Stockton back to BLS

Oh, this thread should be fun. I do find it fun watching the fire fighters cry when they're holding the wrong end of the stick for a change. 'Oh, it's for the people.' Bull. Plenty of studies show that an oversaturation is a bad thing, and having a paramedic on every response vehicle is definitely an oversaturation.
 
I have a feeling that budgets are part of this situation that wasn't addressed in the article. I wonder if the city fire dept. bills the county for CFS out of beat when the private vendor is not available or delayed getting to the call.
 
One of my paramedic instructors was from Stockton Fire, and all I can say is that he is one kick-a$$ medic. It's really regrettable that his ALS talents and expertise can't be utilized until this issue is resolved. Frustrating for everyone involved, I'm sure.
 
This issue (IMHO) has nothing to do with whether or not Stockton Fire Paramedics are good or not. It has to do with whether or not they can legally provide ALS services without the "blessing" of the San Joaquin County EMS agency. Stockton Fire contracted out their transport. I really don't see any reason why Stockton Fire couldn't provide ALS First-Response. They just can't do transport by themselves or via their own contracted providers. The County gave most of the County to AMR for transport through the RFP process. There are a few places that AMR is not the primary provider.

Tracy Fire is an ALS first response agency. AMR handles transport. Tracy Fire doesn't seem to have the same problem that Stockton Fire did/does...

Again, this isn't a comment on the ability/competency of Fire or Private medics. It's just about whether or not Stockton Fire can legally do transport. It appears that they can't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Akulahawk said:
It has to do with whether or not they can legally provide ALS services without the "blessing" of the San Joaquin County EMS
agency.
Click to expand...

Here's your answer.

Article 2. General Provisions
100144. Application of Chapter.
(b) No person or organization shall offer a paramedic training program, or hold themselves out as offering a paramedic training program, or hold themselves out as providing advanced life support services utilizing paramedics for the delivery of emergency medical care unless that person or organization is authorized by the local EMS agency.
Click to expand...

Emphasis in section (b) added.
http://www.emsa.ca.gov/laws/files/ch4_emtp.pdf
 
JPINFV said:
Here's your answer.



Emphasis in section (b) added.
http://www.emsa.ca.gov/laws/files/ch4_emtp.pdf
Click to expand...
Yes, great link. The underlying Health and Safety Code also says:

1797.201. Upon the request of a city or fire district that
contracted for or provided, as of June 1, 1980, prehospital emergency
medical services, a county shall enter into a written agreement with
the city or fire district regarding the provision of prehospital
emergency medical services for that city or fire district. Until such
time that an agreement is reached, prehospital emergency medical
services shall be continued at not less than the existing level, and
the administration of prehospital EMS by cities and fire districts
presently providing such services shall be retained by those cities
and fire districts...
Click to expand...
The regulation you cited may NOT override the above code. That is what the squabble was about. Apparently Stockton Fire didn't provide services prior to that date.
Oh, and there's some case law on this too. County of San Bernadino v. City of San Bernadino, 15 Cal. 4th 909, 938 P2d 876, (1997)

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is
affirmed in part, insofar as it ruled that the City has the
right to continue to administer its own prehospital emergency
medical services. The judgment of the Court of
Appeal is reversed in part, insofar as it held that the City
is not obligated to comply with the Dispatch Protocol and
the Patient Management Protocol, and insofar as it held
that the City may provide general ambulance services or
other types of services not provided as of June 1, 1980.
Click to expand...
Basically, the city can not do expand upon services from what it had in 1980, nor can they exclude the county provider. If they did NOT provide services prior to June 1, 1980, they may NOT do so on their own.

Had Stockton been providing ALS services on June 1, 1980, they could tell the County to stick it in their ear... we're retaining the administration of ALS services. In other words, Stockton could have performed ALS services without the authorization from the County had the City been providing ALS transport prior to that date. That would have been against the regulations above, but that regulation would not have applied. Since the City did NOT provide such services prior to that date, the regulation does apply to the City of Stockton. The County still does medical control and patient destination stuff. Your answer was correct, but incomplete.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ahh... Thanks!
 
You're welcome!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top