1. Does it seem that Jim has a legitimate basis for requesting another retest? According to the article Jim who did not perform well during his EMP 211 senior laboratory course, but remained eligible to test the practical examination stations. Failed the dynamic cardiology station and additionally the retest of his dynamic cardiology EMS program course practical exam. The initial dynamic cardiology practical examination station was conducted by a proctor other than Jim’s EMS program senior instructor Neil Vance. Jim’s dynamic cardiology practical examination station was retested in accordance with course policy by the EMS program course medical director with Jim’s senior instructor Neil Vance present. Jim statements admitting that he wasn’t prepared and he “really messed up.”, Jim’s poor performance, during his laboratory course and Jim’s acceptance and understanding when information by Neil Vance, Jim’s senior instructor …show more content…
In emergency medicine training scenarios the outcome of treatment and the success of the treatment is compared to a real patient’s survivability. Neil telling Jim that the treatment he proposed in a lab scenario would be fatal to the patient quite possibly could be a true outcome if it were in a real life scenario. Prehospital emergency medical services treatment errors have a very high probability of poor outcomes if a dangerous or inappropriate procedure was performed. This is not the most appropriate teaching method. Gentler or more appropriate teaching methods could have been exhausted. I do believe Neil telling Jim the treatment he proposed in a lab scenario would be fatal to the patient. Is a slightly intimating statement, not meant to intimate Jim, but used to teach Jim that a mistake could be the difference between life and