# Man's death puts spotlight on paramedics’ wait-for-police policy



## MMiz (Oct 10, 2009)

*Man's death puts spotlight on paramedics’ wait-for-police policy*

Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair revealed Thursday that two other ambulances were waiting for police back-up on other calls the night that paramedics were allegedly slow to respond to a dying 59-year-old man.

The disclosure puts a spotlight on the practice of ''staging'' -- in which paramedics choose not to respond to a call until after police arrive -- as Bruce Farr, Toronto's Chief of Toronto Emergency Medical Services, asked the Ministry of Health to look into the June 25 incident at 40 Alexander St.

*Read more!*


----------



## DrParasite (Oct 10, 2009)

> "We're not going to send our paramedics into a situation that is potentially a danger to their health and safety," [Glen Gillies, executive secretary of the Toronto Paramedic Association] said. "We will not go into a situation of violence or an unknown situation."



doesn't sound like a bad policy.  the question that should be asked is what made this scene be categorized as unsafe


----------



## mikethemedic (Oct 11, 2009)

*waiting for police*

I don't care what happens, I will wait for police, since I don't care a weapon


----------



## FR Wrath (Oct 11, 2009)

The way I see it, if the popo didn't show, I don't go.


----------



## DT4EMS (Oct 11, 2009)

MMiz said:


> *Man's death puts spotlight on paramedics’ wait-for-police policy*
> 
> Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair revealed Thursday that two other ambulances were waiting for police back-up on other calls the night that paramedics were allegedly slow to respond to a dying 59-year-old man.
> 
> ...




We still train all EMS providers to "stage" until the scene is safe. They can review, review, review any case they like......... The average EMS unit in the US/UK or Canada is not a para-military/Swat type response unit trained or equipped to enter unsafe scenes to perform hot-zone evacs.

I can gladly debate this with anyone who wishes to "review" such a case.

Kip


----------



## berkeman (Oct 11, 2009)

MMiz said:


> The disclosure puts a spotlight on the practice of ''staging'' -- in which paramedics choose not to respond to a call until after police arrive --



"choose"?  Whose word is that?


----------



## VFFforpeople (Oct 12, 2009)

Lets see go in get hurt or die because someone is having a bad day or run of luck..Nope not my problem they are sick or injured. Unsafe is Unsafe.


----------



## Summit (Oct 12, 2009)

Do the police go with you on every single call?


----------



## el Murpharino (Oct 12, 2009)

Why was the scene unsafe?  The article doesn't say...of course we can all say "if it's unsafe I'll sit in my rig and watch someone bleed out in front of me", but I'd like to hear, in this case, what made the scene unsafe.  It hasn't been unheard of for lazy paramedics to ask for police help if only to delay doing any work while they sit and wait.


----------



## John E (Oct 12, 2009)

*I'm curious...*

how many people think that Paramedics/EMT's have a legal obligation to respond to a dangerous scene? Or any scene for that matter?

Not a moral obligation, a legal obligation.


----------



## HotelCo (Oct 12, 2009)

Summit said:


> Do the police go with you on every single call?



Except for IFT and scheduled transfers, yes.


----------



## imurphy (Oct 12, 2009)

Lets look at the facts the the media tend to over-look. I, and all other clinicians are:

- Not trained trained, nor required to arrest or otherwise forcefully detain EDPs.

- Not superheros, therefore not bullet proof!

- All looking to go home safe to our families / friends. We're not going to, nor should be expected to put ourselves in unnecessary danger

- All aware we can have a dangerous profession, but tend to be intelligent enough to minimise this risk. For example, wait for the people trained to do this. And generally do it well.

- Never forget, we're definately NOT paid enough to add avoidable danger.

We put ourselves at enough risk of going and being in a small enclosed space with the possibly infectious person. The least we can do is take knives and bullets out of the equation whenever possible.


----------



## Hoofguy (Oct 13, 2009)

It's not my emergency, that's pretty much how I look at it. Same reason I get passed while driving code, it's not my emergency


----------



## DV_EMT (Oct 13, 2009)

John E said:


> how many people think that Paramedics/EMT's have a legal obligation to respond to a dangerous scene? Or any scene for that matter?
> 
> Not a moral obligation, a legal obligation.



well for me its both.. I'm catholic so I believe in helping others out when they're in need. and then (esp in ca) everybody is sue happy... so I mean. So long as I stop and do something small but right... im content.. and so it the pt


----------



## Summit (Oct 13, 2009)

HotelCo said:


> Except for IFT and scheduled transfers, yes.



In some areas of the country, that is impossible and/or unnecessary.


----------



## redcrossemt (Oct 13, 2009)

I don't think there's any question about whether or not we should go into dangerous scenes... 

I think, as others said, that we need to know whether or not the scene is actually dangerous.

For example, we are sent on accidental overdoses all the time... but the dispatch protocols require a police response for all "overdoses" - even children who may have drank some sort of cleaning agent. Changing the protocol to stage EMS only for intentional overdoses would save time on the other calls. However, then we have to look at the sensitivity of the protocols... Are we going to be able to catch every dangerous situation with a limited protocol?

In this case, I'd love to hear the 911 recordings. Obviously they didn't release anything to the media that shows a dangerous scene. It'd really be nice to know why paramedics "chose" to stage. It appears that a security guard was with the patient the whole time. Obviously I don't have the whole story, though.


----------



## NorthCoastChick (Oct 14, 2009)

*Agreed*

I don't wear body armor. I don't carry a weapon, pepper spray, or handcuffs. I am not trained to enter a hostile scene and restrain a combative person. I am not willing to put myself in danger that others are more well equipped to handle. That being said, we are dispatched to stage out of the area at the company I work for, and LEO's on scene will clear us to enter when they deem it's safe. No, cops don't show up on every call, but when they do, I'm in favor of letting them do their jobs to make my job safer. 



imurphy said:


> - Not trained trained, nor required to arrest or otherwise forcefully detain EDPs.
> 
> - Not superheros, therefore not bullet proof!
> 
> ...


----------



## HotelCo (Oct 14, 2009)

John E said:


> how many people think that Paramedics/EMT's have a legal obligation to respond to a dangerous scene? Or any scene for that matter?
> 
> Not a moral obligation, a legal obligation.



I'm not a lawyer by any means, so I have no idea. However, there is an old saying... "I'd rather be judged by twelve, than carried by six."



Summit said:


> In some areas of the country, that is impossible and/or unnecessary.



That's unfortunate.


----------



## rescuepoppy (Oct 15, 2009)

HotelCo said:


> I'm not a lawyer by any means, so I have no idea. However, there is an old saying... "I'd rather be judged by twelve, than carried by six."



My thoughts exactly. While we do have an obligation to help while on duty, we are no expected to knowingly put ourselves in danger.


----------



## Summit (Oct 15, 2009)

HotelCo said:


> That's unfortunate.



Hopefully you are referring to the impossible, not the unnecessary.


----------



## firetender (Oct 15, 2009)

rescuepoppy said:


> we are no(t) expected to knowingly put ourselves in danger.



This is an aspect of remuneration that really bugs me. 

The reality is, medics (and for the sake of illustration, let's keep it private sector/company medics because generally their salaries are smallest) are more consistently in threat of bodily harm than either police or fire personnel. Yes, even more than cops because unarmed, we're out there without deterrent. The "unknowingly" factor would be consistent as anyone can tell you who's hauled a 300 pounder down stairs with a bad step!

We're not even talking about contagious diseases, either. If we're going to be real, we may as well admit taking on the job *is *_*knowingly *_putting yourself in danger. The only variable is how much danger are you willing to handle? And that takes place on a situation by situation basis.

Given the lack of acknowledgment (and support!) each medic deserves the right to limit his/her own involvement in dangerous situations. I believe a hazard differential of at least 10% should be figured in to all of your paychecks today!


----------



## scottmcleod (Oct 19, 2009)

Judging by the posts here, nobody's bothered to read the reports on this one, have they?

The EMD f***ed up, the Medics f***ed up, the supervisor was left with a difficult decision.

In the meantime, the situation went south for the old man.

Here's the link to the reports. Read them. They're an interesting review about the process, and where there might be some issues that need to be addressed.

http://www.toronto.ca/your_health/ems.htm


----------

