Yet another Scene Safety debate

[LucidResq]

'Scene safe' protocol keeps Aurora Fire paramedics from helping man bleeding to death

Having just been shot three times, Adam Fisher lay on the ground, bleeding from his arm, his face and both legs. His friends had called 911 and waited for Aurora Fire paramedics to arrive. But they would not come because they hadn't heard the words "scene safe."

Fisher and his friends believe paramedics should have risked their lives that night to help him, even though it was not clear if the suspect, James Pellouchoud, had been arrested.

which he was not... he was in the apartment right next door..

 

[JPINFV]

My problem is when I get to this point in the article.

At that point, Yorchak and Sgt. Jad Lanigan decided to save Fisher themselves. They hauled him down the stairs to the curb and left him bleeding in the grass while they once again called for help. The paramedics refused to meet them outside the building because they still hadn't heard the words "scene safe."

"It's as safe as it's going to get," Yorkchak told the dispatcher. "It's up to them whether they want to get here or not."

They did not. So the officers hoisted Fisher into the back of a police cruiser and drove him to the ambulance, which was waiting about a mile away from the scene. From there, Fisher was treated and taken to a hospital.

There are inherant risks involved with the job that no amount of having someone say "scene safe" is going to solve.

 

[Akulahawk]

What we don't know is if that particular Captain has (in the past) had his backside chewed out repeatedly because of violating the "scene safe" policy. Get stung a few times and you won't want to get stung again. Maybe that Captain was working when a fellow Firefighter had been killed while attempting to help someone and was the cause of the "scene safe" policy... We just don't know.

Where I work now, the FD will stage away from any scene of violence and wait for LE to secure the scene. Sometimes this results in a 20-30 minute wait for LE to show up. Fortunately, there hasn't yet been a bad outcome from this policy... and most of the blowback won't be on the FD or the Sheriff's Department when that happens.

 

[CAOX3]

I don't even understand, if determined the scene isn't safe we don't go in.

seems pretty simple to me.

God how many providers need to be killed or injured to get this point across.

Enter an active shooter scene, you got about as much chance of that happening as you do Mr Brown swooping out of the sky in his fancy jumpsuit and and doing a little jig for you.

Inherent risk is falling out of the truck or getting a paper cut. Not dodging bullets on the way to the obituaries.

 

[Chimpie]

God how many providers need to be killed or injured to get this point across.

I don't think it's the number of providers that need to be killed or injured to get the point across. I think the question is, "How do we get the point across?" How do we get the message out there that Fire and EMS don't respond to scenes like this until it is determined safe to do so by law enforcement?

One suggestion: Make sure Fire and EMS Public Information Officers (PIOs) are doing their jobs, keeping the public informed on why medics (general term) do what they do. If there is a story in the paper or on tv about medics not responding to the scene, the PIO should be out there the same day or next giving their point of view.

 

[TexasRattler]

Agreed. The media will turn the words around as will citizens in the community. "They refused to show up and treat him knowing he was dieing" however what they don't know is not only are we not supposed to. Why would we? What good are we to our patients if we ourselves BECOME a patient.......and frankly I love the work I do as EMS. But my girl is waiting on me to come home......And i'm goin home safely. no if ands or buts about it

Now on the other hand. If they would allow me to carry at work...and give me the approval to protect myself and my crew at all costs....I would definately go in to a scene that isn't safe. But thats because i can protect myself...

 

[Sam Adams]

I don't think it's the number of providers that need to be killed or injured to get the point across. I think the question is, "How do we get the point across?" How do we get the message out there that Fire and EMS don't respond to scenes like this until it is determined safe to do so by law enforcement?

One suggestion: Make sure Fire and EMS Public Information Officers (PIOs) are doing there jobs, keeping the public informed on why medics (general term) do what they do. If there is a story in the paper or on tv about medics not responding to the scene, the PIO should be out there the same day or next giving their point of view.

Exactly what I was going to say.

Now about getting our yahoo cowboy/ girl co-workers to adhere to the scene safety mantra ....

 

[CAOX3]

I don't think it's the number of providers that need to be killed or injured to get the point across. I think the question is, "How do we get the point across?" How do we get the message out there that Fire and EMS don't respond to scenes like this until it is determined safe to do so by law enforcement?

Agreed.

 

[Aidey]

I don't think it's the number of providers that need to be killed or injured to get the point across. I think the question is, "How do we get the point across?" How do we get the message out there that Fire and EMS don't respond to scenes like this until it is determined safe to do so by law enforcement?

One suggestion: Make sure Fire and EMS Public Information Officers (PIOs) are doing their jobs, keeping the public informed on why medics (general term) do what they do. If there is a story in the paper or on tv about medics not responding to the scene, the PIO should be out there the same day or next giving their point of view.

I've noticed that whenever we (EMS and Fire) end up in the news here because of something like this, even with the PIO explaining, people still think we should have gone in. No one has died in this area (that I know of) but a couple of times there have been issues. Public opinion seems to be that we should risk our lives to do our jobs.

Honestly, you can't be too careful. One of the last major crime scene/trauma calls I went on PD told us the scene was clear....30 seconds after we went inside the assailant came around the side of the building.

 

[CAOX3]

I'm really not concerned with public perception. They can think what they want, educating them on what we do can help but whatever their opinion is if I deem it not safe thats the end of the conversation.

These calls really represent a small percentage , the majority of our call go off without a hitch. In the rare occurence when a scene isn't safe you will find me around the corner, when you finish doing your job (cops) let me know then I'll do m
ine.

If you believe I'm going to risk the safety of my crew to pacify the public your out of your mind.

 

[ffemt8978]

Damned if you don't, killed if you do...

http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=12211

 

[Veneficus]

As my EMT-B instructor often said:

"Always ask yourself how this is going to look on the 6pm news."

In hindsight there are better ways to handle these situations.

But remember, as the years have gone by, first responders have been accepting less and less risk while demanding more respect and taking advantage of the public endorsement as "heroes" post 911. Many of those heroes, like their predecesors with such title died.

It seems fairly easy to see where sooner or later there is going to be a major let down when it comes to public perception and trust.

Putting on my old man hair for a minute...

It is much better to remain modest in the eyes of the public than it is to tout your hero status, becase sooner or later the piper will have to be payed and you may not be comfortable with the price.

 

[LucidResq]

There are inherant risks involved with the job that no amount of having someone say "scene safe" is going to solve.

I absolutely agree with you.

I can't comment too much on this one, but I will say that errors were made on both sides.

The only thing I don't like is this growing media thing (maybe I'm just imagining it) casting a negative light on firefighters/EMTs/medics that don't rush in to scenes of violent crimes. I think it's just a bad precedent and I hope that it doesn't continue to snowball.

I'm really not concerned with public perception.

The only problem with that is our EMTs come from the public. If this becomes a widespread perception people might start coming in to the field thinking they have to put their safety on the back burner.

Also our job is to be public servants. If the public perceives we're doing a bad job, then in some ways, we are.

 

[JPINFV]

The only thing I don't like is this growing media thing (maybe I'm just imagining it) casting a negative light on firefighters/EMTs/medics that don't rush in to scenes of violent crimes. I think it's just a bad precedent and I hope that it doesn't continue to snowball.

While I agree with the sentiment, what I find interesting about this specific case is that the police on scene were saying, 'The scene is safe enough to load and leave.' I think that makes this case fundamentally different than the other recent cases. Care doesn't always need to be initiated immediately on scene. If the immediate area is secure (note, secure and safe are different), then I can agree with the argument that the best course of action is to enter, load, leave, initiate care elsewhere.

 

[LucidResq]

No, I totally agree with you in reference to this current case. I guess the headline and various other dramatic spins put a bad taste in my mouth: "'Scene safe' keeps firefighters from helping man bleeding to death," especially when they selectively left out lots of details.

but what else can you expect from the media, I suppose...

 

[BLSBoy]

Staged a mile away? I hope that was a new misprint, and not actual info.

Where do most of the assault on EMS provider incidents occur? At shooting/stabbings or at routine medical calls?
We can't clamor for more "safety" on the gory sounding ones then go solo on the ones where we get injured the most.

 

[Aerin-Sol]

If the police were able to load the guy in the back of their cruiser, why didn't they arrange to meet the firefighters at a safe location?

 

[eynonqrs]

Well, if the city/county/township govt's are raising bloody hell about this and the media blowing everything into left field. Here are some of my thoughts:

They should do a ride along for a week and see what :censored::censored::censored::censored: we go through. How we are overworked, underpaid [or not paid] for that matter.

They should see pt's that spit in our face, call us every name in the book, swing at us, threaten us.

A true story, a crew went to some home for a pt in cardiac arrest. The pt was an obvious DOA, but the family was so hell bent on bringing the pt back, that the had a knife on the medic's neck and was going to do harm if no action was taken.

How about the scum of the earth that would call in false calls, just so they could try and steal drugs out of the rigs ?

How about the crews on an accident scene on the highway and almost getting hit, hurt or killed because :censored::censored::censored::censored::censored::censored::censored: drivers are in a hurry to get nowhere or are too busy rubbernecking !

With govt's cutting costs, they go first to emergency services. The city that my service provides for is laying off fire brigade and police. Where my base is there have been several fights, stabbings, robberies, shots fired, etc... Now waiting for a radio car might take even longer.

When is the John/Jane Q public and the gov't don't see us that way.

That is all.