Arctickat

Yes there is. It's when you clock out.

For you perhaps, for others, as Markus said "Some say".

With EMS week coming up I thought I would bring awareness to the dangers of the profession. I've reviewed a few studies that show how dangerous it is to be in EMS. Problem is, they're ll over the place.

In this one it's 12.7/100,000 from 1992 to 1997

http://www.emsedsem.org/Prior%20Articles/EMS_Fatalities%20from%20JEMS.pdf

This one from 2003 - 2007 indicates 7.0/100,000

http://www.jems.com/article/health-and-safety/studies-show-dangers-working-ems

Evidently, EMS has gotten safer, but here's my issue.

How is the data categorised? For example, depending on who one talks to, the 80+paramedics killed in the WTC attacks were grouped in as firefighters, even though they were there in a medical capacity. It got me wondering, about tiered responses and such.

Canada doesn't have a whole lot of combined EMS/Fire services in comparison to the States. When a medic is killed, he usually doesn't get the firefighter label pinned on him. Considering that tiered response fire depts. have, in most cases, EMT trained staff, it got me thinking about fatalities while responding to medical calls. If a firefighter is killed or injured during a medical response, should that statistic fall under firefighting or EMS?

My thoughts are that the NHTSA or what ever applicable agency is responsible for these studies needs to create clear definitions of who should be included or excluded from the data. My feeling is that any firefighter with EMS training conducting a response for medical assistance should be classified as an EMS provider rather than a firefighter for the purpose of accurate data collection.

Thoughts?

Ouch

How many attacks have specifically targeted first responders though? I've heard of a few IED cases in the middle east that might qualify, however, I still contend that even the first responder fatalities during WTC attacks were an unexpected collateral that terrorists realised after the fact that they could capitalise on.

Awwww, pregnant chicks are hot!!! All those hormones running rampant through their bodies, messing with pheromones, huge ankles, stretch marks slowly progressing across the belly and down the thighs. And when they start to waddle....better than a tight wiggle.

You did it wrong.

I'd run toward the first blast, for the simple reason that for maximum damage, a second device is unlikely to be placed in close proximity to the first.

Thanks!!

Not yet Mobes. I hear ya just got it a few months ago.

Thanks bud, I'm working on a protocol proposal for our area to have this added to our scope.

One of my medic students posted this image on facebook, Although we do have a fitness component to our paramedic training, these two students were injured during a resounding game of.....

...Duck, Duck, Goose.

In Saskatchewan, if I can do it in the ambulance, I can do it in my POV on the side of the road. Legally, I could carry and use anything and everything that my ambulance contains. Now, reference Kiwi's post.

My kit contains a few ABDs, 4x4s, 2x2s, pressure dressings, cravats, saline for irrigation, handoms, various rolls of sticky stuff, scissors, window punch, OPAs, a pocket mask, and a few bandaids.

And don't mind Kat. Any time he gets hinky his day care nurse cleans his ass with sandpaper...it makes him a bit crotchity...

Der, huh?

Congratulations...next goal, page 100.

lol, here I was trying to boost someone onto page 69. Oh well.

Here ya go

No doubt people were saying the same thing 30 years ago about AEDs, 20 years ago about SPO₂, and 10 years ago about etCO₂. Question is, why should those countries that have their shit together wait on the American prehospital paradigm to finally shift before we can advance? However, as you've mentioned, the American system is what is substandard and what needs to change. Maybe, one day those in power will recognise the problem and deal with it.

Oddly enough, these shiny new toys being used to advance health care beyond U.S. borders originated in that very country.

Edit:

I can see where you are coming from though....Already has only one "L".

67 heh heh

http://www.scas.nhs.uk/content/homepage-feature/ambulance-in-collision-with-tree-on-a337-brockenhu.ashx

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/new-forest-ambulance-crash-driver-1854711

'cause when she gets to 69 she has a frog in her throat.

Now the battle will be for page 69

Why can't Miss Piggy count to 70?

Put the siren in the bumper. Problem solved.

Did you read my post? Those sound levels are just road noise, not the siren.

heh heh

Problem here is that OSHA here doesn't require us to have hearing protection. Also, what about the patient? For those agencies that have hearing protection for the crew, is there any for the patient as well?

A few years ago I conducted an evaluation of various ambulances to determine if hearing loss could be a risk for paramedics. It's a very real possibility, not from the siren, but simply the ambient noise during travel. A brand new ambulance with zero equipment in it was just below the threshold for long term exposure. However, an equipped ambulance that had over 60,000km on it would be in the low 90 dbs. With the siren on it didn't change much unless the siren was a roof mount like back in the 1980s.

Looking at this chart, exposure to 90db for 2 hours can cause hearing loss. When I travel at highway speeds with my ambulance, we are well over that threshold for 4 - 5 hours. I wanted to conduct actual evaluations over a 5 year period with rural medics, urban medics, and the standard norms but I couldn't find an audiologist to assist me.

Here's a little more info, This may be frivolous, however, there is a definite risk.

http://www.dangerousdecibels.org/education/information-center/noise-induced-hearing-loss/

http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/hearing/pages/noise.aspx