NYPD vs FDNY

[Shishkabob]

Settle down there, hero. I don't know how it works in other states, but around here EMS as a separate entity is becoming more obsolete, as many FD's are beginning to do all their own EMS. It makes the most sense.

No, it doesn't, and I have already stated why.

Desolve the big fire departments, they aren't needed. Give the funds to EMS instead, who does a MUCH higher percentage of the calls.

Sorry, it's not really logical to have 4 people and an engine sitting around waiting for a fire when there's only a handful of working ones ALL year.

To say that FD's are not at all patient centered is ignorant, FD's have evolved over the years and although some old Jakes like to resist it, it's becoming increasingly EMS focused.

Only, and I put emphasis on only, to defend their budget.

I know there are firefighters who like doing EMS... but without a doubt the vast majority just want to 'put blue on red'.



And I dare you to tell me DCFD or DFD are "good" at running patient care.

On top of that, there aren't a lot of FD's that will take someone who isn't a basic, or in some cases a medic.

Ta-da... it's the department requiring it, not the person WANTING to do it just to do it.

Sorry, I don't want the person who hates EMS in charge of my care with 60+ different medications that can kill me.

Does it really make sense that FD's should actually just devolve and try to stuff all that equipment on to an ambulance?

Rescue equipment? Yes, yes it does.

Hell, what makes the MOST sense is having EMS run fire, and not the other way around. It's 80/20 EMS to fire calls in every place that puts out statistics. Why should the less use entity be in charge of the other?

Not to mention the man power issue. Sure, you can recall an instance where 2 people can extricate someone but anyone with a brain will admit that it is far from ideal, because scenes become more complicated than that. Calling an additional ambulance for resources for one pt instead of an engine company is ridiculous.

It's ridiculous to call for an additional ambulance, but not to call for an engine that costs about twice as much, gets a lot less mileage, and has at least twice as many people on board?

That makes sense to you?

The biggest roadblock to this concept is funds. I don't care what XYZ agency does, mine runs BLS in vans. We don't have enough room in them as is, no we are not carrying cutters and spreaders on our trucks, not even in the box trucks. Who is going to pay for this training either? Is my company going to put me through the academy to learn how to use these tools? Some agencies are stingy about reimbursing employees for coned, much less superfluous rescue training that the FD already has, and has been doing for years.

And this was already answered by me: The agency that does 80% of the calls (EMS) should get the majority of the funds.

EMS has enough trouble getting over the ambulance driver image, I think it needs to stick to what it's ultimate purpose is: Safely treat and transport your patient to the hospital.

The very fact that you think our sole job is to transport shows you're either quite new, quite old, or anti-EMS.

More technical, and complicated tasks should stay in the realm of FD's.

Why? Because they have been? The only reason why "fire does it" it because fire has "always done it". Again, I point you to the EMS agencies that do things from simple extrication to hard technical rescue... They've proven EMS can do it.

I won't deny that some FD's have to justify their budgets these days, and that's because there aren't as many fires as there used to be.

Ta-da! Extrication is a patient centered ordeal. Why have the least medically trained and educated personnel in charge of it?


Should a cop be in charge of running a fire ground and putting out a fire?

 

[usalsfyre]

Some of this is going to echo Linuss, but....

Settle down there, hero. I don't know how it works in other states, but around here EMS as a separate entity is becoming more obsolete, as many FD's are beginning to do all their own EMS. It makes the most sense.

Explain how it makes sense in any way other than a "I need to justify my rather large budget and staffing requirements" way.

To say that FD's are not at all patient centered is ignorant, FD's have evolved over the years and although some old Jakes like to resist it, it's becoming increasingly EMS focused.

You need to see more than just a couple of FDs before you make this statement. I'd wager the majority aren't anything close to patient focused. Not to mention stand-alone EMS already WAS patient focused....

I'm a volly FF, and a Private agency EMT so I get both sides of it. FF's don't go to the Academy just to wet their willy on the red stuff, we learn extensive rescue techniques and, and that goes back to the Firehouse where FD's train train train to perfect them.

Speaking as a guy who's been a Vehicle Rescue, High Angle and Swift Water Tech, most fire academies training in rescue is laughable. It's the equivalent of the 600 hour medic course. In addition there's a fair number of FDs who spend far more time holding down a recliner than training.

On top of that, there aren't a lot of FD's that will take someone who isn't a basic, or in some cases a medic.

See Linuss' comments.

You know those big red trucks with all the woo woo's? These days they carry a whole lot more than hoses and nozzles. Some go so far as to equip ALS engines, but just about any FD has apparatus designated for rescue scenes. They come equipped with all manner of equipment one would need, and a full crew to boot.

Since none of us in stand-alone EMS could have possibly had a fire-service background right? Not to mention a "full crew" in many places outside of New England means...two people.

Does it really make sense that FD's should actually just devolve and try to stuff all that equipment on to an ambulance? Not to mention the man power issue. Sure, you can recall an instance where 2 people can extricate someone but anyone with a brain will admit that it is far from ideal, because scenes become more complicated than that. Calling an additional ambulance for resources for one pt instead of an engine company is ridiculous.

Calling an engine company is a fairly ridiculous concept in and of itself. ESU probably has a better concept with small vehicles to respond to this kind of stuff. Pittsburgh EMS manages to run extrication by themselves.

The biggest roadblock to this concept is funds. I don't care what XYZ agency does, mine runs BLS in vans. We don't have enough room in them as is, no we are not carrying cutters and spreaders on our trucks, not even in the box trucks. Who is going to pay for this training either? Is my company going to put me through the academy to learn how to use these tools? Some agencies are stingy about reimbursing employees for coned, much less superfluous rescue training that the FD already has, and has been doing for years.

Funding and reimbursement is a huge issue here. It doesn't pay, so many EMS services aren't going to do it. That said, don't assume all FDs are doing this, or for that matter are doing it well. Like I said, there's a city in this area that has a paid FD and PD, private EMS and a volunteer rescue agency. The FD has no tools, or training in how to use them outside of the day in fire academy of "this is an A post".

EMS has enough trouble getting over the ambulance driver image, I think it needs to stick to what it's ultimate purpose is: Safely treat and transport your patient to the hospital.

Yet you think the FDs should be doing it.

More technical, and complicated tasks should stay in the realm of FD's.

Because they've shown themselves capable of handling the technical complex task that is firefighting by continuing to kill 100 people every year the same way again and again.

I won't deny that some FD's have to justify their budgets these days, and that's because there aren't as many fires as there used to be. But just as EMS has evolved from being taxi drivers, to advanced care, FD's roles have evolved.

Evolved kicking and screaming because if they don't they'll be cut down to appropriate sizes and have to use appropriate tactics in the current climate of very limited life safety risk and disposable buildings.

If anyone doesn't fit into this picture, it's police.

Beyond, "just because the FD does it" has anyone come up with a convincing reason the PD has no business in EMS or rescue?

I'm not totally anti Fire-based EMS. I'm anti crappy EMS. At one point in my life I was involved with a hellaciously good EMS service that happened to be in with an FD. I'd put many of the medics at that place up against any medic anywhere. The equipment, education, QA, ect was top notch. My understanding is there are som FDs in the DFW metroplex that are the same. Let them continue to run EMS. That said, that's not the norm I've seen, rather it's very much the exception.

The FD has been very, very good at finding new roles to worm into to make themselves as entangled in the needs of modern society as possible. In this way however, they've been their own worst enemy, as they often can't perform all of these roles well, especially in smaller departments that can't afford to the have a crew specialized in HazMat, a crew specialized in tech rescue, ect. Instead you get the "jack of all trades master of none" on duty that day that may, or may not have the knowledge to mitigate the situation. They are often able to muddle through it, but the failures are also spectacular when they try to BS their way through something and fail.

 

[shfd739]

Settle down there, hero. I don't know how it works in other states, but around here EMS as a separate entity is becoming more obsolete, as many FD's are beginning to do all their own EMS. It makes the most sense.

I'm not sure how this makes the most sense. Most of the FDs I know of that do EMS do it just to say they can and it winds up being a budget hole. One dept. I know of just started doing transports and for what they spent in capital to get started they will never recoup.



Sent from my electronic overbearing life controller

 

[SHFD]

No, it doesn't, and I have already stated why.

Desolve the big fire departments, they aren't needed. Give the funds to EMS instead, who does a MUCH higher percentage of the calls.

Rather than refute every single point, I'll just refocus to what I think is the crux of the matter.

Unfortunately there a lot of people who agree with this fallacy, and because of it there are firehouses all over the country being shut down, losing apparatus and manpower. It may seem logical that a FD could use less money if they do less fire's, but in practice it's dead wrong. It's dangerous to think this way because a fireground/hazmat incident will present the exact same danger every single time. The frequency of fires is irrelevant, because it will require the same amount of resources to get it under control every time. When you try to gerrymander a FD's budget around it's call volume, people get hurt, and the first ones to get hurt are FF's.

Fires do not care how many engines and ladders you have, or how many alarms you have to strike to get the job done. Whether or not a FD has dozens of 3+ alarm fires a year, or only a handful, it's still just as dangerous every single time. FD's adapt because they understand they cannot handle a budget cut and get the job done safely. You try to look it from the perspective that your sheer call volume makes you more important, but you understand very well the ratio of ALS to BLS calls is very disproportionate. Regardless of how many people actually require prehospital interventions, you have to be able to meet the demand of 911 calls with the right resources for when you actually do respond to a high priority call. It doesn't matter how often you use narcan, it's essential to treating an opiate overdose, therefore you must be equipped with it. Of course the difference between funding apparatus, personnel, and pensions is much greater than some seldom used drugs in your medbox, but it's essentially the same concept.

I don't know how many people here work privates, but I do and I think they are a bunch of bologna. I think all EMS should be municipal, and because fire is already municipal I think with the growing trend of Fire becoming EMS oriented, it makes sense to completely integrate the two. As a private EMT working in a tiered response system, I also deal with a lot of FF's that I can tell don't want to be there and sometimes they just take up space. But on the other hand, the departments I volly for handle our own transports, and although there is a mix of interest between members who prefer EMS or Fire, we practice the same amount of professionalism to both because it's our job. There are many fulltime FD's that do their own transports, and they have excellent medics/basics because they adapt to their roles. When more FD's begin to take on transports, FF's will adapt accordingly and EMS skills improve as a necessity. Some salty old timers will simply have to pass the torch to younger guys like myself who are more keen to the task of modernizing FD's in the process, but it will happen in time.

No one likes EMT's anyways, might as well let the job be performed by a profession that is already respected.

 

[fortsmithman]

Here in Canada in the province of Alberta the provincial government took over EMS operations as a provincial third service. It took control from municipal, county third services and fire departments. As well next to Alberta in British Columbia EMS is also under provincial control. As well in countries other than the USA EMS is a government run third service.

 

[usalsfyre]

Rather than refute every single point, I'll just refocus to what I think is the crux of the matter.

Unfortunately there a lot of people who agree with this fallacy, and because of it there are firehouses all over the country being shut down, losing apparatus and manpower. It may seem logical that a FD could use less money if they do less fire's, but in practice it's dead wrong. It's dangerous to think this way because a fireground/hazmat incident will present the exact same danger every single time. The frequency of fires is irrelevant, because it will require the same amount of resources to get it under control every time. When you try to gerrymander a FD's budget around it's call volume, people get hurt, and the first ones to get hurt are FF's.

Fires do not care how many engines and ladders you have, or how many alarms you have to strike to get the job done. Whether or not a FD has dozens of 3+ alarm fires a year, or only a handful, it's still just as dangerous every single time.

Except....it's not. Despite the shouting from the rooftops of the fire service lobby, life safety risk has gone down significantly over the years. Look at the death rate from fires in say 1970 vs the death rate from fires today. It's significantly less. Changes in education, construction and suburbanization, ect have led to this. Yet fire departments insist on using tactics that are similar to when horses were pulling steam pumpers. Interior firefighting in modern construction is more often than not a dangerous waste. 100 years of tradition unimpeded by progress truly applies here. If interior firefighting isn't the focus of your department and only used when there is a verified life-safety risk, and rescue, not extingushment is you focus in those situations, your manpower needs drop considerably.

FD's adapt because they understand they cannot handle a budget cut and get the job done safely. You try to look it from the perspective that your sheer call volume makes you more important, but you understand very well the ratio of ALS to BLS calls is very disproportionate. Regardless of how many people actually require prehospital interventions, you have to be able to meet the demand of 911 calls with the right resources for when you actually do respond to a high priority call. It doesn't matter how often you use narcan, it's essential to treating an opiate overdose, therefore you must be equipped with it. Of course the difference between funding apparatus, personnel, and pensions is much greater than some seldom used drugs in your medbox, but it's essentially the same concept.

Actually one of the purposes of EBM is finding out what treatments are cost effective for the benefit gained and what's not.

I don't know how many people here work privates, but I do and I think they are a bunch of bologna.

Some are, some aren't. My service is far better equiped and educated than an FD and a municipal right up the road, and we're an "evil" private. But then the fire service lobby always says "scabs are bad".

I think all EMS should be municipal, and because fire is already municipal I think with the growing trend of Fire becoming EMS oriented, it makes sense to completely integrate the two.

So your best argument is "because the FD is there already"?

As a private EMT working in a tiered response system, I also deal with a lot of FF's that I can tell don't want to be there and sometimes they just take up space. But on the other hand, the departments I volly for handle our own transports, and although there is a mix of interest between members who prefer EMS or Fire, we practice the same amount of professionalism to both because it's our job.

Common in volly situations. Not so common in many full-time FDs.

There are many fulltime FD's that do their own transports, and they have excellent medics/basics because they adapt to their roles.

And many don't. Just like many privates don't. Somme FDs are every bit as dollar oriented when it comes to EMS as the privates you hate so much. I've seen it.

When more FD's begin to take on transports, FF's will adapt accordingly and EMS skills improve as a necessity. Some salty old timers will simply have to pass the torch to younger guys like myself who are more keen to the task of modernizing FD's in the process, but it will happen in time.

Or they won't. I worked for an FD that had been doing EMS transport for 20 years. The attitude towards EMS was among the worst I've ever seen.

No one likes EMT's anyways, might as well let the job be performed by a profession that is already respected.

Wow, way to make an argument, insult your opponents. Besides, look at the media lately to see how much respect FDs are getting.

I know FDs taking over EMS looks ideal when you listen to the fire service lobby. But look for info elsewhere. The FD taking over EMS in places where it's working well is as BS privates taking it from the FD when it's working well. Probably even more so as FD-based EMS RARELY saves money. Look at Kansas City, DC(not that it was really working there) and NY for evidence of that.

 

[Anthony7994]

No one likes EMT's anyways, might as well let the job be performed by a profession that is already respected.

I'm not trying to jump in the midst of this argument, but this statement is simply ridiculous. It's things like this that make people hate FFs in the first place...thinking they're the best thing in the history of emergency services and that everyone else should bow to them. Way to go, pal.

 

[Tigger]

No, it doesn't, and I have already stated why.

Desolve the big fire departments, they aren't needed. Give the funds to EMS instead, who does a MUCH higher percentage of the calls.

Sorry, it's not really logical to have 4 people and an engine sitting around waiting for a fire when there's only a handful of working ones ALL year.

Maybe in your area, but not in the areas that I live. There are still many, many "legacy structures" with old construction in the northeast that require manpower above all else when they catch fire. There may be fewer fires than there were in the 1970s, but they have not gotten any appreciatively easier to put out.

Only, and I put emphasis on only, to defend their budget.

I know there are firefighters who like doing EMS... but without a doubt the vast majority just want to 'put blue on red'.

Right, because it's impossible to have an interest and ability in more than one thing.

So if EMS starts taking over rescue operations, every EMS provider will suddenly love extrication too? Not everyone loves every aspect of their job, and that's going to happen in every field.

And I dare you to tell me DCFD or DFD are "good" at running patient care.

Hooray for making blanket judgements about departments that no one here probably has any firsthand knowledge of!

Ta-da... it's the department requiring it, not the person WANTING to do it just to do it.

Sorry, I don't want the person who hates EMS in charge of my care with 60+ different medications that can kill me.

Again, not everyone who does not work for a single service EMS provider hates EMS. There are plenty of firefighters that enjoy EMS as much as they enjoy firefighting. Many firefighters do in fact realize that much of their job involves medicine. Firefighters that complain about the EMS aspect of the job in a Fire/EMS department are working at the wrong department.

Hell, what makes the MOST sense is having EMS run fire, and not the other way around. It's 80/20 EMS to fire calls in every place that puts out statistics. Why should the less use entity be in charge of the other?

Sure, why not. But in many areas you can't simply take Fire's budget and give it straight to EMS. There may be less fires these days, but they still take (close to) the same number of people to put them out. Ensure that the firefighters are also fire inspectors to minimize "idle" time and provide a valuable community service.

It's ridiculous to call for an additional ambulance, but not to call for an engine that costs about twice as much, gets a lot less mileage, and has at least twice as many people on board?

That makes sense to you?

Makes plenty of sense to me. I want those twice as many people on board coming to my extrication. Not only is more trained help arriving, but more equipment is too. I agree that basic hydraulic equipment can be fit on many medium duty ambulances, but what happens when you need more than a combi tool? Things like struts, rams, cribbing, and airbags, are those all going to fit on the ambulance too? Sure you could have a dedicated EMS rescue truck (as some agencies do), but are the providers staffing that truck getting the patient contacts they need to stay sharp? Won't that truck also cost at least twice at an ambulance does? And to provide the same capability in terms of response zone coverage as a fire department, won't you need to buy and equip several of them?

Look at a place like Pittsburgh, they have two rescue trucks staffed with 2 each. Hardly enough manpower if you ask me. Sure, more ambulances could be dispatched for additional manpower, but now you are taking away units off the street whose primary function is patient care and transport. Doesn't exactly sound like a win for the EMS system to me. And while Pittsburgh EMS does do extrication, fire still goes to MVAs for fire protection, fluids, and actual extrication operations being that the truck companies carry extrication equipment. Fire's rigs are also much larger (especially truck companies) and are used as blockers on highway incidents, something that an ambulance is not nearly as well suited for. From what I understand Fire still does quite a bit of work since PBEMS rescue units have only two members aboard.

Then there's the manpower issue. A rescue/ambulance rolls up to an MVA. If the patient is injured, isn't that crew in all likelihood tied up with patient care? Now a second ambulance is dispatched. Now a 2 person "extrication team" is on scene. Are two people going to be enough remove the roof and lift the dash? Maybe, but it's tough to argue that you would prefer two people doing the extrication instead of four. Also, will these new ambulances be provided with any sort of fire protection system? I have no interest in working near a wrecked vehicle with leaking fluids and power tools without a charge hoseline in place if I can help it, not sure about you.

And this was already answered by me: The agency that does 80% of the calls (EMS) should get the majority of the funds.

Or we could stop competing with Fire with funding (the reverse would have to happen too). Maybe EMS needs to have its own source of funding like many other aspects of government (like schools).

Why? Because they have been? The only reason why "fire does it" it because fire has "always done it". Again, I point you to the EMS agencies that do things from simple extrication to hard technical rescue... They've proven EMS can do it.

Not to mention that fire in many areas has more manpower and equipment than EMS or anything.

Ta-da! Extrication is a patient centered ordeal. Why have the least medically trained and educated personnel in charge of it?

It is no doubt a patient centered process, but I fail to see how being a paramedic changes the process. Please explain how you knowledge of medicine will effect the extrication process, I am honestly curious. I'm trying to think of a scenario beyond some sort of crushing injury where the crushing object is removed and the patient becomes unstable as a result.

Hopefully anyone involved in extrication know enough not to hurt the patient with the process, I don't think anyone needs to be a medic to realize that.

Should a cop be in charge of running a fire ground and putting out a fire?

Not sure of relevance?

 

[Shishkabob]

So if EMS starts taking over rescue operations, every EMS provider will suddenly love extrication too? Not everyone loves every aspect of their job, and that's going to happen in every field.

Except, as has been stated multiple times by multiple people in this thread, extrication is most certainly a patient focused thing, so why SHOULDN'T the people who are doing patient care do it?

Hooray for making blanket judgements about departments that no one here probably has any firsthand knowledge of!

Sorry, I most certainly DO have first hand experience with DFD, what they can do, and how they are on calls.

If I'm involved in an MVC in Dallas, I'm crawling to Parkland or Baylor. I'd get the same level of care from DFD as I would doing things to myself without any equipment.

Look at a place like Pittsburgh, they have two rescue trucks staffed with 2 each. Hardly enough manpower if you ask me.

And each and every one of their street medics is trained in extrication. They should already have an ambulance on scene when the rescue is sent, so there's, at minimum, 4 people. Plus, I have yet to see a decent sized agency that doesn't send a supervisor to scenes that require special skills such as that.

Not to mention that fire in many areas has more manpower and equipment than EMS or anything.

Again, because they keep taking over more aspects to justify their budget, then ask for an increase in budget to take on those tasks. It's a cycle.

Not sure of relevance?

Relevance is, not a single part of putting out a fire has to do with law enforcement.

However, EVERY part of extricating a patient has to do with healthcare delivery from EMS.

 

[DrParasite]

your right, EMS cannot be taught how to do rescue.

its a completely absurd concept

in fact, it's just stupid to think that EMS can do rescue, they don't have the training.

that's just crazy thinking.

btw, 2 out of those 4 are 100% paid agencies, one is combination, and one is an all ALS EMS system.

The ONLY reason FD goes on EMS calls is because the EMS system is understaffed. even on an MVA, if EMS had more units, spread out with fire stations, EMS would be FD to the scene EVERY time. but the majority of EMS systems bandaid an understaffed EMS system instead of properly funding and staffing it. It's like that in NYC (see EMS arriving late to the party, while FD engine, FD truck, multiple PD, ESU little, ESU big are already at the party before EMS arrives), and almost every other urban area.

FDNY and NYPD have been doing rescue for close to 80 years. NYPD got really busy with rescue in the 60s to 70s when most of NYC was burning down. Both have training, both can do rescue, and they both work well individually (FD with engine, truck, and rescue company, PD with RMP, ESU, and rescue truck), but FD and PD do not work well together. Numerous incidents have been documented where it happens. both have their chain of command, and they don't listen to the others bosses.

 

[Tigger]

Except, as has been stated multiple times by multiple people in this thread, extrication is most certainly a patient focused thing, so why SHOULDN'T the people who are doing patient care do it?

I was hoping you would not choose to ignore my question about how being a paramedic changes the way that a vehicle should be cut apart. This is not an attack by any means, I am honestly curious.

Sorry, I most certainly DO have first hand experience with DFD, what they can do, and how they are on calls.

If I'm involved in an MVC in Dallas, I'm crawling to Parkland or Baylor. I'd get the same level of care from DFD as I would doing things to myself without any equipment.

Sorry for some reason I didn't think of Dallas even though you are in Fort Worth oops. Still doesn't change much about DC though...

And each and every one of their street medics is trained in extrication. They should already have an ambulance on scene when the rescue is sent, so there's, at minimum, 4 people. Plus, I have yet to see a decent sized agency that doesn't send a supervisor to scenes that require special skills such as that.

Right, and I mentioned that. But what if the patient is actually injured? Doesn't the first on scene ambulance take over the patient care role? Now you're back to 2-3 people doing the extrication and your supervisor is no longer acting as a supervisor. I don't think pulling transporting ambulances off the street for manpower is the best solution either. Who is providing fire protection and fluid control (all necessary to some degree at an MVA scene, like it or not).

Again, because they keep taking over more aspects to justify their budget, then ask for an increase in budget to take on those tasks. It's a cycle.

Will we ever stop looking at funding as an "us vs. them" conundrum?
Also I am not seeing many FDs in my area getting an increase in their budget even when they do take over EMS. Maybe they can keep their original budget, but mostly EMS is taken on as a way to stop the FD from bleeding money. I agree that is a poor reason for taking on EMS before you ask, just stating how things happen in some places.

 

[Tigger]

your right, EMS cannot be taught how to do rescue.

its a completely absurd concept

in fact, it's just stupid to think that EMS can do rescue, they don't have the training.

that's just crazy thinking.

btw, 2 out of those 4 are 100% paid agencies, one is combination, and one is an all ALS EMS system.

UMDNJ and Pittsburgh both staff with 2 members as well.

I am in no way arguing that EMS cannot preform rescue operations. It just has to be done the right way, with the proper amount of staffing. 2 guys on a rescue truck covering an entire city while relying on ambulances for more personnel just does not seem to be the best way to deliver rescue services if you ask me.

 

[DrParasite]

UMDNJ and Pittsburgh both staff with 2 members as well.

I am in no way arguing that EMS cannot preform rescue operations. It just has to be done the right way, with the proper amount of staffing. 2 guys on a rescue truck covering an entire city while relying on ambulances for more personnel just does not seem to be the best way to deliver rescue services if you ask me.

My friend, I agree 100%.

They are only staffed with 2 because they aren't staffed appropriately, while a fire-rescue is staffed with 4-6 guys. simple solution: give them more money and allow them to increase the staffing level to 4 people.

But again, EMS is constantly staffed to the minimum possible. that results in 2 on the ambulance (instead of 3) and 2 on the rescue (instead of 4).

 

[boingo]

Or just have the police worry about their normal job and fire worry about theirs. Imagine how NYPD would feel if FDNY had a "special unit" that would do their jobs. IMO it's a really stupid idea.

Imagine if FDNY started doing EMS and NYC*EMS were there too...oh, wait...

 

[DrParasite]

2 guys on a rescue truck covering an entire city while relying on ambulances for more personnel just does not seem to be the best way to deliver rescue services if you ask me.

and 2 guys in a patrol car is not the best way to deliver rescue services. but if you put them in a rescue truck, train them properly in how to do the job, give them the equipment to do the job right, and now where are you?

or even better, an engine, truck, and rescue is not the best way to deliver EMS. but if you give them an ambulance, EMS training, and the equipment to do the job properly, than in theory what do you have?

bottom line, most EMS systems AREN'T set up to provide rescue services to an area, and those that do are typically set up with the minimum staffing levels allowable. HOWEVER, like the above two examples, with the proper equipment, the proper staffing, and the proper training, there is absolutely ZERO reason why they can't.

 

[bstone]

Is this so-called "Emergency Response Unit" going to be training EMTs and providing for emergency medical care as well? There is not a lot of info on them.

I asked a friend who is an officer with the NYPD. He tells me that the ERU has "priority" or "authority" when they are on scene. I am not surprised he said this since he is part of the NYPD, but it just seems weird to have detectives participating in extraction, rescue, etc.

 

[usalsfyre]

Y'all are living in a fantasy world if you think the majority of departments in the US have a heavy rescue staffed with four members available at all times.

 

[DrParasite]

Is this so-called "Emergency Response Unit" going to be training EMTs and providing for emergency medical care as well? There is not a lot of info on them.

unless I am mistaken, every ESU cop (not ERU) is an EMT or paramedic. whether or not they actually ride on an ambulance is a different story. But they all either are or used to be EMTs of some level.

I asked a friend who is an officer with the NYPD. He tells me that the ERU has "priority" or "authority" when they are on scene. I am not surprised he said this since he is part of the NYPD, but it just seems weird to have detectives participating in extraction, rescue, etc.

ESU officers are detective-specialists, not detective-investigators. they aren't actual detectives in the investigative way you are thinking, but still hold the rank of detective for pay and title purposes. It also puts them above every patrol officer and below every supervisory officer (even though I have heard they only take orders from ESU Sgts and ESU supervisory personnel).

also, they are considered (at least by NYPD) to be the best of the best, and as such, are often called upon to take the lead in operations due to their extensive training. Doesn't surprise me at all that they call the shots at scenes that are within their scope.

and usalsfyre, almost every 100% career FD that I am aware of has at least 4 firefighters on their rescue company.

 

[Anjel]

MVC EMS is not always there. Fires? You mean EMS actually respond to fires in your area? The ambulance is not called to a fire unless a firefighter/bystandard goes down and wants to be transported to the hospital (for my area). Fire will do medical stuff on scene, if the patient needs or wants to go to the hospital then the ambulance is called to transport.

We respond to fires as standby in case someone gets hurt.




ALSO....

When I went through basic it was a requirement to be certified in Rescue and Extrication. So I had to take a class that the fire fighters do.

How to use all the hydraulics and tools. Also had to look at it from the medical perspective and be in the car with the patient while being extricated.

I could extricate if I needed to. And so should all other EMS workers.

 

[DesertMedic66]

Another one of my major concerns is that most (not all) ambulances have 2 crew members. So that leaves 1 for patient care and 1 for extrication? If something goes wrong with the patient and you need 2 crew members helping the patient well there goes all your man power for extrication. If something goes wrong during extrication well then your either gonna have to leave the patient or hope your partner grows some extra arms and can handle it all.