Leaderboard

I don't really have a strong opinion either way on wearing helmets in ground ambulances. I see both points of view. In saying that I always put my seatbelt on when I am in a ground ambulance and I can honestly say that I rarely see a ground crew member do the same in the back of the vehicle. I usually make my partner put theirs on as well. I understand the issue with not wearing it when doing CPR but really what percentage of the time on total calls are you actually doing CPR? Once you have completed a procedure make a habit of getting back in belt. It is not as effective but you can also put the seatbelt on and loosen it (I am not saying it should be done all the time) to complete procedures so at least you are not going to be thrown completely around the vehicle with sudden stops or in an accident. As soon as you have done what you need to do retighten your belt. I really liked the harness with the automatic recoil (I don't know the term for that!) that one ambulance had so you can lean forward and not have to worry about loosening and tightening belts. I am probably more conscious of the belts and helmets as they are standard in the helicopter. We have to keep our belts (and they are complete with bilateral shoulder harnesses not just lap belts) on all the time unless we are cleared out by the pilot. Then we do what we have to do and get back in belt as soon as possible. Rarely do we actually have to get out of belt but then we have a lot less room to maneuver around in in the aircraft and can easily reach mostly everything while in belts. Occasionally I will slip the shoulder straps off and loosen the lap belt but I rarely have to get completely out of belt. I wouldn't advocate for the full helmets such as we wear in the helicopters but even with those there is no procedure including CPR that cannot be done with a helmet on. We NEVER take our helmets off in flight and we have less room to do CPR in a helicopter than in an ambulance. (Actually it is a good thing to have the helmet then as it cushions the blows when your head is hitting the roof after each compression ). The other advantage to our helmets is the built in visor that means you no excuse for not wearing eye protection when you should be). Just thought I'd add in my 0.05 cents worth!

Ok, I'll bite too... Although the majority of the MVCs I have been on have been related to DUI's (and there are laws regarding that ) I have been on quite a few elderly patients lately and I honestly don't know if they were at fault or not. The concern I have with the elderly driving (70+) is that not only is their hearing and vision impaired but the bigger problem is their reflexes. So even if they aren't at fault they just don't often react fast enough to avoid potential or actual hazards. The problem with the elderly is that when they are involved in accidents even a minor trauma becomes a major trauma and they do not have the compensatory mechanisms and healing capacity of younger folks so a hospital stay can be extended and have more negative outcomes than for younger people. So addressing the issue of whether they should drive or not is for their sakes as much as the rest of the population's. I agree with Dwayne that it isn't fair to just take all their rights away as they depend so much on the mobility they do have and we don't want to isolate them even more. Perhaps what is needed is restrictions such as already mentioned of no night time driving (young, healthy people's vision drastically deteriorates at night let alone what happens to the elderly), yearly vision, hearing AND reflex testing after a certain age (~70) and clearance by their Dr if they are on certain medications or have been diagnosed with certain conditions. In other words with conditions to driving and yearly re-evaluations. (and I'd be careful poking the Yeti, cause he might just take your whole hand off!)

One of the things I have found is a comparison of the elderly (defined in an arbitary number as anyone over 65) & the young (a number I choose!!) usually under 25's is technology. When the 'elderly' learned to drive, many (as they were born prior to 1945) did not have the volume of traffic on the road, modern electronic items such as satnav's, I mean they were lucky to have a radio in their car. They were taught about concentration & its importance on the road & they too heed of what was said. Because of this, as they have gotten older, (& 65 isnt that old, just ask lone, AK or dust hehehe) they realise that they may have to concentrate a little harder for the same result, not just in driving. By comparison, younger people tend to be a little more reckless, they have a satnav, ipod, cell phone, as well as twitter & facebook on their cell to distract them from what they are, or should be concetrating on. We also need to consider that, when it comes to 'elderly', arbitary numbers do not work. I have seen, as many of you would have, people in their mid 50's on deaths doorstep, with people in their 80's still leading a full active & happy life. One of the things that happens here is that once people reach the age of 75 they have to have a full medical & receive medical clearance as well as a mandatory driving test each year. While some see this as a negative, there is an insurance company who sees the benefit, they offer discount rates to these drivers because they know their distances are shorter, they concentrate properly on what they are doing & they avoid distractions in the car. To say no 'elderly' person should drive is like implying that no man can cook, no woman can be a mechanic.

I'm not only going to post in this thread to poke the Yeti, (No worries, most won't get it.)(And no, that's not a euphemism.) But because I feel pretty strongly about this topic so I'm glad that it's come back... I was just bitching to my partner David about this thread and he said, "How many accidents do we run on in this age group? I mean, we see plenty of these people driving, but how many do we run on?" And he and I agreed that, though it seems that with the way that they appear to drive at times that they should be killing scads of people daily, it seems to rarely happen when compared to the 50 and under crowd. And when we do they are usually single car accidents or traffic accidents with minor damage and minor to no injuries. He also added, "Of the people that want to take these rights away, how many do you suppose actually run on them, and because of that care for their safety, as opposed to just being pissed off because they have to drive behind or around them?" You all will have to answer that. This is my thought. Many in this age group have lived through two Great Wars, fought, bled, lost husbands/wives/kids, as well as stepped up in many, many named and unnamed 'conflicts.' They've driven the wolf from our door for most of a century. They've survived the Great Depression and rebuilt our country and economy to the point that we are now allowed to sit around getting fat while playing Nintendo between bouts of bitching about them. Soooo, I could give a rats ass if we need to issue lights for the tops of their cars, give them little warning sirens to alert people that they're coming, issue them drivers so that they can maintain their mobility. I hope that if there is a God in heaven, or elsewhere for that matter, that he strikes me dead the day that I feel comfortable telling these folks that they no longer have the right to enjoy the freedoms that they've fought and suffered for. Just my thoughts... Dwayne Edited because it appeared that I'd put a crack addict in charge of punctuation and spelling. No contextual changes made. (Or so my crack addict tells me.)

My first one went surprisingly well. The pts husband knew that his wife was dead and basically just wanted to hear someone else confirm his thoughts. My last notification was pretty brutal. It was a call for 'man hasn't been seen in a few days'. We arrive at the pts apartment and his family was waiting out front and were quite frantic. They tried getting into the apartment but were unable. My partner and I were able to get in through the balcony and found the pt dead in his living room. He'd been dead for a while. I left the apartment through the door to get some paperwork from the truck. On my way down the stairs I ran into a cop and let them know that the patient was obviously dead. Unfortunately I hadn't noticed that a couple of the patients family members had made their way inside the building and were within earshot when i passed the word. Learned a valuable lesson that day.

I haven't had a chance to watch it yet, however it sounds like the usual bang up job of medical accuracy.... But you know something......IT IS A TV SHOW. I know it's been mentioned before, however people seem to still be hung up on how lousy this show is. IF YOU DON"T LIKE IT, DON'T WATCH. It's really as simple as that. If the show is that bad, It'll be canceled, and we won't have to worry anymore now will we?? Trauma is NOT an accuate portrayal. We get it. Nor is it a recruiting video. The show is complete BS, yeah, but you know, I don't mind it. I laugh at the error's and ego's. and realise it is a TV SHOW. Just like HOUSE, Law&Order, etc. And I bet you guys watch those, errors and all. Relax. because really??? Is it worth stressing over??? Especially when it'll probably be gone by the end of the season?

No idea. It was in Jan/Feb, I wasn't here for a few days, opened up the site and was sitting at 70 something. 2 days later it was over 100. I can't find any of my posts with that many +'s. I wouldn't complain if the whole ratings thing was dropped.

Only if on the short bus