On Duty 24/7?

[emtsteve87]

The county in which I live in refuses to pass legislation stating that EMTs/FFs are on duty 24/7. Currently the county is locked in a court battle with the family of a deceased FF/EMT who jumped into the water after witnessing a teen fall in. The FF drowned and the county refused/refuses to do anything about that because tones never went out for the kid to be rescued. This happened a few years ago and still nothing has come out of it. The other county which I run in, states that any EMT/FFs are on duty 24/7.

I was just wondering what your opinions were on that whole situation

 

[JPINFV]

First, no, I do not agree that all EMTs, police officers, or fire fighters are on duty 24/7. If so, does that mean that the major emergency services have a duty to act 24/7? Sorry you're on your way to XXX with your family/friends/etc, but you have to stop at this accident because you're on duty.

A couple quick questions about your specific situation.

1. Was the FF trained and equipted for water rescue?

2. Are you volunteered or paid?

 

[KEVD18]

well that means you could never take a drink, or you'd be drinking on duty

it means you could never be too sick to respond, or you'd be refusing to take a call while on duty

while i feel for the mans family, he was acting as a private citizen. he understood the risk of his actions and made the conscious informed adult decision to act on his own.

for the rest of the guys here that have special rescue training, are you taught to affect a rescue on your own? im a technical rescue specialist and the director of the special operations division of my rescue team. we have high angle specialists, dive rescue specialists, swift water specialists... its in my policy manual that under no circumstances will any rescue be attempted until sufficient manpower is available. depending on the circumstances, that could be anywhere from two to 20 personnel. i dont know the particulars about the rescue, but i do know that you never do anything alone.

 

[emtsteve87]

There is one full time, paid company in the county and two which are a paid volunteer type company. I am on one of the paid volunteer ones.

He was not trained in water rescue I believe. And, to add to that, I think that he should have waited until more man power arrived. More information about the incident: The fishing derby is held in late April on the Genesee River, so the water is going to be quite cold and higher than usual due to the spring melt.

Personally, I feel that someone has a moral and ethical duty to act. Although I am not saying if you see an accident and there is already an EMS response you should stop and lend a hand, but if I witness an MI or are on the road behind a vehicle who rolls over, I am going to stop and aid in any way that I can. If that is just calling 911, because I can't extricate the patient; or if it is doing CPR while someone else calls.

Thanks

 

[VentMedic]

When an agency says "on duty" 24/7, they must define that thoroughly because this could cause serious liability and financial consequences for them as well as the provider.

LEOs are given strict guidelines as to what they can do and in what instances they declare themselves to be a LEO for resolving situations while off duty. This definitely includes their carry of weapons off duty and safety within their homes.

If you stop for an accident off duty, are you capable of being financially compensated for your time as being "on call"?

If doing something "heroic" off-duty in such a way that it violates a company policy, then there may be just cause for them not to provide compensation.

A dead rescuer is usually useless unless the body floats and the other victims can use it as a floatation device.

This was discussed in this thread concerning the Florida Paramedics that did not go into a retention pond because they were not equipped to do so. They still have guidelines for their own safety on duty. The same commonsense and/or logic should be applied off duty.

http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=6185

I can still act as a concerned citizen and do what I can as a private citizen for moral and ethical reasons without asserting a professional relationship with my employer. If my employer wants me to be available 24/7, then how are they going to prepare me with the proper equipment, medical oversight, insurance (malpractice) and monetary compensation? If you are considered "on duty 24/7" and if you screw up a patient outside of work, can you rely on the Good Samaritain law which can extend to off duty EMS providers in many states that help with good intentions understanding their off duty limitations and responsibilities? Or, has your employer outlined how far they will accept liability for your actions?

It is understood with any medical/rescue/fire profession that if there is a major emergency such as flood, fire, hurricane, plane crash or earthquake, you are subject to call back but that is usually in writing with guidelines pertaining to and exemptions of local, state and Federal statutes clarified. This should be in all disaster plans in every EMS agency, FD and hospital.

 

[BossyCow]

It's my understanding that if you are 'on duty', and subject to call out, you deserve 'call out pay' or 'on call pay'. If you are to respond 'if available' you are not subject to pay for the time between calls, but only for the time spent actually responding. The difference is, the expectation that you will keep yourself ready to respond. ie, avoid alcohol, medication that could impair your ability to respond, leave the area.

Now, in my husband's career department, there is contract language that states he cannot leave a shift after the end of his scheduled time, unless a replacement has arrived. So, if the medic who is supposed to relieve him from duty is late, ill, or otherwise unable to show up for work, he has to remain on shift until a replacement is found.

As volunteers, my district is very specific about what conditions are to be met in order for you to respond. I see some problems with the 24/7 language. If you are on your way home after working a 24 hour or more shift, you are tired, you have no materials with you to deal with a big MVA or significant event. why would you respond?

If I'm traveling down a highway, with a non-EMS friend in the car with me, no kit, no gloves, am I going to stop for a big MVA? Probably not! And if I did, what could I do that Joe Citizen couldn't do as well? Damn little folks!

So, if a city, county or other jurisdiction wants to mandate that I be ready to respond 24/7 then they better be ready to define 'fitness for duty' and 'duty to act'. They also better be ready to pay for the injuries sustained, and mistakes made when personnel respond without down time between shifts. There used to be 24/7 working conditions in this country, it was called slavery and to my understanding was abolished.

 

[certguy]

Boy , how times have changed !!!!!

When I was in the field , it was an unwritten rule , much like " Thou shalt not mess with my partner " that we were EMS providers period . On the clock or off , it didn't matter . If someone needed our help and first responders weren't there yet , we provided care till they got there , and we saved lives doing so and none of the people I worked with ever got sued for it ( that includes me by the way ) . Nowadays , you guys are so scared silly of lawsuits and injury that you won't respond . It's a sad sign of the times and I'm not sure who to feel more sorry for , you folks who feel you don't have a responsability if it's not on the clock , the impressionable newbys who are looking at your example , or the folks who may die while waiting for help that you turn your back on . If it was you or your family , I'd stop . I hope you'd repay the favor .

 

[VentMedic]

Boy , how times have changed !!!!!

When I was in the field , it was an unwritten rule , much like " Thou shalt not mess with my partner " that we were EMS providers period . On the clock or off , it didn't matter . If someone needed our help and first responders weren't there yet , we provided care till they got there , and we saved lives doing so and none of the people I worked with ever got sued for it ( that includes me by the way ) . Nowadays , you guys are so scared silly of lawsuits and injury that you won't respond . It's a sad sign of the times and I'm not sure who to feel more sorry for , you folks who feel you don't have a responsability if it's not on the clock , the impressionable newbys who are looking at your example , or the folks who may die while waiting for help that you turn your back on . If it was you or your family , I'd stop . I hope you'd repay the favor .

That still doesn't mean your employer has to be responsible for your own personal actions 24/7. Nor should it mean that your employer should control your personal life 24/7 either.

What you do ethically and morally on your own time should be your decision. If you choose to do that without due regard for your safety or the safety of others, then again that is your choice.

I don't believe anyone here has mentioned that they would not help if they could while recognizing their limitations. If the person is not equipped or trained for the rescue, it would be extremely dangerous for both the rescuer and the rescuee as well as bystanders who might also be tempted to help. Your unselfish and/or reckless act of rescue might injure the ones you love also either financially or by losing you as member of the family.

 

[fireemslife]

For my EMS squad you're pretty much always on duty, however before you do anything u need to radio in to the desk and once you do that your covered by insurance

 

[BossyCow]

Boy , how times have changed !!!!!

When I was in the field , it was an unwritten rule , much like " Thou shalt not mess with my partner " that we were EMS providers period . On the clock or off , it didn't matter . If someone needed our help and first responders weren't there yet , we provided care till they got there , and we saved lives doing so and none of the people I worked with ever got sued for it ( that includes me by the way ) . Nowadays , you guys are so scared silly of lawsuits and injury that you won't respond . It's a sad sign of the times and I'm not sure who to feel more sorry for , you folks who feel you don't have a responsability if it's not on the clock , the impressionable newbys who are looking at your example , or the folks who may die while waiting for help that you turn your back on . If it was you or your family , I'd stop . I hope you'd repay the favor .

Would you always stop? Will you respond to every single emergency, 24/7? I'm betting there are times and circumstances that would preclude you stopping to help. Legislating 24/7 response means that if you don't stop, you are punished in some way? Are you willing to accept that kind of responsibility?

I am a volunteer, and I am willing to help out whenever I can. But there is a difference between willingness to assist and being responsible for every event.

 

[VentMedic]

There are also times you shouldn't stop like when you have been consuming alcohol. I don't believe that your employer would want to deal with the publicity if you were injured or further injured someone while under the influence. It does not matter if "you were not drunk" in your opinion. If someone smells alcohol on you at scene, you and your company that you are allegedly representing are going to be doing some explaining if someone makes an issue out of it. That someone could be the LEO on scene.

Also, if you have children with you it may not always be wise to stop. If you have to leave them unsupervised or expose them to unnecessary danger at a crime or accident scene. There also may be some accident scenes that you would not want younger children exposed to in person even if they have seen it all on TV.

There are some EMS agencies and hospitals that will give guidelines for its employees at to how they should represent them if they are still wearing the uniform. Some also encourage people not to wear their uniform outside of work because they know they cannot always control what you do when not actually on the clock. There are some employees that may still need close supervision while on the job. The company may be relieved when they clock out after the shift. Many times this is the over zealous employee that wants to rush into everything before thinking.

 

[firecoins]

Your personal safety is paramount. The first thing we do is learn to not enter an unsafe scene. If you are off duty, your more responsible because you DON'T have a duty to act unless you involve yourself. I am against to the 24/7 obligation. Yes I will help where I can but I won't be jumping in harm's way.

 

[certguy]

Generally , yes , I would stop if common sense allows it . Safety and common sense have got to be paramount . As stated before , our safety will always be #1 . If I can't do it safely , sorry . Other good points were brought up such as if you're impaired or have kids with you . I'll add to the " no - go " list you need to consider your physical limitations . For example ; I've had a knee replacement , so I'm mobility challenged on nasty terrain , so chances are , if a car's a couple hundred feet over the side of a cliff , I won't go unless I can find a safe way to do it .

Something to remember ; When the Mexico City earthquake happened , spontaneous volunteers rescued over 800 people , but at a cost of 100 of thier own . How many could've lived if they sized up the scene before going in ?

 

[certguy]

Okay , the point I was trying to make and doing a lousy job of it was ,


THINK WITH YOUR HEAD BEFORE YOU ACT WITH YOUR HEART !