I too, don't have full access to the study, but in the editorial published 10/13/15 http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2456126, It does state that the study used billing codes explicitly, and the only clinical information included was their adjustment for ISS.
Yeah, I like the idea of Fire restructuring towards EMR/BLS, but I've got no issue with them running ALS, whoever can get there fastest works for me. I do get the cost aspect of it, if fire would send an ambulance instead of a truck they'd be way more effective. But, as Micah said, it's their...
I would have never thought of that, but now that I am, that makes a ton of sense. It would be a tough thing to stop/catch, especially if they're running emergency as a legit shell company. Short of a sting op, they'd be getting off scotch free.
Just like start triage, you're checking if they're breathing AND maintaining airway. If you have to open their airway for them you've got a problem. Wouldn't be surprised if they add "check 5 sec w/out opening airway"
Yeah, inform the PT that you suspect a spinal, and inform them of the risks, and if they're competent and informed they can refuse care. Documentation would be key, but it doesn't stop you from constantly trying to convince the PT to submit to backboarding. Although I can't think of many...
Depends on how long the medics have been in the field, back when most of them started a EMT-B was little more than a EMR, and they never even noticed that EMT-B isn't even a rank anymore. Honestly a bunch of EMT's only contribute to the problem with poor presentation.
Yeah, I'd agree that a collar is the right call, at least where I am, the combo of the possible height and altered LOC would call for C-Spine, but if the medic wanted it off, I'd let them remove it and document it for my sake when it comes to court.
Basically the difference between a responsive PT and unresponsive is that you quickly check pulse and breaths for 10 sec before ABC ect. At least, that's what AHA says.