Lone Star

My father was in a backbrace for almost a year because he picked up a paperclip. Yeah, it doesn't take much sometimes to injure the spinal cord. From what I gathered from the original post, it seems that the patient was CAO x 4, and refused medical attention. That being said, if the patient was unaffected by drugs, alcohol or was not mentally competent; there's not much we can do if they refuse to be treated. What I'm having a hard time understanding (as is a few others), is why the transporting crew was responsible for obtaining an RMA, when the Fire Department first responders were the ones to initiate patient contact. To me, it sounds like a bad case of "Me too lazy".

Considering I lived in MI and was 'in EMS' prior to, during and after the whole 'AMR presence', I believe I AM speaking with direct knowledge. I can name at least 3 counties in Michigan that didn't have the Laidlaw or AMR logos anywhere in that town..., and suddenly at least 3 companies started sporting Laidlaw then AMR logos. Not long after that, all those logos just magically 'disappeared'. When they 'disappeard', the void left behind meant that very few had ambulance service outside of the fire departments that provided such services. Those companies that somehow resisted the takeovers, assimilations or outright closings lost a big chunk of their business to AMR jumping calls. (Which was one reason that the State pulled their priveliges). Patient complaints was another reason.

Ruffles, Thanks for your concern, but as you can see in the picture below, I'm not too awful worried about it.....ROFLMAO

Wouldn't have to worry about whether or not Chuck Norris could do cardioversions.....asystole is a 'final conversion' to any dysrhythmia! The only problem with Chuck Norris as an EMT/Paramedic is that 99% of his patients will be presenting with at least sinus tachycardia.....

I want my tax break!!!

Polaroids: What Eskimoes get from sitting on their ice 'furniture' * Edited to correct spelling error

AMR comes to town, companies either get folded up, consolidated or just plain destroyed; then when the municipalities realize what a mistake they made, it's too late. After AMR is driven from the area, there is nothing to take it's place. In Michigan, AMR moved in and all but destroyed the previously established private carriers by either driving them out of business (jumping their calls, etc) or just swallowing the company. At one point they had 12 different labor unions in MI alone. After the State of MI got tired of AMR's way of doing things, they suspended AMR's priveliges in almost every county in the state. Needless to say, alot of the counties were scrambling to establish new services to fill the void.

To start, there's probably more information that needs to be brought out. Granted, scene safety is something that is drilled into our heads from MFR on up. An injured or dead EMT/Medic is of no use. In this case however, it was stated in the video report that the victim's brother had to step in front of a 'moving ambulance' to get the crew's attention. To me, this sounds like the crew was trying to leave the staging area to avoid treating the victim. By doing so they blatantly breeched their duty to act. They've also opened the liability door wide open for the family. Were they staged properly? Hard to say. But once the victim was physically taken to them, there was no reason to breech the duty to act. The media didn't do a 'hatchet job' on AMR, AMR's employees set the company up to get whacked by the media. The fact that it's AMR involved in something like this doesn't surprise me in the slightest. There have been countless articles that portray AMR in a negative light, stemming from deplorable actions of it's employees. To the OP: Once the liability falls ssquarely on AMR's shoulders, watch how fast they fire the employees (as they should), and fold up their tents and leave town. It's AMR's desire to become the 'largest provider of EMS services in the United States', but in the process, they seem to forget about employee relations and patient care. It is my opinion that the crew involved should have their credentials stripped by the state, barred from being able to be licensed in EMSagain, and fired by AMR. After that, the local District Attorney should see if criminal charges are warranted; for the crew AND AMR itself.

What I still fail to understand (at least from the Managements point of view) is this: The comments were made to Becky. Frieda (the FTO) just HAD to know what Becky and I talked about. Since it was really none of FTO Frieda's business what we talked about, how can she get ofended FOR Becky when Becky wasn't offended by the topic of conversation? Furthermore, since Becky wasn't offended; why am I getting a write-up placed in my personnel file? I understand that Management has an obligation to deal with sexual harrassment in the workplace, and to keep 'hostile environments' from occurring. But in this case, the person the comments were made to thought they were hillarious (which is how they were intended). As far as I can see, the ONLY person in this whole scenario who has a RIGHT to be offended is Becky. Maybe I'm missing something crucial here, but the way I see it; the topic of conversations between two partners while on the road, is between those two people. If they're both comfortable with the subject matter, then there's no harrassment or hostile work environment. A third party who may be offended by how my partner and I talk to each other has no grounds to file any type of complaint. There is no 'pattern of bad behavior' that needs to be corrected here. Even by simply documenting the fact that the employees were 'counseled' will generate negative documentation in the employee's personnel file. This could come back to haunt the employee when it comes time to consider them for positional advancement, raises and bonuses. * NOTE: All names in the above statement are fictional. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.

"He ain't [expletive] comin' down, and I ain't waitin' all day for him," acting crew chief Josie Dimon was heard to say on a 911 recording played at a news conference today. "I mean, what the [expletive]. This ain't no cab service," Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10082/1045012-100.stm#ixzz0kwsFTpgy Read it here

Even in the name of 'protecting the company', what I don't understand is how someone that didn't even hear the joke/comment/story first hand can be 'offended' and file sexual harrassment charges against the person who said/wrote the 'offensive material'. As a manager, you have to draw the line on "I heard from __________, who heard it from _________ that ____________ said ______________; and I'm offended by that!". Yes, I may be the person that said it 3 days ago, but the last person (or ONLY person in my case) to get offended....they should have filed a complaint against the last person to say it, not hammer someone that never said it to the 'offended party'. Then again, since that FTO just HAD to know what we talked about, that should have negated any room to be 'offended' by what took place in our truck!

I had a situation very similar to this one: While working in Detroit, I was on a truck with a new partner. She made it very clear that she wasn't the 'easily offended' type and all subjects were 'open for discussion' and that there was no joke that could offend her. We actually had a ball working together and true enough, all topics were up for discussion. She even shot off a few jokes that kind of stopped me in my tracks, not because of the subject matter, but because a woman was telling them. All in all, we had a great day and got along well. A couple days later, she was questioned by one of the FTO's about how the shift went/what we talked about and things like that. My partner answered the questions honestly and candidly. The FTO got 'offended' and went running to the Director of Operations, who promptly called me into his office and gave me the stern talking to about 'zero tolerance for sexual harrassment'. After getting written up, I refused to work with that woman again. I felt that I was lied to, and I didn't want to work with a partner I couldn't trust. After a couple weeks of flat out avoiding any contact with her, she finally cornered me and asked why I wouldn't speak to her. Being a basically honest guy who lacks all social graces, I told her that I didn't think it was fair for her to be making the jokes that she did and then go running to the Director of Operations when I participated in the conversation. She proceeded to tell me (in no uncertain terms) that it wasn't her who went to the Director, but the FTO that interrogated her a couple days later. Well, needless to say; I wasn't able to get the write-up removed from my file because I wasn't supposed to be able to figure out who filed the complaint. I don't think it's fair to be able to file a 'vicarious complaint' because you're offended by something that I may have said to someone else. It's nothing more than hearsay at that point, and it's not even admissable in any court. Just because I have a relationship with kiwimedic that allows jokes and subject matters that some would find offensive, doen't mean that beacause he tells Dwayne that I told a good joke, (and then repeats it); doesn't mean that Dwayne has grounds to go running to Admin because he was offended by a joke that I never told him. I've never understood in this case, how Dwayne can file a complaint because he's offended for kiwimedic. *DISCLAIMER: The members names were only inserted for conversational purposes. In no way am I implying that the scenario in the previous paragraph ever occurred, or that the actions ever happened.

As much as you'd like to pawn this one off as another 'firefighter gone bad', you'll have to take a pass on it. According to even the headline, he was a FORMER firefighter, which means that even they didn't want him. In this case, he was just another dirtbag thief.

Ok, let's stop right here and I'll try to make a couple things very clear.... At no time did I imply, intimate or otherwise state/infer that she DESERVED to die; nor did I even hint at the idea that this may have been a 'suicide by ambulance' event. All too often in this forum, people are ready to castigate without getting all the facts. I merely pointed out that MAYBE she was a contributing factor in this tragedy. At no point did I condone the driver being held faultless, nor did I advocate the notion that this was an intentional act on her part. In fact, I DID acknowledge the driver's failure to follow policy while backing the vehicle up. Maybe I wasn't as clear with the intent of my post as I could have been. But to automatically brand the driver as the 'no good son of a bitch that intentionally ran granny over', is just as wrong. We could 'what if' this till the cows come home, it changes nothing.

As an employer, I'm required to inform you that sexual harrassment will not be tolerated. It will, however, be graded!

Ok, I'll grant that the driver violated company policy by backing up without a spotter. But..... You'd think that in 79 years that woman would have realized that when vehicles are backing up, you get the hell out of the way! OSHA requires commerical vehicles to have backup alarms on them. If you hear that telltale 'beep beep beep', that means GET OUT OF THE WAY, SOMETHING IS GONNA MOVE! If she hasn't figured that out, (along with always pass in front of a vehicle with limited rear view), it makes you really stop and wonder how she got to 79! While the driver was negligent in following company policy, the woman was also negligent in using common sense! I highly doubt that the ambulance was backing up at a high rate of speed, so I'd be willing to bet that even at 79 years old, she had not only warning that the truck was backing up, but also some warning that the vehicle was about to move.......

Charges Dropped in Virginia Ambulance-Police Chase WTVR 2010 Apr 9 PETERSBURG - Charges are dropped against a Petersburg ambulance driver who helped stop a police chase. Petersburg Commonwealth's Attorney Cassandra Conover went to court Thursday afternoon to get the reckless driving charge against Mark Talbott dropped. Talbott was charged after stopping his ambulance in the path of a driver who was running from police last week. Since it finally comes to light that he intentionally pulled the rig in front of the fleeing driver and stopped, this was no 'accidental consequence'. His actions were deliberate, and I stand by what I've been saying in the other thread about this. He should have been charged, and prosecuted.

First thing you're going to want to do is to check your local protocols to see what they say about a 'RMA" (Refused Medical Attention). As it has been explained to me, under GA and MI protocols, if the patient meets the requirements for even being able to refuse medical attention, then you have to allow them to do so. That being said, when they're refusing medical attention and/or transport; you have to be very thorough about explaining the risks, your medical findings and reccomendations. By doing so, you're enabling the patient to make an informed decision about refusing care/transport. Be sure to tell your patient that is refusing care that if 'anything changes', they are more than welcome to call and request another rig. If the patient meets all requirements and fully understands the risks of not going to the hospital, there is really nothing that you can do. Further, it's my understanding that if they DO refuse medical care (and have met all the requirements to be able to refuse care), that's it. They're pretty much on their own at that point. While every service I've ever been associated with has a 'RMA form', be sure to document each refusal completely and be sure to get a signature from a family member, police officer,.....anyone other than your partner. By doing this, it protects you and your partner from the family/staff, etc from coming back and making the charge that you and your partner made up the whole refusal. Remember, documentation is your best friend! LS

Ok Dust, put down the thai sticks and look closely at the name of the deceased in both articles: Curtis Mitchell, both took place in Pittsburgh during the same snow storm, amazingly enough, the same guy in both stories; died of the same thing in both stories. Could it be that the medics were initially suspended pending investigation? They were cleared by the State, and hung by the organization they worked for. Earth to Major Dust, it's time to come back to reality.... Two Pittsburgh Paramedics Face Discipline in Snowstorm Death 2010 Mar 23 PITTSBURGH — At least two Pittsburgh paramedics will be disciplined in the death of a man who waited 30 hours for an ambulance during a powerful snowstorm last month. Paramedics union President Anthony Weinmann said Monday two union members have received disciplinary notices in the death of 50-year-old Curtis Mitchell on Feb. 7. Mitchell died after he and his girlfriend placed 10 calls to 911 seeking help for his abdominal pain during a winter storm that dropped 20 inches of snow on the city. Weinmann says three ambulances aborted to calls to Mitchell's home at the direction of dispatchers or EMS chiefs. The dispatchers' union says no members are facing punishment. Pittsburgh Public Safety Director Mike Huss says a news conference on the city's investigation has been scheduled for 1:30 p.m. Tuesday. Story 1 Pa. medic fired after man's snowstorm death Curtis Mitchell died waiting 30 hours for help during bad weather despite repeated calls to 911 The Associated Press PITTSBURGH — A Pittsburgh emergency medical worker has been fired following the death of a man who waited 30 hours for help during a snowstorm despite repeated calls to 911. Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's office says Josie Dimon was fired Thursday. Her dismissal stems from the death of 50-year-old Curtis Mitchell during a February storm that dropped nearly two feet of snow on the city. Mitchell had a history of pancreatic inflammation. He and his girlfriend called 911 10 times seeking help for his abdominal pain, but medics couldn't reach their home because of the snow. He was asked to walk four blocks to an ambulance but couldn't make it. Three other medics were suspended. The paramedics union has said they would fight the suspensions. A phone message left Friday for Dimon hasn't been returned. Story 2 Since you replied to both threads about the same thing: -5 for not using search function -5 for not taking your alzheimer's medications -5 for not admitting your faux pas -10 for not reading both stories and picking up on that 'tiny detail' that both articles were about the same incident. Aren't you one of the ones that is always screaming about paying attention to details? Gotcha, buddy!

http://www.emtcity.com/index.php/topic/18009-news-feed-two-pittsburgh-paramedics-face-discipline-in-snowstorm-death-jemscom/page__p__238586__fromsearch__1&#entry238586 16 Feb 10 The 'search function' is your friend, Dust!

By virtue of using an ambulance to get involved in a law enforcement activity automatically put him in the 'wrong'. He intentionally pulled in front of the fleeing driver. He's stated that in every interview I've seen. Just as you say that Firefighters have no business geting involved in patient care, the same could be said here. An EMT (regardless of license level or station rank) has no business getting involved in the duties and activities of Law Enforcement. Had he done this in his own vehicle, he would be condemned by all as a 'whacker', but since he did it in an ambulance, it's acceptable? I hardly think so! So you're advocating 'revenge tactics'? Does this mean that you start 'large bore IVs' on drunks because they're more painful and well, the drunk was being an ass anyway? Or maybe you just pick areas to start the IV because you know it's going to hurt like hell? Our job isn't to cause the patient more pain or 'get even' with the jerks we encounter. This EMT did something stupid, put the public and his partner at risk and made the patient he was responding to wait for medical treatment. I see nothing to congratulate him for. As I said to Dust, if this guy had pulled this garbage in his POV, (even if it WAS sporting $5,000.00 in lights and sirens), he'd be called a 'whacker' and condemned by all. Because he used an ambulance to do the same thing suddenly makes it acceptable and he deserves to be congratulated while walking away with no punishment?

http://www.answers.com/topic/citric-acid-cycle

As you can see Ruffles, the OP isn't a 'crew chief' or in a position for them to 'get their hands dirty'. I also saw that the Captain is the crew chief. Either she addresses the problem, or go to the Station Chief. There's no room in this field for the 'bystander EMT' mentality. That was fine during your initial days of clinicals. By the time you get your license, you're supposed to be able to function in the field without having to be told every move to make. If you want the 'prestige' and respect that goes with the title,then you have to get in there and do the job. If you can't do the job, it's time to hit the door....

Everybody has the 'potential to be a great EMT', unfortunately not everyone is cut out for this field. What I find particularly worrisome is the failure to pay attention to details, no matter how small. If the simple act of setting a regulator onto an oxygen tank is giving her 'problems', what will happen when she runs into 'little details' like checking the spine before putting the patient on a LSB? Sometimes it's the 'little details' that can cause a patient's condition to go downhill in a hurry. Since the OIC is a member of the crew, and knows what's going on first hand; it sounds like the Captain needs to step up and take action. I hate to advocate people getting fired, especially in these hard times; but it sounds like action must be taken before someone gets seriously hurt or worse.