Gurney Jockey
Forum Probie
- 29
- 0
- 1
So earlier this morning I received an email. As I'm sure every other AMR employee did. And I'm going to share it with you guys since you need to see what exactly is about to happen to the "amazing" state of CA. I won't link the source, but I know other AMR guys should vouch for me. You will right? I'll buy you dinner! Anyways, here's the content copy-pasted. AB 2389, which is scheduled to be heard July 2, 2012, would require private EMTs, Paramedics and Critical Care Nurses to mark their current uniforms with the term “Contractor to…” in a conspicuous size and color, or alternatively completely remove any patches, badges or other county markings from their uniform. This bill would also require ambulances to display the same terminology on the outside of the vehicle, or potentially subject the ambulance provider to costly unfair business practice lawsuits under California Business Code Section 17200.
The bill’s sponsor, The California Professional Firefighters (CPF), claim that AB 2389 is necessary in order to protect patient safety and provide transparency. However, under most 9-1-1 contracts, the utilization of county patches, badges and vehicle markings by a provider is often a requirement of the contract, and are actually used to ensure public safety and communicate to the patient we have the authority to practice medicine in their jurisdiction.
Moreover, these regional identifiers prove invaluable during major disasters and multi-casualty incidence, and are worn in tandem with a providers own patches and identifying marks which clearly state who an individual is working for. In addition, the provisions of this bill could hinder a provider’s ability to move through different jurisdictions during calls for mutual aid, or when conducting specialty care services such as neonatal and critical care transports.
The fact is, the State of California is predominately served by private EMS providers, many of which have provided services in this State for over 40 years, and there has never been an issue of patient safety or transparency relating to the appearance of our uniforms or. ambulances. I believe AB2389 is simply a means by CPF to stigmatize the private EMS workforce, and burden emergency ambulance service providers with unnecessary costs that do nothing to improve patient care or enhance the delivery of emergency medical services.
The bill’s sponsor, The California Professional Firefighters (CPF), claim that AB 2389 is necessary in order to protect patient safety and provide transparency. However, under most 9-1-1 contracts, the utilization of county patches, badges and vehicle markings by a provider is often a requirement of the contract, and are actually used to ensure public safety and communicate to the patient we have the authority to practice medicine in their jurisdiction.
Moreover, these regional identifiers prove invaluable during major disasters and multi-casualty incidence, and are worn in tandem with a providers own patches and identifying marks which clearly state who an individual is working for. In addition, the provisions of this bill could hinder a provider’s ability to move through different jurisdictions during calls for mutual aid, or when conducting specialty care services such as neonatal and critical care transports.
The fact is, the State of California is predominately served by private EMS providers, many of which have provided services in this State for over 40 years, and there has never been an issue of patient safety or transparency relating to the appearance of our uniforms or. ambulances. I believe AB2389 is simply a means by CPF to stigmatize the private EMS workforce, and burden emergency ambulance service providers with unnecessary costs that do nothing to improve patient care or enhance the delivery of emergency medical services.