Talk:National Registry Emergency Medical Technician
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 23 January 2024. The result of the discussion was merge. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Start of New EMT-B page
editI've started this page (poorly, I admit) to provide a home for all the information about the USA's EMT-B level of EMT. This page should grow to represent the US view and the view from state to state. Fr33kMan (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nice to see that page has grown! Keep up the good work guys! :) fr33kman -s- 04:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Updates
editTook a stab at cleaning up a great entry!
copyedit: first paragraph to set it up as more of an introductory paragraph, eliminating some detail moved down to scope of practice newheading: added new heading "Scope of practice"; grouped all core skills here that are uniform to EMTs in all states newsubheading: added new subheading "Variation among states"; grouped all skills previously described on the page which are not uniform among states sp: "Epinepherine" to correct "Epinephrine" sp: "EMT-B's" to eliminate use of possessive apostrophe -- "EMT-Bs" MoS-formatting: applied formatting to be more consistent with Wikipedia Manual of Style addition: information regarding limits of medical treatment by EMTs (i.e. non-definitive care) clarification: slightly more detail about legal relationship between EMT-Bs and higher medical authorities, standing medical protocols. "Michael" 11:12 11 March 2008
Training/Education
editAdded section about EMT-B cert. Does anyone outside of Tennessee have a link to an education requirement of more than 110 hours? I'm excluding TN since (and I'll eventually add a blurb about it), they don't let EMT-Bs practice prehospital medicine (minimum level is EMT-I). JPINFV (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Proposed merge with EMT Basic Skills
editOppose First (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. Second, 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) 05:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with the above, I don't think that should even be an article to begin with. Find me an article that list skills a CNA, LPN, RN, NP, MA, or MD have to "master" to get their license and I may re-consider.Brentoli (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Let's clarify the question, because the rationales above are SUPPORT rationales. The options in such a "proposal" are merge so that the information is in a single place and the "lesser" article redirects to the "master" article, or leave two seperate articles. If I'm understanding, both above wish the Skills page to be a redirect. Great. That'd be a SUPPORT MERGE comment.
- There's the option of taking the Skills page to AfD, but the simplest and easiest answer is to take whatever little information from the skills page we want to keep in an EMT article and then redirect that page. That's the question, and I think I'm here being the third person to say that yes, the Skills article should not exist on its own and should redirect here (or elsewhere, perhaps) and whatever information we want to retain from that page we would incorporate here. (Granted, I'm the first person, as I proposed the merge, but you know what I mean).
- Does that make more sense? • VigilancePrime • • • 00:10 (UTC) 31 Mar '08
- If I were the one to end up merging (not saying I won't, but I'm a tad busy with 2 exams and a paper due in the next week and a half), so little information from that page would make it that it isn't funny. Over half the page would be summed up basically with a "EMT Basics are trained to do basic assessments and treatments for (classes of patients similar to the paramedic article), including oxygen, splinting..." Well over half of that page wouldn't make it. Definitely not the mnemonics (to be honest, I have my doubts on the notability of Opqrst to have a page anyways, but that page isn't nearly as bad as the now removed "Emergency Medical Care" page). To me, that's more of a {prod} than a merge. If that is considered a merge, then so be it. JPINFV (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agree, and I thought of using the PROD, but 1. someone would probably contest it and 2. with no page, it would likely be recreated eventually... better to at least keep the page as a redirect. That was my thought process. • VigilancePrime • • • 00:59 (UTC) 31 Mar '08
- If I get some time this week, I'll try to play around with the SOP section of this page. I'll see where that takes us with my view.JPINFV (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just remember the type of person it takes to think that is notible anyways. Self-serving hero EMT's. Good luck arguing that one out with them.Brentoli (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- If I get some time this week, I'll try to play around with the SOP section of this page. I'll see where that takes us with my view.JPINFV (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Agree, and I thought of using the PROD, but 1. someone would probably contest it and 2. with no page, it would likely be recreated eventually... better to at least keep the page as a redirect. That was my thought process. • VigilancePrime • • • 00:59 (UTC) 31 Mar '08
- If I were the one to end up merging (not saying I won't, but I'm a tad busy with 2 exams and a paper due in the next week and a half), so little information from that page would make it that it isn't funny. Over half the page would be summed up basically with a "EMT Basics are trained to do basic assessments and treatments for (classes of patients similar to the paramedic article), including oxygen, splinting..." Well over half of that page wouldn't make it. Definitely not the mnemonics (to be honest, I have my doubts on the notability of Opqrst to have a page anyways, but that page isn't nearly as bad as the now removed "Emergency Medical Care" page). To me, that's more of a {prod} than a merge. If that is considered a merge, then so be it. JPINFV (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so I took a stab at rewriting the scope of practice section. Would this be considered an acceptable "merge" of the Skills page? - JPINFV (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone? -JPINFV (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Changed my vote to merge following the discussion. Since there haven't been any other input I'm going to merge them.
The result was No Consensus (Default to Merge)-- JPINFV (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on National Registry 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070415133417/http://www.nremt.org:80/downloads/EMT.basic.pdf to http://www.nremt.org/downloads/EMT.basic.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070620062125/http://www.emsa.ca.gov/legislation/FinalApprovedChapter3242007.pdf to http://www.emsa.ca.gov/legislation/FinalApprovedChapter3242007.pdf
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: 5 June 2024).
- 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 16:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)