Not sure where you get your information, but that is a very poor analogy. The benefits of parachutes are self-evident without formal study. They were developed through formal study in the first place. And there have been multiple meta-analyses to demonstrate the success rate of parachutes. That success rate proves their benefits. The benefits of code 3 driving are theoretical and speculative. They have not been proven, despite repeated attempts in the U.S. and Canada, to significantly improve outcomes in our patients. In fact, some studies have shown that our patients are better off not even calling us at all. And if you are having an MI, and you are waiting for an EMT-B to show up in his POV with a bag full of 4x4s, then that would be especially applicable.
So was The Holocaust. The popularity of an idea does not validate it, thus my previous challenge to give us something more than, "This is the way we've always done it".
If the patient is the primary concern here, then why are we providing them with nothing more than vollies in POVs? Where are the paramedics? Where is the 24/7 staffed ambulance? Don't tell me they can't have it, because they can if they want it bad enough. And if they don't want it bad enough, then why are we busting our butts in our POVs, risking our lives, our vehicles, our homes, and our families? Why aren't you sleeping at the ambulance station if speed is so important to you?
No problem. Ever worked in dispatch? Half the people who call 911 tell us to please turn off the lights and siren before we get there. That is a clear sign that it is innately wrong. And that sense of urgency we "feel" is a fascade. It adds nothing to patient care. It is what you do after you get to the patient that is going to make a difference.
Sure, but that place is not in the POVs of volunteers running to the station.
Evidence? What exactly does "solid technique" mean? There are a lot of very educated and experienced professionals in the fields of EMS and law, with a lot of common sense, who would readily disagree with you, and Bradnovlesky's chief is one of them. More and more administrators every day are banning this practice because they do the math and realise that it is a clear liability with no demonstrated value, except for attracting more volunteers. And the trend will continue as more administrators become better educated with the current literature on the matter. And others will ban it too late, after one of their people crashes out in grand fashion, bringing disastrous publicity to the department. It simply is not worth it.
When it comes right down to it, there is very rarely any common sense reason for running code 3. It is done mostly because people get off on doing it, not because it results in any benefit to the patient. I've seen half a volly department quit when their department banned the use of lights and sirens on their POVs. What does that tell you about those people? If they really cared about their patients, why did they quit? Is quitting going to improve their patients' care?
The most immediate and positive step that EMS could take to further the profession would be to simply remove the lights and sirens from every ambulance today. That would weed out the large percentage of people who are only in it for themselves and the cheap thrlls, leaving behind only those who are here because they think that the practice of medicine and helping people is the coolest thing they can think of doing with their lives. When people apply to an organisation of mine, I take a look at their POV while they are there. If it is whackered out, they're not even getting considered, unless their resume and interview also show me a seriously hardcore professional educational commitment to go along with it. If the lights on your POV cost more than the car is worth, and you have spent nothing on education except for a 14 day EMT course, I don't need you, and neither does the community.
