We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This study explores the value of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) experience for students applying to medical school. Methods: Surveys were sent to 67 medical schools in the eastern United States and Canada. Using a five-point Likert scale, the survey asked the respondent to rate the amount of consideration given to Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) or paramedic experience when making admissions decisions (1 = very little to 5 = strong), and to describe the influence of that experience (1 = very negative to 5 = very positive).
Results:
Usable responses were received from 21 schools. The median rating for the consideration given to EMS experience was “some consideration” for both EMT and paramedic experience, with 85.7% of respondents assigning that rating or higher. The median rating for the influence of that experience was “somewhat positive” for both EMT and paramedic experience. Only 14.3% of the returned surveys rated EMS experience as “neutral”, and no respondent reported EMS experience as a “negative”.
Conclusion:
EMS experience receives at least some consideration during the admissions process at most of the responding institutions in the United States and Canada. Experiences at either the EMT or Paramedic level are viewed similarly. None of the responding institutions viewed EMS experience negatively.
This paper reports the results of an initial effort to develop and test measure of the various sources of job-related stress in firefighter and paramedic emergenc service workers.
Methods:
A 57-item paper and pencil measure of occupational stressor in firefighter/Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) and firefighter/paramedics was developed and administered by anonymous mail survey.
Results:
More than 2,000 (50% rate of return) emergency service workers comple and returned the surveys. The responses of 1,730 firefighter/EMTs and 253 firefighter/paramedics were very similar in terms of the degree to which job stressors were bothersome. A factor analysis of replies yielded 14 statistically independent “Occupational Stressor” factors which together accounted for 66.3% of the instrument's variance. These Sources of Occupational Stress (SOOS) factor scale scores essentially did not correlate with a measure the social desirability test-taking bias. Finall SOOS factors were identified that correlated with job satisfaction and work-related morale of the respondents. Conflict with administration was the job stressor factor that most strongly correlated with reports of low job satisfaction and poor work morale in both study groups.
Conclusion:
The findings suggest that firefighter and paramedic job stress is very complicated and multi-faceted. Based on this preliminary investigation, the SOOS instrument appears to have adequate reliability and concurrent validity.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.