IAED EPD common mistakes
IAED EPD · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Choosing the dispatch determinant from the chief complaint alone and ignoring the answer set's own qualifier keys (e.g., unconscious, breathing status, age band) that upgrade or downgrade the code.
Candidates memorize a few high-frequency protocols and then pattern-match the first sentence of the case, missing the second and third questions in the same protocol that actually decide the determinant. The EPD case format rewards reading the whole scenario and the protocol's branching logic in order.
What to do instead
Before selecting a determinant, write out the protocol number you are in, then list every key question in that protocol and answer each from the case text. Only then pick the code. Practice by re-reading 20 cases and marking which line of the case triggered the final code.
Treating the caller's stated problem ('she's having a seizure') as the dispatch reason instead of the patient's current status at the moment of the call (e.g., still seizing vs. post-ictal and breathing).
Callers summarize and lag behind events. Candidates take the narrative at face value because it feels efficient and because the case is written in the caller's voice. EPD logic keys on current condition and consciousness, not the label.
What to do instead
For every case, answer three questions explicitly: is the patient conscious, is the patient breathing normally, and is the problem still happening now? If the case does not say, treat that as a gap to resolve with the caller rather than assuming the benign version.
Skipping the pre-arrival instructions step or issuing them in the wrong sequence (e.g., giving CPR instructions before confirming the scene is safe and the patient is unresponsive and not breathing normally).
Under time pressure, candidates jump to the 'exciting' intervention and forget that instructions are protocol-ordered and conditional. They also conflate 'give instructions' with 'give all instructions at once' rather than stepwise with confirmation.
What to do instead
Drill the fixed sequence: confirm safety, confirm unresponsiveness, confirm abnormal breathing, then start the instruction set, confirming each step before the next. In practice, say each instruction aloud as a question ('Is the chest rising?') to force the confirmation habit.
Failing to recognize a time-critical condition hidden in a low-acuity-sounding complaint, such as a 'fall' that is actually a stroke, syncope, or hip fracture with anticoagulant use.
Candidates anchor on the mechanism (fell) rather than the findings (facial droop, slurred speech, one-sided weakness, on warfarin). The case deliberately uses a mundane opener to test whether the candidate screens for red flags.
What to do instead
Build a personal red-flag screen applied to every case regardless of complaint: onset time, anticoagulants, pregnancy, age extremes, airway, breathing, circulation, and neuro deficit. Run the screen even when the complaint sounds minor, and document which flag changed your code.
Assigning a fire response type from the reported smoke or flame description without applying the occupancy and life-hazard factors (e.g., confirmed entrapment, known occupants, hazardous materials, high-rise) that change the alarm level.
Candidates treat 'smoke in the building' as one category and stop there, forgetting that the same smoke report escalates with occupancy, time of day, and reported persons inside. The exam tests the upgrade logic, not the noun.
What to do instead
For every fire case, list occupancy type, time of day, reported occupants or entrapment, and any hazardous contents before choosing the response. Practice by taking one smoke report and writing four variants that each justify a different alarm level.
Failing to update the incident as new information arrives, leaving the initial low-priority code in place after a caller reports flames, a trapped occupant, or an explosion.
Candidates treat dispatch as a single decision rather than a continuing process, and the case format makes it easy to answer only the first question. Real incidents are upgraded and downgraded continuously, and the exam tests whether you re-evaluate.
What to do instead
Adopt a rule: any new fact that changes life hazard, fire involvement, or number of resources triggers a re-code. In practice, after every new caller statement, ask 'does this change the response?' and state the new code explicitly.
Giving fireground tactical direction (which line to pull, which side to attack) over the radio instead of relaying information and letting the incident commander direct operations.
Candidates confuse 'helpful' with 'in command' and answer as if they are the IC. Dispatch's role is to receive, record, and relay; tactical command belongs to the responding chief or officer.
What to do instead
Frame every dispatch radio answer as information transfer: who, what, where, when, and what is requested. If a question asks what dispatch should say, choose the option that conveys facts to the IC rather than the one that issues tactics.
Dispatching on a police call without capturing officer-safety information (weapons, mental state, drugs, dogs, prior calls at the address) before units arrive.
Candidates focus on the nature of the call (domestic, disturbance) and skip the safety screen because the case does not prompt for it. Officer safety is a core dispatch responsibility and is tested through cases where the missing detail is the point.
What to do instead
Use a fixed safety checklist for every police call: weapons seen or implied, subject's mental state, intoxicants, animals, layout, and prior history. In practice, state the checklist items aloud and mark any that the case leaves unknown as 'to be confirmed.'
Misclassifying the call priority by using the caller's emotional intensity as a proxy for urgency, treating a calm report of an in-progress violent crime as low priority or a hysterical report of a lost pet as high priority.
Candidates let tone drive coding because it is salient and easy to read. Priority should follow the nature of the event, the threat to life, and whether the crime is in progress, not the caller's volume.
What to do instead
Score priority on three explicit axes: is a life at risk now, is the event in progress, and is a suspect present. Ignore tone entirely when scoring, then check whether your code matches the axis answers. Review cases where calm callers reported the most serious events.
Applying a single triage scale's categories from memory without verifying the local protocol's discriminator definitions, causing systematic one-level over- or under-triage.
Candidates study one textbook triage system and apply it to a service that uses a different scale or a modified version, so the labels look familiar but the thresholds differ. Under-triage is the dangerous direction and the one most often penalized.
What to do instead
Before answering triage items, write the scale's category definitions and discriminators from the exam's own reference, then map each case to the definition rather than to a remembered example. When two categories seem plausible, choose the more urgent and justify why the lower one fails.