 |
 |
In message <[log in to unmask]>, A S Lockey <[log in to unmask]> writes >"ALS should never be viewed as some sort of qualification" >Totally agree. It is a certificate of competence for being tested in an >artificial situation. It is not a licence to practice. You're absolutely right, but like it or not, many Trusts, as AF pointed out, are insisting on ALS "certification" as the closest approximation they know to license to carry crash bleeps etc. This puts intolerable pressures on some candidates. But hey, when they're on the spot expected to run an arrest in real life, that's worse pressure. (Re. difference between "course" and "test"....) >They quite correctly stated that they couldn't give us a licence to >practice in the form of a "qualification". > >"Should our life support courses think of going down this line?" >Interesting point. If so, should ATLS and APLS do likewise? Lets open that >one to the rest of the list. Perhaps there is a place for both. Personally I see very little point in a outpatient nurse putting her(or him)self through hell to learn how to perform a castest and learn how to read an ECG, especially with the advent of semi-advisory defibs. The ILS course would be more useful. But equally I would like to think that when I have my VF arrest, the med reg (or A&E Con) running the show might have had to prove their skills and knowledge were up to date to a high level of performance skill, and if that means formal routine assessment, sobeit. I think Brighton run a nurse-oriented "ATLS" study day, which I have heard good reports about. The feedback I've had from nurses attending full ATLS courses as observers is much less glowing. Would anyone from Brighton or Eastbourne care to comment on this? Isn't this (tailored courses for staff needs) the way to develop ALS rather than continuing the "all-for-one" ideal? Dr G Ray Staff Grade A&E Sussex Reply to [log in to unmask] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%