This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Ray M. Wright
Johnson County Community College Overland Park, Kan

JAMA. 1986;255(5):609-610.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

As a coordinator of a paramedic training program and a cited author,¹ I must take issue with the assumptions advanced by Drs Smith and Bodai² in their article, "The Urban Paramedic's Scope of Practice."

The authors suggest that few data exist to support the urban paramedic's usefulness beyond the realm of intubation, defibrillation, and administration of certain drugs. Because of this paucity of evidence, the paramedic's role and training should be reduced to those areas where research suggests a benefit. The advantage would be a "substantial reduction" in the cost of training, equipment, and regulation.²

Their documentation³ fails to suggest that training costs are currently excessive. Studies have suggested the advanced prehospital care may already be cost efficient.^4,5

Would reducing a paramedic's training by about 25% (eliminating the medical emergency components of a standard program) save a "substantial" amount of money? Reduction . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?