Why you want a paramedic in the field and not a doc

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
kellkitten said:
As to the C-spine. After evaluating a pt post-MVA, there were no palpatory/visual/symptomatic findings at all that would warrent a C-spine. The pt. was also up and walking around and was wanting to sign a refusal to transport. We strapped him down anyway and found out he had a fx of C2-4. This happened two other times. One pt. eventually died. Though in most cases it should be ok to rule out C-spine, X-ray vision we don't have. I know it's rare, but I always try to error on the side of caution when a MOI suggests a potential risk.

I researched this during medical school and found only 2 reports of asymptomatic c-spine injuries where there was no distracting injuries present.

Your case is a potential case report. Perhaps you should write it up?

I stand by my assertion that patients should be triaged based on physiologic signs and not mechanism of injury. The Canadian C-spine Rules take into account mechanism of injury, but it ends up in way too many patients being x-rayed. Missing 1 in 5,000 c-spine injuries is a good enough number to allow selective c-spine immobilization and c-spine clearance.

Again, asymptomatic c-spine injuries are very rare in patients who do not have distracting injuries, altered mental status, or are not intoxicated.

Members don't see this ad.
 
southerndoc said:
I researched this during medical school and found only 2 reports of asymptomatic c-spine injuries where there was no distracting injuries present.

Your case is a potential case report. Perhaps you should write it up?

I stand by my assertion that patients should be triaged based on physiologic signs and not mechanism of injury. The Canadian C-spine Rules take into account mechanism of injury, but it ends up in way too many patients being x-rayed. Missing 1 in 5,000 c-spine injuries is a good enough number to allow selective c-spine immobilization and c-spine clearance.

Again, asymptomatic c-spine injuries are very rare in patients who do not have distracting injuries, altered mental status, or are not intoxicated.

SouthernDoc ... what is your opinion of the NEXUS criteria?

They seem to be targeted more for stuff that we can use prehospital. Is the canadian the same one in BTLS? I thought that was the something to do with "maine".

I agree with you on the mechanism of injury ... with new car design it really isn't very useful because people walk away from hellacious wrecks that would have killed them 15 years ago.

As far as large falls I think it is still relatively predictable people will be injured.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
viostorm said:
I think there is a significant difference between "clearing c-spine" and deciding who needs to a backboard ... although subtle.

I look at BTLS criteria (no distracting injury, good neuro, minor MOI) as deciding the necessity to immobilize, not ruling in or out injury.

Clearing c-spine to me is done by ER physician with the exams that may include radiographic evaluation and other protocols.

I think it is pretty standard to follow BTLS criteria, but actually taking a collar off someone with injury to head, neck, back or face I don't see being standard in EMS.

That being said ... in my system ... everyone with a mechanism of injury gets a board ... I mean, we can RSI but can't decide who needs a board. Oh, and we can't get a refusal without supervisors or medical command. Some things in West Texas are very progressive, but some things are just bass ackwards. But ... you gotta do what the boss says.

If you clear c-spine in the field with the verbal order of a physician, then there will be no clearing of the c-spine in the ED. Therefore, it is the same thing.

Obviously if you do not use a c-collar and backboard because you have cleared the c-spine, then no radiographs will be taken or an examination by the physican. If the exam or radiographs are needed, then you probably should have put the c-collar on in the first place.

I worked in Central and North Texas, by the way.
 
bstone said:
It's best to use two non ascultation methods of confirmation. It's sometimes hard to heard lung sounds and certainly in the back of the bus with the siren blarring.
Agree on the hard to hear part - but you damn well better document at some point that you've heard breath sounds. And it would be preferable to secure your airway before transport, unless they crash enroute.
 
OSUdoc08 said:
If you clear c-spine in the field with the verbal order of a physician, then there will be no clearing of the c-spine in the ED. Therefore, it is the same thing.

Obviously if you do not use a c-collar and backboard because you have cleared the c-spine, then no radiographs will be taken or an examination by the physican. If the exam or radiographs are needed, then you probably should have put the c-collar on in the first place.

I worked in Central and North Texas, by the way.

I understand what you are saying ... to me:

I think "clearing" c-spine says "you don't have an unstable spine fracture"

I think "not immobilizing" says "studies suggest don't have an injury that requires immobilization between here and the ED"

I think it is the difference between "diagnosis" and "treatment" as paramedics. Paramedics shouldn't diagnose, they should follow protocols and treat.
 
viostorm said:
I understand what you are saying ... to me:

I think "clearing" c-spine says "you don't have an unstable spine fracture"

I think "not immobilizing" says "studies suggest don't have an injury that requires immobilization between here and the ED"

I think it is the difference between "diagnosis" and "treatment" as paramedics. Paramedics shouldn't diagnose, they should follow protocols and treat.

Although true, if the paramedic is on the phone with the medical director when they clear c-spine, it is a diagnosis.
 
corpsmanUP said:
Have you ever really looked at an RN's education? There is virtually no critical thinking taught in RN programs, and in fact I would argue that medics get more of this than RN's get. RN training is littered with nursing care plans and a whole lot of complete BS that most nurses will tell you helped them zero! I can tell you that docs NEVER read the nursing care plans in the chart because they are complete trash. There are some places in the hospital where the nurses routinely save our a$$, like the ICU, the ED, but on regular floors, most nurses are about as far away from critical thinking as you can get. If you get down to it, remove all the BS pre-reqs (science for nursing majors courses, English, History, etc..etc...), all the nursing theory and care plan courses, and focus on the pathophys and true medical stuff, RN training is little more than what paramedics go through. It obviously has more useless stuff like how to properly roll a patient when bathing them, and stuff like that, but the true degree of medical knowledge is not that much greater at the RN level. It just isn't. They simply spend more time in clinicals than medics, and that is the real difference. Sure you can teach nurses to think critically, and some work well on air medivac units etc..., but the RN education is not the education to shoot for if you want to improve medic knowledge and training. They are completely different fields of medicine. You could instead dissect out of a PA curriculum the nuts and bolts and have a one year paramedic course that was way more intense and useful than any RN education. The Navy has something similar, called Independent Duty Corpsmen who spend a year becoming a hybrid PA, paramedic to some degree without enough training to be called either, but they are highly useful. They provide completely independent healthcare on subs and small ships where it is not cost effective to send a doctor or PA.

I am familiar with the RN education--my wife's an RN. I believe that learning theory, although boring, helps broaden someone's base of knowledge. There is no theory taught in medic school, no statistics, etc. I think we can all agree that a major problem with EMS is not understanding why we do what we do. All the emphasis is on how and what. I believe its probably easier to teach an RN the hows and whats than teaching a medic the why. Some people discourage medics from even learning the reasons behind treatment--"You don't need to know that, you're a paramedic"--said to me personally more than once.

I agree that we don't need to become like RNs in terms of scope, nursing processes, etc. The medic education right now is just a joke most places, and I couldn't really say that about RN education. Without naming names, I can say that the worst medic school in my neck of the woods is at an institution with a PA and MD program--you'd think it would turn out hoards of phenomenal medics, but it doesn't. I'm not sure why--maybe it's the red-headed step child thing.
 
bstone said:
I'll have to disagree with this. As a newly graduated EMT-Intermediate (I take National Registry on Sunday) and as a person who has been in EMS a while, I have found medics to be very knowledgable of their fields. Their understanding of WHY they are doing something is often parallel to their expertise in HOW they are doing it.

The entire basis of my EMT-Intermediate program was to teach us just as much why as how. Skills a monkey can do. Knowing why is the goal. I think they did us well.
Give it a few years BStone and you'll see how you feel about that.
 
bstone said:
Really, this is an issue I have investigated and invested a lot of time in. I sincerely feel that medics these days are getting a solid education.
And I think your assessment is clouded by your status as a relative newcomer and the all too common desire to see the good in what you have chosen to pursue at the expense of ignoring the glaring shortcomings of the field.
 
I'm not really interested in debating whether you have a valid point- because you do to a limited degree, being that you are correct in that there are medics who can stand their ground- but simply will state that you seem to be willing to remember and discuss those incidents and ignore or gloss over the experiences of those who have more experience than yourself that contradict your opinion.

By the way, 3-4 years of EMS experience and "research" based on anecdotal evidence doesn't make you vested in anything. It simply indicates that you need to remember that despite the fact that you're assertive and apparently forward thinking you need to remind yourself how little you really know despite what you think you know.
 
bstone said:
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Yup, but I recommend developing thicker skin. That was the nicest way I could have worded that.
 
Bstone,

Unfortunately, I have to agree with dropkick on this one. Despite my constant support of EMS, and my desire to see it progress, the education is generally below par (this is after years as an EMS instructor). I have seen some exceptional medics with extraordinary clinical skills and instinct. However, most did not have a broad educational background. My EMs system was very liberal in that it was not, at least st the time, required that our care be entirely protocol driven. We were allowed to do what was best for the patient and did not have to beg medical control for every deviation, we were allowed to use our judgement. These freedoms were eroded by a minority of people that could not seem to even follow the written protocols.

I personally attended two separate paramedic programs, simultaneously, so that I could be sure that I learned the needed skills. While I think that my education was a good one, I was still surprised by how much I did not fully understand when I entered medical school, and I taught paramedics.

I know it seems from your perspective that these medics are well educated. And I am sure that some of them can hold their own in conversations with physicians. Most of them probably have areas of interest where they even surpass the physician. But the differences you have with Dropkick are simply a matter of perspective. You are seeing things as a newcomer, and he is seeing it, like me, after having years of experience. It may take you, like me, years to see the picture a little more clearly. Once your education surpasses that of these medics you now hold deep respect for, your opinions will certainly change. While you may stil hold them in the deepest regard, you will no longer be awed by what they know.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
a_ditchdoc said:
Bstone,

Unfortunately, I have to agree with dropkick on this one. Despite my constant support of EMS, and my desire to see it progress, the education is generally below par (this is after years as an EMS instructor). I have seen some exceptional medics with extraordinary clinical skills and instinct. However, most did not have a broad educational background. My EMs system was very liberal in that it was not, at least st the time, required that our care be entirely protocol driven. We were allowed to do what was best for the patient and did not have to beg medical control for every deviation, we were allowed to use our judgement. These freedoms were eroded by a minority of people that could not seem to even follow the written protocols.

I personally attended two separate paramedic programs, simultaneously, so that I could be sure that I learned the needed skills. While I think that my education was a good one, I was still surprised by how much I did not fully understand when I entered medical school, and I taught paramedics.

I know it seems from your perspective that these medics are well educated. And I am sure that some of them can hold their own in conversations with physicians. Most of them probably have areas of interest where they even surpass the physician. But the differences you have with Dropkick are simply a matter of perspective. You are seeing things as a newcomer, and he is seeing it, like me, after having years of experience. It may take you, like me, years to see the picture a little more clearly. Once your education surpasses that of these medics you now hold deep respect for, your opinions will certainly change. While you may stil hold them in the deepest regard, you will no longer be awed by what they know.


well said and very nice post :thumbup:

I also have to agree with a lot of corpsman's posts. As a long-time field medic and ER tech having been through medical school (graduating in 2 days!!) I agree with what many are saying.

I could NOT believe how much I didn't know and I quickly remembered how much I THOUGHT I knew as a medic and it was kind of humbling (very humbilng actually). I had the classic paragod syndrome and I was "da bomb" back in the day (stupid doctor not giving me that order...etc..).

However, seeing it from the other side it is a whole new world and I realized truly how little I actually knew.

Having said that.......I am still a medic and will always be one. I am already involved in EMS education and will be a medical director and look forward to working in EMS forever.

later
 
12R34Y said:
(graduating in 2 days!!)

CONGRATS! So are you doing EM?

Where are you going?

If you don't want to say specific program, urban/suburban/rural?

Any insights on the match from a past paramedic perspective?
 
bstone said:
I disagree :D

I've been an EMT-Basic since 2002 and now an EMT-Intermediate. However, in those few short years I have done a considerable amount of research into EMS education. I've seen medics be able to hold their own in highly technical conversations with physicians. I have personally been able to participate in those conversations. Certainly I am vested in the topics, and as a pre-med I am highly interested in it.

Also, my own knowledge isn't merely in prehospital care. I have volunteered in a few free clinics and have been an active part in the primary care of thousands of patients.


Good posts here...bstone, I appreciate your confidence in your abilities, it's a fairly important quality when working in EMS. It's even more important to recognize when you're in over your head. There's no disgrace in this, in fact this quality is well respected. Everybody manages to get in over their head, as it is impossible to know everything about everything. EM physicians have to call for help sometimes too! I'm not saying you don't have this quality, but just remember there is always somebody who's been there/done that. The people posting here know what's up...they've been in your shoes. It's okay to disagree and debate as necessary, you'll just have to believe us when we say you'll see things in a different light a few years from now. The same thing happens to medical students, residents, attendings, etc. The learning never ends!
 
viostorm said:
CONGRATS! So are you doing EM?

Where are you going?

If you don't want to say specific program, urban/suburban/rural?

Any insights on the match from a past paramedic perspective?


thanks.

I'm doing EM at an urban 3 year program.

All I can say is that being a paramedic and thus: being able to read 12-leads, intubate, bag someone, know what an oral airway is and looks like, knowing my way around patients, not-looking like an idiot when someone says "will you get a christmas tree for the O2?", asking questions that merely added to my knowledge base instead of starting from scratch, being able to interpret rhythm strips etc...).

Yes, being a paramedic helped quite a bit in the clinical years. You'd be suprised how much you take for granted when your comrades literally have to start with P-Q-R-S-T waves on the EKG strip. Most are literally starting from NOTHING. Not a bash, just a difference.

Pharm was a whole bunch easier just because I knew the names of 1/3 of the drugs before the lecture started and had some basic understanding of when you used them going in. Again, names like lidocaine, amiodarone, and phenylephrine look like ancient sanskrit if you started from scratch.

so, lots of benefits.

The Match was the match, A couple of my buddies are medics who matched this year in EM as well and like me.......they had a lot of positive experiences on the interview trail with the EMS involvement.

later
 
12R34Y said:
The Match was the match, A couple of my buddies are medics who matched this year in EM as well and like me.......they had a lot of positive experiences on the interview trail with the EMS involvement.

That is awesome, glad to hear you are staying in EM.

As far as me, I'm only a 1st year but i'm really thinking I'd rather not continue with EM. I'm pretty burned out on EM, I really want to have seen my last drunk. I don't want to lose anymore of my sleep over that patient population.

Right now I'm thinking IM.

I think it is awesome you have decided to stick with it. A friend of mine also a 1st year who is a medic is die hard EM as well. I'm sure that will be so much fun being on the other end of the radio!!!!!!!!
 
viostorm said:
I'm pretty burned out on EM, I really want to have seen my last drunk. I don't want to lose anymore of my sleep over that patient population.

Right now I'm thinking IM.

Do what you enjoy, but remember this: emergency physicians work shifts and go home to sleep. You will be on call. So instead of getting a good night's rest, every so often you will be up all night long with nurses paging you for everything in the book. This will continue even beyond residency.

You will also become frustrated when patients are admitted for social reasons or a discharge plan suddenly becomes blocked and you are stuck with a rock on your service for weeks.

Your third-year clerkships will no doubt determine what specialty you choose. I was diehard surgery when I entered medical school, but when it came down to the last minute, I preferred the continued involvement with EMS personnel, managing multiple active patients simultaneously (I love to multi-task), managing critical patients, seeing a diverse group of patients (including medical patients), and having a life outside the hospital. That's why I chose emergency medicine. I haven't regretted it one bit.

I think most paramedics and EMT's enter into emergency medicine, but I have known quite a few who have gone another path.
 
southerndoc said:
Do what you enjoy, but remember this: emergency physicians work shifts and go home to sleep. You will be on call. So instead of getting a good night's rest, every so often you will be up all night long with nurses paging you for everything in the book. This will continue even beyond residency.

You will also become frustrated when patients are admitted for social reasons or a discharge plan suddenly becomes blocked and you are stuck with a rock on your service for weeks.

Your third-year clerkships will no doubt determine what specialty you choose. I was diehard surgery when I entered medical school, but when it came down to the last minute, I preferred the continued involvement with EMS personnel, managing multiple active patients simultaneously (I love to multi-task), managing critical patients, seeing a diverse group of patients (including medical patients), and having a life outside the hospital. That's why I chose emergency medicine. I haven't regretted it one bit.

I think most paramedics and EMT's enter into emergency medicine, but I have known quite a few who have gone another path.

You are so right ... most physicians seem to develop a true hatred of call.

I'm doing a research assistantship with a IM physician this summer and I'm going to clinic with him. I don't think I will have to do any call but at least I'll be exposed to IM. I'm trying to figure out early what the right path for me is. I like IM because there are lots of fellowships that let you do interesting things.

I already shadowed a community ER physician and a ER physician at our Level I trauma center some this year. It was very fun, and a neat experience being on the physician side of things. It is amazing how sick most of the patients are in the ED compared to the ambulance. Lots of codes, lots of sick kids, a lot more procedures then I thought ED physicians did.

One thing that I didn't like is that the ED physician consults for the patients with the more serious problems. The days I observe it seems about 50% of the patients were consulted to cards, medicine, and a ton to surgery. I guess after being a medic for a while I'd like to fix some of the sicker patients we bring in.

I also didn't like that out here in Texas the ER physician doesn't really do anything on "trauma alerts." If I were to do ER, I'd like to be putting in chest tubes and intubating. Here, the room is packed with surgeons, anesthesia does the intubation or the surgeon does. Sometimes the EM physician isn't even in the room! This was different from UVA where the ER physician seemed much more integral bringing the patient to CT, "running" the trauma alert. I guess the surgeons will be the ones cutting, so it probably makes sense for them to be running it. But, I guess if you take the trauma out of EM it just doesn't seem like as much fun.

For me I think I'm interested in a little more continuity of care. We have an "early clinical experience" class where we learn physicial diagnosis 1st year and I was with a Family Practice physician, and I really liked that his patients knew him, he knew the patients.

We'll see ... I'm keeping my mind open. Actually, 1st thing I have to do is pass Micro!!!!! Ugh ... this class has been so tough for me. This is the first class where being a paramedic has not helped me AT ALL.
 
viostorm said:
You are so right ... most physicians seem to develop a true hatred of call.

I'm doing a research assistantship with a IM physician this summer and I'm going to clinic with him. I don't think I will have to do any call but at least I'll be exposed to IM. I'm trying to figure out early what the right path for me is. I like IM because there are lots of fellowships that let you do interesting things.

I already shadowed a community ER physician and a ER physician at our Level I trauma center some this year. It was very fun, and a neat experience being on the physician side of things. It is amazing how sick most of the patients are in the ED compared to the ambulance. Lots of codes, lots of sick kids, a lot more procedures then I thought ED physicians did.

One thing that I didn't like is that the ED physician consults for the patients with the more serious problems. The days I observe it seems about 50% of the patients were consulted to cards, medicine, and a ton to surgery. I guess after being a medic for a while I'd like to fix some of the sicker patients we bring in.

I also didn't like that out here in Texas the ER physician doesn't really do anything on "trauma alerts." If I were to do ER, I'd like to be putting in chest tubes and intubating. Here, the room is packed with surgeons, anesthesia does the intubation or the surgeon does. Sometimes the EM physician isn't even in the room! This was different from UVA where the ER physician seemed much more integral bringing the patient to CT, "running" the trauma alert. I guess the surgeons will be the ones cutting, so it probably makes sense for them to be running it. But, I guess if you take the trauma out of EM it just doesn't seem like as much fun.

For me I think I'm interested in a little more continuity of care. We have an "early clinical experience" class where we learn physicial diagnosis 1st year and I was with a Family Practice physician, and I really liked that his patients knew him, he knew the patients.

We'll see ... I'm keeping my mind open. Actually, 1st thing I have to do is pass Micro!!!!! Ugh ... this class has been so tough for me. This is the first class where being a paramedic has not helped me AT ALL.


This is a common thing that I've read both on these boards over the years and with classmates.

Don't get caught up in "trauma" as the primary reason to go or not to go into EM. Most people in my experience really don't think trauma is all that cool after their first 50 or so patients. I honestly plan on NOT working at a trauma center after I'm out of residency and enjoying the good life.

It definately looses its glamor.

Again, EM stabilizes the sickest of patients FIRST and then consults. Trust me, after they're tubed, got their lines and you've got labs, radiology and stuff cooking you don't WANT to do the stuff AFTER that!

Thats when you call the consult and say........."this patient is no longer actively dying and you may now come down and take him to your service for the next 2 weeks and micromanage him while I go sew up the kids face in room 10 and do an LP in room 8 and reduce the shoulder in room 22." (I'm using lots of sarcasm and humor :laugh: ) but you get the point.

That patient will tie up that interns whole existence for the next several hours with mundane busy stuff. Afterall, you've already done most of the procedures on the patient. where's the fun in that?

just keep an open mind.

later
 
viostorm said:
also didn't like that out here in Texas the ER physician doesn't really do anything on "trauma alerts."


What the hell is he getting paid for then? Does he just sit around and drink coffee all day or what?

200k to do that? Count me in
 
MacGyver said:
What the hell is he getting paid for then? Does he just sit around and drink coffee all day or what?

200k to do that? Count me in

The surgeons run the trauma alerts. They intubate, they put in chest tubes, do all the procedures, they order CT's and radiographs.
 
viostorm said:
The surgeons run the trauma alerts. They intubate, they put in chest tubes, do all the procedures, they order CT's and radiographs.
I'm betting this facility is a Level I trauma center.

The experience I've had in level I's is the surgery department usually runs the show. In level II's, it's usually the ER that runs the show until the surgeon gets in from home. Very few level II's have in-house surgery. Therefore, the ED attending must manage the airway, put in the chest tubes, etc.

You are correct... ED attendings consult a lot. I don't have admitting priviledges in the hospital. I don't have my own service where I follow a patient for 2 weeks until discharge. So I must consult either a primary team or a specialist on every admission. Specialists are just that, specialists in their field. I am a generalist by definition, so the specailist certainly can manage their respective patients much better than I can. However, it's impractical for a representative from all specialties to be present in the ED 24/7 to manage all patients.

Emergency medicine is all about initial stabilization. I'm not a big fan of continuity of care, although I am a big fan of following up on patients and their course in the hospital (and as an outpatient when I can). You'll frequently find me on off days going through charts of interesting cases to see what happened on the floors, how I can learn from the patient, etc.
 
Thanks for your input SouthernDoc. I'm definitely keeping my mind open. I have a strong interest in EM ... maybe I'm just a little burned out on it right now.
 
Blah blah blah, everyone just watch the Emergency! movie. Of course it would be better to have a physician in the field but it's not yet and may never be feasable. It will never happen
 
southerndoc said:
I'm betting this facility is a Level I trauma center.

The experience I've had in level I's is the surgery department usually runs the show. In level II's, it's usually the ER that runs the show until the surgeon gets in from home. Very few level II's have in-house surgery. Therefore, the ED attending must manage the airway, put in the chest tubes, etc.

You are correct... ED attendings consult a lot. I don't have admitting priviledges in the hospital. I don't have my own service where I follow a patient for 2 weeks until discharge. So I must consult either a primary team or a specialist on every admission. Specialists are just that, specialists in their field. I am a generalist by definition, so the specailist certainly can manage their respective patients much better than I can. However, it's impractical for a representative from all specialties to be present in the ED 24/7 to manage all patients.

Emergency medicine is all about initial stabilization. I'm not a big fan of continuity of care, although I am a big fan of following up on patients and their course in the hospital (and as an outpatient when I can). You'll frequently find me on off days going through charts of interesting cases to see what happened on the floors, how I can learn from the patient, etc.
one of my jobs is at a level 2 facility. em runs the traumas until surgery arrives(within 20 min). we also have our own 24-48 hr ed obs unit run by the pa's and ed md's where we do treadmills and basically anything that requires less than 48 hrs of inpatient care. all of us rotate through the unit a few times a month. it is interesting to do it that often but more would feel like a hospitalist job.
 
Interesting the varieties of practice environments an EM physician can work in. I work at a community hospital ED where our doc is the only one in the house at night. They run codes on the floors/ICU at night...this gets taken advantage of. They'll call a code in the unit when it's not one so the doc has to come up and manage the pt. Even had a pulmonogist tell the unit nurses to call a code so our guy would have to go put a chest tube in a pt. He went up to the unit and waited for the pulm guy to arrive to manage his own pt. You really do have a lot of choices as an EM physician as to the kind of environment you want to practice in!

On a side note, this thread has got to be one of the longest in the EMS forum. Obviously the original topic got some people fired up!
 
Agreeing with the "pro doc" group of people posting....

I work as a Firefighter/EMT-B in my system. Most of the new paramedics I work with just became a "paramedic" in order to get hired by the fire department. In my region, competition is fierce to be hired and having that extra "paramedic" with your title really helps out.

I'm saying that a lot of guys in my system don't become paramedics because they want to be paramedics. Most become paramedics because they want to be career firefighters.

Thus, at least in my area, a move to make paramedics into "clinicians" and away from "technicians" is a bad move.

Reasons being that a lot of the paramedics:
1) Don't have a bachelor's degree and didn't perform well enough to go to college in the first place.
2) Most...I'd say close to 60% just became a "paramedic" to become a "firefighter"
3) Adding more education, for the dismal pay we get anyway (paramedics in my system only make $7,000 more "sign-on bonus" than firefighters), would be killing the number of ALS personnel we have by discouraging people to go the "distance" and pay the "cost"
4) A lot of paramedics came from quick programs that spoon fed them to take the national registry exam.

Disagreeing with the "pro doc" group,

ALS providers are very important in the field of prehospital care. Yes, paramedics may screw up on a call or not "intubate" correctly but I think its far better to try than not try at all. If paramedics couldn't intubate, and a person on the ambo needed an intubation, as a BLS provider I can't do squat --> if you have a family member sitting there watching their loved one die in front of their eyes --> i'd much rather have it that someone on the ambulance is trained to "try something" than having the BLS providers in the ambulance do nothing (not literally).


*** Mind you this is just a generalization in my area. After working for 3 years, I believe I can make an informed opinion about ALS EMS in my system.***
 
Edivocke said:
ALS providers are very important in the field of prehospital care. Yes, paramedics may screw up on a call or not "intubate" correctly but I think its far better to try than not try at all.
As it has been pointed out, not trying at all is a better idea when trying leads to an unrecognized esophageal intubation.
 
2) Most...I'd say close to 60% just became a "paramedic" to become a "firefighter"

As a former fire officer and EMS supervisor and clinical preceptor, I'd put the number closer to 75-85% based on the numerous students I've talked to.

4) A lot of paramedics came from quick programs that spoon fed them to take the national registry exam.

If you up the educational standards, these programs will vanish and you will see fire departments either drop back to being BLS (which in most cases would not be the most terrible thing) or better adapted ALS services would begin being offered. Sadly I can't see this happening because of the power of the IAFF and similar fire lobbying groups.


As it has been pointed out, not trying at all is a better idea when trying leads to an unrecognized esophageal intubation
Agreed, but you can't fault the kid because he is just a basic and they aren't (unfortunately) very well educated in most places. Basically he's taking the typical EMS approach that's it better for a patient to die by an act of commission than an act of omission. What's that old saying? "BLS lets the patient die, ALS actually kills the patient"

a person on the ambo needed an intubation, as a BLS provider I can't do squat
Trust me, you can do more than you think you can, it's just an inability to get past this mindset that you have to put in a tube to maintain and control the airway that is hindering BLS providers, and ALS providers for that matter.
 
Edivocke, endotracheal intubation is NOT absolutely necessary. Again, it's not intubate vs. nothing. It's intubate vs. mask ventilation. If done properly, there's nothing wrong with good ol' fashion bagging someone. Granted, an ETT has a lot of benefits, however if intubation results in an undetected esophageal intubation (and the stats certainly demonstrate this) the patient is dead. Period.
 
Edivocke said:
Yes, paramedics may screw up on a call or not "intubate" correctly but I think its far better to try than not try at all.

As an EM doc and former paramedic, respectfully, WRONG!

Good BLS beats bad ALS 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, 12 months a year. Every time. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

As I said earlier in this thread, paragods think, since A comes before B, it's ALS before BLS. No way, no how. Likewise, the thoughts of, "I can do it, so I must do it", or "if it's in the drug box, I WILL use it someday, sometime" are abjectly incorrect.
 
Apollyon said:
As an EM doc and former paramedic, respectfully, WRONG!

Good BLS beats bad ALS 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, 12 months a year. Every time. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

As I said earlier in this thread, paragods think, since A comes before B, it's ALS before BLS. No way, no how. Likewise, the thoughts of, "I can do it, so I must do it", or "if it's in the drug box, I WILL use it someday, sometime" are abjectly incorrect.

Not to mention all those studies that show no increased (and in some cases, a decreased) survival rate for ALS vs. BLS care to hospital. Now I'm sure there are confounding factors in those studies that skewed the results, but I wouldn't be surprised if a big portion of it has to do with paramedics playing with their toys when they should be scooping and running, as well as fudging procedures that end up harming the patient. Both of these things are killing patients and probably dropping their stats.
 
Sinnman said:
Edivocke, endotracheal intubation is NOT absolutely necessary. Again, it's not intubate vs. nothing. It's intubate vs. mask ventilation. If done properly, there's nothing wrong with good ol' fashion bagging someone. Granted, an ETT has a lot of benefits, however if intubation results in an undetected esophageal intubation (and the stats certainly demonstrate this) the patient is dead. Period.

Lots of people forget how difficult proper BVM ventilation can be. Its success can be quite experience dependent, especially in unusual patients--peds, facial trauma, heavy facial hair, etc. Personally, I think that some sort of esophageal or pharyngeal obturator is generally more 'dummy-proof' than BVM in many cases. I'd like to see a study comparing immediate combitube placement (or other obturator) vs just BVM. I guess that would be a difficult study to perform since the current gold standard calls for at least attempted ET intubation.

I absolutely 110% agree that undetected esophageal intubation by paramedics is what's killing the patients (and stats in studies). Aspiration pneumonia has a much better prognosis than global anoxic brain injury/hyperoxygenation of the stomach. :eek:
 
Actually there have been cases where inattention has lead to big problems with misplaced obturators (EOA/EGTA) and ventilation through the wrong lumen of Combitubes. This is why EOA's fell out of favor. Nothing is idiot proof. In fact these devices could very well be more potentially dangerous in the hands of an overzealous and less than competent EMT or paramedic because of the supposed "dummy proof" nature that has been ascribed to them.
 
To the people frustrated with the drunks, and with being the uninsured's PCPs: I understand your frustration, but to me, EM is all about those things. There is a great deal of purpose and satisfaction in those things if you look at them in the correct light.

As an EM ( as it is as a medic today) I expect my role will be, in large part, caring for the indigent. This is something that I want to be part of my life as a doctor. You couldn't pay me enough to run a practice where I had to hold the hands of the wealthy and give the cold shoulder to the poor. Given that, what are my options? I can be a generous, open-handed private practice doc, and lie awake nights trying to think of ways to stave off bankruptcy. I can go into primary care and work at a free clinic, assuming it has any paid positions, and live on rice, beans, and self-righteousiness. Or I can be an EM doc, see the same patient population, plus some prosperous people for variety, for a quarter of a million dollars a year. Idealism with no call. It's a dream job!
 
Or I can be an EM doc, see the same patient population, plus some prosperous people for variety, for a quarter of a million dollars a year. Idealism with no call. It's a dream job!

Bingo. Exactly one of the reasons I'm interested in EM.
 
if proper et placment is a problem with a patient has anyone heard of a opa or npa and using a bvm :confused:
 
igcgnerd said:
if proper et placment is a problem with a patient has anyone heard of a opa or npa and using a bvm :confused:

These are normally using in conjunction with an ET tube.
 
Apollyon said:
As I said several posts above, good BLS is better than bad ALS. Opa/Npa and BVM are BLS skills. I/E we have heard of it (and done it).

I agree. However, good ALS seems to be better than both in most circumstances. No matter how good you are at bagging a patient, or applying sellicks maneuver, when people are sucking copious vomit or blood into their lungs, there is nothing that beats an ET tube.

As an Aside, I seldom used an EOA/combitube. Maybe a few times in my earliy years. If the patient couldn't be intubated, I would usually just bag them. Now we have the LMA, which I have also never used, and a fiber optic stylet for direct visualization of the cords.

In my experience, most esophageal intubations were done when the medic simply did a blind intubation due to secretions/trauma/blood. Just pushing the tube in and "hoping" is seldom a good idea. In the confusion, noise, and excitement of a resuscitation, people often have a hard time telling the difference between a tracheal intubation with lots of rhonchi and a esophageal intubation, especially if the stomach is distended with air.

Of course, knowingthe difference is often a matter of experience...something you get just after you need it.
 
DropkickMurphy said:
Actually there have been cases where inattention has lead to big problems with misplaced obturators (EOA/EGTA) and ventilation through the wrong lumen of Combitubes. This is why EOA's fell out of favor. Nothing is idiot proof. In fact these devices could very well be more potentially dangerous in the hands of an overzealous and less than competent EMT or paramedic because of the supposed "dummy proof" nature that has been ascribed to them.


I agree, I've seen issues with obturators...but BVM ventilation w/ or w/o OPA/NPA can be pretty darn ineffective too. That's why I think a scientific comparo would be nice. I agree that calling something dummy proof can have the reverse effect because people don't think about what they're doing.
 
canjosh said:
I agree, I've seen issues with obturators...but BVM ventilation w/ or w/o OPA/NPA can be pretty darn ineffective too. That's why I think a scientific comparo would be nice. I agree that calling something dummy proof can have the reverse effect because people don't think about what they're doing.

This is disturbing to me. You shouldn't be allowed to intubate just because you aren't that "comfortable" with BVM?!

You SHOULD be comfortable ventilating someone with a BVM.

Where I trained the anesthesiologists wouldn't let you tube unless you could bag them effectively with one hand. In the field you have 2 hands often because of personnel.

If you aren't comfortable ventilating with basic techniques (backbone of airway care). then how can you expect a medical director to hand you over paralytics (which every medic in the world wants badly) that you would essentiallly be making a can't ventilate scenario that is TOTALLY dEpendant on you getting that tube! that's just not cool.

off my soapbox. :D
 
This is disturbing to me. You shouldn't be allowed to intubate just because you aren't that "comfortable" with BVM?!

As the former senior EMT (educationally speaking and in regards to rank) on my old department I wouldn't have let anyone who was not comfortable with basic airway maneuvers respond to calls. We probably spent more time reviewing basic airway maintainence during EMS inservices than any other skill- simply because of the necessity of the skill. On several occasions I suspended EMT's from the call schedule- and this is on a volunteer department with no more than 18 personnel mind you so you lose one person it is a burden to the rest of the responders- for not being able to perform adequately during inservices. The hardest thing to break the EMT's and first responders of was the urge to shove the BVM mask down onto the face of the patient, rather than gently pulling the jaw and lower face up into the mask. This is one of the MAJOR reasons I have noticed that leads to the "inability" of EMT's to be able to ventilate with a BVM....it's not the procedure itself, but rather the failure to properly execute it.

Of course I also believe he was trying to make the point that BVM ventilation isn't that great of procedure in some cases (a small minority) but a marginal job ventilating with BVM with or sans OPA/NPA is better than the risk of buggering up an intubation and giving someone a global anoxic encephalopathy. As I said above, the problem isn't with the procedure (and with intubation for that matter), it's with the education and practices of the persons implementing them.
 
DropkickMurphy said:
As the former senior EMT (educationally speaking and in regards to rank) on my old department I wouldn't have let anyone who was not comfortable with basic airway maneuvers respond to calls. We probably spent more time reviewing basic airway maintainence during EMS inservices than any other skill- simply because of the necessity of the skill. On several occasions I suspended EMT's from the call schedule- and this is on a volunteer department with no more than 18 personnel mind you so you lose one person it is a burden to the rest of the responders- for not being able to perform adequately during inservices. The hardest thing to break the EMT's and first responders of was the urge to shove the BVM mask down onto the face of the patient, rather than gently pulling the jaw and lower face up into the mask. This is one of the MAJOR reasons I have noticed that leads to the "inability" of EMT's to be able to ventilate with a BVM....it's not the procedure itself, but rather the failure to properly execute it.

Of course I also believe he was trying to make the point that BVM ventilation isn't that great of procedure in some cases (a small minority) but a marginal job ventilating with BVM with or sans OPA/NPA is better than the risk of buggering up an intubation and giving someone a global anoxic encephalopathy. As I said above, the problem isn't with the procedure (and with intubation for that matter), it's with the education and practices of the persons implementing them.

Agreed
 
The hardest thing to break the EMT's and first responders of was the urge to shove the BVM mask down onto the face of the patient, rather than gently pulling the jaw and lower face up into the mask.

BTW I should note that a short length of dowel rod or a riding crop, particularly when in the hands of someone wearing a monocle, a khaki military uniform and one of those Kaiser helmets with the spike on top works wonders in breaking people of this habit :smuggrin: This has been your EMS instructor tip of the day! :smuggrin: :laugh:
 
12R34Y said:
This is disturbing to me. You shouldn't be allowed to intubate just because you aren't that "comfortable" with BVM?!

You SHOULD be comfortable ventilating someone with a BVM.

Where I trained the anesthesiologists wouldn't let you tube unless you could bag them effectively with one hand. In the field you have 2 hands often because of personnel.

If you aren't comfortable ventilating with basic techniques (backbone of airway care). then how can you expect a medical director to hand you over paralytics (which every medic in the world wants badly) that you would essentiallly be making a can't ventilate scenario that is TOTALLY dEpendant on you getting that tube! that's just not cool.

off my soapbox. :D


I never used the word comfortable in my previous posts as far as I can tell. I did say effective BVM ventilation isn't always easy. If you don't do it often, poor technique leads to decreased efficacy and increased gastric insufflation. I was playing devil's advocate after someone mentioned just bagging the pt all the way to the hospital. Also, bag-masking someone with one hand--don't see how that's possible; perhaps you meant one person (with 2 hands)?!
 
He meant one handed mask seal, the other hand squeezing the bag.

But you supported our argument with your statement about poor technique- why should we give you the privilege to insert an ET tube if you can't master bag-valve-mask ventilation? Especially given that proper ventilation is an important technique both prior to and after intubation.....that same ****ty technique that leads to gastric insufflation is the one that leads to pneumothoraces and pneumomediastinum from barotrauma and volutrauma in intubated patients.

If you master proper technique you can very easily use non-invasive means to maintain an airway and ventilate effectively in all but the most extreme cases. If you have not mastered these techniques then you have no business being in the field (or in any setting for that matter) because we must be at an utmost level of comfort and confidence in our abilities with every procedure in our scope of practice. The reliance upon the next skill in the protocol isn't suitable for any situation....if you can't intubate and a surgical airway is contraindicated due to an expanding anterior neck hematoma (which I have seen in the field by the way), and the patient is too short for the Combitube....what do you do? You go back to trying to use a BVM to ventilate as best you can- lets hope for the patient's sake you've mastered that skill.
 
DropkickMurphy said:
He meant one handed mask seal, the other hand squeezing the bag.

But you supported our argument with your statement about poor technique- why should we give you the privilege to insert an ET tube if you can't master bag-valve-mask ventilation? Especially given that proper ventilation is an important technique both prior to and after intubation.....that same ****ty technique that leads to gastric insufflation is the one that leads to pneumothoraces and pneumomediastinum from barotrauma and volutrauma in intubated patients.

If you master proper technique you can very easily use non-invasive means to maintain an airway and ventilate effectively in all but the most extreme cases. If you have not mastered these techniques then you have no business being in the field (or in any setting for that matter) because we must be at an utmost level of comfort and confidence in our abilities with every procedure in our scope of practice. The reliance upon the next skill in the protocol isn't suitable for any situation....if you can't intubate and a surgical airway is contraindicated due to an expanding anterior neck hematoma (which I have seen in the field by the way), and the patient is too short for the Combitube....what do you do? You go back to trying to use a BVM to ventilate as best you can- lets hope for the patient's sake you've mastered that skill.

My organization requires us to be able to master the BVM while holding c-spine, making a seal, AND bagging by yourself.
 
Top