downundawunda:
...further investigation of the events demonstrates you were wrong and all this hairspliting is going to accomplish is that it's going to make you look self-righteous in the eyes of your peers.
On the contrary, it has shown the lack of understanding that too many in EMS have
I know a lot about CVAs, more than most. And do not think by quoting misplaced statistics that you have proven your point. The men had no excuse for what they did I don't care what the survival rate for hemorrhagic strokes are, I don't care how long the CT wait is. They messed up. THey messed up because they wanted to go home.
Um, read my last post, further evidence has come to light.
90% survival rate huh? What about the 10%? Do they not deserve to rushed to hospital or would your frank honesty tell them "We arent going to rush it mate! THere is a 90% chance your gonna die anyway."
I have continually said in my posts that patients deserve the best care, & please quote properly, i said
greater than 90% I also believe at one point that I did state that many have severe impairments (i believe i used different terminology) even if this happens in a hospital environment with rehab.
You are wrong and no matter what you say you will continue to be wrong
.
In your opinion
Are you trying to give US an ethics lesson? Are you trying to simply tell us that we shouldn't judge until all the facts are in? Thanks dad, I learned that a looooong time ago.
No you didnt, you judged them guilty from the outset.
But as I have alluded to, in this case there could possibly be maybe one reason to clock out and leave a critical patient in the back of the ambulance even that reason is morally dubious.
If that was the case, why not have a crew meet them en route?
That is way we made comments about the medic making the wrong choice. THe argument isn't about whether they were at fault for his death; the argument was whether he should have clocked out and regardless of the outcome he was wrong.
Am I to understand you have
NEVER made a bad decision? Yes this was a really really bad decision. However djmedic913 made 4 minutes an issue originally. I simply responded to those comments. You decided to run with it.
Am I to understand that because you have extended transport times that an extra 4 minutes to stop and have a coke is negligible? Some reasoning skills.
Please reread what OzAmbo said, now look at your question again I dont need to respond to this.
It doesn't mean we are not time conscious during the length of a case, or condone wasting time by changing drivers or having a coke (i could go a coke now actually) but in downundas reality and in mine, 240 seconds is not going to really alter the outcome.
Don't misunderstand, everyone here understands to need to give medics and FF the benefit of the doubt when a sensationalized medic-done-bad article comes out but I believe I have a consensus here when I say this is one of those times there is not much doubt to be raised for this English medic.
Then why did you not give them the benefit of the doubt in the first instance?
Furthermore, am I to understand that because a patient will have wait several minutes for a CT that an extra 4 minutes is meaningless?
Umm, who said that? Both OzAmbo & myself have both said that we do not condone wasting time on scene, I know I have never said it, in fact I know I said we should do the opposite & aviod wasting time on scene.
Shouldn't that be even more reason to rush the cardiac/cva victim to the hospital?
Pre hospital medicine is moving forward, Evidence Based Practice has
proven that early reperfusion of the myocardium is vital to ensure an positive outcome for the patient. While I do not waste time on scene, I will usually be there 10-15 minutes allowing for some drug administration, that is proven to assist with said reperfusion, gaining IV access, allowing my partner time to organise egress, & administration of IV morphine.
Answer me this, what is better for the patient, to have 2 EMT's who have the knowledge of what is happening, what to do that remain calm, drive appropriatly to the hospital without further causing tension to the patient, or one who will rush rush rush causing further panic & increasing myocardial excitment?
At some point sir someone has to take accountibility and responsibility of getting the patient to treatment expeditiously.
I am accountable to my patients, who are also members of the community in which I live. I am responsible for my action to my employer & regulatory body. We have targets which, with the odd excedption due to access or patient size issues, that are met.
My condolences to his family, and my condolences to your future patients.
You are basing this judgment on what? Have you ever seen me treat a patient? Have you seen me control a scene? You claim to have more knowledge than most on CVA's yet you are ignorant to other opinions & reasoning that differs from yours in any way.
You can tell your next cardiac patient your 4 minutes is negligible theory
My next cardiac patient will receive the best treatment I can offer, as all have done in the past. I look forward to the completion of thrombolysis trials & the roll out of thrombolytics to allow us greater lattitude & transport options.
My advice to you is read, reread & learn from what people are saying. You may one day make a good EMT. Face reality, stop being abusive to those who may have a greater knowledge than you do.
) but in downundas reality and in mine, 240 seconds is not going to really alter the outcome. Frequently i pick up patients who started exhibiting AMI or CVA signs hours before hand - I dont condone changing drivers in the middle of a case but i certainly wont run emergent for the sake of making up time, i feel that is an unjustifiable risk to the public for the sake of gaining a couple of minutes.
