rumors are that EMS agencies are looking to get rid of backboards

[JPINFV]

Flaws aside, yes, ARC is legally and legislatively recognized as an industry professional standard. As is AHA.

(Did I screw anything up that time?)

So no one can introduce any EBM into emergency cardiac care at any levels until the AHA or ARC gives the green light? Yea... I'm calling shenanigans on this one.

 

[rmabrey]

Ours becoming strictly a device to move a patient from point A to point B in a month or so. QI and Medical director are not waiting for the new curriculum

 

[Christopher]

So no one can introduce any EBM into emergency cardiac care at any levels until the AHA or ARC gives the green light? Yea... I'm calling shenanigans on this one.

The problem is people confuse AHA/ARC with a standards body. They are not.

They are a guidelines body. You may consider this or consider that.

Ultimately there are only two Class I interventions which you must do regardless of whether you believe they are a standards body or a guidelines body.

If somebody can point out what Class I intervention is being violated in this thread I'd be very interested to know.

 

[mycrofft]

The problem is people confuse AHA/ARC with a standards body. They are not.

They are a guidelines body. You may consider this or consider that.

Ultimately there are only two Class I interventions which you must do regardless of whether you believe they are a standards body or a guidelines body.

If somebody can point out what Class I intervention is being violated in this thread I'd be very interested to know.

We have oranges, bananas and apples, we're talking fruit salad.

A standard is not a law. You will suffer no criminal legal trouble due to deviating from a standard unless it has been codified by EMSA or a legal body.

NHTSA is very laissez faire, they make recommendations, your EMSA makes the local rules. If your local EMSA wants to start using snake venom or dancing around the patient, it's up to them, but they'll probably be in court on civil (not criminal) charges when treatment fails (as it sometimes does no matter what) and a standard is not being followed.

FDA recognizes AHA, ARC, National Safety Council as organizations setting standards. This not rumor, it is from an email I received from the FDA regarding who can use oxygen. And ARC teaches CPRO as using ventilations. So ARC or AHA or NSC have set a standard and it is being ignored if protocols do not include ventilation. (Note: ARC and AHA are divided on some other issues. Some issues like hands only CPR for laypersons have leeway. Ventilation with CPR is simply taught as an expression as their standard. Layperson=ventilation or not. Pro= =ventilate. Stay tuned for next iteration in a year and a half).

It's not a law, it's a standard, and your training plus local protocols dictate practice. But it is still in abeyance of the ARC standard if it does not meet it.

If your protocol gives you wiggle room, then you can consider, but if it is in abeyance of a law, yo are still responsible, and if it does not follow a standard, if it was in your training, you can be held responsible to it maybe, mostly in civil court matters (i.e., being sued, keeping yuir license).

NHTSA: recommend. EMSA: local laws. AHA/ARC/NSC: standards. EMS company/service: protocols in accordance with applicable EMSA.

 

[Christopher]

We have oranges, bananas and apples, we're talking fruit salad.

A standard is not a law. You will suffer no criminal legal trouble due to deviating from a standard unless it has been codified by EMSA or a legal body.

NHTSA is very laissez faire, they make recommendations, your EMSA makes the local rules. If your local EMSA wants to start using snake venom or dancing around the patient, it's up to them, but they'll probably be in court on civil (not criminal) charges when treatment fails (as it sometimes does no matter what) and a standard is not being followed.

The flip side of this is that most EMSA's should then be sued and taken to court for using backboards, epinephrine, amiodarone, and any number of other unproven treatments.

FDA recognizes AHA, ARC, National Safety Council as organizations setting standards. This not rumor, it is from an email I received from the FDA regarding who can use oxygen. And ARC teaches CPRO as using ventilations. So ARC or AHA or NSC have set a standard and it is being ignored if protocols do not include ventilation. (Note: ARC and AHA are divided on some other issues. Some issues like hands only CPR for laypersons have leeway. Ventilation with CPR is simply taught as an expression as their standard. Layperson=ventilation or not. Pro= =ventilate. Stay tuned for next iteration in a year and a half).

The FDA does not dictate to the States what medications are the standard for EMS. In my State it falls upon the Medical Board by general statute.

It's not a law, it's a standard, and your training plus local protocols dictate practice. But it is still in abeyance of the ARC standard if it does not meet it.

Only if your state sets AHA/ARC as the standard.

General statutes here dictate that it starts with the State medical director, who puts it out to the local medical director. There is no legal requirement, nor standards requirement either, to follow AHA/ARC here. However, the medical board, State medical director, or local medical director is free to make that the requirement per general statute.

If your protocol gives you wiggle room, then you can consider, but if it is in abeyance of a law, yo are still responsible, and if it does not follow a standard, if it was in your training, you can be held responsible to it maybe, mostly in civil court matters (i.e., being sued, keeping yuir license).

The "standard" recognized is dictated by the State (and is outlined in our general statutes), not by NHTSA, AHA, ARC, etc (although AHA/ARC have representation on the NC EMS Advisory Council).

NHTSA: recommend. EMSA: local laws. AHA/ARC/NSC: standards. EMS company/service: protocols in accordance with applicable EMSA.

Again, AHA/ARC are not standards bodies. IEEE is an example of a standards body. The AHA specifically notes that the ECC publications are recommendations and that implementors must:

...systematically monitor cardiac arrests, the level of resuscitation care provided, and outcome. The cycle of measurement, interpretation, feedback, and continuous quality improvement provides fundamental information necessary to optimize resuscitation care and should help to narrow the knowledge and clinical gaps between ideal and actual resuscitation performance.

Thus, if you believe AHA/ARC are actually standards bodies, by not benchmarking and optimizing the delivery of care you're outside the Standard. Our state and services do just this and follow the standard of care by updating practice as dictated by CQI.

 

[mycrofft]

OK.ten characters