Does It Get Any Dumber Than This

[craig]

would like to see it on the other foot.....

"yes send that ALS ambulance to the house to see if it is alight and decide if a fire applialce will be required...."

what a blood stuffed up system, hose jockey tossers are just that, why on earth you would need to send them FIRST on a medical call is beyond me

stay safe

Edited November 5, 2011 by craig

[tniuqs]

"yes send that ALS ambulance to the house to see if it is alight and decide if a fire applialce will be required...."

stay safe

Zactly !

[ERDoc]

I've got to agree with Ruff on this. If they are sitting there doing nothing, make them earn their money. They shouldn't be the ones to decide if an ambulance is needed but they should respond in case there is a delay with the ambulance or if more manpower is needed for lifting. Only EMS should decide if EMS is needed, but that is for another thread. I also have to agree with Jake, even if you are sending FD only to non-emergency sounding calls, what part of this doesn't sound like an emergency. We all know how accurate callers are when they call 911, so does this really seem like a good idea?

I do have a question about the article though. They say an ALS ambulance was on the scene 8 minutes after the FD, so was the ambulance dispatched at the same time as the fire truck or after the FFs said they needed an ambulance? If the latter is true, would that 4 minutes have made a difference when it took an hour to get to the hospital. I have to wonder if it wasn't the call for a helicopter that cost more time.

[tniuqs]

Triage by a lower level of care is a recipe for a disaster, we clearly observed this in Edmonton AB (back in the day) when 2 EMTs on one truck and 2 Paramedics on another .. but having FF "check out the scene first to see if an Ambulance even dumber, besides the liability in delay of dispatch (as if ALS) cannot cancel. This is one again excessive cost to send a Crash Rescue or Pumper and IAFF justification for thier budget concerns.

ErDoc .. one has to ask oneself if the "radius" of efficacy of HEMS was looked at too .. but ALS intervention 4 minutes earlier and lock and load with under 20 minutes ground transport time ... just saying a big show for one dead kid .. that said as always this IS a news report .

[DwayneEMTP]

...I've got to agree with Ruff on this. If they are sitting there doing nothing, make them earn their money. They shouldn't be the ones to decide if an ambulance is needed but they should respond in case there is a delay with the ambulance or if more manpower is needed for lifting...

The down side that I see to this is that a huge percentage of the time they won't be needed for anything. It's nice to think of making them get up off of their asses and work, but the very real downside to that is that they are now going to take those 'nothing' numbers and use them to prove to their communities that they are so very vital.

"Look at all of the times we had to respond this year. EMS does the best they can, but they are really impotent without us."

We can put them to work, but it's really just giving smokes to your emphazema patient. In the end it's likely that you're helping them to remain sick, and get sicker, but at least they're quiet.

Dwayne

[ERDoc]

Good point Dwayne. I didn't think of it that way.

[Chief1C]

You can't have an ambulance available to arrive in front of every tax payers home with in two minutes. It's not possible. When I first started reading that article, after JEMS posted it to their facebook account, I figured it was another "my child died, so I have to blame someone" case.

To a point, if someone is to triage to determine need for an ambulance, you could cut down on unnecessary transports. If you say it aloud in a conversation anyway, it sounds like a good idea. No matter what your extent of service or training, one of the first routine things you learn is dispatch info is NOT absolute. The information is only as good as the caller's credibility, which can't be determined in thirty seconds. Can't go by frantic callers either. I've taken seven digit "911" calls from people screaming and crying - over grass fires.

It seems like a genuine and practical idea - how would it work? I have no clue, nor would I want to be the one to decide the protocol for waiting to dispatch EMS, or just sending them as well. Somewhere, it's doomed to fail.

damn errors

Edited November 7, 2011 by 2c4

[Kiwiology]

"Look at all of the times we had to respond this year. EMS does the best they can, but they are really impotent without us."

Dude, impotence is the first sign of cardiovascular disease (as I was told by a Consultant Urologist) you'd better to get checked out

We can put them to work, but it's really just giving smokes to your emphazema patient. In the end it's likely that you're helping them to remain sick, and get sicker, but at least they're quiet.

Cool, if we give them smokes maybe they'll die faster so I can stay longer at the station and watch the telly, choice as bro no beached required!

[Chief1C]

Beached?

[DFIB]

This article seems to have a real political ax to grind with the new system in Houston and are using an alleged dispatcher screw up to dump on the entire system. Notice the progression. It starts by mentioning Unknown critics. Who are the critics? Might as well be Mickey Mouse if they are anonymous. Lots of hearsay, It seemed forever before the ambulance arrives. Seemed like forever is not a very precise measurement of time.

The article says that Mrs. Olinda said that too much time was wasted because of the new protocol. How would she know that? Does she work for the city? How does she understand how an 8 minute ambulance ETA factored into a 1 hour arrival at the hospital?

Informants of people close to the investigation” That won’t give their names but will offer dispatch times.

Then the grieving mom sais she would like for the system to change “in time to save the next child that needs it”

And finally they say it was the dispatchers fault.

It sounds to me like someone at the Chronicle is taking advantage of Mrs. Olinda and her grief to push an anti new system agenda.

The entire article with it’s hearsay, phantom critics, hidden informants might be dead on. It just seems kind of fishy too me, more like BS.

Edited November 7, 2011 by DFIB