In England They Do Fake Emergent Driving In Public!

[theotherphil]

Are your medical educators going out on FAKE runs with paramedic students? Or are they being sent out with field medics for that experience?

If it works for medicine, why doesn't it work for driving? Sounds to me like you guys have simply invented a level of bureaucracy that you now cannot imagine ever living without, even though it serves no valid purpose.

It's funny, but what we would term as FAKE runs are those undertaken by IMAGINATION or on a TRACK.

Bureaucracy doesn't come into it. We don't just place a field medic, however experienced, into a training position. Over here, it is a legal requirement to hold a teaching qualification in adult education before you even go near a student. Then you need specific qualifications in the area you are going to teach. Just because you can drive, and have done so all your life, doesn't make you a driving instructor This system ensures the highest caliber of teacher, and education delivered to the student....not just "this is how we've always done it". Evidence Based Practice is a big thing over here - prove we need to change and we will.

With the attitudes you guys (I say that loosely as at least some of you can see there's other ways of doing things outside of the USA that may actually be better - shock horror) have to progression/ education, it's small wonder you are stuck in the dark ages with regards to EMS. You'll never move away from protocols, you'll never gain the same autonomy of practice, you'll always be calling OMC, you'll never hold professional recognition, you'll never have the pay that comes with all this unless you embrace change...but that means doing things differently to how you've always done it

I completely disagree. This must be debated, because it is only a matter of time before some idiot here in the US decides that we should do it too. Why wait until it is thrust upon us to give it any consideration? Be proactive about it! Know the issue ahead of time!

What exactly are you afraid of? Maybe it's the failure rate? Our student failure rate is massive before they are even let loose on L&S - we lost 8 out of 20 students on my initial course. These guys were then not progressed to clinical training - RTB, EndEX, game over.....back to their old job. Some people can't acquire the necessary skills so will never drive on L&S. Maybe if this was introduced in the USA, it'd cull too many and you'd be out of a job?

[robert gift]

Military aircraft routinely fly over residential areas and practice targeting buildings. It is called training. They can't fly over the forest and pretend the big oak tree is a terrorist hide out or something. It just doesn't work that way.

In regards to the topic at hand.. who cares?

Actually, you can target a tree and pretend it is a terrorist hideout. It could be!

I care about people needlessly being put at risk.

Military aircraft sometimes fall out of the sky.

Inexcusable if they do so over populated areas when there are so many unpopulated areas in which to dump your aircrap.

There are many buildings separated by large open areas where one could eject with a very low probability of killing innocents on the ground.

When I flew east of Denver, there was a better chance of walking away from an "extrairport landing" on preferably an unoccupied farm road or field.

I completely disagree. This must be debated, because it is only a matter of time before some idiot here in the US decides that we should do it too. Why wait until it is thrust upon us to give it any consideration? Be proactive about it! Know the issue ahead of time!

And any attempt to stifle the free exchange of professional ideas with "who cares?" is frighteningly ignorant. If you don't like a discussion, go back to polishing your nozzle and leave the intelligent discussion to the professionals. But it is not your place to tell others what they should and should not discuss.

Don't worry, dust.

Most American citizens would not tolerate such nonsense.

I assume English citizens have no idea fake emergency runs are being done.

How would they ever know?

If they did know, they would work to stop it.

[scott33]

The previous reference on this thread to cultural insularism is a valid one, as is the often used, but very relevant reference to not knowing what you don't know. Perhaps the reason for the conveniently overlooked Google links to ambulance crashes is simply that ambulance crashes are, and always have been, a US problem, and a European concern.

Yes, the combined figures will be higher in the US than any other single Country due to sheer demographics, but not necessarily every other country combined, and not as a percentage of calls answered regardless of location. In the developed world, any country with a functional EMS system will have emergency vehicle crashes making the news.

But just to put some proportion on the disproportionate statistics (read reports of accidents), the busiest stand-alone emergency ambulance department / service on the planet is not in the US. The LAS (London Ambulance Service) handle over 1.1 million calls for ambulance responses every year (FDNY have similar figures, but utilize many other systems working under their 911 umberella). That’s over 3,000 calls per day, every day, just for one agency covering one part of the country. Something else which may have set an all-time record, over the new year period this year the LAS handled 1 call every 7 seconds. That’s - [one call every seven seconds!] How many accidents have they had recently? Not many that I can see, although there may have been a few fender benders, but certainly no fatals in quite a while. Most US EMS agencies simply don't have that call volume, so perhaps someone could explain why the figures are so one-sided.

The recent triple-fatal in Arizona is showing once again, that something is very wrong with ambulance responses in the US, unlike any other country. Unfortunately, there will be another ambulance accident along in the next couple of weeks in the US, and then another. Nothing will ever fix this endemic problem as long as there are people who subscribe to the idea that minimal training in this field is acceptable. Nothing will change as long as fear of litigation, and "inconveniencing other road users" gets in the way of a higher level of education in road-craft. I will say again - it is a known fact that some people get fast tracked in driving instruction in certain US firehouses / ambulance depts, based on who they know or who they are related to. Watering down the already watered down. This would never fly in the UK, and the mere suggestion of it, would cost someone their job.

As for the cries of "where is the statistical proof?" No one in their right mind is going to conduct a study as to why they have a positive outcome in ambulance transport. However there should have been one done years ago in the US to see why the system is flawed. Not unlike US vs European HEMS – same goal, but vastly different accident figures at point of delivery, and seemingly differing opinions as to what constitutes "safe". But, at least the NTSB is actively looking into the problem with HEMS ops in the US.

The simple fact is that the UK system for the delivery of ambulance driver-training is way ahead of the US. Repeating antagonistic words or phrases in CAPS or bold typeface on an Internet forum doesn’t change that one iota. Believe me, I wouldn’t be claiming this with such conviction if I did not believe it to be true, as the UK system is far from perfect. You are a driver before you are an ambulance technician in the UK; it is one of the first things you will be assessed on, way before you crack open the A&P books (for those who missed that point when it was previously stated). The prerequisite commercial license needed (C-1, D-1) just to be considered for a position on a technician course or paramedic degree, can cost about a third of the cost of an average US Paramedic program, with no guarantee of a placement on a course, let alone a job at the end. That is how serious they take the driving. Those who fail to show proficiency in driving standards cannot go on to become techs or paramedics. They are unable to complete their course. They fail.

One other note-worthy difference between countries is that UK ambulances also don't always utilize a hot response for every call they go to, again minimizing the risk. Yes, it is the way it has been for many years, but unlike the entire US EMS system, has evolved in many other ways. The fact that they do not have the piss poor accident log the US has, in spite of having great pressure to meet response times (the US does not have ORCON or anything like it, and more or less have the freedom to get there when they get there, so even less of an excuse to suck) would suggest that the UK have a system that works.

Just one more thing, if anyone is in any doubt as to the disparity in driving standard between the US and the rest of the world...

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

Now show me some literature to the contrary, other than blinkered opinion, paranoid speculation, and an aversion to change.

[scott33]

This news snippet is over half-a-decade old, and interestingly enough, "insufficient driver training" is mentioned as a contributory factor.

http://www.emergencydispatch.org/articles/driverfatigue.html

So hands up who thinks anything has changed since that report.

[Richard B the EMT]

I posit the following:

1) A driver suddenly discovering an emergency vehicle following them will either do the correct thing, or panic and do something potentially damaging to the EV, their own POV, and all concerned potentially physically damaging to their bodies.

2) While they are not supposed to, I have witnessed LEOs and EMS crews, in their respective marked department vehicles, both pop on the emergency lights just to clear an intersection, and turn them off again, or, when there is no cross traffic, simply do a yield right of way, and go through the intersection even when the traffic light is red against them. They then continue down the street at lower than the posted speed, making it obvious they are not on a response.

3) I ask if it is just my observation, or do more people, at least in the more heavily populated areas, where there are more vehicles, move over or stop for ambulances when they are not in Emergency mode, and take turns jumping in front of the ambulances when they are?

4) On limited access roadways like highways, when crowded, when an ambulance is trying to get through at Emergency status, at least one driver, and usually more, will attempt tailgating on the ambulance to try to get through the traffic a bit quicker, not realizing the danger they place themselves in.

5) As I post this, there are investigations going on for the plane crash near Buffalo, NY, and another somewhere in Europe (I missed the news casts so I don't know where it happened). Not all aircraft commanders, either civilian or military, can have Captain "Sully" Sullenberger's luck and/or skill to land in something like the Hudson River, in the middle of a densely built up area with large population potentially at risk from an aircraft falling on top of them from the sky.

[robert gift]

None of my students, all of whom suffered my substandard training deficient in fake emergency runs, have ever been in a mishap.

Without taking right of way from others and barging through red signals, they were able to learn the options and imagine, discuss and decide what to do at various intersections.

Without forcing vehicles off the road or driving onto shoulders or medians, curbs, and interrupting progress, they were able to learn how to go around traffic.

Without exceeding the speed limit, they were able to conceive driving down streets at higher speeds and identify hazard spots and know what horrible things can happen at higher speeds.

Without traveling in opposing lanes, they were able to understand how to negotiate congested, slow and stopped traffic and confused drivers.

Without annoying everyone with unjustified siren noise, they were able to understand about deaf drivers and drivers "deaf" due to vehicle sound-proofing, operating stereo and air conditioning and wind and tire noise at higher speeds.

Isn't it amazing how they could accomplish all of that without imposing risk, inconvenience and annoyance on the public?

[scott33]

2) While they are not supposed to, I have witnessed LEOs and EMS crews, in their respective marked department vehicles, both pop on the emergency lights just to clear an intersection, and turn them off again, or, when there is no cross traffic, simply do a yield right of way, and go through the intersection even when the traffic light is red against them. They then continue down the street at lower than the posted speed, making it obvious they are not on a response.

I have seen it too, many times, including in their POVs by utilizing their little blue or green dashboard light.

Faking emergencies, in a non-controlled, non-mentored, non-regulated, and illegal manner.

My English friends agree with me.

[zippyRN]

I ain't never got no college edrucation.

But how does my dismal, shameful, utter lack of education, training and experience diminish the inappropriateness of FAKE emergency runs in the UK?

so you aren't actually in a position to comment about training and education then are you?,

as Phil points out to deliver training in the Uk you are required to have a at the very least NQF level 3 or 4 training qualifications and with those qualifications you can only deliver training and education upto NQF level 3 - and for many training and education roles in preparation for healthcare professional practice it's going to be NQF 6 or 7 award that is required

as a comparision a level 3 qualification is university entry , level 6 is Bachelors degree (1st cycle Bologna completion) and level 7 is post graduate

I have a level 6 training and education qualification specific to Healthcare Education - this particular 30 credit ( 1/4 of a year of university) is known as 'Supporting Learners in Practice'- however this doesn't make me 'an Educator' what it does allow me to do is supervise students and conduct assessments ... and becasue i hold a full Bachelors as well act as a sign off assesor up to degree level.

those in education roles have or are working towards 'full sized' training and education qualifications and for health professionals this will be a Post graduate certificate in Education or a Masters in healthcare education

as for 'most english citizens don't know fake emergency runs take place' only if they live in a cave , don't watch the TV, listen to the radio or read Newspapers ... plenty of coverage on the issue inthe UK as we work to reduce the already pretty low RTC rate involving emergency vehicles and the police work on ending pursuits sooner and safer ...

including doing live 'practice' TPAC when the only 'stooge' is the vehicle that is going to get PACked ...

Scott has posted the facts - now if the antis wish to rebutt .... bring it on

Are your medical educators going out on FAKE runs with paramedic students? Or are they being sent out with field medics for that experience?

If it works for medicine, why doesn't it work for driving? Sounds to me like you guys have simply invented a level of bureaucracy that you now cannot imagine ever living without, even though it serves no valid purpose.

which 'medical educators' ?

Lecturer, Lecturer-Practitioner, and Practice Educator staff working for the service or a HEI provding pre and post reg courses for the service ? of course they are out in the field with students and with competent practitioners - how do they maintain their clinical currency otherwise,

but equally students aren't always going to be with lecturer - a fair chunk of the time they will be with the Paramedic equivalent of my training education role as a Nurse - An experienced practitioner with a Supporting learners in practice award - different titles exist but quite a few UK services call the clinical team educators or field based assessors ... similar.

emergency driving specialist instructors ? - they are going to have generally come from an emergency services background and hold the ADI award as well as the education and training qualifications - they may not be paramedics, they may not even be qualified beyond first responder if their emergency services background was police or fire ...

[Dustdevil]

It's funny, but what we would term as FAKE runs are those undertaken by IMAGINATION or on a TRACK.

I know. And that is the problem here. You seem to fail to recognise FAKE where it exists. If you are driving as if there were an emergency, yet there is no emergency, there is no other way to accurately label that except as a FAKE emergency. Again, you're just trying to clean it up with semantic games. It's the old "lipstick on a pig" game.

We don't just place a field medic, however experienced, into a training position. Over here, it is a legal requirement to hold a teaching qualification in adult education before you even go near a student. Then you need specific qualifications in the area you are going to teach. Just because you can drive, and have done so all your life, doesn't make you a driving instructor

This is irrelevant to any point I have made. I never said that field medics should be teaching. They shouldn't be teaching medicine either. But they should be supervising, precepting, and guiding the development of new drivers/medics who have completed the educational period. Education takes place in the classroom and on the track. Once you're on the streets -- emergency or not -- it is not education anymore. It is experience. And experienced field preceptors -- who underwent the same process themselves -- are qualified to mentor that field experience. They do it in medicine. They can do it in driving. It is not education. Therefore, educational credentials are not relevant.

This system ensures the highest caliber of teacher, and education delivered to the student....not just "this is how we've always done it". Evidence Based Practice is a big thing over here - prove we need to change and we will.

And the same thing applies to medicine. If we decided it was somehow ethical to practise non-medically indicated medical procedures on healthy persons just for the practice of it, we could produce better prepared medics. That, however, cannot be ethically justified any more than can be driving emergent through public traffic when no emergency exists.

With the attitudes you guys (I say that loosely as at least some of you can see there's other ways of doing things outside of the USA that may actually be better - shock horror)

You and Scott keep tossing (pun intended) out this stinker with some expectation that it holds some relevance, but it does not. Nobody in this discussion has ever suggested that the US has a better way of doing things, or that our driver training is even remotely adequate. Our driver training sucks. But it takes one to know one. And from thirty-seven years in a system that sucks, I can tell that your programme sucks. But this isn't 'us vs. them'. This is a straightforward discussion of what is justified and what is not.

What exactly are you afraid of? Maybe it's the failure rate? Our student failure rate is massive before they are even let loose on L&S - we lost 8 out of 20 students on my initial course. These guys were then not progressed to clinical training - RTB, EndEX, game over.....back to their old job. Some people can't acquire the necessary skills so will never drive on L&S.

Nonsense. They already did drive L&S. It was just FAKE runs. But it was still driving L&S through public roads and traffic. And that remains the point here. You are not doing this crap before they drive L&S in public. They are driving L&S in public! It takes either incredible nerve or incredible stupidity to deny it.

Maybe if this was introduced in the USA, it'd cull too many and you'd be out of a job?

More irrelevance. I am already out of a job, having retired over a year ago. I am certainly not looking for another one. And your lame attempt to discredit my point based upon an assumption of my motives does nothing to validate your theory.

[dsco77]

I know. And that is the problem here. You seem to fail to recognise FAKE where it exists. If you are driving as if there were an emergency, yet there is no emergency, there is no other way to accurately label that except as a FAKE emergency. Again, you're just trying to clean it up with semantic games. It's the old "lipstick on a pig" game.

When i did my emergency driver training, over 15 years ago in Scotland, so don't call me bloody English ;-) we would drive around Glasgow under instruction of the driving assessor monitoring the radio, when a REAL emergency call came in, we would respond to it, as an extra, additional resource, usually to from the opposite side of the city & run the call until stood down by control advising us of the first crew's attendance. That way we were able to get real world assessment of a real world situation but in a fully controlled & structured way, while always having the option for the assessor to terminate the drive, to discuss any training issued they had identified without detriment to the original caller, & if for some reason, we were to arrive on scene first, the driving assessor/paramedic would simply treat the patient until back up arrived, so at no time was there ever any such thing as a FAKE emergency drive.