Asysin2leads

By a loose definition, activity that someone finds sexually offensive is tantamount to sexual harassment. But if the person who discovered the pornography didn't file charges, but rather merely reported it and the person was terminated, it really isn't sexual harassment, its more violation of company standards. For it to be true sexual harassment, typically there has to be a complaint, an investigation, a finding, and then a recommendation, which is in some cases termination. Call it what you want, I would find it extremely disturbing. I also find it disturbing that somehow your company makes a distinction between "normal" pornography and the really weird stuff. I mean, this is the workplace, right? What type of people are you guys hiring? Perhaps if you put more stock in hiring quality people then your company wouldn't run into these problems. Your company did the right thing. I think you need to get your head out of "firehouse" mode and into "professional manager" mode. I know many firemen. I know many construction workers and fishermen, too. I know the personalities and I know the banter, but I can't think of one of them who wouldn't expect some kind of trouble if they were browsing porn on a company computer and got caught. In addition, if its all the same to anybody I'd prefer not having one of your perverts work on one of my family members in their time of need.

Believe me, I wouldn't trust anyone to write a paper for me except yours truly. That would be like Gordon Ramsay asking for a fry cook to whip him up something and claim its his own. Anyway, I was approaching this from a physics angle. I was trying to relate volume to circumferential stress in a thin walled system using a nifty equation, but upon further review I realized the circumferential stress would be different than the internal pressure of a system and that I was probably making things too complicated. I did learn that circumferential stress is the cause of thickening of the arteries in hypertension, though. We learn something knew everyday.

Basically I just want to say that diastolic blood pressure is directly dependent on volume circulating and need some smart soundin' stuff to reference to prove I'm not full of it. Any ideas?

Hey all, I'm writing a research paper on diastolic blood pressure in relation to fluid resuscitation, and I'm trying to nail down exactly what factors determine diastolic pressure. From what I've read, diastolic blood pressure is dependent directly on the Law of Laplace. In other words, Wall Tension = pressure x radius/ (2 x Wall Thickness). How could I relate this to the amount of volume circulating in the systemic vasculature?

Its probably a real car. I've seen many classic cars made into show pieces and done up in FD or PD schemes. The rest of it is pure crap. No police chief would tolerate anyone doing 80 through town, even if his house was on fire.

Maybe its just the fact that I never needed a patch on my arm to get a date, but tracking down a patient using their information and then asking them out on a date is just plain wrong and creepy. Yes it is. It also suggests a psychological profile of someone who uses a position of trust or authority to achieve sexual goals. Which isn't cool.

The short answer is that there isn't any one definitive law that says how long an employer can keep you at work, especially in medical transport. You see, since no one has been able to successfully realize the difference between a legitimate emergency and shoehorning someone into an ambulance to take the to rehab, the laxity and loopholes that were created to allow units to operate unrestricted in an emergency allow for those wonderful entrepreneurs running XYZ ambulance service to keep their employees at work as long as they can. No state agency wants to say "EMS has to have 8 hours off between shifts" because, then, what if a major MCI drops? Crews might have to work for 24 or 36 hours straight. And thus, so long as we define routine medical transport as "emergencies" "emergency" procedures will allow employers to make a buck. Ain't it fun?

They weren't violating any law. Therefore by speaking about her company's practices without authorization in an employment-at-will situation they were able to terminate her.

Unfortunately, I've seen investigations in other parts of the country that play out much the same way. Usually its a case of the person going into cardiac arrest and the service calling 911 rather than start CPR.

Learning to work while being recorded is a new skill. If the recorder gets to intrusive you can ask them politely but firmly to respect the patient's right to privacy. I think new legislature should be added to HIPPA making recording of medical care illegal without the patient's consent. But until then, there's always Chapstick on the lens.

FlamingEMT is dead on the money. Unfortunately personal judgement and acting like an adult died out around the same time dial-up AOL did. Taking a photo of something pertinent on scene and relaying it to the ER staff is good practice and thinking outside of the box. Taking photos of an accident scene and posting it on Facebook is tremendously stupid. Its kind of in the same vein as having to write operating procedure governing cell phone tones.

The patient with the potential for airway compromise and seizure activity goes ALS. The other guy gets driven fast to the hospital with some EMTs administering rapid infusion of apologies for him being in agonizing pain strapped to a backboard.

I didn't mean that an off-duty medical personnel shouldn't render medical aid if they aren't dispatched to it and don't have their entire tool kit. I personally believe it is the ethical thing to do, when necessary, to see if you can render assistance. What I don't appreciate is the small, yet very vocal contingent of our profession that insists their is some sort of obligation for any person who ever learned CPR to stop and render aid whenever something occurs. It isn't an obligation. It's a personal choice. If any provider ever said "No, I am not going to stop for this..." for whatever reason, I would respect their decision. I may not agree with it always, but I would respect it. Given the amount this line of work takes out of your personal life, those few moments you get off-duty might be the only chance you have to spend time with your family or friends. You shouldn't have to give that up whenever someone else needs something.

Bernhard, if I was dispatched to a scene with an ambulance, of course I wouldn't drive by. However, if the scene was not safe I would stage at an appropriate distance and call for appropriate resources. That's what we are supposed to do. The most obvious instance of this would be a possible Hazmat scene or downed power lines. An ambulance may not give you much more protection than a car, but the chances of me having my family in the ambulance and having to leave them in it while I rendered aid are much less. I have a heart, but I also approach my job objectively. From a patient care standpoint, a person suffering from trauma secondary to a MVC needs the one thing an off-duty provider cannot supply: rapid transport to a surgical facility. The last time I stopped at an accident scene was when I was on a major highway, and there was car that had just gone down a steep embankment at high speed. There was no other professionals on scene and I was in uniform. I did enter the vehicle, assess the patient, and then made the decision to remove her from her seat when I noticed there was copious amount of gasoline leaking from the vehicle and entering the interior. I then used a pocket mask to assist her ventilations after discovering some fractured ribs and labored breathing from the seatbelt. I have done these things, and I like to believe my interventions made a difference. But it doesn't mean I have to stop and put up traffic flares every time there's a fender bender.

Flaming, first of all, I wasn't under the influence of drugs or alcohol when I wrote that post. I wrote it as a phonetic representation of what it sounds like to me when a poorly educated BLS provider spouts off about EMTs save paramedics. Its called hyperbole and its a form of humor. Typically I stick with more dry humor running along understatement and sarcasm, but once in a while I indulge in other forms of humor. One thing I hate though is when I have to explain jokes to people. If you can't keep up with the conversation its best to just stay quiet. You've basically gone on every post around here and touted the supremacy of a corporate run model of healthcare. You seem to advertise with glee the only time your company admitted to a medical error was when it was caught on camera. Maybe you should clarify your position in this matter.

Personally I think the difference between a hero wannabe and a professional is that a professional calculates the risk before taking action. The first thing we learn is scene safety, and an MVC, especially at the side of a highway, especially when you are off duty without any way to put up appropriate warning signals, is a very unsafe scene. JEMS today had an article about an EMT killed in such a fashion. The fact of the matter is that an off duty prehospital care provider, even if they had a full jump kit, can do very little that will improve patient outcome. The chances of them facing death or catastrophic injury versus the chance of them providing any sort of meaningful assistance is very slim. There is a big difference between saying I am not going to render aid off duty under any circumstances and saying I have to stop at every single fender bender that occurs. You can find a medium someplace in there.

It happens. I've been on the receiving end of having to deal with a union-protected substandard provider. Its no fun. But with IHLPP's posts about her company's "break the law or get fired" policy, the fact she posts an article trying to tie something to a union fits pretty well.

Gee, a corporate administrator saying how unions should be outlawed. There's a shocker. It must be a real a pain in the ass when you have to answer to a union when you just want to go ahead and fire someone because they refused to comply with your illegal act.

Flaming, ethics are what you do when no one is looking. Its doing what in your heart you know is right. Its not saying the pleasantries your company tells you to say. Its not hiding behind the official company stance that the sleazy greaseball lawyers your company hires tell you to say. Ethics are the most important cornerstone of quality medical care. Modern ethical standards were established after some very nasty people did some very nasty things in the name of medical science 65-70 years ago. I missed the posts where other people concurred with your blase and corporate attitude towards only reporting errors when your lawyers can't get away with it. I have seen an intelligent discussion between providers about the manner and methods of reporting medical errors, but you are the only one I have seen who seems to view human life as a business and approaching the deaths of people's family members from a quality control standpoint. Again, your attitude is exactly what goes wrong with healthcare being put in the hands of entrepreneurial businessmen with little regulation. It becomes all about what you can get away with.

HURRRRK BLS BEFERR ALS AND THAR WASIS ONE TIME I WAS ONNA JOB AND THE GUY HAD THIS BLEED AND THE MEDIC WANTED TA START THE IV AND I WAS LIKE NOSIREEE YUZ GONNA TURN HIS BLOOD INTA KOOLAID SO I WAS LIKE LOOK AT THAT PARAGOD EMTS SAVE PARAMEDICS YEEEEEEEHAA!!!! And such.

I swear on my mother's eyes that I will strap my loved one to a tricycle and pedal them to the hospital before using your service. That is horrible, illegal, and unethical. Your service reminds me of a sting operation of shady repairmen. One guy noticed the hidden camera and then went about and did a perfect repair job. Sound familiar? That was someone's dishwasher. And you want us to believe that corporate America is the best way to provide healthcare? Secondly, as a medical provider you should be ashamed of yourself for working for an organization that has such a blatant disregard for medical ethics.

And I conclude that your inherent belief that none of us ever consider an opposing point of view until you show up and show us the light highlights your supreme arrogance and may explain your negative score.

And yet, many municipalities turn them down even though they are giving away something for free. What does that say about the quality of their product? Of course now that I learned that your organization doesn't mention anything about critical medical errors when they're not caught red handed on camera explains that a lot. Fugheddaboutit Medical Response, we stitch and don't snitch to nobody.

Haters gonna hate.

I feel for you, portland. A lot of providers are in the same boat you are. You do seem to be suffering from the effects of PTSD, but I also think there is a psychological phenomenon that is more insidious than just a single event PTSD. I'm not sure if there is a proper term for it, other than burnout, but for me it is the cumulative effect of minor stresses in EMS that really does in a provider's spirit. Any one thing, a broken down truck, an obnoxious or incompetent partner, a harassing supervisor or belligerent patient, none of these thing in of themselves are a major stress, but put them all together, day in and day out, for years, and it will destroy you mentally, physically, and spiritually. Its like a grain of sand that has been rubbing for so long its started to cut down to the bone. My suggestion is get counselling for your PTSD. You may need to several before you find the one that is right for you. Be wary of any that only pays lip service to your complaints before suggesting medication. Medication can be used to augment PTSD counselling but really only one on one talk therapy helps. In addition, you need to sit down and add up the day to day stresses and what you can do to mitigate them. List everything, right down to the burnt coffee smelling up the station. Think long and hard about what its going to take to get those things to stop effecting you. Is it time off work? Is it taking more control of your workplace? Is cutting down on the hours? People turn to drugs and alcohol because, to be blunt, they work. People wouldn't use them if they didn't. But in the long run they only make things worse, and not in a "Just say no, find Jesus" kind of way, but in that they compound the problems you already have and make coping with them harder. I would say PM me or chat me up on here sometime, but I am not a mental health professional, and that is what you really need. Find someone good.