PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16147485

Web-based training for EMT continuing education.

John M Jerin·Thomas D Rea
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: New Internet technologies offer the opportunity to delivery quality instruction to emergency medical technicians (EMTs) in a cost-effective manner. The purpose of this study was to determine whether web-based continuing education (CE) could be developed at a low cost and provide a high level of satisfaction and acceptance among EMTs. METHODS: EMTs completed web-based CE modules in place of traditional instructor-led instruction. The EMTs in the study completed a questionnaire that assessed acceptance and satisfaction. Expenses for producing and delivering web-based instruction and delivering instructor-led instruction were tracked for all aspects of the project. RESULTS: Seventy-four percent of the EMTs strongly preferred the web-based modules over instructor-led modules. Other survey items indicated a high level of acceptance of the format (87%). The web-based modules in this study were produced and delivered at a cost of dollar 3 per EMT/module, which is less than the costs of traditional instructor-led training, ranging from dollar 21 to dollar 82 per EMT/module. CONCLUSION: Although not a replacement for all instructor-led training, web-based training can be a cost-effective and acceptable alternative for achieving instructional objectives within the cognitive domain. It offers other benefits such as improved administration of training records and consistent delivery of content.

Explore related subjects

Attitude of Health PersonnelConsumer BehaviorCost-Benefit AnalysisEducation, ContinuingEducation, DistanceEmergency Medical TechniciansHumansInternetProgram EvaluationUnited StatesWashingtonEvaluation StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

John M Jerin, Thomas D Rea. Web-based training for EMT continuing education.. https://doi.org/10.1080/10903120590962274

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Public dialogue on healthcare prioritisation.

The Swedish public healthcare sector is administered by county councils or regions with their own power of taxation. These authorities are facing difficult times as the gap between demand and healthcare resources is widening and the option to further increase county council taxes is not politically tempting. It is becoming ever more apparent that, sooner or later, limits to the public healthcare commitment must be set. In the north-western district of Region Skåne, the district board determined to initiate a public dialogue on prioritisation with local residents. Annual surveys were sent to 1% of the population ( approximately 2500 individuals) during the period 2002-2004. The addressees were also asked if they wanted to participate in public meetings with the healthcare politicians. This study investigates what happened to the preferences and attitudes of the interest group when the participants were not only offered an opportunity to enter into a dialogue with their peers and representatives, but also received information on prioritisation matters. After the intervention, which consisted of two public meetings with politicians and five information booklets on prioritisation issues, the study group was asked to participate in a second survey. At the follow-up, 20% fewer thought that one should always have a right to public healthcare, even if troubles were trivial. Eighty four percent in the study group thought that the general public should participate in prioritisation discussions while only 64% in the control group agreed to this. Eighty two percent of the study group marked the dialogue project "good" or "very good". The results indicate an increased acceptance for reallocations, a strengthened will to participate and more confidence in the politicians and their work. The study is descriptive and designed to make long-term follow-ups possible.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2006

Assessing the level of healthcare information technology adoption in the United States: a snapshot.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive knowledge about the level of healthcare information technology (HIT) adoption in the United States remains limited. We therefore performed a baseline assessment to address this knowledge gap. METHODS: We segmented HIT into eight major stakeholder groups and identified major functionalities that should ideally exist for each, focusing on applications most likely to improve patient safety, quality of care and organizational efficiency. We then conducted a multi-site qualitative study in Boston and Denver by interviewing key informants from each stakeholder group. Interview transcripts were analyzed to assess the level of adoption and to document the major barriers to further adoption. Findings for Boston and Denver were then presented to an expert panel, which was then asked to estimate the national level of adoption using the modified Delphi approach. We measured adoption level in Boston and Denver was graded on Rogers' technology adoption curve by co-investigators. National estimates from our expert panel were expressed as percentages. RESULTS: Adoption of functionalities with financial benefits far exceeds adoption of those with safety and quality benefits. Despite growing interest to adopt HIT to improve safety and quality, adoption remains limited, especially in the area of ambulatory electronic health records and physician-patient communication. Organizations, particularly physicians' practices, face enormous financial challenges in adopting HIT, and concerns remain about its impact on productivity. CONCLUSION: Adoption of HIT is limited and will likely remain slow unless significant financial resources are made available. Policy changes, such as financial incentivesto clinicians to use HIT or pay-for-performance reimbursement, may help health care providers defray upfront investment costs and initial productivity loss.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗