Scene safety/BSI..... revisited.

BLSBoy

makes good girls go bad
Messages
733
Reaction score
2
Points
16
THIS oughta scare the safety sallies right into the dialysis shuffle.
Here is a brief preview, read the rest at the link or the mods will spank me. Again.


http://www.jems.com/news_and_articl...69@yahoo.com&utm_campaign=Jems+eNews+12-01-09

Toward the Sound of Shooting
Arlington County, Va., rescue task force represents a new medical response model to active shooter incidents

* E. Reed Smith, MD, Blake Iselin, FF/EMT-III, Assistant Chief W. Scott McKay
* December 2009 JEMS Vol. 34 No. 12
* 2009 Dec 1

In November 2008, a group of 10 well-trained terrorists with good communications systems and a well-coordinated plan essentially held Mumbai, the largest city in India, paralyzed for more than 24 hours. Although the coordination and scale of the Mumbai attack went beyond what we’ve seen in the U.S., active shooter scenarios aren’t foreign to us.

An "active shooter incident" is commonly defined as an incident in which one or more people use deadly force on other people and continue to do so while having unrestricted access to additional victims. Almost every year, several of these incidents happen throughout the country, injuring and killing innocent civilians. They range in size, scale and publicity, with the most infamous being the killings at Columbine High School (12 killed, 23 wounded) and Virginia Tech University (32 killed, 17 wounded). On Nov. 5, an Army major went on a shooting rampage at Ft. Hood, Texas, killing 13 and wounding 30 others.

In the past decade, the EMS community has spent a lot of time and effort training to increase awareness, detection and response capability for weapons of mass destruction. But we’ve failed to address what could possibly be the greatest threat for mass casualty—the well-armed, well-supplied lone gunman who is willing to or intends to die in the act of killing and injuring others, including fire and EMS responders.

Other first responder groups have addressed this issue. After the Columbine High School shooting in 1999, police agencies across the country addressed what appeared to be failures in their tactical response to active shooter scenarios. They developed proactive response plans, which established a standard that’s now commonplace. Prior to Columbine, the police model was to cordon off the area and wait for the arrival of a SWAT team to engage the threat. In most circumstances, this process allowed the shooter to continue to be active inside the perimeter and led to a significant delay in getting victims to medical care.

In a paradigm shift following Columbine, police departments moved to an aggressive response in which police immediately pursue, establish contact with and neutralize the shooter; the idea is that the sooner the shooter can be contained, captured or neutralized, the fewer the casualties.

To meet this objective, first responding patrol officers organize and deploy in three- or four-person teams as soon as they arrive on scene; they move quickly through unsecured areas, bypassing the dead, wounded and panicked citizens with the goal of engaging and eliminating the active threat. They’re now trained to "move toward the sound of shooting."
 
:unsure: Huh. It's not that bad of an idea; in fact it's a pretty good one, but it's also not new or revolutionary. Don't try and make it into something it's not, or think that it will create sweeping changes.

Basically all it does is create a more simplified, dumbed-down, watered down, or less complete SWAT medic. (if that sounds insulting to bad) Take a paramedic, give them some extra training in trauma management, care under fire and combat tactics, fit them with body armor and have them train with police who receive similar training for tactical situations.

The thing about this is that, while these teams are going into the hot zone while the incident is still evolving, they are going into an area that has already been cleared by police, and possible has been fully secured. They are NOT moving forward to search the area for victims or the shooter, they are NOT going somewhere that hasn't allready been cleared, they are NOT armed, and they are NOT being trained/equipped to provide prolonged care; more of a get-in-get-out situation (which is appropriate).

Like I said, I think this is a good idea, but it's nothing that new, and all it is creating are watered-down versions of SWAT medics.
 
While its not a "full" tactical medic making entry and being a shooter, it is still not something your average everyday medic can/should do.
This is the first I have heard about anything like this, and I would love to see it put in place up here!
 
triemal04;194522Basically all it does is create a more simplified said:
To some degree you're right, Here the Medic on the team does not pull back from the team for any casualties unless it is an officer that goes down, So these medics aren't really dumbed down just have to train that treat treat treat mentality out of them and get them focused on treating and moving on.
 
All tactical medics in Canada that I'm aware of (and Ontario for sure) are modeled this way. None are sworn LEO's and are usually part of their regular EMS service rather than PD and are unarmed. They train with PD's tactical teams and must complete the same physical requirements, but are not part of the entry team.

For example, the Special Response Unit (SRU) where I work provides tactical medics, haz-mat support, bariatrics, MCI support and rescue medics in an all-hazards team. Toronto has specialized teams under their Special Operations Division (CBRNE, Tactical, Public Order, etc)
 
While I can't speak from the EMS side of the issue, I can speak from the Tactical side.

This is a good, forward step. But more could be done. An active shooter situation is extremely dynamic and EMS safety will eventually have to be addressed COMPLETELY.

Saying that EMS responders are definiteively safe because they are triaging/treating a Pt in an "area cleared by LE" is reckless and not accurate. This will eventually lead to the question: "How do we ensure that EMS personnel are safe?"
 
One would hope that the Teams would have several officers with them for Tactical Support.
 
Back
Top