Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-01T20:12:46.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peer Evaluation of the Professional Behaviors of Emergency Medical Technicians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

William E. Brown Jr. ,
Gregg Margolis  and
Roger Levine
William E. Brown Jr.*
Affiliation:
Executive Director, National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians, Columbus, Ohio, USA
Gregg Margolis
Affiliation:
Associate Director, National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians, Columbus, Ohio, USA
Roger Levine
Affiliation:
American Institutes for Research, Palo Alto, California, USA
*
Executive Director, National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians, PO Box 29233, Columbus, OH 43229USA E-mail: billb@nremt.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Professional behavior is one of the cornerstones of effective emergency medical services (EMS) practice and is a required part of the National Standard Curricula for advanced levels of EMS education. However, peer rating of emergency medical technicians with respect to the 11 categories of professional behavior never has been quantified. This study uses a peer evaluation methodology to assess the affective competencies of practicing EMS providers.

Methods:

A professional behavior evaluation form was included as part of a survey that was sent to 2,443 randomly selected, nationally registered emergency medical technicians (EMTs). Participants were asked to rate the EMT partner with whom they worked most closely in the past year using 11 different categories of professional behavior using a Likert scale.

Results:

One thousand, five hundred, ten (61.8%) surveys were returned and analyzed. Both nationally registered EMTs at the Basic and Paramedic levels rated their partners with respect to 11 categories of professional behavior. The overall average score was 0.68 on a 0–1 scale, with one being the highest. The rating of each of the categories was: (1) integrity (0.77); (2) appearance/personal hygiene (0.74); (3) patient advocacy (0.73); (4) empathy (0.72); (5) self-confidence (0.70); (6) careful delivery of service (0.70); (7) respect (0.65); (8) communication skills (0.64); (9) time management skills (0.63); (10) teamwork/diplomacy skills (0.62); and (11) self-motivation (0.61). Overall, the NREMT-Paramedics rated their partners significantly lower than did the NREMT-Basics (p = 0.0156) and experienced EMT-Basics rated their partners significantly lower than did the newer EMT-Basics (p = 0.0002). Those EMTs who indicated high satisfaction with their current EMS assignment rated their partner more highly on professional behaviors than did those EMTs who were not as satisfied.

Conclusion:

Overall, EMTs peer evaluation of professional behavior was “good.” The behaviors most highly rated were integrity and appearance/personal hygiene. The behaviors rated lowest were self-motivation and team work/diplomacy. It appears that paramedics are more critical of their colleagues than are EMT-Basics, that experienced EMT-Basics are harsher critics than are newer EMT-Basics, and that there is a relationship between job satisfaction and peer evaluation.

Keywords

affective domainemergency medical technicianparamedicprofessionalism
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , April 2005 , pp. 107 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Rogut, L, Newman, LS, Cleary, PD: Variability in patient experiences at 15 New York City hospitals. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 1996;73(2):314–334.Google ScholarPubMed
2.Hickson, GB, Federspiel, CF, Pricert, JW, et al. : Patient complaints and risk management. JAMA 2002;287(22);2951–2957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.May, M, Stengal, B: Who sues their doctors? Law Sociology Review 1990;24:105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Vincent, C, Young, M, Philips, A: Why do people sue doctors? Lancet 1994;343:1609–1613.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.United States Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Paramedic: National Standard Curriculum. NHBA: Washington, DC, 1998.Google Scholar
6.Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs: Standards and Guidelines for and Accredited Educational Program for the Emergency Medical Technician-Paramedic. Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs: Chicago, 1999.Google Scholar
7.Buyck, D, Lang, F: Teaching medical communication skills, A call for greater uniformity. Family Medicine 2002;34(5):337–343.Google Scholar
8.United States Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: emergency medical technician-Intermediate: National Standard Curriculum. NHBA: Washington, DC, 1999.Google Scholar
9.Dancer, S, Johnson, T, Zauner, J, et al. : Peer evaluation: A visual picture. Nursing Management 1997;28(11):57–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Gopee, N: The role of peer assessment and peer review in nursing. British Journal of Nursing 2001;10(2):115–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Brick, JM, Kalton, G: Handling missing data in survey research. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 1996;5:215–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Brown, WE, Dawson, D, Levine, R: Compensation, benefits, and satisfaction: The Longitudinal Emergency Medical Technician Demographic Study (LEADS) Project. Prehospital Emergency Care 2003;7(3):357–362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed