Would you stop?

[brentoli]

And learn to edit your replies. I know you are overly impressed with your own posts, but quit requoting them everytime you post another reply. They were annoying enough the first time.

[Lone Star]

I'm thinking the 'whacker meter' is off the scale on this one!

[AnthonyM83]

Really you guys?

I don't think this is much of a whacker issue. The medics decided to stop at bad accident, apparently per policy, and see if victim needed any lifesaving immediate measures while another crew arrived. The patient in the back was apparently stable.

I've seen the MOST unwhackerish medics here do that when the accident was severe. Maybe they did make a wrong decision, but it doesn't yell of whackerism. I have the feeling NYFD gets ran a lot, so it probably wasn't that they just wanted to see the cool accident. Maybe it looked bad enough that the human in them made them feel they should stop and help.

Again, maybe wrong decision, but not a whacker decision just by itself as explained in the article. Everything after the shooting happened seemed appropriate. Retreat. Get people away. Ask for PD and more units.

[Lone Star]

Ultimately, if the driver hadn't stopped (because his crew had a pt on board), he would have never gotten a gun stuck in his face, needed to retreat, needed to evacuate the ambulance....you get the point.....

Irregardless of how 'bad the accident looked', your crew can only treat so many patients at one time. Thats why any company that's considered any amount of 'successful' has multiple ambulances and crews to man them. I'm sure that FDNY/EMS is no exception.

To me, this screams of what I like to call the 'Johnny and Roy syndrome'; In law enforcement you have 'The Blue Knight Syndrome' (or for those of us old enough to remember, 'Bumper Morgan Complex'). In the fire service, we've all seen the 'Backdraft Complex' in full swing.

From the article, it seems that the prudent thing to have done, would have been to continue on with your patient, and notify dispatch, so that another unit could be sent.

It's been said in an earlier post that because of the pt on board, NY DOH rules specifficlally states that he wasn't supposed to stop. Now you can see why Im seeing the 'whacker meter' go off. This was clearly another case of the 'Johnny and Roy Syndrome' in full manifestation!

On arrival back at my base, the owner told me, while it was possibly, and probably, good publicity, he had no way to bill for services rendered on the street job, and mentioned that, under NYS DoH rules, on which I have still not seen documentation, due to me having a patient already on board, I could have told the cop that I had one already aboard and couldn't stop.

Now, today, as I understand the FDNY EMS/NYS DoH rules and regulations, I could be going to a Priority One Cardiac Arrest, but if someone at the door to the building stops us, requesting medical aid, we are to either take care of the new patient while radioing for an additional unit to take care of the original Pri 1 patient, or split the team with one going up to start care on the original pri 1 patient until the arrival of the backup unit, again while radioing in for that backup unit.

I will be calling up the FDNY EMS Academy tomorrow, Monday, and ask for a clear cut answer, at least under the FDNY EMS/NYS DoH rules, regulations, and protocols, and should have an answer posted within 48 hours of this posting.

[NREMT-Basic]

There are too few details included in the "report" to judge what is right & wrong. I wasn't there, I can't say what I would have done, each case is unique and must be judged based on ALL the FACTS. It is foolish (unless you are a whacker) to try and draw any conclusions/judgements based on what is presented.

Actually, the only time you become a foolish whacker (in this incident) is if you pull yourself off one call without auhtorization while you have a peds seizure in the box. How stupid do you have to be? The folks that have expressed that your responsibility is to the patient you already have taken on are absolutely correct. To do anything else (ie stop at an accident scene) is to subject yourself to loss of license and civil suit for neglect and abandonment, not to mention the family of that peds patient will own you and every penny you make for the rest of your life while you work at McDonalds.

[whit72]

Anthony Wrote:

Well, that opens you up to a lawsuit...

No. It opens you up to litigation by delaying transport of the patient you already have. Are protocols wouldn't and don't cover an issue that should be common sense.

The decisions I make are not based on whether I will be sued or not. They are based on the best interest of my patients. End of story.

Come on we encounter difficult decisions on a daily basis, this isn't one of them.

[medic001918]

I'm not looking for explanations of feelings or rationale - I'm looking for your exact policy or procedure in regards to these types of situations. We can sit and debate personal rationale and feelings all night long - I want the facts and that has yet to be provided.

The exacty policy at the services that I work for is the same at both, and this has already been discussed in this topic previously. Once you're dispatched to a call, you're duty to act has been activated. You are committed to that call until it's conclusion regardless of what else is going on. The only way you can get pulled off of a call is if it's before patient contact. Dispatch can reassign you to another call. However, once patient contact has been initiated you are now 100% committed. If you come across another incident, you call it in and proceed to the hospital. You do NOT stop. That is negligent of your existing patient and opens you up to much litigation. The family would have no problem winning that one in court if you stopped while en route to the hospital. Especially in a scenario such as this one where the ambulance was fired upon after stopping, placing the crew, patient and family in unneeded danger. If you come across an incident while transporting and you don't at least call it in. You are being negligent. Once you call it in and requested additional resources you have fulfilled your duty to act to the patient involved in that scene. You have done what you can do, and should do. More resources will be coming along, and your patient that you already have is still receiving care in a time effective manner.

As to needing more information on this scenario, we really don't need any more information. The article clearly states that they had a nine month old seizure patient in the back of the truck when they stopped. They had to evacuate themselves, the family and the patient from the truck after stopping. Had they not stopped and proceeded to the hosptial, this never would have had to occur. Stopping is not the best option in this case. And that is a policy based answer at my current service's that I work for, as well as for any other service I have ever worked for.

Shane

NREMT-P

[AnthonyM83]

Anthony Wrote:

Well, that opens you up to a lawsuit...

No. It opens you up to litigation by delaying transport of the patient you already have. Are protocols wouldn't and don't cover an issue that should be common sense.

The decisions I make are not based on whether I will be sued or not. They are based on the best interest of my patients. End of story.

Come on we encounter difficult decisions on a daily basis, this isn't one of them.

If you follow your protocols, which you said you would've disregarded, then the liability falls on the agency or county (whoever's protocols it is). But if the accident victim is passed up and you failed to follow protocol and stop, I'd say he has a case and it falls on you.

Now, if we're going with best interest of people, then that might have been the driver who might have needed lifesaving measures, IF the child as stable. We've transported febrile seizures BLS. They were short, they were over, and the child's fever was going down...parents just wanted a checkup at the hospital.

Or maybe it was some other circumstances, but they made the decision that they should stop. Basically, the same argument you're making about doing what's right overall, but they believed stopping was better. Maybe the next ambulance was a couple minutes away (based on the other threads about code 3 driving, couple minutes probably won't change outcome of a stable pt).

[PRPGfirerescuetech]

Dont stop.

Your comitted to your current patient(s). Unless case law changes, they continue to the hospital, not without contacting dispatch to let them know of the incident you came across.

PRPG

[whit72]

Anthony wrote:

If you follow your protocols, which you said you would've disregarded, then the liability falls on the agency or county (whoever's protocols it is). But if the accident victim is passed up and you failed to follow protocol and stop, I'd say he has a case and it falls on you.

My protocols don't cover an issue that should be common sense. I don't stop nor will I stop if I am occupied. If that was my kid I would sue everyone involved for delaying treatment and transportation thats abandonment. Then I would sue for putting me and my family in jeopardy. Thats negligence, and I would win, protocols or no protocols.