|
Post by Medic13 on Nov 28, 2006 5:36:18 GMT -5
In this county, rescue is to be dispatched on all vehicle type incidents, including vehicle vs pedestrian and ATV accidents. Some folks have expressed a concern that rescue shouldn't be dispatched for incidents that don't sound like they need it. The popular opinion, which I agree with, is that it certainly can't hurt to get them coming then cancel if not needed. Also, caller information is notoriously inaccurate, and the caller rarely speaks to everyone involved before calling. The rescue doesn't just do extrication, it acts as an additional rescource for both fire and EMS. This is why many non-rescue fire departments have specifically requested that rescue be dispatced to all incidents that could possibly require the rescource, even when entrapment is not indicated.
What's your opinion? Can a caller who indicates that rescue isn't needed be trusted?
|
|
|
Post by firefrog on Nov 28, 2006 11:12:27 GMT -5
I have to agree with the Doc. Most of the time things are a lot different when on scene than when called in,
|
|
NT1
Full Member
Administrator
Be part of the solution not the problem.
Posts: 80
|
Post by NT1 on Nov 28, 2006 12:04:42 GMT -5
Keep the rescue coming until a competent person recalls you. We will not get into who that might be) There are many variables to consider when dealing with rescue. A rescue carries or should carry more than just extrication tools.
For example, If North Towanda is dispatched you will usually have three EMT-B's responding that can provide patient care until EMS arrives.
|
|
|
Post by fireman31 on Nov 29, 2006 19:46:16 GMT -5
i whole heartedly agree with NT3 and doc. there are times that even if you don't necessarily need the rescue but the crew on board could be the only people coming to help you with the scene.
|
|
|
Post by 911wacker on Nov 30, 2006 23:36:44 GMT -5
In this county, rescue is to be dispatched on all vehicle type incidents, including vehicle vs pedestrian and ATV accidents. Some folks have expressed a concern that rescue shouldn't be dispatched for incidents that don't sound like they need it. The popular opinion, which I agree with, is that it certainly can't hurt to get them coming then cancel if not needed. Also, caller information is notoriously inaccurate, and the caller rarely speaks to everyone involved before calling. The rescue doesn't just do extrication, it acts as an additional rescource for both fire and EMS. This is why many non-rescue fire departments have specifically requested that rescue be dispatced to all incidents that could possibly require the rescource, even when entrapment is not indicated. What's your opinion? Can a caller who indicates that rescue isn't needed be trusted? Yes this is all true, caller information usually sucks, people always want to be dispatched first and common sense sometimes gets put aside. I can't tell you the number of times I have been dispatched along with everyone else for a motor vehicle accident that is reported with "possibly no injury". Is this really needed? Can we not just send the closest BLS or ALS transport capable ambulance (non-emergent) to confirm along with law enforcement? [glow=red,2,300]NOPE, instead we send everyone which may include up to 4 different agencies (fire, rescue, BLS ambulance and ALS unit). What a waste.[/glow] Now you have a million + dollars worth of equipment rolling at mach 3 to obtain a refusal. Yes its policy and the dispatchers are just doing there job, but maybe this policy should be looked at agian. And while we are on the subject, what about some of the wise fire personell who are called to a property damage MVC to direct traffic and request that the ambulance be disptched to "check someone out" when the people don't want to be checked out. Some of these wise fire personell have blamed liability on there part...........but I have news for them, THEY HAVE NO liability cause they aren't an ambulance service and its not there job to treat/transport the sick and injured. They are supposed to be there to direct traffic and handle hazards like fuel spills but instead they complicate a simple situation. No this doesn't happen all the time but each and every one of you reading this can think of a few instances this has happened. Now stepping off my soap box......And by the way......I am curious to know what a competent person would be considered regarding the recalling of rescues?
|
|
|
Post by Medic13 on Dec 1, 2006 3:05:07 GMT -5
In hindsight it's often a waste, but where is the line drawn between safety and practicality? Seems like that line frequently comes up in Fire and EMS Heck, I almost got burned just recently. Caller reported no injury or entrapment and just wanted police. I sent everyone anyway, because the caller wasn't the patient. Turns out she actually rolled the vehicle and required extrication. Wanna guess who would have taken the heat if everyone wasn't sent out? Since most departments want rescue dispatched for all MVA type calls, maybe it should be looked at on the department level instead of the county level. If a department doesn't want their rescue to roll for the low-budget sounding calls, maybe their command should make the decision and hold rescue at station until a scene report is given. I'll agree with the other issue sterm. It's ridiculous when fire and PD request EMS to "check out" patients who don't want an ambulance. If the patient doesn't want to go to the hospital, there is nothing EMS can do. EMS can't force a person to go, and they certainly can't tell a patient he/she doesn't have to. I can understand if the patient obviously has a serious injury, but it's almost always just for a refusal. As for who can cancel a rescue... tough call. Some rescue departments allow any fire officer to cancel, others only want their officers to cancel. I guess it all depends on the quality of the department you are assisting.
|
|
|
Post by 911wacker on Dec 1, 2006 4:11:24 GMT -5
You can what if a situation to death, sometimes bad things happen.
As emergency responders we have a vast cash of resources available for our use at any given time, but to use the shotgun approach and overuse resources all the time is a waste.
Sorta like an ambulance being dispatched to watch fireman google at a power line arcing and burning.............no reason, wasting a valuable resourse that could otherwise be performong vital functions......like treating the sick and injured. The reasoning I am told thats behind this is "in case" a fireman gets injured.....well isn't that the reason they are there in the first place to keep the general public from falling prey to the already identified hazard that they themselves should be avoiding?
Like I always say, common sense ain't to common!!
|
|
|
Post by Medic13 on Dec 1, 2006 6:25:09 GMT -5
Ok, I'll bite. What basis would you suggest be used for dispatching rescue and/or EMS to an MVA? Should the dispatcher believe a bystander, or only a person involved? Should the dispatcher take the word of that one person involved that the folks in the other car are alright, or shoud they talk to everyone else also? There was a time when a valley police department wanted to assess MVA's before any fire or ems is dispatched. What's your thoughts on that?
I agree with the pole sparking junk. No reason to have an ambulance for a call like that. A firefighter is more likely to get injured responding to the call than at a pole fire, or dumpster fire, or a fuel leak, ect. That would be something the chiefs would have to discuss, as I'm pretty sure it's their call when and when not to have a bus.
|
|
|
Post by FIREFIGHTER16 on Dec 1, 2006 14:47:06 GMT -5
i kinda like having everyone going even if its 4 or 5 different agencies. you can always turn the ALS or rescue around so they can go in service, so it doesn't turn into a wasted resource. i guess i would never of thought that getting more than 2 agencies going to 1 mva a waste. if there needed, great! if they are not need, thats fine too. let the first fire officer on scene recall rescue or advise them that they prolly wont be needed and leave that up to ems command if ems runs rescue. or have a EMT thats on scene recall ALS if not needed, its not really a waste.
|
|
24wacker1
Full Member
Can't we all just get along?
Posts: 77
|
Post by 24wacker1 on Dec 1, 2006 17:01:38 GMT -5
I'm going to have to agree with Thad on this one. I was taught in my EMT class to err on the side of the patient. I would rather have EMS called if nothing more than to offer to check the patient out. Sometimes, once the patient sees that the ambulance is on scene, they'll let you check them out. And as far as a million + dollars in apparatus responding at mach 3 for a refusal, the drivers of that apparatus should have learned before they got behind the wheel, of how to drive to a refusal accident. If they are running hot to an mva with a scene report of no injuries and no entrapment, then maybe it's time for officers to re-evaluate their drivers. Now just my 2 cents on recalling rescue. My opinion of a competant person would be a person with an EMT or BVR certification number to give to the dispatcher. Nobody else!! Now, in the valley, most of the time even after you recall rescue, the rescue still continues in to the scene, most of the time still running hot. That's fine, as long as Bradford County EOC has on record that incident command has recalled rescue, they can drive that truck right in, just as long as the I.C. has eliminated the liability from his or her dept. Not meant to pi** anyone off, just my two cents.
|
|
Valley2
Junior Member
DUTY...Above Everything Else But HONOR
Posts: 15
|
Post by Valley2 on Dec 1, 2006 22:02:59 GMT -5
[/color]" I guess I would like to add a few things regarding the above statement. As far as recalling rescue. People need to remember that GVEMS Rescue responds from an EMS based system and not a fire department. It also means that it is responding with additional medical personnel, additional equipment, lighting and is a vehicle that is used for safety of the EMS/ Fire/ Police providers already on scene. Just because there is no entrapment, doesn't necessarily mean it should be recalled!! As far as GVEMS, I can assure you that quite a few times there is no need for fire apparatus to respond however I do not feel it is my decision or my officers to recall them. I/ we will call the mutual aid officer enroute and advise him/ her of the situation and allow him/her to make that call. As I feel should be the case for Rescue/ EMS. As far as Rescue-7 responding in hot when it has been canceled, It is a guideline within our agency, unless you are recalled by a GVEMS Officer/ EMT/ Paramedic the Rescue will continue in. As far as it running in "hot" I can say that GVEMS responds in the appropriate mode 99% of the time. I'm not saying we are perfect but the personnel know when to respond in hot" and when to come in at a reduced rate. This is not intended in any way to step on toes or point fingers, this is just for clarification purposes only.
|
|
|
Post by fireman31 on Dec 2, 2006 10:56:28 GMT -5
well i think that if the call comes in as possibly no entrapment & a mutual aid rescue is called then as soon as the on scene report says to recall then that piece of equipment should recall. if manpower is needed then the officer on scene or first person on scene should give the report with notification to keep equipment coming. i also feel that if a crew is called for mutual aid the only ones that should be doing recalls are the members of the primary dept. NO-ONE ELSE... I absolutely feel that all required apparatus for what the caller gives is a great thing. as long as when the first unit on scene give a report in sufficient time and understands that if you aren't sure keep all units coming that are on there way. also if a known responding officer isn't on scene do not ask that officer questions about the scene he/she can't give you any information that they can't see. just my opinion
|
|
|
Post by 911wacker on Dec 2, 2006 20:17:34 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]Fact-[/glow] Each service in the county that runs rescue has a different policy (or lack of policy) regarding how and who can recall them.
[glow=red,2,300]Fact-[/glow] Everyone wants it like McDonalds, their way or not at all.
[glow=red,2,300]Remedy-[/glow] Form a sub-committee of BOTH the fire chiefs association and EMS council to form a COUNTY wide policy for responses and cancellation of rescue units. And of course the 911 center would be represented as well.
In my humble opinion the Rescue services in the county vary greatly in capability not just from a manpower and training issue but from a lack of proper equipment. A resolve to this would be a more thorough policy regarding rescue, or simply use the states voluntary rescue program as the model. When was the last time qualifications for Rescue designation in the county were looked at and how was the current criteria arrived at?
|
|
|
Post by fireman31 on Dec 3, 2006 8:37:07 GMT -5
good point Scott. that sounds like a plan that needs to be fallowed threw with.
|
|
Nick
Full Member
OIF Veteran 2006
Posts: 46
|
Post by Nick on Aug 10, 2009 13:02:20 GMT -5
I can't believe I missed this thread before! Here's my 2 cents: If a call comes into the 911 center with someone actually on the scene, (eyes and ears are good enough qualification), who reports an MVA with no one still in the vehicle, then rescue should not be dispatched. I understand that rescue trucks can do more than just extraction, but that's not what they are being dispatched for. To send them unecessarily just because it will mean more EMT's on scene or more lighting is no different than sending 2 of every agency to each call.
Now, having said that, there are exceptions. This is where the dispatchers have to make a judgement call; (the kind of judgement that everyone wants to take away from the job with protocols that send half the county to every incident.) Let's say Dept 15 had an MVA with no entrapment, but with injuries. Let's say Memorial EMS was on third due. In that situation, if I was dispatching, I would probably send NT's rescue also just because of the medical assistance they can provide and the speed they can get there. Of course there would be mutual aid EMS going as well, but that is the kind of situation that is the exception. Saying "our rescue should be dispatched to every MVA" is not the answer.
|
|