LOL @ Pueblo, CO AMR/Fire Response WHY??????????????

[DwayneEMTP]

...Or that many Firemen don't mind going to med calls' date=' but don't like being forced to become a Paramedic.[/quote']

Of course, they don't mind showing up so people can see them, they simply (Very often, not always) choose not to be any good at it. Medic is the gold standard for prehospital medicine. Are you saying that you don't mind if I bring a firetruck to your fire, even though I didn't feel like going through all that fire academy nonsense? Your posts, when you choose so, show you to be smart, and honest, I can't believe that you can't grasp this point.

Why does it make sense to supply you with the resources necessary to do so? Why should we continue to pay you to do this instead of moving those resources to those that are actually committed and qualified to do so?

Could you please support this statement with documentation so we can have some faith that you're not talking out of your ass? This is a professional forum, you don't get to make statements like this around grownups without supporting them. Save that for the badge bunnies.

[DwayneEMTP]

Were it not for the vast amount of information on this site that I find useful for going through Medic school, and to possibly aid my future patients, I would, without a doubt, leave it, and its self righteous attitude behind.

I would sincerely hate to see that happen. With the exception of this subject, on which I disagree with you strongly, I have found your posts to be inquisitive, motivated, honest, and smart.

I would hate to lose that in our forums, I've learned from you and hope to do so for a long time to come.

This is a heated, passionate, often angry subject. No one here is, well, at least with few exceptions perhaps, is trying to WIN. We're trying to be right. I can't often be right on my own where complex subjects are concerned. I depend on you to bring your best, strongest, most logical, and yeah, if necessary, angry argument to bear when attempting to defeat my logic. I have no interest in being wrong and winning. I consider it a gift when you show me where I'm wrong, thus allowing me to become right. See? That is how I learn. How I change. How I become better.

I don't have to tell you that there are a million fire related sites out there where they do nothing but pat each other on the backs for being heros. Even more so if you go to volly sites! But you didn't choose those to participate in, and that speaks volumes to me about your motivation, direction, and character.

Sometimes things get heated here...EMS v Fire is akin to "my dad can beat up your dad"....But if we're going to get past the politically correct crap that is choking so many issues in our country right now, sometimes it's necessary for one or both dads to get a black eye.

And if you think this is hairy? We're about due for a new wave of the "My four month medic ticket is as good as your stupid degree!" crowd. That goes way beyond dad v dad and gets into "You know, your sister's really not that good in bed." territory. :wink:

You have a lot to learn, and I believe a lot to teach. Please don't cheat us both out of that opportunity based on one silly thread on....

Dwayne

[jsadin]

Excellent posts Dwayne. The silence is deafening....

[triemal04]

First, let me just apologize on behalf of Flasurfbum, or Firegaurd, or BLSBoy, or whatever he's calling himself today. He's an idiot. There really isn't a better way to put it. While his heart may be in the right place (for him at least) it doesn't change the fact that he isn't fully informed about most of what he speaks. He's also 20...something worth remembering.

Now to the heart of it. There's lots of lines that keep getting tossed around here that aren't accurate, probably the most repeated being "Fire want's EMS so they won't get shut down." That's not quite accurate, for several reasons. If a fire department were to stop running EMS calls, would there be a risk of stations and units closing? Yeah, probably. Would that be appropriate in some cases? Sure. Lot's of departments (and not just fire departments but any city service) could cut money from their budget if they had to without a huge drop in their service quality. (whenever I hear about 4 units responding to an average call it makes me want to boot the bastard who thought that up and anyone who agrees with it in the balls) Would that be inappropriate in the majority of cities? Yes, and here's why. (This isn't the best analogy sorry, but bear with me)

How many here have every done a cricothyrotomy or tracheotomy in the field as a civilian paramedic? And how many times, and how many years have you been a paramedic for? The specific number aside, it'll be fairly low, and for some, a lot of years in the field. Which means that, due to the lack of use and associated risks, many might say (and do say) that it should never be used by paramedics. Fine, except that if it's needed it will need to be done rapidly, correctly, and without hesitation, and will very likely change the pt's outcome. To relate this to Fire Departments, you need to realize that the number of stations that a given city has is not based soley on run numbers, but on response times. As with MI's and catheritization, rapid response and treatment is a must; same for fires. If an engine takes 7 minutes to get to a given address in their first due district, that's not bad, but not super great either. If it takes 12 minutes, that's really, really not so good, and if it takes more then it's really bad, and alomst pointless. That's part of why there are a lot of fire stations and units out there; fire will generally double in size every minute, so any delay in the first unit getting there (more can take longer to arrive) should be minimized. And with the huge increase in lightweight materials and new construction techniques, a minute can make the difference. So, while fires don't happen super frequently (depending on the city, keep that in mind), as with a crich/trach, when they happen, the response needs to be fast and appropriate. Which in this case means that you should be getting at least 12 people to the average structure fire initially, which will be at least 3 units, generally. (20 is just...well...no way.) And they need to be there in a timely manner. Just try and remember that; most stations are not placed because of run numbers, but because of response times. And it has nothing to do with "the big one," just average calls.

Of course, what this means is that any given city will need a fair amount of fire stations manned with units that (if they aren't running EMS calls) have a lot of down time. So sure, cut the fire departments budget, close some stations, and add more ambulances. Sounds great, right? That way there isn't a lot of unneeded waste in the fire department, and the EMS service will be able to staff more units. (excellent idea) Problem with that is, and I will gaurentee this, that the dollar loss (and life lost) due to fire damage will begin to climb. Why? Because it will take units longer to get there to do their job. As with MI's and a crich, a code, respiratory arrest, the response needs to be there rapidly, not 2 or 3 or 5 minutes after it should have been. Best solution would be to fully fund EMS and Fire at appropriate levels. Of course, that takes a lot of money. But this does happen, in my part of the world and elsewhere. Wether it's because it's a wealthy city with a good tax base, lot's of industry that's paying out the nose, or because the politicians have the stones and brains to realize what's right and actually do it, it can be, and is done. And my hat's off to those who do it.

Unfortunately, many, many, many places can't afford to do that. There is only so much money in a city budget and to add to one department means that it has to come away from another. Each time there will be a downside. That is part of why some fire departments get stuck with EMS against their will; they have to provide at least a first-response because there is no money to add more ambulances, and closing stations will lead to problems down the road. Just like removing an ambulance would. That's where the real robbing peter to pay paul comes in.

The only real solution would be to cut the wast out of ALL departments, keep the services at the right level, and bring the ones up to standard that are below it currently. Oh, and raise taxes, because that is what it would take. Part of why it won't be done. Which means that we'll still be stuck with this situation and this same fight will keep going on with the same arguments and reasons that aren't always true.

Nutz.

[JakeEMTP]

triemal04, quick question for you.

If Fire kept the same amount of stations and equipment and responded only to fires and MVC's ( or any other major incident), but stopped responding to every frickin call just to boost call volume, and therefore justify their expansive budgets, wouldn't the only cut be in personnel? ( I really have no idea as I don't and have never run Fire ) It seems to me that responding to everything en masse is the waste of money people are talking about. You would still have, according to your numbers, 12 FF's to respond to fires, the current practice of sending everybody to every call is, I think, the problem. The FD is a necessary service which I don't think anyone is disputing. The use of this service is what the problem is. You guys take care of the fires, we'll take care of the sick folks. I truly believe it is that simple. I don't think you can argue the statistics that fire calls are down, EMS calls are up. Without EMS, the FD's would require the same 12 FF's but no EMS personnel thus upsetting the IAFF, and lord knows we can't have that.

I can see where your going with your analogy. I not sure how relevant it is to the title of this thread, with was duplication of services that aren't required, to paraphrase. ( we do get off track sometimes don't we? myself included)

I just cannot understand why we require 3 engines and an ambulance for a chest pain call, when 1 ambulance will suffice. It is a blatant waste of money and if there is the "Big Multiple Structure Fire", your out of position anyway which is why there are so many fire stations in the first place :roll:, but I digress.

Just so you don't think I'm bashing Fire, I personally have no quarrel with the FD. In fact, some of my buddies are firemen. Even they say they shouldn't respond to 1/2 the calls they do.

Sorry for rambling. I have been up most of the night, which I know, is no excuse. I hope some of this made sense.

[lfdcaptain]

I can't, but that isn't going to stop me from trying.

Its not fair to the citizens that I serve, and will serve.

[triemal04]

JakeEMT-

Yeah, it's got nothing to do with the topic, but then, most of the last 3 or so pages don't. Gotta love that, and regardless, it'll probably pop up in other threads too.

Like I said, yes, some departments would be losing personnel, and for the reasons listed; sending everyone and their mother to a chest pain or general medical is pointless. But, not every place (in fact the majority) operate like that, or have the bloated personnel roster that reflects that type of thinking. Like I said, most have stations (and units, maybe should have said that) are placed in various locations because of how long it will take to get to a given area of the city; hopefully less than 5 minutes from the 911 call to arrival at the front door. Beyond that isn't good. And that does mean for the entire city; so there will be more stations/units/apparatus/rigs whatever you call them than it looks like are needed (but maybe not as many as some places have). And again, that has nothing to do with "the big one" just ordinary calls.

Without just repeating myself, I don't know what else to say. It's fairly simple; when you need a service, whether it's police, fire, EMS, garbagemen, an accountant, a cup of coffee, you don't want to wait for it. And sometimes you can't wait. Hence the numbers increase.

[akroeze]

Aren't there more vehicles than needed in reality though?

Do they not put more on because they have to assume that some of them will be out on EMS calls and not available to respond to a fire call?

[Dustdevil]

Aren't there more vehicles than needed in reality though?

Do they not put more on because they have to assume that some of them will be out on EMS calls and not available to respond to a fire call?

Exactly. The days of them just doing EMS responses in addition to their normal duties, and it not affecting deployment are long over. You won't find a fire department of any size whatsoever who has not used EMS numbers to justify their growth, because fire numbers -- whether it be actual number of fires or just the insurance numbers -- simply will not get it done.

I agree that the theory of them trying to just maintain in the fire prevention era is an overstated myth. It's not a matter of the FD trying to hold on to what they've always had. It is absolutely a matter of them grabbing for what they think they can get, regardless of who else they put out of a job, or whose lives they jeopardise. It really completely disproves any notion that the fire service is an altruistic bunch. Not that I ever believed it.

[Amhet1]

Surfbum wrote "And then he has the nerve to come down to the wildfires and shake our hands, and call us heros. Maybe if DoF was better funded, we wouldn't have lost 60 something homes!"

At least ya'll saved the foundations.

I also saw a comment about why cops call cops for back up and fire calls fire for backup.... When EMS needs backup who do we call? We call fire because the rest of our units are busy and theres a fire truck on every street corner (OK, i realize they sit around comfortable, air conditioned stations with cable, internet, kitchens and real beds, while we sit on streetcorners sucking deasel exhaust, but who's complaining) and there are few fires to fight.

It is our own (EMS) fault that we don't have a union like the IAFF to tell our local governments that we have to have enough ambulances to respond to every 911 call i less than 9 minutes. It our own fault that we didnt say NO Paramedics on Fire Trucks. If we could have 9-minute coverage, fire could remain BLS.

But unfortunately nobody cares that Denver has 22 ambulances to support 150 sq miles and half a million people. Denver Fire has twice that many vehicles and 6 times the staff(estimated)! Denver International Airport has an additional 27 trucks and 87 staff where EMS has 1 ambulance and a staff 5 total.

So tell me, who's understaffed and who is really suffering.

Public safety requires EMS in the best way for that community. But the community needs to KNOW what they are getting BEFORE they change their system. I have found NO documentation of a successful merger of Fire and EMS. There are far more reports similar to Philidelphia and DC Fire Departments. I dont blame the fire departments for poor EMS operations. Fire guys will always be fire guys and EMS is NOT Fire! As we see in this forum, there is and will always be anamosity between fire and EMS and that does not change when EMS is merged into Fire. That is a personnel issue, but there is an equally troubling problem that has been discussed here too.... Funding. Fire wants EMS to increase funding, but unfortunately, EMS loses out because the money is spent on more personnel, bigger fire trucks, and increased waste in overhead.

Maybe its just the american way.... we put more into saving "stuff" (fire), and not enough into saving "lives" (EMS).