In England They Do Fake Emergent Driving In Public!

[scott33]

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari...-8&oe=UTF-8

[WolfmanHarris]

I think what we need here is a midway solution to the problem of letting new providers loose on the roads running L&S.

Obviously closed track training must be the first step, but it can only go so far. There seems to be no disagreement on this point. The main point of contention seems to be whether these closed course trainings should be followed by practice runs on the road and whether the educational opportunity is worth the risk. Especially given the lack of evidence to back up the clinical benefit of L&S.

Would a good compromise be placing a third crew member on these units for the first few weeks whose main role would be to a preceptor for the new driver. It seems from what's been said there is no shortage of L&S responses for them to be supervised on.

[theotherphil]

I think what we need here is a midway solution to the problem of letting new providers loose on the roads running L&S.

Obviously closed track training must be the first step, but it can only go so far. There seems to be no disagreement on this point. The main point of contention seems to be whether these closed course trainings should be followed by practice runs on the road and whether the educational opportunity is worth the risk. Especially given the lack of evidence to back up the clinical benefit of L&S.

DocHarris, we do 2 weeks worth of regular advanced driving and track work before using what we have learnt on "FAKE emergent" runs. We clock up 9hrs driving/ theory a day, every day for the entire 3 weeks. Then, some services insist on a further 2 weeks driver training (a lot on L&S) if the Paramedic is to be a solo responder on a rapid response car.

There's no evidence to suggest that there is any better way of doing things as this has been the LAW of the land since time began. Looking at the accident rates of emergency vehicles in other countries vs the UK, then things become a little clearer. Why would we WANT to change something that WORKS so well? If it's not broke, don't fix it! Have you ever thought that the public actually know what to do now when an emergency vehicle is behind them rather than just panicking? See, we're training the public as well

The key term there is "real patients". They really are patients! They really do need to be intubated. That is not even close to being a valid analogy to running through town on a FAKE run, that is not a real emergency to a real patient.

Yes, they are real patients but their airway could/ would have ordinarily been managed by an LMA. By changing to ET tubes just for us to practice our skills is surely unethical? How can you justify that?

An old army saying...."it's all about the barrel time", exposure to the real thing, or as close to, is the best form of training. I guess I'm just old school after having a forces background where the 7P's are drummed into us....Prior Planning and Preparation Prevents P*** Poor Performance. I'm a big believer in the most realistic training available, not just imagining scenarios and imaging our reactions and then imagining the instructors reactions I guess I lack imagination.

This is all by the by though, it will never change when our accident rates are so low in comparison to the rest of the world. Things will change quick sharp if we start mowing down pedestrians or wiping out other vehicles. As can be seen in the above link posted by Scott, it seems it is the USA that needs to change it's practices. This then might stop you guys wiping out pedestrians and mowing into other vehicles

[zippyRN]

Okay, if this is such a valid educational theory, let's just go ahead and carry it over to the rest of our duties.

Let's just start intubating people without medical indications, just so the first time we do it on an actual emergency patient, we have plenty of "real" experience behind us.

it's called the 'anaesthesia placement' - anaesthetists spend their days intubating patients without a medical need for airway control to facilitate surgicla procedures

Wait, why waste time with intubation on those people? Go big or go home! Cricothyrotomies for everyone!

Reductio ad absurdum to trolling at best - 2 /10

Chest tubes on everyone. After all, you wouldn't want your first one to be on someone who actually needed it, would you?

Reductio ad absurdum to trolling at best - 2 /10

Are those suggestions absurd? They are exactly the same suggestion as FAKING emergencies to practise emergent driving in public. It's no better than the Nazis performing medical experiments on the Jews. It is unethical and totally unjustifiable.

Godwin's law time

there is no 'fake emergency' there is closely supervised and regulated practice of driving while usin g warning devices and/ or claiming exemptions, the legislation in the UK permits the claiming of exemptions where not claiming the exemptions would ' hinder the purpose of use' there is

So show me the math. How many accidents have resulted from these dry runs? How many injuries? And have the accident rates shown any significant decrease since the implementation of this programme that can be PROVEN to be the result of the programme?

if you knickers are in that much of a knot make a UK FoI act enquiry to the respective driver training departments ( all 70 or so across police / fire / ambulance for the stat services will cover the vast majority ) about the number of RTCs they have had in training and how many of those were not the usual 'RTCs' found in the UK emergency services community of the endless toll of low speed oops when manouvering

I can't remember a documented training RTC of any significance ... given that an Emergency vehicle RTC that results in a strategic route closure, hospitalisation of of crew/ patient / detained person or a fatality will be national news for day or two and regional news for several more days ... i'd suspect the figures are low.

These FAKE runs need NOT be done. They should be made illegal to end this ridiculous tradition.

ridiculous tradition ?

or valid training model ?

you have so far failed to provide any reasoning why the model in the Uk should be changed and many of your arguements display ignorance of the realities of the situation in the UK,

You can train as you drive NORMALLY, anywhere - as you approach ANY intersection, travel ANY street, encounter ANY traffic congestion, you can discern/discuss what is best to do.

and many of us do so , but how exactly do you practice claiming exemptions if you can't claim those exemptions

<snip>

Most, if not all, of the variables can be encountered making use of everyday trips such as returning from calls.

there's only one or two 'returning' in most EMS shifts inthe UK - returning for your longer break if you return to a station rather than taking the break at hospital or 'as a visble part of your community'

same for police officers

your hose monkey background shows

No need to make special trips, no taking right of way from others, no disrupting traffic, no annoying everyone, no endangering others with FAKE emergent runs.

you have hung on to the concept of 'fake emergent runs' a concept which simiply does not existin the UK becasue of the way in which the road traffic and warning devices legislation is written, there is no requirement for an 'emergency' for designated emergency vehicles to be able to claim exemptions and /or use warning devices ... only a burden of proof on the operator and organisation to satisfy the bench that the purpose the vehicle was used for would be hindered if exemptions weren't claimed and warning devices not used.

ai also note how the lissue of the widespread use in the US of warning devices on POVs to respond to station hs been skirted around along with the far greater use of POV as emergency vehicle to respond to scene ...

What most needs to be practiced is learning vehicle clearances, maneuvering and backing on courses with cones and cone obstacles.

This can be conducted in parking lots where no one is exposed to any danger and inconvenience.

which as phil pointed out - good basic driving and the 'advanced' / 'defensive' driving techniques that is what the first week or so of 3 week driving courses is for and what the 'basic driver training' that none response / limited response trained personnel undertake is for.

[robert gift]

Driving emergent is decision-making, which can be practised (English spelling) in normal everyday driving.

Regardless of whatever you wish to name your legal loopholes permitting it, FAKE runs are FAKE runs and are unnecessary.

You can observe such driving while responding to REAL emergencies.

And now, with videos, you can also rehearse such decision-making in the classroom.

Since 1989 I have been recording videos for teaching and criticism.

The medical clinicals are invaluable. There is little substitute for practice on (a) patient who needs the proceedure

or practising on deceased patients upon which you can cause no harm.

Practising on (a) patient in the hospital is not comparable to driving FAKE emergencies in the nonconsenting public.

My English acquaintences, who never considered that anyone would ever do FAKE runs, agree thathis tradition of malpractice should cease.

That is the whole issue - you can practise emergent driving without doing it.

No need to impose unnecessary risks, inconvenience and annoyance on the public.

[zippyRN]

to the rest of the board i apologise if this seems to be personalised and instrusive towards Mr. gift , but his repeated inability to enter into meaningful debate leads to the need to ask these questions

so Mister ( or is it Master ?) Gift

do you actually have the slightest clue what you have been spouting about , because i strongly suggest that you don't

your answers strike me as those of someone who those with experienced and knowledge of the theory of education and training delivery would call an 'unknowing incompetent' in that you do not understand that there is a awider field beyond that of your own limited training and experience and do not understand the processes underpinning the preparation for practice of those in other places or whose scope of proactice is different to your own

you state that you are an emergency driving instructor

are you

1. some who holds the necessary professional and legal accreditations to deliver ab -initio driving instruction for reward ?

2. someone who holds a nationally recognised teaching and assessing qualification which allows you to teach in post compulsory education?

3. someone who holds a nationally recognised teaching and assessing qualification which allows you to teach in Health professional education ?

4. do you hold a bachelors Degree from an internationally recognised Higher Education Institution or Higher Education Qualification awarding body which would be recognised as a First cycle completion award under the Bologna Process ?

4a. if you don't hold $ above do you hold a vocational or technical award from a recognsied educational awarding body which fits into the National Qualification Framework at the higher education level ( e.g. the UK BTEC 'Higher National' awards ?

or are you just a proof by assertions 'Training Officer' ?

Driving emergent is decision-making, which can be practised (English spelling) in normal everyday driving.

Regardless of whatever you wish to name your legal loopholes permitting it, FAKE runs are FAKE runs and are unnecessary.

this is not legal loopholes, this is well drafted legislation that you appear to be unable to comprehend

You can observe such driving while responding to REAL emergencies.

can you ? when

EMS - during a shirt period of third manning on an ambulance prior to being let loose as part of a 2 person crew with your preceptor?

Fire - from the back row of seats in an appliance?

Police - during a short period of working with an experienced officer before gettign independent status

And now, with videos, you can also rehearse such decision-making in the classroom.

Since 1989 I have been recording videos for teaching and criticism.

if it's not your driving it's 'armchair quarterbacking' and not of a huge amount of value - certainly not of as much value as 'real' practice whether as part of real as possible simulation or in actual practice

The medical clinicals are invaluable. There is little substitute for practice on (a) patient who needs the proceedure

or practising on deceased patients upon which you can cause no harm.

Practising on (a) patient in the hospital is not comparable to driving FAKE emergencies in the nonconsenting public.

you really are an utter tool if you think practicing procedures on cadavers is appropriate ...

you continue to use the word 'fake' , which demonstrates that you have little or no understandign of what you have been told aobut the liegilsative position in the UK

My English acquaintences, who never considered that anyone would ever do FAKE runs, agree thathis tradition of malpractice should cease.

interesting definition of 'malpractice' as well

No need to impose unnecessary risks, inconvenience and annoyance on the public.

if the risks were not acceptable then it would not be undertaken, especially given the maturity of Health and safety legislation in the UK and the EU as a whole compared to the Leftpond

inconvenience measured in seconds and compared to some of the ignorant fools driving o nthe road far less inconveniencing ... you also seem to forget that as has been repeatedly stated because 'live training' using warning devices and claiming exemptions does not have the imperative of the clinicla and or organisational pressure to reach scene, that it can be stopped dead instantly if the the supervising Instructor feels that tthat is the most approrpaite course of action at that time.

'annoyance on the public' is only an issue in the kind of messed up system where senior managers have to win publicity contests ...

[Dustdevil]

you have so far failed to provide any reasoning why the model in the Uk should be changed and many of your arguements display ignorance of the realities of the situation in the UK,

Nonsense, Zip. You're just choosing to ignore the obvious to suit your own argument. Intelligent "reasoning" tells us these facts:

1. There is no emergent or medical justification for these runs, which classifies them as FAKE. Call them practice or training if the terminology offends you, but they are still FAKE. And calling them anything less is nothing but semantics which do not change the facts.

2. Previously cited numbers show that there is no shortage of real emergency runs to be made in the UK, where new drivers can obtain requisite experience. This is not rural America, where there is very little opportunity for practice.

3. FAKE runs does not in any way result in the stated purpose, which is to give drivers emergent driving practice before unleashing them upon the public roads. These FAKE runs ARE on public roads. Therefore, the entire attempt at a justification is a lie.

4. Civilians are put into at least as much danger from these FAKE practice runs as they would be from any other real emergency run. Probably more, since the driver is inexperienced. So if we are putting inexperienced drivers on the public roads -- which is unavoidable -- then should not it at least be for some medically justifiable reason?

We have succeeded in providing all the reasoning necessary to condemn this practice, Zip. You are the FAIL here. You FAIL to provide a single reaason why this is a good idea, with benefits that outweigh the risks. So far, the best you have come up with is "it's the way we have always done it" and "it works". Of course it works. But it doesn't matter if it works. What matters is that other methods work just as well and with less risk and cost. It simply is not necessary, and cannot be justified with a risk vs. benefit analysis.

[scott33]

it doesn't matter if it works. What matters is that other methods work just as well and with less risk and cost.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari...-8&oe=UTF-8

[zippyRN]

Nonsense, Zip. You're just choosing to ignore the obvious to suit your own argument. Intelligent "reasoning" tells us these facts:

1. There is no emergent or medical justification for these runs, which classifies them as FAKE. Call them practice or training if the terminology offends you, but they are still FAKE. And calling them anything less is nothing but semantics which do not change the facts.

it's not a 'fake' because the law doesn't require there to be 'an emergency' for a driver to claim exemptions and/ or use warning devices .... only that the purpose the vehicle is beingused for would be hindered if exemptions were not claimed and/or warning devices not used ...

while the CPS and the Courts continue to accept training to be a valid purpose ...

2. Previously cited numbers show that there is no shortage of real emergency runs to be made in the UK, where new drivers can obtain requisite experience. This is not rural America, where there is very little opportunity for practice.

equally the levels of traffic in the Uk mean most emergency drives are 'suburban' in nature if not urban ...

in terms of the Fire service and the Ambulance service the response times are tight ( remember the clock starts ticking when the call is connected to Comms - which means even if you dispatch the monent you have an address and the start of a presenting complaint you are going to eat up a minute of more of the response time - even if you are sat in the vehicle ).

In terms of EMS calls volumes it is not unknown to have 10 mile urban rush hour blue light runs ...

3. FAKE runs does not in any way result in the stated purpose, which is to give drivers emergent driving practice before unleashing them upon the public roads. These FAKE runs ARE on public roads. Therefore, the entire attempt at a justification is a lie.

Dust either you are trolling or you have got a serious understanding issue this week ... a training run can be terminagted at any time by the Instructor - without detriment to service provision.

This is not achievable with an in service resource as terminating a run and changing drivers will add minutes to the response time

4. Civilians are put into at least as much danger from these FAKE practice runs as they would be from any other real emergency run. Probably more, since the driver is inexperienced. So if we are putting inexperienced drivers on the public roads -- which is unavoidable -- then should not it at least be for some medically justifiable reason?

the point which you appear to fail to have grasped is that these training excercises are undertaken with a proper emergency driving trainer, someone who is either an experienced Ambulance officer and Educationalist assessed as competenent to teach and supervise emergency driving or an as defined by the law Driving Instructor who has emergency driving competencies.

the alternatives suggested fail on the following reasons

simulated traffic - its simulated - fail

live runs - service pressures , absence of suitable supervisors

once again it's abundantly obvious that no amount of reasoning will change the viewpoint of the dumbass leftpondians who believe that AmeriKKKa is always right and the the whiny liberal fags in Europe never get it right

[Dustdevil]

it's not a 'fake' because the law doesn't require there to be 'an emergency' for a driver to claim exemptions and/ or use warning devices .... only that the purpose the vehicle is beingused for would be hindered if exemptions were not claimed and/or warning devices not used ...

It doesn't matter what the law allows. We are not discussing legal definitions here. We are discussing reality. A spade is a spade, whether the law allows spades or not.

while the CPS and the Courts continue to accept training to be a valid purpose ...

Legal validity does not equal an emergency. No emergency = FAKE. And if you weren't FAKING an emergency, you wouldn't be driving as if it were an emergency.

equally the levels of traffic in the Uk mean most emergency drives are 'suburban' in nature if not urban ...

Irrelevant. Suburban drivers are just as entitled to safe roadways as urban drivers.

in terms of the Fire service and the Ambulance service the response times are tight ( remember the clock starts ticking when the call is connected to Comms - which means even if you dispatch the monent you have an address and the start of a presenting complaint you are going to eat up a minute of more of the response time - even if you are sat in the vehicle ).

In terms of EMS calls volumes it is not unknown to have 10 mile urban rush hour blue light runs ...

If there was some relevant point in those two statements, please clarify them for me, because I missed them.

Dust either you are trolling or you have got a serious understanding issue this week ... a training run can be terminagted at any time by the Instructor - without detriment to service provision.

This is not achievable with an in service resource as terminating a run and changing drivers will add minutes to the response time

Again, irrelevant. What are they going to do, "terminate" the run just before impact? Yeah, that'll work. Not. It is a non-point. If your training is so damned good, there shouldn't be a lot of "terminations" going on.

the point which you appear to fail to have grasped is that these training excercises are undertaken with a proper emergency driving trainer, someone who is either an experienced Ambulance officer and Educationalist assessed as competenent to teach and supervise emergency driving or an as defined by the law Driving Instructor who has emergency driving competencies.

The point you FAIL to grasp is that it does not add anything positive to the ultimate product that could not be achieved without FAKING emergencies.

simulated traffic - its simulated - fail

Read much? I never suggested simulating traffic. In fact, I have suggested that neither the traffic nor the emergency should be simulated.

live runs - service pressures , absence of suitable supervisors

If your most experienced field medics are not suitable supervisors by the time they are put into a position to precept new medics, that is a system FAIL.

once again it's abundantly obvious that no amount of reasoning will change the viewpoint of the dumbass leftpondians who believe that AmeriKKKa is always right and the the whiny liberal fags in Europe never get it right

So far, there has been no intelligent "reasoning" from you, just the same old claims:

1. "It's legal!"

2. "It works!"

3. "We've always done it this way!"

Combining empirical evidence with personal and nationalistic attacks are doing nothing to validate your theories.