Add my voice to Craig and Ed's.
Given that provider status in all the life support courses
is 'a minimum standard' expected at entry ST4, I would
seriously hope that ST4 to ST6 training improves the
understanding, and advances the knowledge, of what is
taught on those courses.
Given the advances in EM which need to be taken on board
it seems daft to spend a significant proportion of
precious study time/money doing junior courses. As an
example, the ever extending use of ultrasound would fill
far more than a study leave allowance in either time or
money!
Sarah Spencer
ED Consultant, Bridgend
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:15:53 +0000
Edward Valentine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Have to say I completely agree with Craig - we're
>supposed to be specialists in the field of Emergency
>Medicine and it's pretty depressing if as senior EM
>trainees / Consultants we're having to use our limited
>study leave/budget to go on basic life support courses.
>
> I do feel these courses have value for more junior
>members of the specialty, but I would expect an SpR /
>Consultant to be able to act way above the level of an
>ALS/ATLS provider. Surely we should be fully uptodate
>with the latest evidence relating to our specialty
>without needing to rely on ALSG to spoon feed it to us
>(and I'm really not convinced that most of the life
>support courses are that evidence based in the first
>place).
>
> I'm not sure I'd actually want to work in a Dept which
>expected me as a Consultant to have to continually repeat
>ALS, ATLS, EPLS etc..
>
> Ed
>
> Dr Ed Valentine
> SpR Emergency Medicine and Critical Care
>
> [log in to unmask]
> Mobile: 07748 303324
>
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:40:39 +1300
> Craig Ellis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>Completely disagree with Andy.
>>
>>It is a sad reflection on individual Emergency Medicine
>>Consultants if
>>they require these courses to remain current with the
>>literature and
>>guidelines around resuscitation. You are surposed to be
>>leaders in the
>>field of resuscitation for goodness sake - if you need
>>these courses to
>>stay upto date or competent at resusciation then heaven
>>help us.
>>
>>There is a place in the context of the resuscitation
>>leadership role
>>within a Hospital or Region to instruct on these courses
>>for sure and
>>you also need to know what they are teaching the juniors.
>>
>>No issue with the need to QA knowledge and skills in
>>resuscitation and
>>these courses are certainly one way, but making it
>>mandatory? Bollocks.
>>Many ways to QA your resus - we video, we real time peer
>>review, we
>>auidt. Ditto for making sure your working as a team -
>>many ways.
>>
>>I seriously have better things to do with my limited
>>professional
>>development time. There are several cutting edge
>>conferences on
>>Emergency Cardiac Care and some fantastic trauma meetings
>>and here we
>>are talking about keeping upto date on a merit badge
>>course - fantastic.
>>
>>No offence Andy, you are likely an instructor or on the
>>council of one
>>of these organisations, but I think making these courses
>>mandatory to
>>practicing EP's is professionally insulting.
>>
>>The next European Emergency Cardiology Meeting I believe
>>is in Rome next
>>year which is an infinitely better use of my CME time -
>>and if Im
>>worried Im not familiar with the local guidelines, I can
>>read them on
>>the plane flying out.
>>
>>
>>cheers
>>
>>Craig
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Accident and Emergency Academic List
>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of A Lockey
>>Sent: Sunday, 18 January 2009 12:27 AM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: Resuscitation provider status
>>
>>Slightly biased here, but the answer has to be "yes"
>>
>>The courses all update with evolving evidence base and
>>updated
>>international guidelines. They are therefore a way of
>>keeping up to
>>speed with current guidelines. Most of these courses have
>>some form of
>>abbreviated recertification course if you do not want to
>>do the whole
>>course again.
>>
>>Also, most have a validity for 4-5 years now. This
>>obviously doesn't
>>mean that no learning or local refresher training should
>>be done in the
>>meantime as deemed necessary. It dos however mean that
>>you are not
>>having to re-do each course every 3 years as happened in
>>the past. The
>>timescales now fit more appropriately with when
>>guidelines are more
>>likely to b different.
>>
>>Finally, several of the courses are now looking at
>>e-learning components
>>to the course, in part to address the issue of pressure
>>on "time out"
>>for instructors and candidates alike.
>>
>>In my department, it is a mandatory requirement that all
>>Consultant and
>>Middle Grades have at least Provider status in ALS, ATLS
>>and either EPLS
>>or APLS. This is checked on an annual basis at appraisal.
>>We have not
>>experienced any problem with this being achieved.
>>
>>Andy
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Accident and Emergency Academic List
>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andrew
>>Webster
>>Sent: 17 January 2009 11:05
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Resuscitation provider status
>>
>>Issue raised by our resus training officer who is looking
>>at staff
>>training matrix.
>>
>>Would you expect consultant and middle grade staff to be
>>up to date in
>>ALS/atls/epls or apls
>>
>>With the cost of courses limited leave other competing
>>needs it is
>>difficult to achieve all three, possibly with limited
>>additional benefit
>>if you get sufficient exposure in your work
>>
>>Andy
>>
>>
>>____________
>>DISCLAIMER: This emailed information is private and
>>protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient,
>>you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or
>>distribution, or the taking of any action based on the
>>content of this information, is strictly prohibited.
>>Please let us know immediately if you have received this
>>by mistake and destroy this message.
|