mrmeaner

How long was the sign up sheet?

It does not change the fact that you are making the decision that it is acceptable to put the pt. at risk for developing a disease without them knowing it. Are you saying that if you removed all EMS providers that have Hep B, Hep C, HIV and AIDS from you service that you would be significantly short staffed? Until you are cleared you should be off work and covered by Workers' Compensation as it happened at work. Well, unless they found out that you weren't taking BSI precautions. Then they probably wouldn't cover you.

A grasshopper walks into a bar. He sit's down at the bar and the bartender walks over. Bartender: Hey, did you know we have a drink named after you? Grasshopper: You have a drink named Steve? *_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_* How do you get a nice, little, old lady to say the f word? Have another nice, little, old lady yell "Bingo!" Joke was actually told to me by a nice, little, old lady.

It's aboot time! I can't think of any reason why this is a bad idea. Other than the mayor getting 3 less Christmas cards from co-workers this year.

That would definitely be a cool job. More importantly, I agree that it is necessary for NASCAR to have their own medical team. I would venture a guess that EMS is currently provided by the crews local to that track. I would imagine that the local crews also get a considerable donation/paycheck for being there and that's one of the issues holding back a dedicated NASCAR team. Another issue would be legal responsibility. If someone gets disabled permanently due to care, wouldn't that put NASCAR's ass on the line?

There are some places that are so medical order heavy that the EMTs and medics call for everything. I have no idea if this is the situation medictx is in, but in services like this the protocols and orders lead them to make no independent decisions. I don't know if it's because the Med. Directors have been burned before, don't trust what they can's see, don't like medics, etc. The end result is a non-productive EMS system and disgruntled and/or poor providers.

Am I missing something or is the link not there?

So what'd you do with the other 4 minutes?

I guess the part saying that if you don't know what is appropriate, follow your protocols I can agree with, except that if you don't know whether or not fluid administration is appropriate you have a larger issue to contend with. The rest, I'm not sure.

Good point. 30 seconds if I remember correctly. I was referring to the transmission of HIV via HCP/pt. contact. Sorry if that was unclear. I believe she was cleaning the cot when she was cut but I can't say for sure. Nothing was being cleaned that would have been expected to lacerate the skin. A patient who believed he/she was infected by a HCP would only need to file the lawsuit for the service and the HCP to make the news. That would be enough to run hell through the department. However you are correct, it would be difficult to convince a jury the infection came from the HCP. I light of this, let me refine my statement: Not that anyone but the lawyers would win[s:78a0118804] unless there was an actual transmission of the disease[/s:78a0118804]. If he believed he was a risk to the pt., yes. The world will not end due to one less Cardiac Surgeon, plumber, or EMT. Should he be highly respected, I would assume that it's due to not only his skill as a surgeon, but also due to his intellect, patient care and integrity. All three of which can be utilized outside the OR and without touching the pt.

I'm sorry, but if that's what you got out of it you missed the point by a long shot. The point is that most people will chose to mitigate risk whenever possible.

Other than during class, I haven't seen paddles on an ambulance. No choice but to use pads. Although I have heard them referred to as pacer pads. A couple older guys said it, I think...

Kind of disappointing really. No, I don't believe anyone would if they truly believed they were going to die. But, I think a closer question would be, "If someone you loved more than life itself was having severe abdominal pain, would you turn away a person with HIV and take them to the ER yourself?"

That is probably true. Sorry, but it comes back to my belief that the patient should have the right to decide whether or not your disease is significant to him. I have an immediate family memeber who had to face the decision on whether to work or not because of the risk he posed to others due to a medical condition. I understand the dilemma and the pain this causes. I still believe the best decison is to walk away.

I don't know that I've seen a prehospital lock started here. :-k Don't see a problem with it though.

By not disclosing the information to the employer or the patient (not making any accusations here), aren't they already hiding it in a sense? I do understand your point and it does not take any stretch of the imagination to see it happening. The idea is certainly not to make people guilty about or afraid to get treatment for a disease. Much safer, no, probably not. Nobody is claiming this to be a pandemic or even a very significant cause of morbidity or mortality. But safer, yes, I believe so. Two months ago, we had an EMT who cut herself putting the rig back together. She didn't realize it was her blood until someone else saw that she was bleeding. Not significant, but it would have been enough. I say there's a pretty good chance there would be a lawsuit. Not that anyone but the lawyers would win unless there was an actual transmission of the disease.

Jay Leno was an EMT?

Did you guys have Bob the painter on Saturday mornings? "We'll just paint a happy little tree here next to the lake. And up here a couple happy clouds..." I waited for the day where he would just snap and trash the studio. Hmmm, maybe I'm warped.

A little?

Likewise. Considering that the rules have been written and the laws have been made, this wil remain what it is: expression of opinions. I still believe the discussion is worthwhile, though. Sometimes the idea of changing someone's mind isn't as intriguing as the idea of someone changing mine. I guess my biggest point is that even though you may see the risk as minimal, the patient may not. That isn't to say that the pt. always has reasonable expectations. I'll be interested to see what you find, Lone.

True. Until the day of replacement parts arrives.

As one of the "misguided", I'd agree that is a valid concern. The immuno-comprimised patients should be protected. Actually, all patients should be protected with appropriate BSI, equipment cleaning, and infection control.

I hope that's the case here.

I'd have to disagree. Considering that credibility is a placed value of a person's believablility, I'd have to say that's tough to attain in 9 posts in almost 2 years. He is certainly entitled to his opinion and has the freedom to express it in most cases. However, if you "lurk" for a year or so without contributing to conversations, don't be surprised when your word isn't taken as gospel. As far as becoming versed in the common opinions of certain users, if that were true, he would have known that who was and was not narrow minded. I'm actually surprised that you're defending that sort of statement. To the original post, it has been stated that their rights are being defended by the Americans with Disabilities Act, so no one is at danger of losing their jobs at this point. It is ironic, however, that the defense that they should be able to do the job as a healthy person would be able to is because they can't do the job as a healthy person would be able. As long as were talking about rights, shouldn't the pt. have some say in this? When a person calls 911, I believe there is an expectation by the patient that they will be cared for by competent professionals and their acute and long term health are as important to the healthcare provider as it is to the patient. I know it's rarely true, but that's the expectation. At the very least, the expectation is to come out of the journey in better shape than when you went in. Whether or not the law agrees, I also belive it's the right of the patient to know that their care giver has an infectious and possibly lethal disease. The odds of transmission may be 1.8% or 0.3%. You know what number I like? 0%. Especially if it's my family member on the cot. When you come to work with any disease you put your patients at risk. You are making the decision weather or not the risk is significant for the patient. The patient doesn't get to be involved in making this decision. That is wrong. Whether it's HIV, Hep C, or explosive diarrhea; it's wrong. I can't imagine the personal hell someone with HIV or AIDS goes through. It must be one of the most painful realizations to wake up to everyday. There are very few, if any, people who deserve to wonder whether or not they'll be around to renew a one-year lease or even if it's worth it to buy green bananas. I feel sorry for anyone who lives this life. I also can't imagine the amount of hate I would have for someone who inflicted one of my family members with the disease and put them in that same position because they didn't want to change jobs.

Ruff is not the only one with this opinion. I'll post a full response when I have access to an actual computer this afternoon.