June 18, 2013

The Scene Is Not Safe

Police-tape

The phrase “scene safety” is hammered into our brains all throughout our training. Dispatchers try their best to make sure the scene of an emergency is safe before “clearing” us to make entry, we assess for hazards before making patient contact, and we watch each other’s backs at all times. We wear gloves to prevent the spread of disease, seat belts to protect us in the event of a collision and safety vests to lessen the chance of being struck by a motorist on the side of the road. We drive at safe speeds to reduce the chance of vehicle collisions, we lift with our knees instead of our backs to prevent back injuries and if somethings smells or looks funny, we leave it alone so we don’t get sick. Our biggest job is going home at the end of the day. We try our best to stay out of harms way and make it home to our families every shift.

But how do we protect ourselves from this?

Brown called 911 and said he was suffering from chest pains, and five Gwinnett County firefighters arrived at 3:48, believing it was a routine call, said Police Chief Charles Walters. Brown was lying in bed and appeared to be suffering from a condition that left him unable to move. But when they approached the bed to help him, he pulled out a handgun, Walters said.

Source: http://www.ems1.com/fire-ems/articles/1430652-Firefighter-hostage-gunman-planned-kidnapping-for-weeks/

A man calls 911 complaining of chest pain. A Routine call, right? He acts like any other patient when he speaks to dispatchers. There are no obvious dangers in front of, or inside of the residence. He is calm and presents like many of our patients do. No danger here, just a routine medical call. I can only imagine that the responders involved with this incident didn’t expect to become hostages when they reached the bedside.

I have often feared incidents like this. The fact is, we are never safe. We are easy targets and we carry what many people want. I’m not the slightest bit surprised that this happened. What does surprise me, is that this doesn’t happen more often.  It should be no surprise that a deranged individual would pick a target such as a paramedic or firefighter. They know we aren’t armed and they know we will come inside their home to any room they choose.

Fortunately, this guy had motives other than immediately killing the responders. The 4 firefighters who were shot while responding to a structure fire last December, weren’t so lucky:

WEBSTER, N.Y. — A gunman ambushed four volunteer firefighters responding to an intense pre-dawn house fire Monday morning outside Rochester, N.Y., killing two before ending up dead himself, authorities said. Police used an armored vehicle to evacuate more than 30 nearby residents.

Source: http://www.ems1.com/safety/articles/1384752-4-firefighters-shot-2-fatally-in-western-NY/

Nobody anticipates getting shot at a structure fire, and we shouldn’t have to, but that is the world we live in. There are a lot of bad people out there that wish to cause harm and we must prepare ourselves so that we can respond appropriately. There is simply no way to prevent incidents like this. There aren’t enough cops to secure every scene before we enter and we haven’t developed a way to read minds. That leaves us with 2 choices. We either continue to do business as usual and place ourselves at the mercy of people that wish to cause harm, or we prepare ourselves so that we don’t become victims. I make no secret about the fact that I support concealed carry for EMS providers, and this is exactly why. We run into the same neighborhoods and deal with the same people that the cops do, only we have no way to defend ourselves.

Any time I bring up the argument about concealed carry in EMS, I get the “we’re not cops” and “we shouldn’t be entering unsafe scenes” response. Guess what, guys? There are no safe scenes. Another popular argument is that we use “Verbal Kung Fu” to talk our way out of situations. That doesn’t do much to stop a 9mm round. We take every precaution possible to avoid placing ourselves in harm’s way, but we simply can’t stop these things from happening. In both of the cases mentioned, the responders did what any of our peers would have done. They didn’t try to be a hero or engage in conflict. They just showed up to a call for service and found themselves becoming victims.

I’m not asking anyone to “issue” guns or mandate that paramedics or firefighters carry firearms. All I’m asking is that I not have to check my right to self-defense at the time clock. If I have a legal right to carry a concealed firearm – whether it be via carry license or state law – then why can’t I continue to do so at work?

I often hear people argue that if tighter gun laws and further restrictions on private ownership could save one life, then it would be worth it. Well, let me ask you the same thing. If allowing our responders to carry a firearm could save one life, wouldn’t IT be worth it?

The CPR Saga Continues

CPRAs more details have come out regarding the “nurse” who refused to perform CPR on a resident at an independent living center, so have the mixed opinions on how the situation should have been handled. I wasn’t all that surprised to see a large amount of people – healthcare professionals included – come out in support of the decision not to initiate CPR. The truth is, elderly people often do sustain serious injuries from CPR and rarely have positive outcomes, but is it really our job to make that end-of-life determination for the patient?

Dr. Peter Boling, a professor of geriatric and internal medicine at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, said deciding not to perform CPR on a frail, elderly person, especially those with advanced conditions, may be the kindest and most appropriate response possible.
Source: http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/health/x738927148/Decision-not-to-perform-CPR-may-sometimes-be-most-humane

The problem with that statement, is that we don’t get to make that choice. As healthcare providers, we have a duty to act. I agree that CPR in the elderly and chronically ill is traumatic and rarely effective, but that needs to be discussed with the patient and family BEFORE their heart stops. Regardless of our personal beliefs, we can’t just decide on our own whether or not somebody will have any quality of life as a result of our actions.

All the talks about whether or not CPR would have beneficial in this case are irrelevant. The issue at hand here is that the person who identified herself as a nurse to 911 dispatchers refused to perform CPR because she believed it would be a violation of her company’s policies and procedures. While such a policy wouldn’t have stopped me personally from initiating CPR, I can’t really blame her for interpreting the policy the way she did. After all, her boss came out on national TV and defended her actions and stated she followed their protocols appropriately. Kinda hard to hold her accountable when her own boss doesn’t even understand the policy. If you ask me, he should be the one on voluntary leave.

The family of an elderly woman whose death ignited a wave of anger after a nurse at her senior living community refused to give CPR released a statement Tuesday saying they have no plans to sue.

Lorraine Bayless’ family said she “personally selected” Glenwood Gardens independent living facility in Bakersfield knowing there were not “trained medical staff” and that she wanted to “die naturally…without any kind of life-prolonging intervention.”
Source: “http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/health/x837006764/Family-We-dont-intend-to-sue-Glenwood-Gardens

I’m putting this one back on the family. If this is how they felt, they should have signed a DNR. A simple piece of paper would have saved all the controversy and drama. They bear a large part of the responsibility for this event.

I hope this story helps to make people realize the importance of making these decisions with their loved ones before these traumatic events happen. End of life decisions need to be made with the family, not the healthcare provider.

No CPR For You

soupnaziForgive me for the Seinfeld reference…..

I enjoy following the news of my hometown. It’s nice to keep on the politics and to see what my good friends in public safety have been up to since I left. Unfortunately my little moments of nostalgia are sometimes interrupted by little gems like this:

A Kern 9-1-1 dispatcher begged a nurse to attempt CPR on an elderly resident of one of Bakersfield’s most prestigious retirement communities, but the nurse refused, according a recording released Friday. “Is there anybody that’s willing to help this lady and not let her die?” the dispatcher asked. “Not at this time,” the nurse responded. The patient died.

Dramatic 911 tape reveals dispatcher’s fight to save patient

Having dispatcher-led CPR refused isn’t news. I respond to calls all the time where the caller refuses to attempt CPR. This isn’t limited to public places. I have seen family members flat refuse to help, but that’s another story for another time. What bothers me about this story isn’t the fact that the employee refused to comply with the dispatcher. She was only following policy. My issue is that the facility not only doesn’t train their employees in CPR, but they flat out prohibit them from even attempting it? If this is an “independent living facility” that doesn’t handle medical affairs, then why did they have a nurse on staff?

I can somewhat understand not training employees in CPR due to cost and I emphasize the word “somewhat”. There are grant programs out there for CPR training and I’m fairly certain that Good Samaritan laws would protect lay-rescuers in these types of situations. I just can’t wrap my head around prohibiting employees from even attempting CPR.

I’m going to refrain from criticizing the actions of the staff at the patient’s side. I wasn’t there and I don’t know for sure if the patient had a pulse, or any signs of life. I’m limited by the information that the media provides and we all know how mainstream news organizations never leave out important details.

In my years in healthcare and EMS, I have seen people refuse CPR for many reasons, but this is the first time I have ever seen it refused due to policy. Has anyone else come across a scenario like this? Is anyone familiar with policies like this and why they are implemented?

I hope that this isn’t common practice with independent living facilities. If it is, I certainly hope that this story sparks some positive change in the industry.

 

 

Stealing Is Stealing

WALBRIDGE — Lake Township Fire Chief Todd Walters and two firefighters/paramedics have resigned amid a township police investigation into intravenous-fluid bags of saline being taken from a department fire hall to treat an intoxicated off-duty police officer.

http://www.toledoblade.com/Police-Fire/2013/02/22/Chief-2-others-quit-Lake-Twp-Fire-Department-amid-investigation-of-IV-treatment-after-reception.html

After reading this story, I wasn’t the slightest bit surprised by the outcome. Sure, helping a brother out with a couple bags of saline is pretty low on the severity scale, but it doesn’t change the fact that they stole from their employer. What did surprise me is all the comments from people that were blown away by the fact that these guys lost their jobs.

When I was 15 years old, I had an after-school job working at McDonalds. When I got hired, they made it very clear that stealing at any level was a terminal offense. If we so much as consumed a single french fry without permission, we would be fired on the spot. Well, one of my buddies was spotted eating a pickle slice and they help up their end of the deal.

Getting fired for eating a pickle may sound about as ridiculous as getting fired over taking a $10 saline bag, but the perceived severity of the incident is irrelevant. If you get caught taking something that doesn’t belong to you, you’re going to lose your job.

I’m not trying to judge anyone here because my hands aren’t exactly clean. I have done my fair share of questionable behavior since I started in this career. I’m just trying to point out the obvious.

Privatizing Detroit EMS

The City of Detroit has been facing some serious financial issues over recent years, and now they are faced with running out of cash before their fiscal year is over. It’s a pretty big deal. I’m not exactly sure how they got into this situation, but if I had to make a guess, I would say they spent more money than they took in (as if there’s any other way?). One of the major side effects from their financial woes is a horribly broken EMS system. Ambulances sitting idle because they can’t afford to fix them, response times to critical calls exceeding an hour in some cases, poor employee morale, and a bad working environment are just a few problems that the public can see.

The video cannot be shown at the moment. Please try again later.

With the state jumping in to fix the problem, city officials now have some serious changes to make. Privatizing the EMS system is now on the table as a big possibility. Personally, I think it should have been on the table a long time ago, but that’s neither here nor there at this point. The talking heads at City Hall say it will save money while the union heads say it will cost the city money. So which is it?

There are a lot of details I don’t know about Detroit’s EMS system so I can only speculate based on some assumptions, so if I’m wrong about something, please feel free to correct me.

It’s pretty obvious at this point that Detroit EMS operates at a loss. This isn’t much of a surprise to me given the unemployment rate in Detroit and the fact that 911 simply isn’t a money-making enterprise. It’s very rare to find an EMS system that actually makes money on 911 calls alone. Where the money is usually made is event standbys and inter-facility transfers. Most private ambulance services use both to offset their losses from the 911 calls.

I’m not sure if Detroit EMS runs inter-facility or just 911, but I’m going to assume they only run 911. If I’m correct, then it is going to be virtually impossible for any service – whether it be public or private – to operate without a subsidy. So what can they do? Well 2 viable options exist. They can either pay a private service a fixed subsidy to run the 911 calls, or they can pay them no subsidy and give them exclusive rights to the inter-facility transfers and 911 calls. Personally, I think the second option is better at this point.

They can set performance requirements as a condition of the contract. These might include response times, minimum staffing, complaint resolution, etc. The service that wins the bid is required to operate within their budget and meet the requirements of the contract. I have seen this type of exclusive operating contract work very well in several areas, including a few that I have personally worked in. Where things usually go wrong, is when the city decides to start over-regulating the ambulance service to the point that they can’t afford to operate without a subsidy. At that point your right back to square one.

If the City of Detroit goes through with this decision, then my advice to the city is this:

Pick a good company with a good reputation. There are plenty of them out there. Give that company exclusive rights to all emergency and non-emergency responses within the city limits. Set reasonable requirements and hold them to it. After you do all that, stay the hell out of their way. Don’t start trying to fix something that isn’t broke.

I’m sure plenty people will disagree with me on privatization, but we do know that the public system isn’t working for them. The city has proven itself incapable of keeping a balanced budget, so why not wash their hands of it and allow someone else to manage the EMS operations? I really hope the best for the EMT’s and Paramedics working in Detroit. We’ll see what happens in the next couple months.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

 A paramedic raped a woman as she lay unconscious and strapped to a stretcher in the back of an ambulance on the way to a hospital, police said Friday.

If you haven’t read the story of a Conn. Paramedic Accused of Sexual Assault you should. The article published by the Associated Press leaves a bit to be desired, but the article found on a local news source paints a little bit of a better picture and has video of the interview with police officials.

I’m not particularly pleased with the reporting of this story as pretty much every news outlet involved has tried and found this paramedic to be guilty. But then again, objective reporting is rarity these days so I shouldn’t be all that surprised.  What’s more upsetting, is the comments provided by the local police department and his own employer:

“The allegations in this case represent outrageous and horrifying conduct by an emergency medical professional,” Wydra said. “Our society places the greatest level of trust and confidence in its public safety providers, and the circumstances in this case reflect a tremendous breach of that faith.

This quote from the police chief is something that I would expect AFTER a guilty verdict. In the event that new evidence clears this medics name or if he is found to be not-guilty, will the police chief issue an apology? Probably not. The problem with this kind of reporting is that it essentially destroys his reputation, whether or not he is guilty. He may very well be innocent and have his charges dropped, but these articles will remain and will ultimately cause trouble for him when he applies for jobs, school, etc.

Having worked as a supervisor for a rather large ambulance service, I fielded more complaints than I can count. Some of them were legitimate and many were bogus. On several occasions, I had employees accused of assault, battery, theft, and even sexual assault. In fact, I even know of one paramedic that was arrested due to allegations of sexual assault on a minor. His name was dragged around through the mud until the charges were dropped due to several inconsistencies in the “victim’s” stories. He was cleared back to work, but the allegations haunted him for years later.

I try to look at cases like this with an open mind. I know that while the over-whelming majority of EMS professionals are honest people, we still have a few bad eggs circulating out there. However, I can’t ignore the fact that we often transport less-than-honest individuals. I’m not saying the accuser in this situation isn’t honest. For all I know, she may be telling to truth. From my personal experience, allegations of illegal activity are more often than not found to be bogus. I’m very curious as to what evidence was sufficient enough to issue an arrest warrant.

There are several questions that aren’t being answered, and probably won’t be until the case reaches trial. Allegations alone aren’t enough for me to formulate an opinion on what happened.

A few things I want know:

  • What was the transport time?
    -Was there enough time for this to actually take place?
  • Did the partner witness anything?
    -
    I can’t imagine that a woman waking up to being raped would go unnoticed by the paramedic’s partner.
  • Was the patient under the influence of alcohol or drugs?
    -This alone doesn’t prove innocence or guilt, but it’s an important thing to evaluate when investigating these cases.
  • Does the paramedic in question have any prior complaints or reprimands for similar incidents?
    -When things like this come to light (assuming it’s true), it’s rarely the first time.
There are a few things mentioned in the article that raise an eyebrow. For example:
“While being transported to the hospital, she awoke in the ambulance to find an AMR employee sexually assaulting her,” Smith said. Because the woman was strapped to the stretcher, she could neither move nor speak, he said. “She was helpless at the time of the assault,” he said.
Strapped to the stretcher? The article claimed that she was transported for a head injury, so was she in c-spine or actual restraints? If she was in restraints, was there an indication for it like combativeness? Were the restraints placed on scene or in the ambulance?
Unable to move or speak? I’m not exactly sure how this would be possible. Was she chemically restrained? Is it even possible to perform said acts with someone who is in c-spine and / or placed in 4-point restraints on an ambulance gurney? These are all things that I can only hope the prosecution looks at.
I certainly hope that these accusations are false, and if the paramedic in question is actually guilty, then I hope justice is served. Likewise, I hope the accuser faces serious consequences if it turns out that the allegations are false. What’s most important here is that we don’t jump to conclusions before we know all the facts.

Define Discrimination….

The jobs of three EVAC employees with more than 30 years of combined experience are up in smoke after they were found in violation of the county’s nicotine policy, a county spokesman confirmed Saturday.

If you haven’t read the article, read it here: http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/local/west-volusia/2011/12/18/volusia-paramedics-fired-for-smoking.html

I’ll start off by saying that legally, the terminations are valid and will most likely not be overturned. Whether you agree with the policy or not, it’s still written policy with clear language for what happens if you violate said policy. So yes, I think it’s sad that these experienced paramedics lost their jobs, but you can’t knowingly violate the rules and not expect to suffer the consequences.

Now, having said that, I must say that I think the policy is 100% BS.

“I was terminated for something I do at home and is perfectly legal,” said Mike Stone, who had worked as a paramedic for EVAC for 5 1/2 years.

I completely agree. As of right now, smoking is still legal and it doesn’t impair your ability to think rationally or function in the workplace. If they don’t want their employees smoking while on duty, then that’s OK. They have that right. But to try and dictate what their employees do in their personal lives is plain wrong.

For many of us, a nicotine-free policy wouldn’t have any affect, but what’s important is that the employer has already demonstrated that they are willing to tell you what you can and can’t do in your own time. Sure, it might not affect me now, but what happens when they decide that they don’t want to hire anyone that consumes caffeine or alcohol on their days off?

Smokers may not be a “protected classification” but I still view policies like this as discriminatory. Regardless of how much they spin this as an attempt to improve the health and well-being of their employees, it still comes down to them determining employment eligibility based on lifestyle choices. Of course, they won’t put people with high cholesterol on the chopping block, because that would most likely eliminate all of management. Eliminating people because they have bad habits seems fine and well until it’s THEIR bad habit that makes the hit list.

Maybe I’m just old-school, but I would think they would be better off addressing things like work performance or attendance. Then again, I’m just a dumb-ass paramedic, what do I know?

This week in EMS news

Here are some hand picked, EMS news stories for the week of 10/10/2010.