Opinion on use of rapid response units

jgaddis82

jgaddis82

Forum Crew Member
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I realize that this has been discussed in some forms already, but I'm curious to know how medics feel about a statement that was made in my Emt-A class. It was said that within the next few years, medics will probably almost never be dispatched to a scene. That the Emt-A will have to call for a rapid response unit to get a medic when needed. The thought was that these RRU's would make for faster response of ALS to the scene and not tie up those providers when they weren't needed and could be used elsewhere. Is this a good idea in your opinion?
 
I guess I should've said that I don't think this is such a good idea.
 
I assume this was in reference to your area? Otherwise its a very broad statement.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk
 
Yes it was. But it is hypothetical at this point, so we could assume it as a scenario for any area.
 
jgaddis82 said:
I realize that this has been discussed in some forms already, but I'm curious to know how medics feel about a statement that was made in my Emt-A class. It was said that within the next few years, medics will probably almost never be dispatched to a scene. That the Emt-A will have to call for a rapid response unit to get a medic when needed. The thought was that these RRU's would make for faster response of ALS to the scene and not tie up those providers when they weren't needed and could be used elsewhere. Is this a good idea in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Horrible idea as the plan is backwards.

Everyone should get an ALS rapid response first, then if the medic determines the call is BLS, call them in for transport. They are the ones who can afford to wait for a ride...
 
Sorry

Not going to work.

The future of EMS is a higher educated and trained provider responding to do prevention and treat and release. (As the rest of the civilized world has discovered)

The idea of using BLS or even ILS as a first response just adds extra cost to the system. Especially since the current standards of when to call ALS are so extreme I am not even sure why a tiered system exists.

The incidence of acute pathology is declining. Most of the patients today that actually fit into the category of emergency are people who have chronic problems with an acute exacerbation.

As medical care progresses and people live longer, the goal must be to economically manage these people, not to waste countless dollars driving them to the hospital while paying and equipping an area's best providers to sit around and wait for 5-10% of the total call volume.
 
Why not use more sophisticated call triage-- and send at minimum an RRU (with highly trained medic) in a car to every call-- from there the medic can treat/release, treat/transport to clinic/urgent care, treat/call for ambulance transport, treat/ride with ambulance transport, etc. For a model, perhaps look at NHS in England, particularly the Northeast Ambulance service. Mark Glencourse has documented their design well online, particularly through his interactions with SF FF/Medic Justin Schorr (sp?).

In this model, all patients get an ALS assessment (of sorts), but the medic has more flexibility-- and fewer (expensive) ambulances are required.
 
I have to say that I agree with all 3 of you. These are exactly the kind of reactions we got in class. I don't think there is a right answer or a wrong answer here. As one solution would not work for some, but might for others. Either way, it makes for a great debate and gets some very interesting ideas floating about.
 
The focus needs to be on system design that matches needs, as determined by call volume, call acuity, hospital/clinic/urgent care resources, first responder resources, staff training, regulatory constraints, and ultimately, reimbursement and funding structures. No single system works everywhere-- as evidences by the thousands of different models of care domestically and internationally.
 
In a situation where ALS does initial assessment and determines it can be handled as a BLS call, if the patient starts to go down then would there be an issue of abandonment?
 
Where I work we have 2 crews of 3, the medic on the first out crew gets to use the paramedic response truck to every call, and I have to say it is cutting into the relarionships at the service. Our service calls for a medic to be in the back on every call. So we run into problems of medic on scene first( which usually only saves about 2 min average, cause the ambulance is always enroute in under 4 min) because even though the RRU has equitment medics rarley grab it, which turns the EMT's on the truck into baggage handlers. Second it never gives BLS providers a chance to take lead or do a pt. assesment becasue medics dont like giving up lead where I work. Lastley the RRU truck is a hastle because you more then likely you have to leave it on scene if a FR or law enforcement cant drive it to the hospital for you. So this means before we can go back into service we have to drive back out to wherever the call was in the county and pick the stupid thing up.

Just glad my medic bends the rules, and doesnt fall into the whole RRU trip that the other medics do

just my 2cents
 
Two things come to mind here. Firstly no one should work on their own. This leads to the second point. EMT-B should not exist.

Now to explain Pre hospital medicine is a profession. We should be progressing to higher standards, providing the best care to all who call for an ambulance. The notion that a medic is s god ('the medic should decide if it is a BLS call or not') is self serving poppycock. We, as a profession need to improve our skills with international best practice & intensive care paramedics are not the be all & end all of pre hospital care & that attitude needs to be removed.

No pre hospital clinician should work alone for both their protection & the protection of their patient. There are many influences daily on us that can cause us to not make the 'best' decision. A partner can help with that.
 
But then, paragod, who would we have carry our bags and do things we don't want to do?!
 
Wow Tony. That's the first time I've heard anyone(seen) anyone speak of how RRU actually affect the operations of their system. Very interesting.
 
Thanks jgadd, I seem to be the only one who brings it up at my service being one of the only ones that has worked at other services, I have talked tothe director and he has taken my point to heart, but its theowner that doesn't want it to change, the battle goes on I suppose
 
downunderwunda said:
Two things come to mind here. Firstly no one should work on their own. This leads to the second point. EMT-B should not exist.

Now to explain Pre hospital medicine is a profession. We should be progressing to higher standards, providing the best care to all who call for an ambulance. The notion that a medic is s god ('the medic should decide if it is a BLS call or not') is self serving poppycock. We, as a profession need to improve our skills with international best practice & intensive care paramedics are not the be all & end all of pre hospital care & that attitude needs to be removed.

No pre hospital clinician should work alone for both their protection & the protection of their patient. There are many influences daily on us that can cause us to not make the 'best' decision. A partner can help with that.
Click to expand...

Good luck dealing with the volunteers on that one, at least in the states.

Not that I disagree with what you're saying, but it's unfortunately true.
 
One of the Black Holes of EMTLIFE: the future of street EMS/prehospital EMS as a profession. As the discussion crosses the event horizon, it inexorably becomes a polarized exchange of ideas about where it is going, much as I imagine it went when the mice discussed being the cat.


"No more EMT-B's" means you have robbed hundreds of thousands of rural and IFT patients a level of care above first-aid and jacked up the personnel cost of prehospital EMS (PHEMS) by maybe thirty percent, unless with the resultant influx of credential mill paramedics you force down the pay scale for PHEMS overall.

I worked in two tiered response systems in the late seventies-early eighties. If ALS is close and can respond very quickly and there are enough, then fine. If not, then no, but you have then to figure out how to actually do it.
 
Veneficus said:
Not going to work.

The future of EMS is a higher educated and trained provider responding to do prevention and treat and release. (As the rest of the civilized world has discovered)

The idea of using BLS or even ILS as a first response just adds extra cost to the system. Especially since the current standards of when to call ALS are so extreme I am not even sure why a tiered system exists.

The incidence of acute pathology is declining. Most of the patients today that actually fit into the category of emergency are people who have chronic problems with an acute exacerbation.

As medical care progresses and people live longer, the goal must be to economically manage these people, not to waste countless dollars driving them to the hospital while paying and equipping an area's best providers to sit around and wait for 5-10% of the total call volume.
Click to expand...

Vene- Absolutely agree with you 100%, but I wonder if you have any research or articles that support that??
 
Res Ipsa Loquitor

Trevor said:
Vene- Absolutely agree with you 100%, but I wonder if you have any research or articles that support that??
Click to expand...

I am sure there are some various articles around somewhere, most of what I said there is considered common knowledge in the medical circles I associate with.
 
mycrofft said:
"No more EMT-B's" means you have robbed hundreds of thousands of rural and IFT patients a level of care above first-aid and jacked up the personnel cost of prehospital EMS (PHEMS) by maybe thirty percent, unless with the resultant influx of credential mill paramedics you force down the pay scale for PHEMS overall.
Click to expand...

While this is true for very rural areas, we also need to consider that EMS (and fire) costs will be dramatically rising over the next decade or so anyway, due to the slow decline of volunteers in fire/EMS and the need to replace them with paid providers. Why not use this as an opportunity to increase some of the standards of EMS, even if it's taking the EMT-B and jacking up the training hours (and therefore the pay, hopefully) to something more reasonable?

Somehow the Commonwealth countries have managed to make PHEMS a degree course at minimum, make it a reasonable career choice, and still provide EMS all over the country. In Canada that includes some EMT-Bs in the most rural of areas, and that makes sense--if your first due has 500 people in it (in 500 sq. miles), I don't think you can (or should) afford a staffed ALS bus.

IFT is a different beast, and I really haven't been exposed to it enough to really discuss it, but I will say that making paramedics with a bachelors degree transport granny back and forth from her dialysis seems a little absurd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top