take to get my degree in both of them?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[AnEyeLikeMars]

I want to become a phlebotomist and a EMT but I would like to know how much do they make in a year and how long will it take to get my degree in both of them?

I don't know about phlebotomist, but I know that finding a paid EMT position can be difficult to get 1) because you'll need experience, you won't get hired right out of class, and 2) because of the high rate of volunteerism. This will depend on location though, so I would check around with local rescue squads to find out what your options are.

EDIT: You can probably find a EMT job with a private ambulance company doing transport.

 

[lunaire]

Phlebs make about $9-10 an hour. If you can make a long-term commitment, some hospitals/clinic will provide on-the-job training. Otherwise, the training's around 2-3 months part-time.

 

[arsenewenger]

I want to become a phlebotomist and a EMT but I would like to know how much do they make in a year and how long will it take to get my degree in both of them?

As an EMT working transport... I make $12/hr straight out of class with a possibility of working 60 hrs per week. It is a crappy job, however , if you like hanging out with sick (very sick ppl) people all day long then give it a try.

 

[xTinaBna]

i work in the lab/pathology dept. right now..not sure how long the classroom work for phlebs is ( i think only a few months), but there are phleb students that do their clinical portion in our lab..they are there for about 2 weeks and need 100 sticks (with an experience phelb accompanying them) to complete their requirement. usually our lab will hire them right after the 100 sticks so they can stick patients on their own. they make about $10-$12/hr...hope this helps

 

[diosa428]

If you're thinking of doing work like this for your med school apps, I would recommend going the EMT route rather than the phelbotomist route. At least as an EMT you're involved in patient care. I'm not really sure you could pass off work as a phelbotomist as really helping you understand what the medical profession is all about (of course, if you have significant shadowing/volunteering experience, then this isn't necessarily relevant, but it's a thought). If you're not looking into it for med school apps, just disregard the above.

 

[CTtarheel]

as an EMT-B you may be involved in patient care or you may just be an ambulance driver. It's highly dependent on the 911 system you work in.

As for EMT jobs, to work for a 911 contractor or your local county you'll generally need some level of experience which you can normally get from a volunteer agency. My county requires at least 1 year. The easiest jobs to get are for companies that do non-emergent transport, and they'll hire you right out of class, but you wont see as much cool stuff.

 

[SupergreenMnM]

As previous posters have mentioned, as an EMT your best bet is for volunteer work or private ambulance transport work. Check the state you are in as in a lot of states after you certify as an EMT you can get an IV certification and do everything a phleb can.

 

[Nombre Falso]

Your salary will also be somewhat dependent on what region of the country you are working. There are also medical assistant jobs where you will draw blood as part of your duties. $10-18/hr is reasonable estimate. Good luck.

 

[45408]

I don't know about phlebotomist, but I know that finding a paid EMT position can be difficult to get 1) because you'll need experience, you won't get hired right out of class, and 2) because of the high rate of volunteerism. This will depend on location though, so I would check around with local rescue squads to find out what your options are.

EDIT: You can probably find a EMT job with a private ambulance company doing transport.

Talk to people who are already working in EMS, because one area is VERY different from another. I got a job working 911 calls with ZERO experience (my first call after 60 training hours of running a 3-man crew was an MVA). I didn't make much money at all - $8 - but they call it EMS for a reason: Earn Money Sleeping. It was easy for me to schedule a 24-hour shift even into a busy week, because it was just one day, and I'd get almost $200. That's a lot better than working 4 hours a day, six days a week!

 

[arsenewenger]

Talk to people who are already working in EMS, because one area is VERY different from another. I got a job working 911 calls with ZERO experience (my first call after 60 training hours of running a 3-man crew was an MVA). I didn't make much money at all - $8 - but they call it EMS for a reason: Earn Money Sleeping. It was easy for me to schedule a 24-hour shift even into a busy week, because it was just one day, and I'd get almost $200. That's a lot better than working 4 hours a day, six days a week!

I call it Easy Money source or Elevator Man Technician

 

[geogil]

I'm a phleb in oregon and I'll make a pitch for being one. You get to know how the lab works, (which means you might be more patient when you're a doctor and they're being slow), you get LOTS of patient contact, work in every hospital environment. For me, I took a night class for about 4 weeks one summer, and got a job at the local medical lab. Some states require a ASCP certification to be one, Oregon does not. I make $14/hr, more if I work nights. You can get great clinical experience either way. Having said that, don't just rely on your job to get you clinical experience. Some medical schools want you to have a lot shadowing too, to indicate that you know what doctors do, not just lab folks or ambulance jockeys.

 

[ntsystematic]

This seems to be a topic that I can speak with some authority on. I have been EMT certified for 7 years, phlebotomy certified for 6 years, and spent the last 3 years working as a clinical lab assistant/ phlebotomist. I was also accepted to medical school for fall 2007 (class of 2011) so here's the deal if you're trying to eventually go to medical school:

EMT is a good route but ONLY if you're able to get an ER Tech job immediately after your EMT certification. Here's why: it's all about working in the hospital with physicians, not working on a rig with a paramedic with a god complex. EMT's a looked at as pee-ons by paramedics and although you may gain some valuable medical experience in the field, your more likely to work with a medic who is pissed off that you have aspirations of being a doc and is jealous of your goals. Now, don't get me wrong, not all medics are that way, but ask around and you'll get the same story from a lot of premed EMT's.

Second, Paramedics utilize assessment-based treatments to stabilize patients and get them to the hospital as quickly as possible for definitive care. Because you probably want to go to medical school, you are probably interested in diagnosis-based treatment that is far more advanced, and far more interesting. Let's face it, you want to be a doc, not a medic, so why spend all of your time working with medics and learning about pre-hospital care when you could be working in a hospital and learning about the stuff that you will be doing as a doc.

I worked an EMT on a rig before working as an ER Tech for a couple of years. The ER Tech experience was invaluable and helped solidify my decision to go to medical school. When I moved to a different city to go to my undergrad institution for my bachelor’s degree, I looked for any ER Tech job I could find, but there were none available. So I did the next best thing, I got a job as a clinical lab scientist.

Now, if you're going to go the phlebotomy route, you absolutely must get an inpatient clinical lab assistant position. NOT OUTPATIENT. Outpatient phlebotomists sit at phlebotomy stations and draw mostly healthy peoples’ blood all day. There is minimal physician contact, and limited possibility to learn about medicine. You will become a great phlebotomist, but that’s not the point now is it? You have to get a position working in the hospital lab, which will give you the ability to draw blood in all hospital units and lots of physician interaction. At my work, I draw blood in the ER, ICU, Birthing Center (including newborns), and med/surge. Patient contact is limitless and the acuity can be very high. Additionally, the more you show interest in medicine, and the better you are at phlebotomy, the more apt the docs are to talk to you and treat you as their go to guy (or girl) in the lab.

Remember, as a future doc, the more contact you have with doctors the better. Get an ER Tech if possible, if not, be a phlebotomist. If that doesn't work then try EMS.

As far as money goes, well it depends on which part of the coutry you live in so I'm gonna leave that up to you to find out for yourself. It's not about money, it's about experience and getting into medical school.

 

[CTtarheel]

your more likely to work with a medic who is pissed off that you have aspirations of being a doc and is jealous of your goals. Now, don't get me wrong, not all medics are that way, but ask around and you'll get the same story from a lot of premed EMT's.

This is all about the attitude that you project. If you go in with the attitude that "yeah, i'm gonna be a doctor and I'm smarter/better than you" than yes everyone is going to hate you. So the reason that pre-med EMT's are hated so badly is because the majority of them are EXTREMELY arrogant, thinking they know everything. I agree with the point that you will do little if any medical care by yourself (again HEAVILY dependent on the system you work in), but the more interest you show in EMS itself, instead of making it obvious you're only doing this to get into med school, the more autonomy the medics will give you and the more they'll let you help out with the advanced stuff they do.

So . . . besides from getting experience as an actual health care provider, being an EMT allows you to get a feel for where your patients come from. You actually pick homeless people off the street, seeing the alleyway they live in, and get to see the abysmally low standard of care in the nursing homes. For me it's been a valuable LIFE experience more than a medical one.

 

[SurgeonUFO]

I'm an EMT-B who volunteers at my local ambulance garage. We're an I-level squad, so although we have a couple of medics, they can't use their medic skills. We do have an I on call 24/7, but they're not always at the garage and a good chunk of the time we just have B's at the garage. I've had tons of patient contact, and have thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it (well, except for the nights without any calls, those are kind've lame...).

My experience with EMS has completely solidified my desire to become a physician, and as our hospital is pretty small has given me some physician contact, though I'm not willing to prostrate myself on the ground before them and beg for their love and well wishes.

Frankly, I think EMS has ended up with a bad rep somehow, and I've seen nothing that indicates why. Nursing homes can be pretty depressing, though...

 

[greytmedic]

Second, Paramedics utilize assessment-based treatments to stabilize patients and get them to the hospital as quickly as possible for definitive care. Because you probably want to go to medical school, you are probably interested in diagnosis-based treatment that is far more advanced, and far more interesting. Let's face it, you want to be a doc, not a medic, so why spend all of your time working with medics and learning about pre-hospital care when you could be working in a hospital and learning about the stuff that you will be doing as a doc.

Just to point out something that seems a little odd to me, but may be it is just in the wording, the whole assessment-based vs. diagnosis-based treatments isn't exactly accurate. Doctors also assess the patient and use that assessment to make a diagnosis. Ultimately, a doctor's diagnosis is based on an assessment. Granted, paramedics usually are limited to physical based assessment, where as doctors use physical assessment in addition to other findings to diagnose the patient. As an EMT you will learn how to perform basic physical assessments of a pt and become comfortable performing this exam. This means you will develop a skill set that is required to later formulate a diagnosis as a doctor.

There are pros and cons to working in each environment. People have made very good points about all three positions. Depending on where you live an EMT-B class will usually take one semester, although there are places where you can get it in as little as two weeks. Phlebotomists also have different time frames. My wife started out working as a central processor (secretary) for the lab but was later trained on the job to start working as a phlebotomist and later took the ASCP test without ever taking a class. A couple years ago the hospital changed its policy and now requires the phlebotomists to go through the classes. Either way, your best bet is to call around to some local hospitals and EMS providers and check on their requirements.

 

[NCF145]

Now, if you're going to go the phlebotomy route, you absolutely must get an inpatient clinical lab assistant position. NOT OUTPATIENT. Outpatient phlebotomists sit at phlebotomy stations and draw mostly healthy peoples’ blood all day. There is minimal physician contact, and limited possibility to learn about medicine. You will become a great phlebotomist, but that’s not the point now is it? You have to get a position working in the hospital lab, which will give you the ability to draw blood in all hospital units and lots of physician interaction. At my work, I draw blood in the ER, ICU, Birthing Center (including newborns), and med/surge. Patient contact is limitless and the acuity can be very high. Additionally, the more you show interest in medicine, and the better you are at phlebotomy, the more apt the docs are to talk to you and treat you as their go to guy (or girl) in the lab.

Working as a phlebotomist in an outpatient setting only WILL NOT make you a good or even somewhat competent phlebotomist. The only place you will gain experience and skill is in an inpatient setting. I mean anyone can stick a large vein in the AC. Try getting a rainbow on a pt. with only one arm, has an iv that is running fluid/medication which is located on the upper portion of the hand and the pt. is a diabetic. And just like always, after you have collected all of the necessary blood for the labs the nurse tells you that the pt. has just spiked a fever and will need blood cultures x2.

 

[GreenShirt]

If you go the EMT route, there's pros and cons to the ambulance vs. ER Tech setting.

Ambulance
Pro: You get to call the shots. You pick up the patient, do a physical assessment and history then decide on a course of action. You'll learn to make medical decisions w/in the scope of your practice and practice the P&H skills you'll further develop as a Dr.
Con: If you end up on a B rig, most of your cases will be simple transports. You'll essentially be a glorified taxi service.

ER Tech
Pro: You get to "try on" the hospital and see if its a fit for you. You'll interact with all sorts of hospital staff and get lots of insights from them. You'll get a taste of what its like to stand on your feet for 12 hrs in a fluorescent cement bunker.
Con: You don't get to call the shots, you do what the Dr. or nurse tells you to do, which can be a lot of wiping people's rear ends. You won't exercise the history taking skills you learn in EMT-B class.

 

[45408]

EMT is a good route but ONLY if you're able to get an ER Tech job immediately after your EMT certification.


I worked an EMT on a rig before working as an ER Tech for a couple of years. The ER Tech experience was invaluable and helped solidify my decision to go to medical school.

I disagree. Being an EMT alone was more than enough to get me into med school (where I am now). You even pointed out that you were an EMT on a rig before you got an ER tech job. All the hospitals by me require at least 6 months of experience to be an ER tech, and the level 1 trauma center employs paramedics as the ER techs. The people I know with ER tech jobs had well over a year's experience before they got the job. By the time a pre-med takes the class, finds a job, gets a year's experience, they'll probably be at the interview stage (I was).

Would I have liked an ER tech job? Of course. It was a step up in terms of clinical contact, but it isn't a realistic option for a lot of pre-meds. Besides, the ER techs I know have to work a lot harder than I usually did.

 

[Sublimelvc]

Extra Man on the Truck.

Cons: As a EMT-paramedic with 4 yrs experience I can tell you, with some authority, that most people feel that way about EMTs. In a high volume service with tons of ALS calls, I get a bit annoyed drawing the unlucky EMT as a partner. On a CPR call, two medics are infinitely better for patient outcome. That being said, I am a nice guy, and treat everyone with respect. You will not experience the true "guts and glory" of EMS without being a paramedic unless you are in some hillbilly town where you are the only person willing to respond. In that situation, you will probably be a volunteer.

Pros: "Guts and Glory" (by proxy)
EMS = Earn Money Sleeping
OT is a decent hourly wage
Available hours are pretty much unlimited
Contact about a million sick patients throughout a year or two career

As for helping in med school admissions, judge for yourself:
29T
EMT-P X 4 years
3.54 GPA from Wake Forest, BS Biology
AAS in emerency medical sciences
Tropical Rainforest research
A single HUGE judicial infraction

I applied to five schools, 5/5 secondaries, 3/5 interviews

so far: 2 rejections, 1 WL, 2 unknown

Hope that helps

 

[greytmedic]

Extra Man on the Truck.

Cons: As a EMT-paramedic with 4 yrs experience I can tell you, with some authority, that most people feel that way about EMTs. In a high volume service with tons of ALS calls, I get a bit annoyed drawing the unlucky EMT as a partner. On a CPR call, two medics are infinitely better for patient outcome. That being said, I am a nice guy, and treat everyone with respect. You will not experience the true "guts and glory" of EMS without being a paramedic unless you are in some hillbilly town where you are the only person willing to respond. In that situation, you will probably be a volunteer.

I don't think you can say that most paramedics feel that way about EMTs. I always go by the saying, "Paramedics save lives, EMTs save paramedics." I have never had problems working with EMTs. As for, "On a CPR call, two medics are infinitely better for patient outcome" that is just not true. To quote the ACLS manual, "Remember, no drug given during cardiac arrest has been shown to improve survival to hospital discharge or improve neurologic function after cardiac arrest" (pg. 47) A team of paramedics with all the bells, whistles, drugs, and ET tubes have never been shown to be more effective than a couple of EMTs performing high-quality CPR with access to an AED. And that is a statement by the people who write the book on giving all the drugs during cardiac arrest.

 

[Sublimelvc]

I don't think you can say that most paramedics feel that way about EMTs. I always go by the saying, "Paramedics save lives, EMTs save paramedics." I have never had problems working with EMTs. As for, "On a CPR call, two medics are infinitely better for patient outcome" that is just not true. To quote the ACLS manual, "Remember, no drug given during cardiac arrest has been shown to improve survival to hospital discharge or improve neurologic function after cardiac arrest" (pg. 47) A team of paramedics with all the bells, whistles, drugs, and ET tubes have never been shown to be more effective than a couple of EMTs performing high-quality CPR with access to an AED. And that is a statement by the people who write the book on giving all the drugs during cardiac arrest.

Your ACLS data regarding cardiac medications and neurological outcome is probably true; however, we still give it in the face of such uncertainty, and are expected to give it expeditiously (my statement on patient outcome during CPRs was therefore unwarranted). However, justification for my preference remains. If I am operating off a stepwise cardiac arrest protocol, with multiple ALS procedures, who wouldn't prefer an extra set of experienced ALS hands? Plus a second paramedic's opinion is valued over the opinion of a lesser trained EMT anyday. Aside from CPR calls, two medics are much better in RSI situations, CHF patients, pediatric seizures, etc. where many procedures are required and immediate transport not necessarily beneficial. These reasons, along with the elimination of 50% of the individual paramedic's liability and paperwork stemming from running every ALS call, are why any big city has decided two medics are the standard. Of course, claiming otherwise may simply just be a matter of personal preference.

 

[greytmedic]

Your ACLS data regarding cardiac medications and neurological outcome is probably true; however, we still give it in the face of such uncertainty, and are expected to give it expeditiously (my statement on patient outcome during CPRs was therefore unwarranted). However, justification for my preference remains. If I am operating off a stepwise cardiac arrest protocol, with multiple ALS procedures, who wouldn't prefer an extra set of experienced ALS hands? Plus a second paramedic's opinion is valued over the opinion of a lesser trained EMT anyday. Aside from CPR calls, two medics are much better in RSI situations, CHF patients, pediatric seizures, etc. where many procedures are required and immediate transport not necessarily beneficial. These reasons, along with the elimination of 50% of the individual paramedic's liability and paperwork stemming from running every ALS call, are why any big city has decided two medics are the standard. Of course, claiming otherwise may simply just be a matter of personal preference.

I agree with you that having two paramedics does make it easier on the provider, but not necessary to improve pt outcomes. I just think that unless you have traveled across the country and studied Paramedic/EMT relationships in your 4 years experience you really don't have any "authority" to comment on how "most people" feel about EMTs. You only have your opinion based on your experiences, which may be justifiable in your situation, just not applicable to different providers or systems.

Also, elimination of 50% of an individual paramedic's liability does not occur when there are two paramedics. Everyone is 100% liable for performing the correct standard of care in his/her scope of practice. Just because you may not be the lead paramedic on a call does not eliminate any liability in performing your duties. If something goes south both paramedics are held 100% responsible. The second paramedic can't just say, "Well I wasn't in charge, so it's not problem." Now, having paperwork reduced by half does make it easier on the provider, but it doesn't really mandate having two paramedics.

 

[Allerian1004]

I'm a phlebotomist and MN does not require accrediation. I didn't even take a class. My hospital trained me and now I work at a really busy clinic. We have tons of OB, family practice and peds patients. I get a lot of patient interaction. Besides blood draws I also do EKGs and Spirometry. My favorite thing is doing the neonatel bilirubins (heel sticks) on 3-4 day olds. I also make about $14hr and get full benefits.

 

[greytmedic]

I asked my wife and she made $12.50 an hour plus $2.00/hr pm shift differential as a phlebotomist with a 40 hour work week and full benifits. When I started out as a EMT-B I made $6.50/hr base pay. I worked 24/48 with no Kelly days, so with all the overtime I think I made about $26,000/year with full benifits but non-union. Where I work now, the EMTs make $13.50/hr on 12 hour shifts with union benifits.

 

[NickRiviera]

Working as a phlebotomist in an outpatient setting only WILL NOT make you a good or even somewhat competent phlebotomist. The only place you will gain experience and skill is in an inpatient setting. I mean anyone can stick a large vein in the AC.

I disagree. You don't need difficult sticks to be good at phlebotomy and I really doubt you've dealt with many based on your intent to impress. What about doing plasma donation where people without money/health insurance come to donate? They aren't at the best level of health either. You can be good at a skill regardless of where you practice.

I'm a phlebotomist and MN does not require accrediation.

Requirements for accreditation is hospital based. So, you likely don't work at a hospital in MN that requires it like North or HCMC. Maybe you work at a more lax hospital like Allina or Fairview...

To quote the ACLS manual, "Remember, no drug given during cardiac arrest has been shown to improve survival to hospital discharge or improve neurologic function after cardiac arrest" (pg. 47) A team of paramedics with all the bells, whistles, drugs, and ET tubes have never been shown to be more effective than a couple of EMTs performing high-quality CPR with access to an AED. And that is a statement by the people who write the book on giving all the drugs during cardiac arrest.

I think you're making the wrong assumption from the first quote. Why would they even make medics take ACLS if it isn't effective? I'm sure you know, ACLS is not just for cardiac arrest. It is also for life threatening arrhythmias, some of which an EMT with no drugs could manage. How would you take care of post-vagal SVT without Adenosine, TdP without Magnesium, etc.? Sure, drugs alone may not improve post-hospital survival but they may provide cardiac maintenance, which would allow for in-hospital treatments, like PCI, to be more effective.

 

[NickRiviera]

I want to become a phlebotomist and a EMT but I would like to know how much do they make in a year and how long will it take to get my degree in both of them?

As many have mentioned, the pay varies from $7-15/hour with in-hospital technicians/phlebotomists making more. EMT training is usually 4-6 months and requires a registry. Nursing Assistant (CNA) training is a little bit less time and less work and has comparable pay. Phlebotomy training varies by location with most areas requiring experience or a certification (ASCP), which can be done in about a month.

 

[lina123321]

how long does phlebotomy training usually take?

 

[NickRiviera]

how long does phlebotomy training usually take?

The certification alone can be done in a month, then you do on-the-job training. If you run through an entire course instead, it usually is 50 hours of class and 50 hours of lab including 50 venipunctures and 10 skin punctures (like foot for peds). Some courses require over 200 hours. On a different note, EMT/CNA can open doors for others jobs such as ER Tech (ERT). ERT can be done through a course as well or, from what I've seen, mostly be on-the-job training.

 

[GreenShirt]

I disagree. Being an EMT alone was more than enough to get me into med school (where I am now). You even pointed out that you were an EMT on a rig before you got an ER tech job. All the hospitals by me require at least 6 months of experience to be an ER tech, and the level 1 trauma center employs paramedics as the ER techs. The people I know with ER tech jobs had well over a year's experience before they got the job. By the time a pre-med takes the class, finds a job, gets a year's experience, they'll probably be at the interview stage (I was).

Would I have liked an ER tech job? Of course. It was a step up in terms of clinical contact, but it isn't a realistic option for a lot of pre-meds. Besides, the ER techs I know have to work a lot harder than I usually did.

The experience requirements for an ER Tech vary in my city. Level I trauma centers usually prefer a harry-knuckled paramedic with a few yrs experiences. However, I was able to find an ER position on an EMT-B w/out any experience. But it's true that the positions are hard to get. There's less of them then there are jobs on rigs.

 

[Sublimelvc]

Just because you may not be the lead paramedic on a call does not eliminate any liability in performing your duties. If something goes south both paramedics are held 100% responsible. The second paramedic can't just say, "Well I wasn't in charge, so it's not problem."

In my system, this is erroneous. The lead paramedic is ultimately responsible as long as they are both cleared "solo" by medical direction. How can the medic up front driving be expected to be liable for a mistake made in the back? On scene, you would hope "two heads are better than one" and a really bad decision would not be made in concordance.

Ok, Ok, and I do not have coast to coast experience working in 15 cities as a medic for 30 years. So my authority is more of the "Cartman" variety than the "Jack Bauer" variety. But I am smart, and I keep my ears open, talk to people from many services and attend conferences. I have noticed a trend on this subject. Those who espouse the superiority of EMT partners are usually some arrogant old desk jockey who hasn't touched a patient in 5 years. Those other 90% who prefer a paramedic are tired, hardened street medics who know that their preference works best for efficiency, safety and moral.

 

[NickRiviera]

I have noticed a trend on this subject. Those who espouse the superiority of EMT partners are usually some arrogant old desk jockey who hasn't touched a patient in 5 years. Those other 90% who prefer a paramedic are tired, hardened street medics who know that their preference works best for efficiency, safety and moral.

Studies to come... http://www.jems.com/news/14377. Now, back to the OP's question...

 

[BloodySurgeon]

There are two types of EMTs.. 1) One with 911 contracts and 2) One with no 911 contracts. If you got a company working with 911 calls, you usually never do transport but medics are always there to call the shots. Also, the more transport you do, the more money you get. EMS knows that people want the action and glory so with less ppl willing to do transport, they get paid more.

Another note, where I live its very hard to nail an ER Tech job; especially right after class. Some require phleb + EMT, and some require 6 months experience. They work harder hours but also get paid more. IMO EMT is a good pre-med job.... we have lots of homework and test, so its good to have a job with lots of free time to do so. .

 

[greytmedic]

Extra Man on the Truck.

On a CPR call, two medics are infinitely better for patient outcome.

I think you're making the wrong assumption from the first quote. Why would they even make medics take ACLS if it isn't effective? I'm sure you know, ACLS is not just for cardiac arrest. It is also for life threatening arrhythmias, some of which an EMT with no drugs could manage. How would you take care of post-vagal SVT without Adenosine, TdP without Magnesium, etc.? Sure, drugs alone may not improve post-hospital survival but they may provide cardiac maintenance, which would allow for in-hospital treatments, like PCI, to be more effective.

I was using this quote to show that the statement above is anecdotal evidence and not supported by any evidence. Note the "On a CPR call..." I made the silly assumption that if a provider was performing CPR the pt was in pulseless cardiac arrest. I then referred to EMTs performing high-quality CPR with an AED, which once again assumes the pt to be in pulseless arrest. If the patient was not in pulseless arrest and the providers were performing CPR, well that's an entirely different topic. On calls that require ACLS intervention, but not CPR, early access to ALS interventions will give the patient a chance at a better outcome, but that is not what sublimelvc stated.

 

[NCF145]

I disagree. You don't need difficult sticks to be good at phlebotomy and I really doubt you've dealt with many based on your intent to impress. What about doing plasma donation where people without money/health insurance come to donate? They aren't at the best level of health either. You can be good at a skill regardless of where you practice.

You can get good at phlebotomy without difficult sticks? Are you kidding me? I guess I'm good at math since I'm good at addition and subtraction. By most standards, you are not considered good until you are more accomplished (good) at the difficult tasks.

Are you a phlebotomist or someone who is responsible for sticking patients? If not, then you have no ground to disagree. My example was not an attempt to impress. It was my response to a previous poster who said that you could get good at phlebotomy in an out-patient only setting. I have over 3,000+ (venous and arterial) sticks at the hospital I work at. The situation I presented is one that I deal with on a regular basis. I know several people who do out-patient phlebotomy only and I would not conisder them anywhere near good. If you want to become good at phlebotomy, you need challenges. You will face them regularly in an in-patient setting. In an out-patient setting the challenges you face will be rare and not as great as an in-patient.

Also, since when does money/health insurance have an impact upon vein quality? Some of the people in the hospital with the best veins are those who are without insurance and much money.

 

[CTtarheel]

On a CPR call, two medics are infinitely better for patient outcome.

Actually . . . as my training officer says (he's a medic), the survival rate of the patients goes down the more medics are on the call.

The reason for this is that they take too long doing interventions when the patients just need "diesel therapy". Not trying to say that CPR patients don't need interventions (obviously they do), but if you've ever been on a scene with two medics, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[Sublimelvc]

Realizing this thread has been hijacked, I must continue:

Anecdotally, every CPR save I have ever had (I think 5 or 6) has been with another medic. Granted, I have a semi-permanent medic partner with whom I work extremely well. Just last month we saved a fire fighter's father who required multiple defibrillations, a dynamic medication algorithm and an advanced airway (King LT Airways are amazing, if you other medics don't have them yet -- 11 second insertion time!!!!). He was transferred out of my hospital so I'm not sure about his neuro status. ANYWAY, with a scene time of 15 minutes this weathered medic and I banged out the protocol much, much faster than I could have with an EMT. I know this is subjective, anecdotal, non-peer reviewed, isolated, etc, etc. but that is my (et al.) opinion and preference and I'm sticking to it. And aside from CPR calls, I never sit on scene. I am a BP/12-lead on scene kinda guy, then load and go, understanding a patient's best chances lie in the emergency room, not on my stretcher.

 

[AnEyeLikeMars]

It just seems to me that the more highly-trained and experience the 2nd person is, the better. Seems like common sense, but maybe this is not empirically supported.

 

[NickRiviera]

Are you a phlebotomist or someone who is responsible for sticking patients? If not, then you have no ground to disagree.

Really, I don't care about your background because even though you say you're a phlebotomist, you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, I'm a phlebotomist too, really though, how would you verify I am or not? You straight out said that phlebotomists who do not practice in the hospital are not competent. You're not as good as you think you are.

Anecdotally, every CPR save I have ever had (I think 5 or 6) has been with another medic.

5 of 6 is statistically unlikely based on how many patients actually survive after having CPR. Maybe you're counting something like "pulse" to mean survival since you likely never see those patients again. I'd say those numbers are made up, like most EMS stories.

 

[greytmedic]

5 of 6 is statistically unlikely based on how many patients actually survive after having CPR. Maybe you're counting something like "pulse" to mean survival since you likely never see those patients again. I'd say those numbers are made up, like most EMS stories.

I think it was 5 or 6, not 5 out of 6. Anyways, I just wanted to make the point to any person looking into EMS that not all paramedics will "be a bit annoyed at drawing the unlucky EMT as a partner." I just think that if a paramedic is competent and confident in his/her skills, that the partner should not matter. Yes, having a paramedic makes for a little less work, but that does not mean EMTs are not a useful resource. It annoys me when people refer to someone else or themselves as "just an EMT." An EMT is a valuable member of the pre-hospital management of a patient and should not be looked down upon, after all that is where all of us paramedics got our start.

 

[NickRiviera]

I think it was 5 or 6, not 5 out of 6. Anyways, I just wanted to make the point to any person looking into EMS that not all paramedics will "be a bit annoyed at drawing the unlucky EMT as a partner." I just think that if a paramedic is competent and confident in his/her skills, that the partner should not matter. Yes, having a paramedic makes for a little less work, but that does not mean EMTs are not a useful resource. It annoys me when people refer to someone else or themselves as "just an EMT." An EMT is a valuable member of the pre-hospital management of a patient and should not be looked down upon, after all that is where all of us paramedics got our start.

As always,

 

[Sublimelvc]

Yes GreyTMedic is right, 5 or 6 of at least 20 working CPRs. And no, I do not make up or exaggerate stories. The good EMS stories should not require hyperbole.

And like I said in my original post, I do respect EMT's and will not cry myself to sleep by drawing one in the schedule. 911 calls are great way to get pre-med experience.

Maybe my laziness leads me to prefer paramedic partners. It is comforting to turn your brain off for half the calls of any given day, especially working 70+ hours a week. Who could possibly disagree with that?