Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing topics, give reputation to other members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
It will actually be much more important to understand OSHA requirements on this job than first aid, for example, when and why you might apply a splint and what the consequences for the company might be should you choose to when it's not necessary.
No medical director means no medical care above first aid. I would be curious if an AED would fall into this category, as they're placed in public areas now for layman use?
What EMT skills above first aid would you feel might be used before an ambulance could arrive?
So let's say that you can forgive or somehow excuse the mishandling of the trach, how do you, in any world, explain away them not noticing a dying patient happening right before their eyes? To the point where they attempt the handover of an actually dead patient?
If you're getting paid to go out with these guys, my guess is that alone is enough to lose your lisence as you don't have a medical director.
If you're volunteering to go out, then I can't see any issues at all. I'm not even sure that your scope of practice matters if you're acting in good faith as a Good Samaritan.
I can't imagine the senario where a Marine training mission would leave their Corpsmen home and take a civilain EMT. I also can't imagine the mission where they would choose to go into unsafe avalanche areas for training, especially while being responsible for a civilian EMT.
I'm from Colorado, but that doesn't help, because as others have stated, your story stinks Brother. Tell the truth, or flesh out the details and more will be willing to help. But stick with the, "A civilian EMT going out on a dangerous training mission in support of the Marines? You all have never heard of that? Happens all the time..if you're as good as me..."
And I don't care if you're friggin' Chuck Norris...just the suggestion that the Marines turned to their Corpsmen and said, "You guys sit this one out...we've got super EMT here to take care of us.." pisses me off...That just didn't happen.
I guess that it could be argued, "He refused to consent 10 minutes ago, with the information available then. He's now unresponsive, if he had the ability to make a new decisions with this new information he might choose differently." It's not my argument, but one that I can imagine.
Is there a nation wide legal answer to this question?
Secouriste, I'm not sure what the science says, so I'm only speaking for myself. But if vacuum mattresses were commonly used by most my guess would be that this would be a completely different conversation. Know what I mean? We can't, or at least I can't, really compare a vacuum mattress to a straight backboard, the mattress being by far the superior choice. (My unscientific opinion only.)
I am curious though if immobilization via vacuum mattress has been studied when compared to no board and the cot mattress only?
I do know quite a few really smart medics that have told me that the flight exam is really, really tough. But not everyone needs it to be hired. In fact most of the medics that I know were hired without it on the condition that they pass it within a certain number of months...
I'm in no way dissing flight medicine. The flight medics that I'm friends with are all much stronger, smarter and more experienced medics than I'm every likely to be. I'm only disagreeing with the "There's only one way to get in" argument, that I know to be untrue in many places.
I see many here talking about how much experience is needed to become a flight provider, but I don't believe that the advice given is accurate.
I know of several medics that work for flight services that had little experience, no degrees, and aren't very strong medics to boot. They were a warm body, and available, when a position needed filling.
I can't imagine any of these types of providers working for a service like Flight for Life, as the providers that I know there are all really, really strong. But FfL doesn't own the entire market. There are plenty of really weak flight providers just as there are weak street providers...
I don't remember from previous years, but I was pretty happy to see the scope of the test this time around. I don't remember having cellular biology questions before and they kind of took me by surprise, but in a good way.
I guess what confuses me a little bit is why, in this day and age, we have to have questions presented in one or two sentences that leave so much to the imagination. If you want to know if I'm confortable with a concept, why not give me the information necessary to build at least a minimal differential and choose an answer that I could defend if asked? It's not like they're being charged by the word to print them to the screen.
My only argument with the questions as presented, and maybe it's a weakness of mine and not that of the test, is that often I could make the arguement that "The gross scenario exists as (X). If (Y, undeclared information) exists then 'this' would be the obvious answer, but if (Z, undeclared information) exists then 'that' would be an obvious answer, with both Y/Z being likely/predictable parts of the presented scenario.
I know it seems silly maybe to criticize a test that I've passed each time that I've taken it, but I don't really see the logic behind giving the minimum possible information and forcing misunderstanding if testing understanding is the goal.
I wouldn't have immobilized, though with a head lac, I would have been prepared for blowback from the ER. Not from the docs most likely, but from some nurses.
It can be complicated sometimes trying to do what's right for the patient, satisfying your protocols, and trying to keep a good relationship with the ER so that you can get the orders you'd like, when you'd like them.