New USAToday article

[ERDoc]

It must be true its in the newspaper!I have to say its mostly nonsense,less paramedics is good.Come on,who conducted the survey?Some private hosp. agency,private ambo co.WHO?????Would you want to live in a neighborhood with BLS fire engines responding to your kids or family?NO way,give me ALS AMBO"S and engines!Quick immediate ALS care is what we give to others and what we expect no less for our families!I understand $$$ is an issue in

some communities and shortage of paramedics.In an urban setting high volume of calls is not a problem for ambo's or Als engines.

I believe the study was done by a small hospital called the Ohio State University. Before everyone rips apart a study based on an article in USAToday that does not present any of the statistics or results, we should look at the study and judge it based on scientific merit and look over the statistics and analysis. I am unfortunetly not at the SAEM conference where this was presented, but I'm sure we will see it published in a few months.

[hugopreuss]

I have to wonder, does that mean less physicians and Rn's would also bee a good thing then? Less lawyers, now that would certainly better!

[Spock]

I agree with ERDoc in that you must read and analyze the entire research article before coming to a conclusion. Newspapers have to condense things for the space available so what you read is somebody's interpretation of facts.

I would like to point out one possible reason for higher save rates with fewer paramedics if that is indeed the case. Perhaps you get better BLS (CPR) when the first responders know the medics are more than a few minutes out and they have to treat the patient until the medics arrive. Remember the emphasis the AHA has placed on compressions in the new guidelines and you may see some logic here.

Live long and prosper.

Spock

[akflightmedic]

I agree Rid. I am trying to find it, but I remember this same story from several years ago. I am wondering why they are rehashing it. May be a different study, but the point they are trying to prove is the same. If I am not mistaken, it was USA Today that printed the original one as well.

[Dustdevil]

I could rip this entire article to shreds in an embarrassingly brutal manner, as was done to the so-called earthshaking "news" they printed a few years ago when some retards concluded in a study that those who arrive at the ER by ambulance were more likely to die than those who arrive by POV. Well, no $hit! Any moron could have figured that out without a half-million dollar federal grant. But then, just like this time, McPaper (aka USA Today), presents the study as meaning something that it does not. And the dolts who read that rag are just stupid enough to believe the slant.

Of course, that may well have been the slant of the study too. We don't know until we see it. So I agree with ERDoc that we have to see the actual paper before we pass judgement on the conclusions. But I have to disagree with ERDoc that there were "no statistics" presented. Sure, there were no specific numbers presented. But when words like "fewer," "more," "higher," "lower," "smaller," "less," "measure," "numbers," and "rates" are thrown around in every sentence, they are very clearly talking about statistics.

[Dustdevil]

I am trying to find it, but I remember this same story from several years ago. I am wondering why they are rehashing it. May be a different study, but the point they are trying to prove is the same. If I am not mistaken, it was USA Today that printed the original one as well.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that Jack Stout and Jay Fitch were behind this nonsense. They are the masters of rehashing the same old, worn out, disproven theories every few years in hopes of making another buck. Just like the CISD charlatans, they trot out the same pig wearing a different dress every now and then, knowing that there is a sucker born every minute who doesn't know the history and is too stupid to figure it out.

[hammerpcp]

A few quick questions:

Hammer: What statistical misrepresentation? I didn't see any statistics presented.

Rid: Do you have the reference to the study and article that you are talking about. The study this article was about has yet to be published.

Also, I said "misinterpretation", not misrepresenttaion. Possibly related, but different words. I thought it was blatantly obvious how slanted this article was. If not.................well, I'll try and explain some things to you.

[ERDoc]

Also, I said "misinterpretation", not misrepresenttaion. Possibly related, but different words. I thought it was blatantly obvious how slanted this article was. If not.................well, I'll try and explain some things to you.

Sorry Hammer, my bad. I misread what you wrote. Guess that was my misinterpretation! 8) I do realize how slanted it is. If USAT is referring to the study that SAEM had listed on their site, the title is Cardiac Arrest Survival Rates Depend on Paramedic Experience . Sure sounds like USAT has put a very interesting slant on it and the conclusions they are coming to don't fit the title.

Sorry Dust, I meant meaningful statistics, like odds ratios, p values, etc.

[EmergencyMedicalTigger]

The article also did not consider the level of training that Basics receive around those cities. Maybe the program requirements for those areas are higher (not sure)? Or maybe there is a relation to the proximity of certain hospitals to the pts. There are definitely multiple factors that are not necessarily directly related to the number of Paramedics who are first response. I hate research that claims there is a single variable directly responsible for outcomes. Much more research needs to be conducted, because there are most likely multiple variables and spurious factors responsible.

[Ridryder 911]

Actually this article was originally written in 2002 with USA Today. Dust, I believe you are right about the Stout's involvement. Jack's son was a mgr. at EMSA at the time. The studies was also done prior to this published.. and yes, even EMSA (Dr. Sacra) had to re-state some findings. Each EMSA unit is ALS and has a Paramedic, so I really do not know even how this study would involve them. This was in comparison of how ALS was being utilized. Unless is similar or identical to the same study, this is actually "old news"... The EMSA stats was also in regard that Fire Dept. ALS rigs made no difference in comparison of survival rate thus demonstrating BLS for FD was just as beneficial. This study was to emphasize that ALS is not needed on each call as well.

I am sure, I have a copy of the original somewhere... it hung in the ER for months. Might check USA archives... too tired and heard the propaganda too many times.

R/r 911