More on flying trauma patients...

[TDP]

I've always wondered how aviation standards compare as to US vs Canada. As for flying in the United States, the country itself obviously has by far way more transports of the critically ill patient when comparing to little brother, Canada. In terms of accidental death and or crashing, it would be interesting to find out how standards differ and or if crashing is user error (which I doubt). And which are Emergency Medical Serivces birds falling out of the sky so often. We know ambulance's get into alot of accidents as well also,but really which is safer when considering the probability.

[CBEMT]

Maryland has almost 6 million residents (19th among 50 states). It's 5th by population density and 1st according to median household income. It has the lowest poverty rate in the nation at 7.8% (even with Baltimore City).

Essentially, no, state wide protocols are not necessary.

And if I was talking about Maryland, you'd have a point. Don't get so defensive.

[CBEMT]

So now, apply that to the system in city "A", whose medics typically graduate from a two-year college programme, versus the medics next door in city "B", whose firemen attend a thirteen-week patch factory, and did not want to do so in the first place. Who benefits from statewide protocols in this case? Not the patients. And certainly not the profession.

Given the size of the state, EMS mutual aid is a daily, hourly in the city, occurance. It doesn't make much sense for City A's citizens to get a different level of care just because their own department ran out of ambulances. On a busy day the city here could have half a dozen or more out of town units running calls, plus their own. If they were all operating differently, it'd be a madhouse.

[Dustdevil]

Given the size of the state, EMS mutual aid is a daily, hourly in the city, occurance. It doesn't make much sense for City A's citizens to get a different level of care just because their own department ran out of ambulances. On a busy day the city here could have half a dozen or more out of town units running calls, plus their own. If they were all operating differently, it'd be a madhouse.

I disagree. When you go to two different doctors for the same condition, you are likely to get two different types of care. If you ask two different contractors to build you a house, you're going to get two different houses. What's the difference? How is that a madhouse? Exactly HOW does the public benefit from such standardisation? I don't see it, other than "making sense" seeming to make you feel better.

You want to see a madhouse? Try telling every doctor they have to practise exactly the same, utilising the same cookbook recipes. Wonderful. Now if one makes a mistake, they ALL make the same mistake. No room for progress and improvement. We call that socialism. It FAILS. But, if you like it so much, how about we take it a step further. Why don't we just have one state-wide EMS agency covering the whole state? Let's let the State establish their own EMS provider agency and eliminate all others? Or, better yet, one federally run EMS agency. All medics will now work for one federal employer, with no local agencies. There ya go. Perfect standardisation. Nationwide protocols. Everyone is the same. A new proletariat. Wonderful. So now what are you going to do for a living?

[reaper]

Hey, I like the Federal idea. Then we can have gold plated stretchers and we all get to take off for Federal holidays!

[CBEMT]

Why don't we just have one state-wide EMS agency covering the whole state?

Actually, there are more than a few EMS agencies that cover areas bigger than this state. Yet we have over 100 fire departments, most of them providing EMS, a few that don't.

Here, a LITTLE more standardization might mean that when I need to be immobilized, I actually GET immobilized- instead of a board but no straps and no blocks in the city, blocks but no straps in Suburb A, and the full package in Suburb B.

That's what I'm talking about. When the city goes mutual aid to Suburb A, why should the suburb's citizens be getting a lower level of care? Vice versa, why do the city residents get better care from Suburb B's mutual aid crew than they do from their own department? And I'm just talking about this as they exist today, WITH (theoretically) a statewide standard- letting everybody officially make up their own rules instead of just when they think nobody's watching would be a huge step backwards here.

Just the way I see it. I know it's not the solution for every jurisdiction.

[Dustdevil]

Here, a LITTLE more standardization might mean that when I need to be immobilized, I actually GET immobilized- instead of a board but no straps and no blocks in the city, blocks but no straps in Suburb A, and the full package in Suburb B.

That's what I'm talking about. When the city goes mutual aid to Suburb A, why should the suburb's citizens be getting a lower level of care? Vice versa, why do the city residents get better care from Suburb B's mutual aid crew than they do from their own department? And I'm just talking about this as they exist today, WITH (theoretically) a statewide standard- letting everybody officially make up their own rules instead of just when they think nobody's watching would be a huge step backwards here.

But those things are nationally standardised. A lack of standards is not the problem. A lack of professionalism within those agencies is the problem. If you think a new standard will fix that, you'll love what drug laws have done to stop drug use.

[ERDoc]

So on a similar note, a thread on one of the other forums I check out should fit in pretty well to this discussion. Feel free to add your opinions (you don't even need to register).

Take a look.

[Dustdevil]

Take a look.

The secret is out! You're "some loser who failed his EMT exam"!

[ERDoc]

The secret is out! You're "some loser who failed his EMT exam"!

What makes you think that was me? I would never stir the pot. :wink:

I think what they have there is a prime example of not knowing what you do not know. Now, who it Not in LI??