JPINFV

A even easier thought experiment is to compare an hour long transport by a vehicle going 60 mph and 70 mph. 60's a nice number because 60 mph is a mile a minute. In an hour, the distances will be 60 miles and 70 miles and the difference is 10 miles. 10 miles is 10 minutes. So in an hour, a unit saves 70 miles. That's not exactly a lot of time. Now there's two caveats when it comes to speeding. First off, in some areas the only thing going the speed limit will do is have you meet the person behind you. I don't recommend going 55 if the speed of traffic is 75-80 mph. Second caveat. No matter what speed you go, the total transport time will be longer if you get into an accident.

You can take my toe socks from my cold dead hands...

DNP v physician is the new MD v DO debate

Girl friend's gonna get paid!

Extra credit or regular assignment, there's more to be gained by going through the process of finding the material for yourself. Resources for starting off were provided (WebMD, EMedicine, Robbins and Coltran), but we aren't going to research and write your assignment for you. If anything, this project would teach you about finding out information in the future in case you want to dive deeper into your patient's illness(es) and associated signs and symptoms. Similarly, what do you think Lt. Blais of the Providence Fire Department would say/do if someone here sent him a link to this thread? edit: ...and if you think we're mean, plenty of other websites that caters to health care students/professionals will quickly lock these types of threads. Example: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=698787

Tell him that the Pathology Bible (Robbins and Cotrans Pathological Basis of Disease) only recognizes 5 types of shock (neuro, anaphylactic, septic, hypovolemic, and cardiogenic). If he wants to argue with a text book used in medical schools throughout the country, well... it's his funeral. Of course there's Google, WebMD, EMedicine, and plenty of other online resources available. In closing, do your own homework!

So? Maybe someone else has the same question and now has an answer. Maybe something will click this time through.

That was what I was getting at. Shock, by it's definition is a state of hypoprofusion. Regardless of etiology, the vital signs are going to be similar. As shock progresses from compensated to uncompensated (non-progressive to irreversible), the vital signs are going to be the pulse increasing and the blood pressure decreasing. What's going to differentiate between the different types of shock isn't vital sign ranges, but the history of the present illness and the signs and symptoms associated with it.

Specific vital signs? You don't get the concept of "shock" do you? Robbins and Coltrans "Pathological Basis of Disease" offers a good primer on what shock is. Chapter 4.

Sorry... the correct answer is arrest the person firing the gun because they dared to have a gun for their protection. After all, in the US the police have no duty to provide protection or response (see Warren v District of Columbia, Gonzales v City of Castle Rock, and Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department) Also, here's what you get in California for following the law: http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a198/Messkit/?action=view&current=SanPedroillegaldetainmentbyLAPD.flv Mind you, with the second video the only thing that officers can legally do is check if it's unloaded. Everything past checking to insure that it's unloaded is illegal detainment.

Who's entendre are you looking to double?

The iPad is great. FOR ME TO POOP ON!

It would be interesting to see what the difference is for a trial looking only at patients that meet specific criteria such as NEXUS and Canadian C-Spine rule. As long as the criteria for spinal immobilization is "trauma" you won't see a change, regardless of if you're looking at p value or relative risk. The number of trauma patients who are c-spined only on the basis of being a trauma patient (and thus, more likely than not lack a c-spine injury, little less an unstable one) will overshadow the population of patients that may actually benefit. It's like asking if D50 or Narcan are effective by only looking at coma cocktail patients. Until that time, my money is going to be bet solely on "no benefit" (and black, always black!).

Well, there's always the i-Do for when Apple finally gets down to truly screwing their customers.

I don't watch MadTv, but saw that commercial on a different site. So is the iPad better with or without wings?

Key word= properly. Additionally, it should be expected that there is some movement, however limited, as the collar is put into place. Given the current design of collars, there isn't any avoiding this. The opposite should be a better question. How many people not neurologically compromised would become neurologically compromised if no immobilization occurred? The reality is that showing lack of harm isn't enough. What should be shown is benefit of use. For the majority of patients, probably nothing will change in terms of outcome. Why aren't medical patients who need to go through all of those cases routinely placed into c-collars? In addition, even an ambulance with 300k miles on it can give a smooth ride if the driver knows what s/he is doing. Unfortunately, a lot of ambulance drivers are more concerned about how high they can peg their speedometer than how smooth of a ride they can give. Then why not push for more paramedics to be involved with research? Medics can push back, they just choose not to because it's too hard. After all, nothing is stopping paramedics from getting all of those letters (BS, MS, etc) behind their names and looking for research jobs or approaching agencies (state EMS, county EMS, etc) looking to start projects or research registries.

So IT at school wanted us to test server capacity today and using a survey. One of the questions was: What do you use at home to connect to the internet: A. Dial Up B. Broadband C. Wireless Err... someone doesn't quite get the entire home network/internet gateway thing.

That's when you just break them and then throw them in the hazardous waste bin known as a trash can. If the goon squad thinks that they're dangerous, then make them unusable.

Alternative question, is it reasonable to engage in a practice with questionable effectiveness in patients with the condition we're trying to stabilize when the majority of the patients with that condition die immediately anyways or have already suffered irreversible injury? After all, spinal injury are a small fraction of all traumas and unstable spinal injuries are a small fraction of spinal injuries and spinal immobilization has never been shown to prevent secondary injury. So we're subjecting trauma patients to a questionable intervention that may help a small fraction of a small fraction of our patients.

Not from what I've seen. Head beds are always used. The question could be, does the author know that there are different styles of head beds besides the big orange Ferno blocks? If you aren't sure what you're looking for, it could be easy to miss a different style/brand of head bed than what you're expecting to see.

What does Michael Jackson and the San Diego Padres have in common?

I don't see why gloves would be banned. Only an idiot would consider a pair of nitrile gloves to be dangerous, however this is the TSA that we're talking about.

Silly robot... this is a double post. http://www.emtcity.com/index.php/topic/17460-just-a-friendly-reminder-to-wear-your-seatbelt/

Orange County, CA Los Angeles County, CA.