Wanna see something scary?

ttoude

ttoude

Forum Crew Member
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If you have a EMS license you should consdider this mandatory personal viewing.
If you are a basic and you dont watch both videos you headed for trouble. I wish I had seen em earlier.

The first is an actual course on report writing, the second is what happens if you dont watch the first vid. The part that hit me about the second video is that I can apply it to AT LEAST 5 of our frequent fliers. Gonna be more carefull now.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSBzje0VPtY[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNlaATHTF74&feature=channel[/youtube]
 
I can see where a lot of your normal 32Bs fall into those :p
ttoude said:
If you have a EMS license you should consdider this mandatory personal viewing.
If you are a basic and you dont watch both videos you headed for trouble. I wish I had seen em earlier.

The first is an actual course on report writing, the second is what happens if you dont watch the first vid. The part that hit me about the second video is that I can apply it to AT LEAST 5 of our frequent fliers. Gonna be more carefull now.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSBzje0VPtY[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNlaATHTF74&feature=channel[/youtube]
Click to expand...
 
I'm not going to watch four hours of youtube video. Is there a transcript available?
 
I am not the the sharpest of legal minds, but I am not sure that this mock-trial is the best indication of what to expect.

I didn't listen to the whole thing because at some point it became just absurd.

It seems like the Dr./Captain was trying to convict the accused in his answers, which would have called for a seperate expert witness to possibly refute testimony. At the very least his bias should have been pointed out.

No attorney I have ever met is overly eager to let the accused take the stand and be subject to a cross. In what I heard here, there was no indication it would have been of benefit, and certainly the attorney's prior contact with somebody of such a lax attitude would have discouraged it.

I can only imagine how a bunch of people with FD insignias ended up on an impartial jury.

Or how this case even made it to trial. At most perhaps a settlement.

I understand the point was to illustrate what it might be like, but I am not so sure I would take too much away from this one.

The documentation alone, in its vagueness while not at the professional level certainly helped the defense more than if they would have documented in the way the captain suggested.

If this captain was a member of the dept in question, he certainly made Kato Kailin look like a great defense witness.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aerin-Sol said:
I'm not going to watch four hours of youtube video. Is there a transcript available?
Click to expand...

You sat thru how many hours to get your Lic?

Turn it around, would you watch for hours of video if your license depened on it?

I watched it over 3 days off, try that.
 
There were also several missed objections for:

speculation, leading the witness, and asked and answered.

As well as making sure the witness stuck with "yes" or "no" and didn't venture too far into his opinions. Especially when they were damning of the defense.

I can only imagine what a properly educated and experience defense lawyer would have made that case as near a slam dunk as you coul hope for from a jury.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Veneficus said:
There were also several missed objections for:
speculation, leading the witness, and asked and answered.
As well as making sure the witness stuck with "yes" or "no" and didn't venture too far into his opinions. Especially when they were damning of the defense.
I can only imagine what a properly educated and experience defense lawyer would have made that case as near a slam dunk as you coul hope for from a jury.
Click to expand...

even the "actors" acknowledged the exaggerated nature of the circumstances in the film. The point is show worst case situations. How bad can a bad report and a poor attitude hurt an emt.

:censored:Those EMT's had no idea what was going on, nor did they seem to care. Not to mention that the subject of Negligent Homoside was slipped in there and again, they act like they every thing was ok.:censored:

Don't fool your self either, your boss' testimony may well cinch the not on your noose. He has a Lic to protect also. That situation isn't personal, that is the design of the system.:censored:


Ask yourself this, when you walk into that trailer or Project are you think "It'll be ok!" or are you thinking "Worse case scenario"?
That's the point. When I type reports from now on I'm gonna put some more effort and research into it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ttoude said:
even the "actors" acknowledged the exaggerated nature of the circumstances. The point is show worst case situations. How bad can a bad report and a poor attitude hurt an emt. Those EMT's had no idea what was going on, and that the subject of Negligent Homoside was slipped in there.

Ask yourself this, when you walk into that trailer or Project are you think "It'll be ok!" or are you thinking "Worse case scenario"?

That's the point. When I type reports from now on I'm gonna put some more effort and research into it.
Click to expand...

I think the video does offer a good insight on a very good way to write a report, however, if anyone is charged with something it should be the authors of that for inducing panic, in the end the video exaggerates the circumstances for no other reason than to incite fear into providers.

The negligent homoside as far as I know is not permitted either, as an uncharged crime, and certainly as the defense I would have made a point that no charges were filed.

Fear is not part of professional education. It is the domain of amateurs and frauds.
 
Censored? I didn't curse. I'm confused.

Veneficus said:
There were also several missed objections for:
speculation, leading the witness, and asked and answered.
As well as making sure the witness stuck with "yes" or "no" and didn't venture too far into his opinions. Especially when they were damning of the defense.
I can only imagine what a properly educated and experience defense lawyer would have made that case as near a slam dunk as you coul hope for from a jury.
Click to expand...

even the "actors" acknowledged the exaggerated nature of the circumstances in the film. The point is show worst case situations. How bad can a bad report and a poor attitude hurt an emt.

:censored:Those EMT's had no idea what was going on, nor did they seem to care. Not to mention that the subject of Negligent Homoside was slipped in there and again, they act like they every thing was ok.:censored:

Don't fool your self either, your boss' testimony may well cinch the not on your noose. He has a Lic to protect also. That situation isn't personal, that is the design of the system.:censored:


Ask yourself this, when you walk into that trailer or Project are you think "It'll be ok!" or are you thinking "Worse case scenario"?
That's the point. When I type reports from now on I'm gonna put some more effort and research into it.
 
Then I guess we gotta agree to disagree there. In the right dose MOST things are good including fear and paranoia. Not to the point where it causes panic but all of have a pretty healthy fear of fire and hot stove tops.

when I'm making my way down the hall of that abandoned trailer to my OD. You can't see it on the outside but that's a little fear just beneath the surface. I'm gonna start appling that idea to my reports now.
 
ttoude said:
Censored? I didn't curse. I'm confused.



even the "actors" acknowledged the exaggerated nature of the circumstances in the film. The point is show worst case situations. How bad can a bad report and a poor attitude hurt an emt.
Click to expand...

The vagueness of the report was their greatest strength. The plantif in the video could produce nothing to refute it other than a biased witness. Which easily could have been countered with another expert.

:censored:Those EMT's had no idea what was going on, nor did they seem to care. Not to mention that the subject of Negligent Homoside was slipped in there and again, they act like they every thing was ok.:censored:

Don't fool your self either, your boss' testimony may well cinch the not on your noose. He has a Lic to protect also. That situation isn't personal, that is the design of the system.:censored:

When your department is named as a codefendant in the lawsuit, your boss should probably be worried about helping you win. Infact your department should also have a lawyer protecting its interests.

The reason the department is named is because it has much deeper pockets than 2 paramedics do. You could win a settlement for billions and never collect from two firefighter paramedics. If your boss hangs you out to dry nder those circumstances, he is basically making a departmental admission and payout. That is why a settlement looks more realistic.

Ask yourself this, when you walk into that trailer or Project are you think "It'll be ok!" or are you thinking "Worse case scenario"?

I have spent most of my career working in underpriviledged populations, my practice is actually more adjusted for them because of their culture, predicament, and special needs, which I am extremely familiar with.

That's the point. When I type reports from now on I'm gonna put some more effort and research into it.

How is it going to look when you write reports with every minute detail and one day you are extremely busy or something prevents you from doing so even one time? Then your 1 report can be demonstrated to be insufficent compared to your others, and if the report was subpar, what's to say the care wasn't also that one time?[/QUOTE]
 
ttoude said:
You sat thru how many hours to get your Lic?

Turn it around, would you watch for hours of video if your license depened on it?

I watched it over 3 days off, try that.
Click to expand...

If the information was so important it would be available in a written format. I don't believe that my license depends on a youtube video, especially one that is apparently very inaccurate.
 
More idiots spreading the diagosis myth. However, the cheif complaint is not the place to provide a differenital or working diagnosis.

I swear, can we ban SOAP from EMS courses since apparently no one in EMS knows how to teach it? It's not a 4 part narritive because S and O have several subheadings. How about we cover those which contributes a lot to having a good organization and the components of a good exam, especially when starting out?

Similarly, ASSESSMENT IS NOT THE PATIENT'S CHEIF COMPLAINT. If the only thing you can get based off your assessment is "chest pain," then chest pain IS the current working diagnosis, but that is seperate from chief complaint. If you want to take the "we don't diagnose" stupidity to the extreme, than things like "bradycardia" or "STEMI" are diagnosis, and neither of those words should be contained in a report of someone who doesn't diagnose.

Edit:

Wait, how can you tell he's having a heart attack if you're job isn't to diagnose?

Seriously, the "have to go?" Sorry, you can't force someone to go to the hospital if they are competent just because they have a serious medical condition. Similarly, A/Ox4, GCS of 15 IS NOT THE SOLE DETERMINATION OF COMPETENCY! Really? 1 drink means unable to refuse? Oh, sorry, you're sober enough to drive, but not sober enough to determine your own medical care? Sorry, but 1 drink is not "under the influence." Similarly, just because a patient might have liver damage doesn't mean they can't refuse if they have an injury.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ttoude said:
I love closed minded people.
Click to expand...

Don't think I have ever been accused of tht before.

You must make your own decisions on how to practice, but I call BS on this video.
 
I listened to most of the mock trial video. I'm agreeing with the others that the message was lost in the hyperbole. These people were SO out there that there's just no way that the standard person really might take away some change to their practice, and from a courtroom prep situation, it wasn't quite as professional as a standard Law and Order episode.

I wouldn't mind having my hour back.
 
I skipped o 1 hr:46ish on the second video and started listening to her. I'll pass

Close minded? Nope. Some of us have better things to do with our time ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top