# Man jumps out of private ambulance onto Hollywood Freeway and is killed by another ca



## MMiz (Sep 13, 2009)

*Man jumps out of private ambulance onto Hollywood Freeway and is killed by another car*

A criminally insane man jumped out of a private ambulance late Tuesday night and was hit by another car traveling south on the Hollywood (101) Freeway, north of Barham Boulevard, according to the California Highway Patrol.

The man, described by authorities as Hispanic and in his 40s, was pronounced dead at Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center in Burbank, where Los Angeles firefighters took him after the incident.

*Read more!*


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Sep 13, 2009)

MMiz said:


> *Man jumps out of private ambulance onto Hollywood Freeway and is killed by another car*
> 
> A criminally insane man jumped out of a private ambulance late Tuesday night and was hit by another car traveling south on the Hollywood (101) Freeway, north of Barham Boulevard, according to the California Highway Patrol.
> 
> ...



Criminally Insane meaning he was a 51-50?  Or that he was under arrest and should have had an LEO in the rig with him?  In either case...  RESTRAINTS!!!  There for your protection and the patient's...


----------



## Akulahawk (Sep 13, 2009)

Another possibility is that the patient was legally committed to a psych facility for the criminally insane and was being transferred to a medical facility for treatment of a medical condition. I agree that restraints should have been used... ones that can prevent escape. If they were used, especially if incorrectly applied, the patient could have escaped those restraints and used that opportunity to kill himself...

Something similar happened a few years ago in San Jose... only the patient was a recent 5150 who punched the tech and jumped out the back door... at 65 MPH.


----------



## el Murpharino (Sep 13, 2009)

I wonder if they had the patient sitting up on the bench seat as opposed to strapped in on the stretcher...


----------



## JPINFV (Sep 14, 2009)

Mountain Res-Q said:


> Criminally Insane meaning he was a 51-50?



As with everything else, restraints should be on a case by case basis. In this case, obviously restraints should have been used. I had a case once where I was transporting a patient from an outpatient psych department because he was having feeling that he wanted to seriously hurt his wife. He knew his desires, knew he really didn't want to do it, and thus (with his wife) was seeking appropriate care (he had several other psychiatric issues, like conversion syndrome CVA) on his own. He was transported perfectly well (and was holding an interesting conversation with my partner) without restraints. Saying "5150=restraints" is just as bad as any other absolute.


----------



## Mountain Res-Q (Sep 14, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> As with everything else, restraints should be on a case by case basis. In this case, obviously restraints should have been used. I had a case once where I was transporting a patient from an outpatient psych department because he was having feeling that he wanted to seriously hurt his wife. He knew his desires, knew he really didn't want to do it, and thus (with his wife) was seeking appropriate care (he had several other psychiatric issues, like conversion syndrome CVA) on his own. He was transported perfectly well (and was holding an interesting conversation with my partner) without restraints. Saying "5150=restraints" is just as bad as any other absolute.




Define "restraints".  Fact of the matter is that EVERY patient shoould be restrained... I like to refer to them as "seatbelts".    Seriously, the policy of the company I worked for was that ALL 51-50's MUST be restrained.  While you and I might disagree with that idea, the fact was that "restrained" was never defined.  Like you, I have been in situations where the thought of straping a patient down completely goes against common sense; i.e. the 88 y/o woman who was unable to walk but was seriously off her rocker and (according to the Docs) a 51-50.  Per policy she had to be in restraints, so I made sure the belts was secure on the gurney...  worked for me ^_^.  But in this case "criminally insane" to me means that there should have been something more on this patient... and maybe the crew on that rig thought that 51-50=Restraints was not a good idea...  but, I would tend to think they would be wrong (assuming restraints were not used)...


----------



## cm4short (Sep 15, 2009)

Mountain Res-Q said:


> Define "restraints".  Fact of the matter is that EVERY patient shoould be restrained... I like to refer to them as "seatbelts".    Seriously, the policy of the company I worked for was that ALL 51-50's MUST be restrained.  While you and I might disagree with that idea, the fact was that "restrained" was never defined.  Like you, I have been in situations where the thought of straping a patient down completely goes against common sense; i.e. the 88 y/o woman who was unable to walk but was seriously off her rocker and (according to the Docs) a 51-50.  Per policy she had to be in restraints, so I made sure the belts was secure on the gurney...  worked for me ^_^.  But in this case "criminally insane" to me means that there should have been something more on this patient... and maybe the crew on that rig thought that 51-50=Restraints was not a good idea...  but, I would tend to think they would be wrong (assuming restraints were not used)...



This happened in Riv County a few years back. Now there's a mandatory 4-point-restraint policy, or else you're subject to disciplinary actions on every 5150 transport. No exceptions.


----------

