Why the does fire have control on a medical incident???

[RanchoEMT]

FIRE vs. EMS

HEMS LONDON 'Medic ONE'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0EENc_zNR0

***Please Note: I will refer to only ALS ambulances as “EMS” for this Post.

I was just sitting here watching “HEMS London” and it dawned on me after watching the European EMS system do as they do…. How much further ahead they are than the American system. (At least in my mind, maybe you all have differing opinions…) One major difference in systems I noted was the lack of Fire Dept. Personal running the Medical Calls… And I started to question FIRE’s role in EMS, “Aside from early access during rescue operations, why does fire have control over EMS related incidences, normally?”

Shouldn’t the EMS Ambulances who are Specific to MEDICAL incidences have Control on scene of a Medical Patient??? Shouldn’t the Fire department personnel who are Specific to Fire, Hazmat, Rescue/Salvage, etc. Operations have Control over Fire, Hazmat, Rescue/Salvage, etc.??? Like-wise for Law Enforcement?

Wouldn’t it be more logistically sound to keep the Fire Dept. Available for other Non-Medical calls that they and ONLY THEY could be running???

*** I am aware that every EMS system is different, but in California Fire has control over medical incidences and dependent upon their assessment they will either ride along in a support function or throw the patient to the EMS Ambulance Crew, WHO WILL STILL BE TAKING THE PATIENT TO THE HOSPITAL WITH A PARAMEDIC PROVIDING THE SAME CARE REGARDLESS IF FIRE MADE IT TO THE CALL AT ALL. ***

If one was to think long and hard about what FIRE is actually doing at a scene, it can be figured that it’s really no more than what an ambulance crew could be doing. (Aside from Rescue/Complicated Access operations.)

A short Theory: The Fire department has in a way shot themselves in the foot, what with improving advancements in fire safety, restrictions/regulations, etc. that actually do make a difference and do prevent a lot of fire’s from happening. But this is in essence a bad business move, defeating the fire department’s purpose and marginalizing the need for a fulltime fire department that is specific to ONLY running fire calls.

“Any service that exists to work towards marginalizing its own relevance will require, for its own buoyancy, an escape function or secondary capacity which must work at restoring its original level of necessity. Assuming of course the same road is not further taken to necessitate the need for a third function. …But leave it to the Fire Dept.”

EMS has since become “Fire’s Escape Function”, keeping the fire department running calls and appearing both busy and needed.

“Either send a Probie out in civi’s to go out and set fires or get the department trained as paramedics.” -A Fire Chief at some point in time…

I feel a specific Fire vs. EMS tension that I believe is founded on the idea that if fire is able to marginalize the need for EMS Ambulances, by making them appear incompetent, lazy, unkempt, and generally seconded the Fire department will be able to retain EMS for as long as the government and citizens agree with these gestures. Holding onto that which is not rightfully theirs. It is possible that American EMS is a system that is set up for fighters and there healthy longevity as ‘heroes’.

It seems to me that currently, at least the CA system, is ran with priority to Police, Fire and then EMS…

Priority as it seems should be reworked to: Law Enforcement, EMS, then Fire….

There are a lot of Great Minds and Hard-Thinkers that come together on this website and I would love for you to share your insights and make known my misspellings. :^D
-Thank you, Pre-empt.




--Some Things To

​

Think About--
-Do you guys think if EMS(non-fire) wages were at par or above Fire/Police, we would have more control over local EMS systems?

-Do you think if to be a firefighter implied driving around in a goofy euro style fire box, with a goofy bright yellow bicycle helmet and functioning as a Second-IN medical service, you would still see 10,000 people put in an app for one available position at a dept.?

“You shouldn’t have a private company respond when a tax paying citizen calls 911.”

You wouldn’t have a private company providing fire safety and law enforcement, then why would you have a private company provide medical services. Shouldn’t the same government which provides law enforcement, fire/rescue provide Medical Services in the capacity of a government ambulance that takes you to the hospital and can administer beyond advanced life support in the field/on scene, like the HEMS in London with a Mobile Doctor?

 

[Veneficus]

Welcome to my world.

But here is the brief brief summary.

Healthcare is not a government function in the US. Fire and Police are.

In order to maintain low tax rates, service must be reduced to as cheap as possible.

In some areas that means outsourcing to private companies.

If you want superior service, it has to be paid for. There is not the political will for it simply.

 

[Sandog]

In order to maintain low tax rates, service must be reduced to as cheap as possible.

That ship has sailed, there are no low tax rates in Ca, yet the state is broke and I use that word with its duality. The state is broke, the system is broke, and how can you hope to attract quality personnel when the wages won't cover a simple living? I am not some kid with a 100 hours of schooling but I did get into EMS with blinders on and was sorely disappointed when I was introduced to the reality of things.

I have met many people in EMS that are of the highest moral caliber and they do what they do for the love of the job. I find the wages that EMS folks make to be appalling, 100 hours or 1000 hours of training I care not. These people have to jump through hoops and obstacles just to carry a patch; these men and women provide care for our sick at their most vulnerable time. Should I even mention the liability they carry with that patch? Despite all this there are people willing to carry that gurney. What EMS people need to do is rally together and form a union. Yes I said it... so there

 

[firetender]

A CL's Pre-Emptive Strike

Typically, this is not a subject that attracts balance.

Oh, threads start innocently enough but soon they become opposing sides fiercely tossing razor sharp pendulums back and forth to each other. Lots of blood all over the place!

So let's see if we can all CONTRIBUTE without CORRUPTING the initial intention of the OP; "And I started to question FIRE’s role in EMS."

The OP offered some theories and personal observations and asked a bunch of questions. Maybe the OP could be helped to better understand why and how it works, or how and why it doesn't, without getting into the realm of high-drama, finger-pointing or immovable positions.

It's worth looking at, maybe first by directing him to some past threads that were somewhat comprehensive in their coverage of the subject (before they got closed, anyhow )

 

[johnrsemt]

I always tried to ignore the fire crews or officers when they tried to be in charge on a medical run. Most of the time the officers were great and just did paperwork or talked to the family.
Did have one officer who always questioned why I did what I did, usually after the run. I always suggested he go to Paramedic school, usually shut him up. Especially when his crew would laugh.

 

[Veneficus]

What EMS people need to do is rally together and form a union. Yes I said it... so there

Earlier in life I would probably have typed 2 pages on the complexities of this and the long term consequences.

But now I am of the mind to just say "go for it, and let me know how it works out in about 10 years."

Medicine is a business, and if you increase the cost of labor, ultimately the people paying the price are the people paying for the medicine because nobody along the chain is going to eat the increased labor cost.

In the US that is medicare, medicade, (both tax funded) insurance premiums, and of course aggresive billing practices regarding private payers.

Those cost increases you will be bearing, and will exceed by a considerable margin, the increase in your pay.

 

[DrParasite]

Wouldn’t it be more logistically sound to keep the Fire Dept. Available for other Non-Medical calls that they and ONLY THEY could be running???

in a properly staffed and funded EMS system, the only role FD would role would be as a lift assist.

however in order to do this, you would need to have enough ambulances to cover the call volume, and have an ambulance on scene in under 7 minutes EVERY time (or greater than 90% of the time, 5 minutes would be even better). you would also need a command staff (on duty deputy chief/EMS manager and 2 on duty batt Chiefs/EMS supervisor, depending on coverage area size), as well as special operations and enough spare vehicles in usable condition for routine maintenance, plus all the necessary support people. Not only that, but having the ability to be accepted as a monetary black hole (like the FD and PD, who get lots of tax money and never ever show a profit) and be funded 100% by taxes would allow it to happen.

I think Wake County EMS is one of the only departments that I am aware that comes close to this level.

Most let the FD run the show because they have the available command staff, tax base, and extra units who are able to make it to scenes when the ambulance is gonna take too long. Sadly, most EMS don't have the resources available that the FD is able to get.

 

[DesertMedic66]

Major reason for fire to respond in this area is due to response time. Why wait possibly 10+ mins for an ambulance to get on scene when an ALS fire crew might be able to get there in under 3.

I did a ride out in Rancho. We were short 6 ambulances. We got a serious call for a motorcycle vs tree. Our response time was 26 mins 12 seconds. Fire was on scene in under 5. I would not wanna have a femur fracture and not have any pain meds for 26 mins when I could have them in under 5 mins.

All the fire crews I have ran with are really good. If they arrive first they start doing everything. Then when we show up they brief us and let us take over as they just write down info. If we arrive first they help us with all of our gear and write down the info.

I am 100% for having fire crews run EMS calls as long as they operate like I said before. It allows for faster response times, faster time from being dispatched to arriving at the hospital, and often better patient care (Case in point a call today: 72 year old man was in an irregular heart rhythm. The EMS medic wanted to shock him into a normal rhythm. Fire medic suggested doing a vegal reflex, something like that, to get the normal rhythm back. It worked and saved us from having to shock or administer meds to a fully alert patient instead he just had to hold his breath.)

 

[BEorP]

Major reason for fire to respond in this area is due to response time. Why wait possibly 10+ mins for an ambulance to get on scene when an ALS fire crew might be able to get there in under 3.

I did a ride out in Rancho. We were short 6 ambulances. We got a serious call for a motorcycle vs tree. Our response time was 26 mins 12 seconds. Fire was on scene in under 5. I would not wanna have a femur fracture and not have any pain meds for 26 mins when I could have them in under 5 mins.

It is pretty clear to me that the bigger question in the example you give is why the solution isn't actually more ambulances, not having fire do medical calls.

 

[Jon]

I think DrP is dead on.

Major reason for fire to respond in this area is due to response time. Why wait possibly 10+ mins for an ambulance to get on scene when an ALS fire crew might be able to get there in under 3.

I did a ride out in Rancho. We were short 6 ambulances. We got a serious call for a motorcycle vs tree. Our response time was 26 mins 12 seconds. Fire was on scene in under 5. I would not wanna have a femur fracture and not have any pain meds for 26 mins when I could have them in under 5 mins.

All the fire crews I have ran with are really good. If they arrive first they start doing everything. Then when we show up they brief us and let us take over as they just write down info. If we arrive first they help us with all of our gear and write down the info.

I am 100% for having fire crews run EMS calls as long as they operate like I said before. It allows for faster response times, faster time from being dispatched to arriving at the hospital, and often better patient care (Case in point a call today: 72 year old man was in an irregular heart rhythm. The EMS medic wanted to shock him into a normal rhythm. Fire medic suggested doing a vegal reflex, something like that, to get the normal rhythm back. It worked and saved us from having to shock or administer meds to a fully alert patient instead he just had to hold his breath.)

In the first case, sounds like the fire-medics would be better used on an ALS transport unit, rather than in their current dual-role position. 26 minute response times, when fire can be onscene in 5, shows me that the system isn't preforming the way it should.

As for the latter one... same can be accomplished by putting 2 medics on every ambulance. And it means you don't have to spend the fuel to drive the pretty red truck to the scene, and pay the 4 guys on the pretty red truck, too.

It is pretty clear to me that the bigger question in the example you give is why the solution isn't actually more ambulances, not having fire do medical calls.

Quoted For Truth

 

[sir.shocksalot]

and often better patient care (Case in point a call today: 72 year old man was in an irregular heart rhythm. The EMS medic wanted to shock him into a normal rhythm. Fire medic suggested doing a vegal reflex, something like that, to get the normal rhythm back. It worked and saved us from having to shock or administer meds to a fully alert patient instead he just had to hold his breath.)

What is the difference between a Fire medic and an EMS medic? Do they have a special certification titled "Firemedic"? If so, how do obtain one of these godly certifications for myself?

Can we drop the whole firefighters are better medics/single role medics are better medics crap? There are dumb dumbs and geniuses in every service from private, to 3rd service, to fire based. Saying inflammatory remarks that one provides better care than the other serves no purpose to the discussion, especially without any scientific evidence of such.

To the OP, my main complaint about fire based EMS is that it's a colossal waste of tax payer money. If my Grandma has an asthma attack and forgot her inhaler I don't want a fire truck and an ambulance with a total of 6 people in bunker gear at my house to give her a neb. Thankfully my Grandma lives in Australia and won't have to deal with that crap. Adequate dispatch triage will eliminate unneeded fire response to calls that don't need extra hands (arrests, MVA, etc need extra hands), even then I can run an arrest with just an extra cop to do CPR. It's just a waste of tax payer money for a fire truck to show up to a intoxicated individual. Also why do I have to pay for a paramedic in every fire house? There is no proven benefit to early ALS (or any ALS for that matter) so why does he make $75K+ a year to provide no scientific benefit. Early CPR is the only benefit an extremely short response time can prove, even then the difference is only made if they make it in about 2 mins and that benefit is eliminated by adequate rates of bystander CPR.

TL;DR version: Fire trucks are expensive to run and completely not needed for 80% of ambulance responses.

 

[DesertMedic66]

What is the difference between a Fire medic and an EMS medic? Do they have a special certification titled "Firemedic"? If so, how do obtain one of these godly certifications for myself?

Can we drop the whole firefighters are better medics/single role medics are better medics crap? There are dumb dumbs and geniuses in every service from private, to 3rd service, to fire based. Saying inflammatory remarks that one provides better care than the other serves no purpose to the discussion, especially without any scientific evidence of such.

To the OP, my main complaint about fire based EMS is that it's a colossal waste of tax payer money. If my Grandma has an asthma attack and forgot her inhaler I don't want a fire truck and an ambulance with a total of 6 people in bunker gear at my house to give her a neb. Thankfully my Grandma lives in Australia and won't have to deal with that crap. Adequate dispatch triage will eliminate unneeded fire response to calls that don't need extra hands (arrests, MVA, etc need extra hands), even then I can run an arrest with just an extra cop to do CPR. It's just a waste of tax payer money for a fire truck to show up to a intoxicated individual. Also why do I have to pay for a paramedic in every fire house? There is no proven benefit to early ALS (or any ALS for that matter) so why does he make $75K+ a year to provide no scientific benefit. Early CPR is the only benefit an extremely short response time can prove, even then the difference is only made if they make it in about 2 mins and that benefit is eliminated by adequate rates of bystander CPR.

TL;DR version: Fire trucks are expensive to run and completely not needed for 80% of ambulance responses.

No difference. And I never said one is better then the other. Sometimes having another "set of eyes" on scene is good and can lead to better patient care. I am basing all this from what I have worked with and what is better for the patient. Is it better to have a patient waiting on scene for 20+ mins with no aid or having fire get there in 5 mins? What is better for the patient is odviously clear.

 

[DesertMedic66]

I think DrP is dead on.


In the first case, sounds like the fire-medics would be better used on an ALS transport unit, rather than in their current dual-role position. 26 minute response times, when fire can be onscene in 5, shows me that the system isn't preforming the way it should.

As for the latter one... same can be accomplished by putting 2 medics on every ambulance. And it means you don't have to spend the fuel to drive the pretty red truck to the scene, and pay the 4 guys on the pretty red truck, too.


Quoted For Truth

It was the day before thanksgiving so alot of people used their time off. Fire does not transport in this area. And lastly "it better money wise to have an EMT and medic partner. As opposed to dual medics" - straight from my employers. There is no flawless system. This is one of the flaws.

 

[MrBrown]

No difference. And I never said one is better then the other. Sometimes having another "set of eyes" on scene is good and can lead to better patient care. I am basing all this from what I have worked with and what is better for the patient. Is it better to have a patient waiting on scene for 20+ mins with no aid or having fire get there in 5 mins? What is better for the patient is odviously clear.

That argument is invalid. Just because the Fire Service can show up faster does not make them better. The Fire Service is probably, in your patch anyway, better funded, equipped and deployed.

This is the mainstay of the IAFF's argument for Fire based EMS, it was the entire reason that Eugene Nagel MD chose the Miami Fire Department for prehospital defibrillation in the late 1960s.

It remains an invalid argument. Elsewhere in the world, Ambulance is just as well deployed as the Fire Service and we get along fine without the Fire Service.

Now let us assume we have a non Fire based Paramedic and a Fire based Paramedic, both are equally educated. Who is going to be wore, some bloke who sits on a Fire truck and sees maybe a few patients and is a "non transporting first responder ALS engine medic" vs somebody who works on the ambulance and sees a lot of patients for a longer time period because they transport them?

 

[DesertMedic66]

That argument is invalid. Just because the Fire Service can show up faster does not make them better. The Fire Service is probably, in your patch anyway, better funded, equipped and deployed.

This is the mainstay of the IAFF's argument for Fire based EMS, it was the entire reason that Eugene Nagel MD chose the Miami Fire Department for prehospital defibrillation in the late 1960s.

It remains an invalid argument. Elsewhere in the world, Ambulance is just as well deployed as the Fire Service and we get along fine without the Fire Service.

Now let us assume we have a non Fire based Paramedic and a Fire based Paramedic, both are equally educated. Who is going to be wore, some bloke who sits on a Fire truck and sees maybe a few patients and is a "non transporting first responder ALS engine medic" vs somebody who works on the ambulance and sees a lot of patients for a longer time period because they transport them?

Once again I never said "fire medics are better then EMS medics". The reason that it's better for patient care is faster response times. Faster response times normally allow for faster interventions. If getting on scene faster for the patient is not better for patient care then heck why are we driving when we could just walk?

 

[Veneficus]

Once again I never said "fire medics are better then EMS medics". The reason that it's better for patient care is faster response times. Faster response times normally allow for faster interventions. If getting on scene faster for the patient is not better for patient care then heck why are we driving when we could just walk?

That is a pathetic argument.

All except a handful of EMS interventions in specific circumstances make no difference medically. The purpose and value of US EMS is to deliver the patient to the hospital.(It's all they get paid for actually) A non-transporting unit does not achieve that goal.

Easily 90% and often argued 95% of EMS calls are non emergent. So just because you show up faster with some hocus pokus sideshow isn't really "better for the patient."

Even less are time sensitive emergencies. The 8:59 90% was derived from the response times of the fire service at the time it was suggested. Think about the outcome when you show up 8 minutes after a cardiac arrest. Then open up your EMT text and recall when brain death starts to occur. 8 minutes, not een 9 minutes, is beyond the upper estimates by 1/3.

When you show up at the ED in any country I have been involved in healthcare in, if your problem is not medically emergent, you get sent to the waiting room. (In some hospitals in the US that can be more than 10 hours and I have seen up to 16.) Once you are seen, you have to wait yet again.

When you call yor GP in the US, you are told if you think it is an emergency to call 911 or go to the ED. Otherwise you get an appointment that can be days out. (The average across the country according to the last NEJM article I saw on it was 41 days)

Except as a public relations stunt, the cost of a bunch of ALS engines and ladders economically exceeds any benefit they offer. In the real world cost is just as much a part of the system as care. Some patients will slip through the cracks. It is unavoidable.

As Brown suggested, it is deployment that makes the perceived difference. It is also area specific. Do you know in larger cities EMS calls are actually held with no response at all based on dispatch information?

What is better for the patient is to quit wasting money on the fire service and spend that money in healthcare. Particularly public health and prevention.

As for why you are not walking, that is just too stupid to address.

 

[DesertMedic66]

That is a pathetic argument.

All except a handful of EMS interventions in specific circumstances make no difference medically. The purpose and value of US EMS is to deliver the patient to the hospital.(It's all they get paid for actually) A non-transporting unit does not achieve that goal.

Easily 90% and often argued 95% of EMS calls are non emergent. So just because you show up faster with some hocus pokus sideshow isn't really "better for the patient."

Even less are time sensitive emergencies. The 8:59 90% was derived from the response times of the fire service at the time it was suggested. Think about the outcome when you show up 8 minutes after a cardiac arrest. Then open up your EMT text and recall when brain death starts to occur. 8 minutes, not een 9 minutes, is beyond the upper estimates by 1/3.

When you show up at the ED in any country I have been involved in healthcare in, if your problem is not medically emergent, you get sent to the waiting room. (In some hospitals in the US that can be more than 10 hours and I have seen up to 16.) Once you are seen, you have to wait yet again.

When you call yor GP in the US, you are told if you think it is an emergency to call 911 or go to the ED. Otherwise you get an appointment that can be days out. (The average across the country according to the last NEJM article I saw on it was 41 days)

Except as a public relations stunt, the cost of a bunch of ALS engines and ladders economically exceeds any benefit they offer. In the real world cost is just as much a part of the system as care. Some patients will slip through the cracks. It is unavoidable.

As Brown suggested, it is deployment that makes the perceived difference. It is also area specific. Do you know in larger cities EMS calls are actually held with no response at all based on dispatch information?

What is better for the patient is to quit wasting money on the fire service and spend that money in healthcare. Particularly public health and prevention.

As for why you are not walking, that is just too stupid to address.

I know that most of the calls are non life threatening. But if I fracture my femur I am going to want pain meds as soon as possible. I wouldn't want to wait for the meds.

Your saying that response times don't matter because 90% is not life threatening. So then if we walk it won't make a difference. We can save on gas, insurance, registration, and car accidents. Yes I know it sounds stupid but that's how I interpreted what your saying.

For my area if we cut fire then we will have the public complain alot more about response times (they already do that now). Whatever makes the public happy is usually what will happen. And over here there has been no talk on cutting fire from EMS because they are a vital resource for us.

And 41 days to get a doctors appointment? I'm glad I live in a small town. I call and my appointment will usually be the next day.

 

[usalsfyre]

Somehow, EMS was able to almost completely separate itself from the rest of medicine early in its existence. This was combined with FD's flocking towards EMS starting in the 1980s to bolster run numbers, which had been falling precariously from all time highs in the 70's, and justify their staffing levels (which had been based in the higher run volumes)to politicians eager to make cuts in one of the more expensive items on a budget ledger. The argument was "the guys are already here".

The result was and has been that EMS never had to stand up to the cost-benefit analysis that the rest of medicine has always experienced, until now. Furthermore, by flying the "public safety hero's" flag, some in EMS have sought to latch onto the "Tough on Crime" and "War on Terror" type arguments, with the vague notion that if you didn't support massive increases in public safety spending, you were somehow "against" society at large. This went to all new ridiculous levels post 9/11/2001. Meanwhile, public health and injury prevention, which EMS had a chance to be a huge part of (who else in health care regularly interacts with the public at large in their homes? Even home health has an established relationship prior to ever seeing the patient) was shunned as "non-emergent", "a waste of time" "nurse work" or "bull$hit system abusers". Very simply, the people who needed our help the most were shunned as uninteresting to the adrenaline-junky culture of EMS. This is reflected in everything from our educational standards to our payment structure.

However, the seed sown is beginning to have to be reaped. Public safety is now having to live through its own cost-benefit examinations, and the results are not pretty, especially in the days of disposable buildings, excellent fire prevention strategies, mandatory sprinkler laws and evidence-based medicine. The separation from the rest of medicine means EMS never updated their practices to reflect what is modern. The refusal of to push into public health means very, very little cost benefit can be shown to the system.

Very simply, EMS must change or die. We will end up being taxi drivers if nothing further is done. It's no longer about "pay us more if you want us to do more", it's about "do more or don't have a job". Unfortunately most in EMS seem massively resistant to change, from the leaders at the top due to organizational inertia/current profit margins to the new guy hoping to have the same "sweet" career as the guys before him ("couple of years on the $hitbox and then I never have to ride it again"). The way we are headed forward is delusional.

At one point Veneficus posted about nursing taking over EMS. I was one of the "rabidly against" camp. However, the more and more I look into it and talk to the average EMS provider (not folks on here) the more I realize this is probably the best option if EMS is going to live.

 

[RanchoEMT]

firefite

firefite I think you’re missing the big picture, the theoretical “what could be” Picture that were visualizing, and I'm not saying that because your taking a different stance on the issue, but your arguments aren't making sense...

Let’s look at AMR Rancho where you did your ride along.
You have Fire Engines with 3-4 firefighters on them in this city. And you have an ambulance with a medic and an EMT.

There are three possibilities for patient care here.
1. An ambulance comes and takes the patient to the hospital providing the same care on scene and on the way that ANY medic would.
2. Fire gets on scene and provides care until an ambulance gets on scene and takes the patient to the hospital, assuming patient care all the way to the hospital.
3. Fire gets on scene and an ambulance doesn’t come and they sit there forever providing care.

First was an ambulance response, second was both an ambulance and a fire engine, third is where the problem lies. The second example has its problems to with 3-4 FF to many on scene, but example three is just stupid. The only good reason to have an engine role out is response times… Which I believe is your argument.
SURE! Currently fire can provide a quick response with medics, but that is CURRENTLY do to their city specific stationing and coverage. But why not work towards a system where an ambulance is available to respond from every city in that 3-5min. window instead of a fire engine?? We’re looking at a theoretical system in which’ let’s say in every “fire House” there is an ambulance crew. (some places already do this.) Why send an engine when you could send the ambulance??? The ambulance HAS TO COME ANYWAYS TO TAKE THE PATIENT… And if an engine responds from the same location that an ambulance does why oh why send an engine???

***Point being, Fire sticks their heads into medical matters that are none of their business. We’re not out to trample on FF’s, hell let’s take those same FF out of their bunker gear and into some blue polos and have them run some ambulance only runs. Let’s keep people who know what there doing employed.

Let’s look at a Fire dept. you may have ran with during your ride along…

Montclair fire dept.
http://www.ci.montclair.ca.us/depts/fire/current_year_to_date_calls_for_service_statistics.asp

There were over 600 Medical Calls which all of them REQUIRED an Ambulance on scene to take the patient. This is compared to 17 Fire Calls that year that REQUIRED the engine.

Once again the point is: why would an engine with FF need to respond unless requested for additional help and/or access??? Why can’t an ambulance (WAY CHEAPER) provide the same patient care that ANY medic unit would?

Doesn’t it seem that 600:17 medical calls would necessitate the need for some serious re-workings to the current system with some more emphasis put towards providing better medical care and less on the million(s) spent on the Big Red Truck and its crew???? 600 medical calls, you would think the high call volume would also necessitate the need for better salaries for the medical specific guys but what’s been set in motion must come to an abrupt and well fought stop if that’s to ever happen. i.e. pay 17:600 wage differences between FF and transporting Medics.

Side Note: HELL Why Not Put an AMBULANCE in every fire house?! Like LA City.

 

[Veneficus]

Cut for brevity.

Doesn’t it seem that 600:17 medical calls would necessitate the need for some serious re-workings to the current system with some more emphasis put towards providing better medical care and less on the million(s) spent on the Big Red Truck and its crew???? 600 medical calls, you would think the high call volume would also necessitate the need for better salaries for the medical specific guys but what’s been set in motion must come to an abrupt and well fought stop if that’s to ever happen. i.e. pay 17:600 wage differences between FF and transporting Medics.

Side Note: HELL Why Not Put an AMBULANCE in every fire house?! Like LA City.

If you want to play an interesting numbers game, if you need to staff 4 firefighter positions at a cost $50K each, which is modest when you include the benefits, that is $200,000 a year per shift to respond to medical calls.

You could get a doctor for each shift for that amount and the ability to cut down on transport would be included.