Emergency Medical Services Education Agenda 2050: Request for Information, 71081-71083 [2023-22625]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2023 / Notices 4. Termination for Failure To Make Progress on an Award DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION After providing written notice to the recipient of a project selected for funding, FTA may withdraw its support for the selected project (if a cooperative agreement has not yet been awarded) or suspend or terminate all or any part of the federal assistance for the award if the recipient has failed to make reasonable progress implementing the project. FTA may withdraw its support for a project or terminate an award agreement if: 1. A recipient has not completed its application for funding in TrAMS within 60 days of the date FTA announces project selection. 2. A recipient has not begun its demonstration project within one year after funding was awarded in TrAMS. 3. A recipient has not delivered a project evaluation to FTA within one year of completing its demonstration project. 4. FTA may also withdraw support from a project or terminate an award agreement if the proposed activities are no longer needed or if the recipient has violated the terms of FTA’s Annual Agreement. G. Federal Awarding Agency Contacts For further information concerning this Notice, please contact the ADCMS Program Team, FTA Office of Research, Demonstration, and Innovation, by email at ADCMS@dot.gov. A TDD is available for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing at 800–877–8339. In addition, FTA will post answers to questions and requests for clarifications on FTA’s website at: https:// www.transit.dot.gov/researchinnovation/ADCMS. To ensure applicants receive accurate eligibility information, applicants are encouraged to contact FTA directly, rather than through intermediaries or third parties, with questions. FTA staff may also conduct briefings on the competitive grants selection and award process upon request. For issues with Grants.gov, please contact Grants.gov by phone at 1–800– 518–4726 or by email at support@ grants.gov. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 H. Other Information This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372, ‘‘Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.’’ Nuria I. Fernandez, Administrator. [FR Doc. 2023–22521 Filed 10–12–23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–57–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Oct 12, 2023 Jkt 262001 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [DOT–NHTSA–2023–0037] Emergency Medical Services Education Agenda 2050: Request for Information National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of Request for Information (RFI). AGENCY: This notice announces a RFI. The NHTSA Office of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is seeking comments from all sources (public, private, government, academic, professional, public interest groups, and other interested parties) on the planned re-envisioning of the 2000 EMS Education Agenda for the Future: A Systems Approach. The purpose of this document is to solicit comments on EMS Education Agenda 2050, and request responses to specific questions provided in this document. This is neither a request for proposals nor an invitation for bids. DATES: It is requested that comments on this announcement be submitted by October 31, 2023. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clary Mole, EMS Specialist, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation is available by phone at (202) 868–3275 or by email at Clary.Mole@dot.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 2012, the National EMS Advisory Council (NEMSAC) convened a national roundtable meeting on the EMS Education Agenda for the Future: A Systems Approach. In a 2014 report on these proceedings, NEMSAC advised that stakeholders at the State and local level had just begun to experience the full impact of the evolution toward a national integrated system of education for EMS personnel. While stakeholders were reticent to move forward with a new education agenda, they did provide feedback about themes that should be considered in the future publication. From the feedback collected at the meeting, NEMSAC developed recommendations to be used in the eventual re-envision of the agenda for EMS. These recommendations are summarized below: • Educational content should retain the flexibility accorded by the National EMS Education standards, but programs should use nationally recognized evidence-based guidelines to drive local curriculum development. SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 71081 • The National EMS Information System data, evidence-based research, and practice analyses should be sourced in developing evidence-based guidelines and curriculum. • Mobile Integrated Healthcare has received considerable attention from the EMS Community. This and other alternative community-based healthcare delivery models (of the future) should evoke an expanded foundational knowledge and critical thinking capabilities that will poise future EMS practitioners to be able to evolve with the changing healthcare system or rapidly adjust to emerging healthcare crises. • EMS educators should begin a career in academia with expertise in adult learning, educational theory, curriculum development, and competency evaluation but also possess experiential knowledge in evidencebased care. In the 10 years since NEMSAC’s roundtable meeting, the national EMS education system continued to evolve— especially during the COVID–19 pandemic. In late 2021, the Federal Interagency Committee on EMS (FICEMS) began sponsoring listening sessions to inform a consensus-driven, national report entitled, FICEMS: EMS and 911 COVID–19 Response White Paper. This publication cited challenges and solutions collected during stakeholder listening sessions for the EMS education system. Among the challenges, EMS education stakeholders cited scarcity (in some cases deficits) in resources for education, rigidity of curriculum delivery modalities, the increased employer demands on students, and inconsistent or delayed responses to the needs of the national EMS education system as major contributors that led to the breakdown in the EMS workforce pipeline. Prior to the COVID–19 pandemic, NHTSA published EMS Agenda 2050: A People-centered Vision for the Future of EMS (Agenda 2050). This collaborative project set a vision for a people-centered EMS systems that serves every individual in every community across the Nation. Later this year, NHTSA and its partners will begin a new project to develop EMS Education Agenda 2050. This project will not replace but build upon the achievements of the 2000 EMS Education Agenda for the Future: A Systems Approach to lead a national conversation around the future vision for EMS Education and EMS as a profession. I. Background NHTSA, in partnership with Health Resources and Services Administration, E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 71082 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2023 / Notices published EMS Education Agenda for the Future: A Systems Approach (Education Agenda) in 2000. This document was founded on the broad national EMS education system concepts introduced in the EMS Agenda for the Future (1996). The Education Agenda described a consensus vision of an EMS education system with a high degree of structure, coordination, and interdependence. It proposed a less prescriptive system that offered educators flexibility in creating a student-centered learning environment and a process for accommodating future advancements in technology and medicine. The proposed system maximized efficiency, consistency in instructional quality, and entry level graduate competency by prescribing a high degree of structure, coordination, and interdependence. To achieve this vision, the education system of the future centered on five integrated primary components: • National EMS Core Content • National EMS Scope of Practice Model • National EMS Education Standards • National EMS Education Program Accreditation • National EMS Certification After the Education Agenda was published, stakeholders began implementing their respective integrated system components. Almost 25 years later, the national EMS education system has successfully evolved into one that exemplifies both consistency and flexibility. System interdependencies have helped to avoid duplication of effort in curriculum and education program development, evaluating the minimum competencies of graduates, certification and licensing processes, and facilitation of practitioner reciprocity. In 2020, the EMS education system interdependencies modernized by the Education Agenda were tested. Challenges presented by the COVID–19 pandemic forced a variety of adaptations. Traditional education programs reported a lag in students’ capabilities of achieving the programmatic competencies requirements for graduation. The lag was attributed to a variety of causes including a focus on pandemic response activities over training and education, employer demands on working students, and the rigidity of in-person, classroom-based education delivery models. After the majority of programs adjusted to the challenges, lags in graduation were cured, and students achieved programmatic competencies at rates similar to those pre-pandemic. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Oct 12, 2023 Jkt 262001 The response to the pandemic did not impact education programs only. The impact to EMS agency daily operations was felt as well. During the COVID pandemic, agencies experienced increases in EMS activation and response rates which created additional stressors for student EMS practitioners already working in a high stress job environment but also enrolled in an EMS education program. These stressors were a major contributor to a migration of practitioners away from the EMS workforce. Agencies and organizational stakeholders asserted that it could be education program graduation requirements causing breakdown in the workforce pipeline; however, there were no observed decreases in graduation or certification testing rates. These observations prompt two questions: If graduation and certification testing rates have remained unchanged, why have agencies reported recruitment and retention issues? If graduates are not entering the EMS workforce, where are they finding jobs? With agencies experiencing increased demand and a deficiency in qualified EMS practitioners to respond to it, service delivery models had to evolve. To bridge the gap in community-based care resources, community paramedicine and mobile integrated healthcare (CP–MIH) service delivery models increased in prevalence, and improvised training programs were used to close new job-specific competency gaps among existing EMS practitioners and individuals in training. Other themes brought to the forefront during the pandemic include addressing healthcare disparities; the use of EMS data as a tool for surveillance and nationwide quality of care improvements; and a greater value to having an EMS workforce that is not only equitable, inclusive, and accessible, but as diverse as the community it serves. These themes, evolving service delivery models, and the subsequent evolution of competencies needed by practitioners suggest that it is time for NHTSA to gather our partners to begin a new conversation about the future of EMS Education and EMS as a profession in the United States. II. Questions Regarding EMS Education Agenda 2050 Responses to the following questions are requested to help plan the revision of the Education Agenda. Please be as specific as possible and as appropriate please provide references. 1. What are the most critical issues facing EMS education system that should be addressed in the revision of PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 the EMS Education Agenda? Please provide specific examples. 2. What progress has been made in implementing the EMS Education Agenda since 2000? 3. How have you used EMS Education Agenda? Please provide specific examples. 4. As an EMS Stakeholder, how might a revised EMS Education Agenda be most useful to you? 5. What significant changes have occurred in the EMS education system at the national, Federal, State, and local levels since 2000? 6. What significant changes will impact the EMS education system in the next 25 years? 7. How might the revised EMS Education Agenda contribute to enhanced EMS for children? 8. How might the revised EMS Education Agenda support and/or promote data-driven and evidencebased improvements in EMS education systems and EMS practitioner practice? 9. How could the revised EMS Education Agenda enhance collaboration among EMS systems, health care providers and facilities, public safety answering points, public health, public safety, emergency management, insurers, and others? 10. How could the revised EMS Education Agenda be used to promote community sustainability and resilience? 11. How could the revised EMS Education Agenda contribute to improved coordination for disaster response, recovery, preparedness, and mitigation? 12. How could the revised EMS Education Agenda enhance the exchange of evidence-based practices between national, Federal (and military), State, and local levels? 13. How could the revised EMS Education Agenda support the seamless and unimpeded transfer of military EMS personnel to roles as civilian EMS providers? 14. How could the revised EMS Education Agenda support interstate credentialing of EMS personnel? 15. How could the revised EMS Education Agenda support improved patient outcomes in rural and frontier communities? 16. How could the revised EMS Education Agenda lead to improved EMS systems in tribal communities? 17. How could the revised EMS Education Agenda promote a culture of safety among EMS personnel, agencies, and organizations? 18. Are there additional EMS attributes that should be included in the revised EMS Education Agenda? If so, E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2023 / Notices please provide an explanation for why these additional EMS attributes should be included. 19. Are there EMS attributes in the 2000 EMS Education Agenda that should be eliminated from the revised edition? If so, please provide an explanation for why these EMS attributes should be eliminated. 20. What are your suggestions for the process that should be used in revising the EMS Education Agenda? 21. What specific agencies/ organizations/entities are essential to involve, in a revision of the EMS Education Agenda? 22. Do you have any additional comments regarding the revision of the EMS Education Agenda? (Authority: 23 U.S.C. 403(b)(1)(A)(iv); 49 CFR 1.95; 501.8) Issued in Washington, DC. Nanda Narayanan Srinivasan, Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development. [FR Doc. 2023–22625 Filed 10–12–23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). ACTION: Joint notice and request for comment. AGENCY: In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the OCC, the Board, and the FDIC (the agencies) may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. On June 29, 2023, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), of which the agencies are members, requested public comment for 60 days on a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the Regulatory Capital Reporting for Institutions Subject to the Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework (FFIEC lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:55 Oct 12, 2023 Jkt 262001 101), which is currently an approved collection of information for each agency. The comment period for the June notice expired on August 28, 2023. No comments were received, and the agencies will proceed with the extension, without revision, of the FFIEC 101. In addition, the agencies are giving notice that they are sending the collections to OMB for review. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 13, 2023. ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to any or all of the agencies. All comments, which should refer to the OMB control number(s), will be shared among the agencies. OCC: Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. You may submit comments by any of the following methods: • Email: prainfo@occ.treas.gov. • Mail: Chief Counsel’s Office, Attention: Comment Processing, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557–0239, 400 7th Street SW, Suite 3E–218, Washington, DC 20219. • Hand Delivery/Courier: 400 7th Street SW, Suite 3E–218, Washington, DC 20219. • Fax: (571) 293–4835. Instructions: You must include ‘‘OCC’’ as the agency name and ‘‘1557– 0239’’ in your comment. In general, the OCC will publish comments on www.reginfo.gov without change, including any business or personal information provided, such as name and address information, email addresses, or phone numbers. Comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should also be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/ do/PRAMain. You can find this information collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or by using the search function. You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection following the close of the 30-day comment period for this notice by the method set forth in the next bullet. • Viewing Comments Electronically: Go to www.reginfo.gov. Hover over the PO 00000 Frm 00164 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 71083 ‘‘Information Collection Review’’ tab and click on ‘‘Information Collection Review’’ from the drop-down menu. From the ‘‘Currently under Review’’ drop-down menu, select ‘‘Department of Treasury’’ and then click ‘‘submit.’’ This information collection can be located by searching OMB control number ‘‘1557– 0239’’ or ‘‘Regulatory Capital Reporting for Institutions Subject to the Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework (FFIEC 101).’’ Upon finding the appropriate information collection, click on the related ‘‘ICR Reference Number.’’ On the next screen, select ‘‘View Supporting Statement and Other Documents’’ and then click on the link to any comment listed at the bottom of the screen. • For assistance in navigating www.reginfo.gov, please contact the Regulatory Information Service Center at (202) 482–7340. Board: You may submit comments, which should refer to ‘‘FFIEC 101,’’ by any of the following methods: • Agency website: https:// www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments at: https://www.federalreserve.gov/ generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm. • Email: regs.comments@ federalreserve.gov. Include ‘‘FFIEC 101’’ in the subject line of the message. • Fax: (202) 452–3819 or (202) 452– 3102. • Mail: Ann E. Misback, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551. All public comments are available from the Board’s website at https:// www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/ proposedregs.aspx as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. FDIC: You may submit comments, which should refer to ‘‘FFIEC 101,’’ by any of the following methods: • Agency website: https:// www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/ federal-register-publications. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the FDIC’s website. • Email: comments@FDIC.gov. Include ‘‘FFIEC 101’’ in the subject line of the message. • Mail: Manuel E. Cabeza, Counsel, Attn: Comments, Room MB–3007, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429. • Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street NW building (located on F Street NW) on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. E:\FR\FM\13OCN1.SGM 13OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 197 (Friday, October 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71081-71083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22625]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[DOT-NHTSA-2023-0037]


Emergency Medical Services Education Agenda 2050: Request for 
Information

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Request for Information (RFI).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces a RFI. The NHTSA Office of Emergency 
Medical Services (EMS) is seeking comments from all sources (public, 
private, government, academic, professional, public interest groups, 
and other interested parties) on the planned re-envisioning of the 2000 
EMS Education Agenda for the Future: A Systems Approach. The purpose of 
this document is to solicit comments on EMS Education Agenda 2050, and 
request responses to specific questions provided in this document. This 
is neither a request for proposals nor an invitation for bids.

DATES: It is requested that comments on this announcement be submitted 
by October 31, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clary Mole, EMS Specialist, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of 
Transportation is available by phone at (202) 868-3275 or by email at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 2012, the National EMS Advisory Council 
(NEMSAC) convened a national roundtable meeting on the EMS Education 
Agenda for the Future: A Systems Approach. In a 2014 report on these 
proceedings, NEMSAC advised that stakeholders at the State and local 
level had just begun to experience the full impact of the evolution 
toward a national integrated system of education for EMS personnel. 
While stakeholders were reticent to move forward with a new education 
agenda, they did provide feedback about themes that should be 
considered in the future publication. From the feedback collected at 
the meeting, NEMSAC developed recommendations to be used in the 
eventual re-envision of the agenda for EMS. These recommendations are 
summarized below:
     Educational content should retain the flexibility accorded 
by the National EMS Education standards, but programs should use 
nationally recognized evidence-based guidelines to drive local 
curriculum development.
     The National EMS Information System data, evidence-based 
research, and practice analyses should be sourced in developing 
evidence-based guidelines and curriculum.
     Mobile Integrated Healthcare has received considerable 
attention from the EMS Community. This and other alternative community-
based healthcare delivery models (of the future) should evoke an 
expanded foundational knowledge and critical thinking capabilities that 
will poise future EMS practitioners to be able to evolve with the 
changing healthcare system or rapidly adjust to emerging healthcare 
crises.
     EMS educators should begin a career in academia with 
expertise in adult learning, educational theory, curriculum 
development, and competency evaluation but also possess experiential 
knowledge in evidence-based care.
    In the 10 years since NEMSAC's roundtable meeting, the national EMS 
education system continued to evolve--especially during the COVID-19 
pandemic. In late 2021, the Federal Interagency Committee on EMS 
(FICEMS) began sponsoring listening sessions to inform a consensus-
driven, national report entitled, FICEMS: EMS and 911 COVID-19 Response 
White Paper. This publication cited challenges and solutions collected 
during stakeholder listening sessions for the EMS education system. 
Among the challenges, EMS education stakeholders cited scarcity (in 
some cases deficits) in resources for education, rigidity of curriculum 
delivery modalities, the increased employer demands on students, and 
inconsistent or delayed responses to the needs of the national EMS 
education system as major contributors that led to the breakdown in the 
EMS workforce pipeline.
    Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, NHTSA published EMS Agenda 2050: A 
People-centered Vision for the Future of EMS (Agenda 2050). This 
collaborative project set a vision for a people-centered EMS systems 
that serves every individual in every community across the Nation. 
Later this year, NHTSA and its partners will begin a new project to 
develop EMS Education Agenda 2050. This project will not replace but 
build upon the achievements of the 2000 EMS Education Agenda for the 
Future: A Systems Approach to lead a national conversation around the 
future vision for EMS Education and EMS as a profession.

I. Background

    NHTSA, in partnership with Health Resources and Services 
Administration,

[[Page 71082]]

published EMS Education Agenda for the Future: A Systems Approach 
(Education Agenda) in 2000. This document was founded on the broad 
national EMS education system concepts introduced in the EMS Agenda for 
the Future (1996). The Education Agenda described a consensus vision of 
an EMS education system with a high degree of structure, coordination, 
and interdependence. It proposed a less prescriptive system that 
offered educators flexibility in creating a student-centered learning 
environment and a process for accommodating future advancements in 
technology and medicine. The proposed system maximized efficiency, 
consistency in instructional quality, and entry level graduate 
competency by prescribing a high degree of structure, coordination, and 
interdependence. To achieve this vision, the education system of the 
future centered on five integrated primary components:

 National EMS Core Content
 National EMS Scope of Practice Model
 National EMS Education Standards
 National EMS Education Program Accreditation
 National EMS Certification

    After the Education Agenda was published, stakeholders began 
implementing their respective integrated system components. Almost 25 
years later, the national EMS education system has successfully evolved 
into one that exemplifies both consistency and flexibility. System 
interdependencies have helped to avoid duplication of effort in 
curriculum and education program development, evaluating the minimum 
competencies of graduates, certification and licensing processes, and 
facilitation of practitioner reciprocity.
    In 2020, the EMS education system interdependencies modernized by 
the Education Agenda were tested. Challenges presented by the COVID-19 
pandemic forced a variety of adaptations. Traditional education 
programs reported a lag in students' capabilities of achieving the 
programmatic competencies requirements for graduation. The lag was 
attributed to a variety of causes including a focus on pandemic 
response activities over training and education, employer demands on 
working students, and the rigidity of in-person, classroom-based 
education delivery models. After the majority of programs adjusted to 
the challenges, lags in graduation were cured, and students achieved 
programmatic competencies at rates similar to those pre-pandemic.
    The response to the pandemic did not impact education programs 
only. The impact to EMS agency daily operations was felt as well. 
During the COVID pandemic, agencies experienced increases in EMS 
activation and response rates which created additional stressors for 
student EMS practitioners already working in a high stress job 
environment but also enrolled in an EMS education program. These 
stressors were a major contributor to a migration of practitioners away 
from the EMS workforce. Agencies and organizational stakeholders 
asserted that it could be education program graduation requirements 
causing breakdown in the workforce pipeline; however, there were no 
observed decreases in graduation or certification testing rates. These 
observations prompt two questions: If graduation and certification 
testing rates have remained unchanged, why have agencies reported 
recruitment and retention issues? If graduates are not entering the EMS 
workforce, where are they finding jobs?
    With agencies experiencing increased demand and a deficiency in 
qualified EMS practitioners to respond to it, service delivery models 
had to evolve. To bridge the gap in community-based care resources, 
community paramedicine and mobile integrated healthcare (CP-MIH) 
service delivery models increased in prevalence, and improvised 
training programs were used to close new job-specific competency gaps 
among existing EMS practitioners and individuals in training.
    Other themes brought to the forefront during the pandemic include 
addressing healthcare disparities; the use of EMS data as a tool for 
surveillance and nationwide quality of care improvements; and a greater 
value to having an EMS workforce that is not only equitable, inclusive, 
and accessible, but as diverse as the community it serves. These 
themes, evolving service delivery models, and the subsequent evolution 
of competencies needed by practitioners suggest that it is time for 
NHTSA to gather our partners to begin a new conversation about the 
future of EMS Education and EMS as a profession in the United States.

II. Questions Regarding EMS Education Agenda 2050

    Responses to the following questions are requested to help plan the 
revision of the Education Agenda. Please be as specific as possible and 
as appropriate please provide references.
    1. What are the most critical issues facing EMS education system 
that should be addressed in the revision of the EMS Education Agenda? 
Please provide specific examples.
    2. What progress has been made in implementing the EMS Education 
Agenda since 2000?
    3. How have you used EMS Education Agenda? Please provide specific 
examples.
    4. As an EMS Stakeholder, how might a revised EMS Education Agenda 
be most useful to you?
    5. What significant changes have occurred in the EMS education 
system at the national, Federal, State, and local levels since 2000?
    6. What significant changes will impact the EMS education system in 
the next 25 years?
    7. How might the revised EMS Education Agenda contribute to 
enhanced EMS for children?
    8. How might the revised EMS Education Agenda support and/or 
promote data-driven and evidence-based improvements in EMS education 
systems and EMS practitioner practice?
    9. How could the revised EMS Education Agenda enhance collaboration 
among EMS systems, health care providers and facilities, public safety 
answering points, public health, public safety, emergency management, 
insurers, and others?
    10. How could the revised EMS Education Agenda be used to promote 
community sustainability and resilience?
    11. How could the revised EMS Education Agenda contribute to 
improved coordination for disaster response, recovery, preparedness, 
and mitigation?
    12. How could the revised EMS Education Agenda enhance the exchange 
of evidence-based practices between national, Federal (and military), 
State, and local levels?
    13. How could the revised EMS Education Agenda support the seamless 
and unimpeded transfer of military EMS personnel to roles as civilian 
EMS providers?
    14. How could the revised EMS Education Agenda support interstate 
credentialing of EMS personnel?
    15. How could the revised EMS Education Agenda support improved 
patient outcomes in rural and frontier communities?
    16. How could the revised EMS Education Agenda lead to improved EMS 
systems in tribal communities?
    17. How could the revised EMS Education Agenda promote a culture of 
safety among EMS personnel, agencies, and organizations?
    18. Are there additional EMS attributes that should be included in 
the revised EMS Education Agenda? If so,

[[Page 71083]]

please provide an explanation for why these additional EMS attributes 
should be included.
    19. Are there EMS attributes in the 2000 EMS Education Agenda that 
should be eliminated from the revised edition? If so, please provide an 
explanation for why these EMS attributes should be eliminated.
    20. What are your suggestions for the process that should be used 
in revising the EMS Education Agenda?
    21. What specific agencies/organizations/entities are essential to 
involve, in a revision of the EMS Education Agenda?
    22. Do you have any additional comments regarding the revision of 
the EMS Education Agenda?

(Authority: 23 U.S.C. 403(b)(1)(A)(iv); 49 CFR 1.95; 501.8)

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Nanda Narayanan Srinivasan,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2023-22625 Filed 10-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.