EpiEMS
Forum Deputy Chief
- 3,844
- 1,162
- 113
Well, should EMS be doing (or leading, at least) rescue, or fire? I think that's an open question, no?
Well, should EMS be doing (or leading, at least) rescue, or fire? I think that's an open question, no?
Here's an interesting article about Firefighters performing EMS work in NSW here:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/firies-say-they-cant-step-in-for-medics-20130130-2dl2t.html
FIREFIGHTERS will be asked to step in for busy ambulance officers in Sydney and major regional areas under NSW government plans to meet growing patient demand.
The Australian Medical Association and the union representing fire brigade officers are concerned the proposal will compromise patient safety.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/heal...-for-medics-20130130-2dl2t.html#ixzz2JVat4ai9
''Given the O'Farrell government is already closing fire stations and refusing to replace firefighters, this policy will force firefighters to do more with fewer resources and will do nothing to improve [ambulance] response times.''
Darin Sullivan, the NSW president of the Fire Brigade Employees Union, said firefighters should be paid for any extra work and the issue was likely to provoke industrial action.
''It looks like firefighters will be forced to take on a role as first responder to support the ambulance service for the first time in NSW,'' he said. ''But with the O'Farrell government's wages policy, it is outside government policy for public sector workers to claim extra pay based on extra work performed. This will be a major reform requiring a formal increase in skills and training.''
The NSW Opposition Leader, John Robertson, described the proposal as ''cost-cutting madness''. ''Instead of hiring extra paramedics and putting more ambulances on the road to meet rising demand, the O'Farrell government is trying to replace them with firefighters who are already being hit with major budget cuts of their own,'' he said.
I think there are a few pointers here that need to be considered as well.
Most certainly EMS should be doing AND leading rescue, as rescue is a patient centered activity.
However, you'll find FDs fight tooth and nail to keep their grasp on it to justify their budget.
One of the quotes suggests some indignant firefighters don't want to be first responders to incidents to support EMS...so, what exactly do they want to do when they're not fighting fires? That is -- are they fighting so many fires that they don't have a couple hours to support EMS?
I'll take a look for the thread. I tend to see that as the most reasonable tack.
They never beat us to a cardiac call in NSW. Why? They simply are not called. Rescue went to fire because we had a spineless CEO who wanted it gone.
Just a question puppy, who started rescue in NSW???
Hey mate sorry don't know much about NSW other than that they have Police Rescue as well?
Police and Fire are never sent to any medical calls unless rescue or restraint needed. They only do CPR for example when they beat us to an MVA / RTC involving a cardiac arrest, or police first on scene in a shopping mall etc
Rescue was started by ASNSW.
Heres a thought. They say that Fire is underworked & can therefore help Ambulance, wouldnt it make more sense to REDUCE the number of BRT's (Big Red Trucks) & the number of Hose monkeys & INCREASE Paramedic resourses in the state, in line with workload of course.
In fire's defense, structure fires--rare as they are these days, are much more time sensitive than medical calls.
That being said, there are definitely systems that have a clear budget imbalance. Doesn't Providence, RI have 14 engine companies and...6 ambulances? With a good 70/30 split of EMS/Fire calls.
In fire's defense, structure fires--rare as they are these days, are much more time sensitive than medical calls.QUOTE]
This is one of the greatest misnomas out there. Fire is NOT time critical. Fire services & their cheifs want people to believe it. The simple reality is if a structure catches fire, it is ruined by
- fire
- smoke
- water
there is very little salvageable regardless of the propoganda we are fed. The only time it is time critical is where people are unable to get out of the structure & fire regulations now are at a point where this is becoming less of a factor.
This is one of the greatest misnomas out there. Fire is NOT time critical. Fire services & their cheifs want people to believe it. The simple reality is if a structure catches fire, it is ruined by
- fire
- smoke
- water
there is very little salvageable regardless of the propoganda we are fed. The only time it is time critical is where people are unable to get out of the structure & fire regulations now are at a point where this is becoming less of a factor.
yes, but the most critical are the first due engine and first due truck. If they get there when it's small and knock it down, than it doesn't matter if the other apparatus come from farther away (or are requested using mutual aid, coming from another town, etc). and if it's too big that they can't handle it with the first due engine and truck, and it's probably big enough where a couple minutes aren't going to make a big difference.I think the NFPA recommends 17 FFs for a residential fire. But yeah, more then 4.
yes, but the most critical are the first due engine and first due truck. If they get there when it's small and knock it down, than it doesn't matter if the other apparatus come from farther away (or are requested using mutual aid, coming from another town, etc). and if it's too big that they can't handle it with the first due engine and truck, and it's probably big enough where a couple minutes aren't going to make a big difference.
I think the NFPA recommends 17 FFs for a residential fire. But yeah, more then 4.