|
 Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Forum_Moderators, Registered Users, Subscribers
Joined: 25/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 199
Points: 606
|
"People complain about standards but complain even more when you try to improve them."
The above quote comes from Admin on the Ofqual thread. So, regardless of support (or otherwise) of the Ofqual route or the trade body route or total deregulation. What standards would you like to see in first aid training? Maybe there could also be suggestions of what to do about it.
There are loads of different areas, but I'll kick off in terms of marketing. My bugbear is people claiming their courses are something that they are not e.g. Ofsted approved suppliers of Paediatric courses. One of the companies not too far away from me was claiming that their course was Ofsted approved and also that their EFAW course contained loads of topics that were not in the EFAW syllabus. What did I do about it? Well a polite, tentative phone call to explain my understanding of their advertising led to them changing their website within 24 hours. All credit to them. Self-regulation within the industry, but would it always work? Should it have been some sort of regulator instead of me?
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Forum_Moderators, Registered Users, Subscribers
Joined: 25/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 199
Points: 606
|
So not a lot of thoughts from anybody else. Oh well, I'll use it as a sounding off facility for my own personal bug-bears.
Next up: first aid training should be practical. Candidates benefit more from doing than listening or watching. Spending the majority of the time sitting through powerpoints or videos is not what first aid training should be about. Nor should candidates have to spend time listening to great stories of yore about when you were patching your mates up in the desert, or when you had all the toys in the ambulance to play with or from when you were in the fire brigade and you could play the hero. If there is a point to be made about what the non-expert candidate could do in a relavant situation that they could genuinely find themselves in, great use it, otherwise stop showing off. The worst course I have ever been on/witnessed was in January this year when a ex-fire brigade commander spent the first hour talking about a chemical tanker incident so he could show off his haz-chem plates and explain about them. Over the two days (well actually it was less, but that is another story) he barely mentioned schools, which is where everybody worked. And I didn't have to get out of my seat on the second day except for breaks and to go home.
How do you know all your candidates can actually do any first aid? Get them to show it. If they can do it they pass, if they can't they fail.
I wonder what my next week's rant will be about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Registered Users, Subscribers
Joined: 27/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 135
Points: 405
|
Totally agree it is far better that they can do the basics well than spend 16 of the 18 hours watching powerpoint ending up knowing everything in theory but actually give them a real injury and they cant do anything practically. I make a point in our courses of spending at least 1/3rd of the time on any course putting it into practice with scenario's included as well. Always get good feedback for this. A quote from one student recently "It was great we actually got to do CPR on the manikins not just watch a video and powerpoint on it." I had a care assistant on a course last month who had done various levels of course with various training providers over nearly 30 years, her comment was the best bit about this is that we have learnt what we need and got the opportunity to practice, by far the best First Aid course I have ever been on. Before anyone asks yes we still cover all the syllabus requirements for either FAAW or EFAAW as appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Forum_Moderators, Registered Users, Subscribers
Joined: 25/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 199
Points: 606
|
Originally Posted by: Tacanman  I make a point in our courses of spending at least 1/3rd of the time on any course putting it into practice with scenario's included as well. Hi Tacanman, thanks for the response, I had begun to thought either I was talking to myself ot nobody else cares about standards. Anyway, I'll see your third and raise you to 2/3rds. I've just done a tot up on my first day of a Paediatric course, which is the latest that I've reviewed and that is what I come out with. Admitedly that includes the demos I would do before the candidates have a go. Are there really people out there that consider CPR to be covered by just showing a video and going through a powerpoint, rather than doing some practical? Anybody want to own up to it? The crap course I attended back in January which I mentioned before had us doing just two cycles of the 30:2, not even putting it into a full procedure. This was from the market leaders from round this way - not impressed in the slightest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Registered Users, Subscribers
Joined: 27/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 135
Points: 405
|
Hi, the 1/3rd is the absolute minimum having looked back at several courses. The more normal figure is closer to 2/3rds as you suggest but there are occasions where we have to sit and explain a lot of theory to satisfy some questions. I have had quite a few occasions where I have had to correct previous training and explain the reasons hence leaving slightly less time for practical than I would like.
Regarding the CPR being taught by powerpoint and video yes that was no exaggeration. The "excuse" when asked by a student was that they are so unlikely to ever do it whats the point in spending anymore time on it. Enough said!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Forum_Moderators, Registered Users, Subscribers
Joined: 27/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 67
Points: 201
Location: Essex
|
Bingers, only just read the post, a very interesting one to say the least. When I teach I try as much practical as I can think of as I personally don't learn by sitting through days of PowerPoint so my theory is neither will many people who attend our courses. Some one will say that s wrong but I too have had good feedback from doing the practical bits that others don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Registered Users, Subscribers
Joined: 27/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 108
Points: 339
Location: Lancashire
|
I agree. When teaching I try to include as much practical as possible although as Tacanman said, there are times when you have to do some theory. I never use PowerPoint for first aid training, all demos are "live" and the only video I use is the clip from Bondi Rescue with defib. You can tell from the feedback forms what the trainees want, the answer to the question "What did you find most useful?" is almost always "The practical sessions". I like to set up some small and large scenarios so that they get lost of practise and I also use photo cards for diagnosis and treatment.
In answer to the original question about what I would like to see happen to raise standards - I think we need more standardisation of the assessments. Some use a written exam, some don't, some use the basic assessment requirements and some embellish it. I have also raised the question on here about the standard of assessing - I have had some people who should never be allowed near a plaster let alone a dressing pass. As I am an internal trainer, I do not have the luxury of being able to stop a trainee from going forward to assessment but we use external assessors and I do feel that some of them are afraid to fail people incase we don't use them again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Registered Users, Subscribers
Joined: 27/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 135
Points: 405
|
Wiccan, agree with you that the standard of the assessment is something that needs to be improved. The assessment is there to check knowledge has been gained and that those being assessed are competent to full fill the role of First Aider in their given situation. I feel as far as possible it should not put the student under any extra pressure than the situation that they are facing in the assessed scenario. When assessors come to courses I have taught I will always explain to them that I believe the students should be assessed fairly if they pass great if not fine. The be all and end all is would you be happy if you were a casualty and they came to you as a First Aider. If yes pass if no fail.
I have no problems with failing people if required, be me assessing them or having trained them. I have used the assessor who failed my students (yes I have had 1 or 2 fail for various reasons) again on several occasions
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Registered Users, Subscribers
Joined: 27/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 108
Points: 339
Location: Lancashire
|
I have said the same thing both as an assessor and to my assessor - would you be happy to have these people do first aid on your nearest and dearest and I have heard assessors say that they would be happy - even to people who I would have failed! Perhaps they don't like their family much!? I am much more likely to use an honest assessor again ie. one who fails someone when they ought to, than one who just passes everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Administrators, Registered Users, Subscribers
Joined: 23/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 21,770
Points: 65,322
Location: United Kingdom
Thanks: 1 times
|
There are so many interesting things to cover in first aid, but the hardest thing is NOT covering them. I firmly believe that the best course covers the minimum amount but reinforced by practice, practice and practice. Anecdotes should only be told to directly support the subject, not to boost the trainers’ ego. Also, posing verbal scenarios (unless you have time to carry out mock-ups or simulations) to encourage open discussions, for example say, car accident with suspected broken neck, no signs of life/breathing etc. The main objective of training is that in 1 – 3 years time, will that person remember life savings techniques and have sufficient confidence to step forward and assist a casualty. Comment – Assessors. I have always been against Assessors; it should be left to the trainer who is better placed to judge ability. Most Assessors are husband and wife teams. Partners would not fail each other else you would have a lot of divorces! Also husband and wife teams tend to train the same way - warts and all. Likewise if an external assessor keeps failing your trainees, you would not use them for long. The exception is if they were truly independent, say appointed by the HSE. Ofqual require Standardisation Events for Centres where trainers discuss matters effecting uniformity of training and assessment. So hopefully, someone in Glasgow would be passing/failing on the same criteria as in Exeter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Registered Users, Subscribers
Joined: 27/05/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,146
Points: 3,441
Location: United Kingdom
|
The problem with standards is whose standard? Yours, mine, the VAS the Statutory Ambulance Service.
Don't get me wrong I am all for raising the game, the problem is if we all end up having to work to the same standard and assessed in the same way. What you basically end up with is one course that anybody can teach. Provided of course they meet the standards set by the overseeing body.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Registered, Registered Users, Subscribers
Joined: 03/01/2012(UTC)
Posts: 66
Points: 201
Location: United Kingdom
|
I Hear - I Forget
I See - I Understand
I Do - I Remember
Confucius
They knew that 2500 yrs ago and it still stands true today
A mix of all 3 learning styles is great but the demonstrations and practicals is where the light bulb comes on
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|