WFATrainingRelevanceIssue

From PCSAR

The committee's current recommendations on each of these issues are based in part on the rationale that none of our members are trained in these areas. The Wilderness First Aid Course (Adventure Medic Course) provided by Rocky Mountain Adventure Medicine Inc. in January 2004 purported to provide such training. Please try to resolve this difference.

The committee might resolve the issues by concluding:

A/ Training is irrelevant. There are good reasons besides training why our Standard Operating Procedure should be such and such. Reasons might be government regulatory, liability, medical best practices, realistic estimation of actual needs, alternative responses, etc.

B/ The training received in the course was insufficient, incorrect or inappropriate for students to act in these areas. If you come to this conclusion, PCSAR may need to consider whether we can trust any of the training received on this course. Do we need to make sure that our members on the course receive corrective training? Does PCSAR have an obligation to report the problem with course? Your thoughts on these additional areas would be appreciated.

or

C/ The training on the course was correct. We are simply misinterpreting it or misremembering it. The correct interpretation is such and such.

In considering these issues, the committee may wish to contact the instructor. You may wish to consider what other SAR teams are doing. Calgary SAR appears to include some of these things in their scope of practice. Other teams to look at may be Foothills SAR and Rocky Mountain House SAR. I don't know what their Standard Operating Procedures are, but these are long established top rate teams. See www.saralberta.org for contact information.

Brett Wuth, 2005/03/01 14:24 MST (via web):MedicalPreplanCommittee concluded option B. Asked to consider follow up issues.