PatrickW

Yikes, we've been on scene too long.

I understand what you're saying, but... 1: I agree, it would suck to be limited to either just driving or just patient care. I don't really know what else to say about that. I don't have any real experience with that, the service I work for treats me like any other employee with the same amount of experience and same level of certification that I have. 1.A (?): The reason your rates lowered so much was because you became a better driver on your 21st birthday? No, it's all based on statistics. I understand accident rates are highest in the young and the old. If we're going to be discriminating based on age, how about we can anyone older than whatever age we find an increase in accident rates? Apparently it doesn't work both ways. How about if we find out that field errors statistically occur most often with hispanic males age 18-35 (just an example, don't stone me)? Clearly it would be in the patients' best interests to not hire any hispanic males within that age range, right? Of course we're not going to do that. What's the difference? We just need to be careful in our hiring process. Educate and train people correctly, and hold everyone to the same standard. What's wrong with that? 2: I'm all for higher education requirements. I'm in a paramedic Associate's Degree program right now. So long as the new requirements extend to every new EMT (no age discrimination), let's do it.

I think it would be damn cool (and helpful) if there were a way to download the 911 call to the GPS computer and allow us to listen to it from the beginning once we go en route (or at least the passenger). It would be kind of tricky from a technical standpoint to listen and download at the same time (streaming, while they're still on the line) but it's doable. Of course, at least at the service I work for, they can't even send down apartment numbers, location names or address changes to the GPS, so this is a bit of a stretch :roll:

IIRC, a long QT can be due to electrolyte imbalances as well as what others have mentioned above. Long QT with a U wave: Hypokalemia (Also, flat T waves) Long QT without a U wave: Hypocalcemia.

2230 PM? As opposed to 2230 AM?

You know what they say about blanket statements. They're all wrong.

Here in SC the private services only hire 21+, but I was hired onto a public 911 service at 18.

I really appreciate the visual provided in that article. It really helped my understanding of the entire situation.

The original post in this thread is many months old, the event in question has already passed.

You probably did fine. I took the CAT on Wednesday and finished after 70 question in a little under 40 minutes. I got the results that I passed yesterday. Listen to your classmates. I didn't and I was a little worried that I had failed when all my classmates were sure I did fine.

I'm kind of surprised at the amount of negative responses towards Basics inserting LMAs. Here in SC, not only are Basics trained and educated to insert LMAs and combitubes, but they may perform ET intubation as well.

So much for that whole "thinking clearly" thing, huh? I'll stick with 18. While I still believe any non-practitioner should leave as a courtesy if asked by a patient, there are times when this wouldn't be ideal (mass casualty incident, employee with EMS but not a care provider, medic student, etc), for the same reasons I listed before (age of majority, age to become EMT here).

Actually, the post you quoted does indeed have my comment about the parents signing, but I screwed the formatting up so badly that you'd have to be looking specifically for it in quoted text. Sorry! The protection is the same as any civil matter, as far as I know. It's not a new idea and it doesn't give minors the right to go do whatever they want. Obviously IANAL but if breach of patient confidentiality is a criminal offense I believe minors can be held responsible.

No, I think I mis-read your question to begin with :oops: My original answer was under the thought that by non-practitioner, you mean untrained rider. Am I now correct in assuming that non-practitioner includes untrained riders and EMTs alike? Sorry about the confusion!

Assuming that I am reading your question correctly this time, 18. Simply because in the USA that is the age of majority, and that it is also be the minimum age for becoming an EMT.

I'm sorry, I think there was some miscommunication on my part. When you posed your original question I thought you were asking about adult EMTs having to strip a patient while there is a minor rider observing only (non-practitioner). That is where I got my "no minimum age" answer from, I did not mean to imply that I believe a 12 year old with no training should be performing any sort of inspection on a patient.

I completely agree with this statement. But there are minors that do have the coping skills to deal with EMS ride-alongs, plain and simple.

I mean no. If someone is a non-practitioner, therefore not essential to the patient's care, and the patient asks for them to leave I believe they should, regardless of age. Within reason, of course, I'm not going to jump out of the back of the truck during a transport if a patient must be stripped and they are uncomfortable with me there, but I'd do whatever I can (look away, most likely).

No minimum age...I believe that non-practitioners should leave if the patient asks them to, life-threatening or not.

Insults aren't going to help me understand where you're coming from. And I don't think I'm really sure what you believe I'm proposing. Allowing minors to observe EMS on the condition that they understand and follow patient privacy rights, and if they piss anyone on the crew off they're gone? What I've described is not my own original idea, it is happening in at least one county in the USA.

I'll respond to this first. Did you read my posts? I clearly stated that I was talking about observational ride-alongs, not minors treating patients. In fact, it is specifically called out in the ride-along waiver that riders (all riders, minors are not treated any differently other than needing parental consent) are not to touch or treat patients. Now, to the rest... That is consent to be treated. You don't first close your eyes and ask if you have their consent to view them "at their sickest". Observation is not the same as treatment, and as I've said many times the ride-alongs around here are observational only. I started dual-credit classes at a local technical college at the age of 16. Because I was able to go on the ride-alongs and make my decision at that time, I knew what classes to start taking right away to get a head start towards the academic EMT-P program I am currently in, two years later. Of course it's not the same, it's on network television. If you really want a better example, how about an uncensored documentary similar to "Cops", available on video. Since it's uncensored, the minor would need parental consent to watch, but the same goes for my local ride-along program.

Because information found within books or TV shows is generally reliable and gives you a good idea of what the job is like? :roll: Is this post addressed to me, or someone else? It's very hard to tell when you don't quote who you are responding to. Assuming it is in response to me... Are you saying that you believe allowing minors to do ride-alongs goes against patients' rights and privacy? How do you figure? I'm not saying you should allow anyone to see any procedure or treatment, what I'm saying is that minors who are simply trying to observe should not be discriminated against solely because they are minors. In other words, I don't think you should allow a 34 year old rider who's curious about EMS to see something but you wouldn't allow a 16 year old in the same circumstances (no training, signed waiver, knows what they're getting in to) to see the same thing. The rest of your post seems to be talking about minors as EMTs, which is not what I'm talking about.

Who asked the patient for permission for them to be viewed by a 29 year old female contemplating a career in EMS? Or a 32 year-old black paramedic? Patients can come up with all kinds of features in a person that they are uncomfortable with (gender, race, age, hair color), but it doesn't mean it's a valid reason to, say, ask for a new crew. Why? The ride-alongs available to the general public here are observation only. Are you opposed to minors watching the show "Cops"? Hypothetically, no one under the age of 35 in the USA should be allowed to watch a documentary about the president? Perhaps the EMS directors to allow this in the first place?

As I said, the point is for the rider to see what a day/shift in EMS is like. For me, the ultimate reason was to decide if I wanted to pursue training and a career in EMS, but also just because I thought it would be educational. Where I am, the county's 911 service allows anyone 16 or older to sign up for a ride-along (minors with parental consent. I got special permission from the EMS director to start at 15). The vast majority of those who sign up do so because they are EMT students, I believe, but I don't think you should have to already be committed to a training program before you can see what it's really like. And if that's true, how is a 16 year old any less capable or deserving of that experience than an 18 year old?

What? The whole point of a ride-along is to see what a day/shift in EMS is like. Censoring the rider from certain calls for any reason other than safety defeats this entire purpose and would be doing the rider a disservice. The rider should already understand that they may see some uncomfortable things, and if they are on the ride-along then they must have agreed to this. It shouldn't be your job to screen calls and filter out ones you don't think the rider can handle. I've been doing ride-alongs since I was 15. Those ride-alongs resparked my interest in EMS. I'm 18 now, and in EMT-B class.