Save 1-2 million patients in 2009 ??

[crotchitymedic1986]

If I promised you that by changing one thing, one drug, or one piece of equipment on all ambulances in the US that we could save between 1,000,000 - 2,000,000 patients in 2009, would you be for it ?

[akflightmedic]

No.

Need to thin the herds one way or another.

[firedoc5]

Sure, why not? There seems to be changes almost every day at times. Someone on here could be that person that thinks of some kind of change. I remember way back before all Medics had to take ACLS. To us that was a big step back then. I think that helped tremendously. Lucky for me I'd already taken it. Some Medics dropped down to EMT-I so they wouldn't have to take it, what wusses'.

There's always advancement in technology, chemistry, engineering, etc. So who know's what's next?

[crotchitymedic1986]

Ok, I will go ahead and spill the beans, and then you can attempt to argue my hypothesis:

The last number I saw on how many 911 calls occur in the US each year, was around 250 million calls per year. I am going to give us credit for running 99% of those calls perfectly, and only having 1% with a patient death as a result of a poor paramedic care (unless you live in DC, where it seems it is a much higher number).

That would mean 2,500,000 deaths, total, for the whole US. If we were to change one rule, we could save alot of these patients. If you no longer allowed ambulance crews to get a patient refusal unless it was witnessed by a supervisor (the supervisor could call the patients home or cell and talk to the patient to confirm that he is actually refusing transport), many of these deaths would be prevented.

Now before you get on your high horse, realize that you do alot of things in the name of SAFETY to protect alot fewer patients. You clean your laryngoscope blades or use disposable to prevent the spread of disease. You use stretcher straps to protect your patient in the event of an accident. You employee all kinds of policy and procedures to protect the patient from HIPPAA violations. You test/check your equipment every shift to protect the patient against equipment failure. You may use the "5R's" to make sure the patient doesnt suffer a medication error.

So, why not make this easy, but necessary, change to ensure that the lazy or inexperienced providers do not get refusals on patients who need transport ?

[spenac]

Ok, I will go ahead and spill the beans, and then you can attempt to argue my hypothesis:

The last number I saw on how many 911 calls occur in the US each year, was around 250 million calls per year. I am going to give us credit for running 99% of those calls perfectly, and only having 1% with a patient death as a result of a poor paramedic care (unless you live in DC, where it seems it is a much higher number).

That would mean 2,500,000 deaths, total, for the whole US. If we were to change one rule, we could save alot of these patients. If you no longer allowed ambulance crews to get a patient refusal unless it was witnessed by a supervisor (the supervisor could call the patients home or cell and talk to the patient to confirm that he is actually refusing transport), many of these deaths would be prevented.

Now before you get on your high horse, realize that you do alot of things in the name of SAFETY to protect alot fewer patients. You clean your laryngoscope blades or use disposable to prevent the spread of disease. You use stretcher straps to protect your patient in the event of an accident. You employee all kinds of policy and procedures to protect the patient from HIPPAA violations. You test/check your equipment every shift to protect the patient against equipment failure. You may use the "5R's" to make sure the patient doesnt suffer a medication error.

So, why not make this easy, but necessary, change to ensure that the lazy or inexperienced providers do not get refusals on patients who need transport ?

This is bull crap. There is no reason. Plus your numbers are far more flawed than if I said 99% of all 911 callers did not need an ambulance. If your people can not do the job they should be fired. And in fact all ambulance services should even adopt guidelines to deny transport to those that do not need it. If a patient refuses, they refuse it is on them. If they do not need an ambulance we should tell them so and drive away.

I also suggest that this topic be locked as it has already been discussed on several current topics and is in no way in need of another one.

[reaper]

What makes you think that a supervisor is any better of a medic then the one on scene?

This is the most ludicrous idea I have heard in a while.

[firedoc5]

What makes you think that a supervisor is any better of a medic then the one on scene?

This is the most ludicrous idea I have heard in a while.

A "supervisor" had better be better than a medic on scene. If not, they shouldn't be a supervisor.

With us, whatever Medic in charge of the scene was already considered the supervisor.

I think I'm repeating myself from another thread or something. Not enough coffee yet.

[reaper]

That is right. The medic on scene is in charge and does not need someone to look after them.

There are plenty of supervisors in EMS that are great supervisors. This does not mean they are better medics then the one on the truck. Hell, some are poor medics, but good at management!

[spenac]

A "supervisor" had better be better than a medic on scene. If not, they shouldn't be a supervisor.

With us, whatever Medic in charge of the scene was already considered the supervisor.

I think I'm repeating myself from another thread or something. Not enough coffee yet.

You are this is a duplicate topic that crotch is trying to force his opinion again with.

[WolfmanHarris]

It seems the biggest mistake made in EMS management is equating good medic with good leadership. While they need to be competent, they need more than that to lead and manage.