truetiger
Forum Asst. Chief
- 520
- 14
- 18
It's sad that a union should have to negotiate the most basic of equipment into their contract...
Unions under attack
- Thread starter AZEMTJUNKIE
- Start date
- 11,034
- 1,479
- 113
Shouldn't a "most basic" piece of equipment be mandated by the EMS agency instead?
Aidey
Community Leader Emeritus
- 4,800
- 11
- 38
Most basic of equipment for what? To make us feel better? I bet that the statistical chance of going into cardiac arrest on an BLS transfer ambulance is lower than it is for the general public. Sure the people being transported aren't healthy, but they've usually been assessed in some way prior to the transport and are determined not to be in any acute distress, otherwise they wouldn't be transported by a BLS agency. I've heard of at least 3 cases of people coding on public buses in the last few years, and none on BLS transfers.* Should all public buses have AEDs?
*I know, I know, n=1
*I know, I know, n=1
Chris07
Competent in Incompetence
- 342
- 62
- 28
The lack of AEDs in SoCal on BLS rigs isn't the fault of the ambulance companies. 95% of the fault lies is purely with the local EMS Agencies. In LA, in order for a company to put AEDs into service on their rigs, they have to jump through a bunch of hoops. It isn't as easy as just placing an order for 15 AEDs and maintaining them every two years, the EMS agencies make you go through an entire approval process.
Technically speaking, unless your company is an authorized AED provider, you are not allowed to operate an AED while on duty. Would I anyway? Yes, but technically EMTs may only operate them if their service is an authorized AED provider. Why all this hoopla? Well I have two theories. First is that the EMSAs feel that if you give AEDs to IFT BLS companies, it will give them a false sense of security and cause them to accept patients that instead warrant a call to FD. If this is true, I find it pointless, as this sort of stupidity already occurs without AEDs on the rig. Second, I remember reading somewhere...maybe the CA EMSA website...that AEDs were still a trial program! I'm hoping I read it wrong or that the page is out of date, because to still have AEDs as a trial program is so...well....California! :rofl:
Even if the EMS Agencies removed all the authorization hoopla, most companies simply couldn't justify spending $1,200 per rig, and another $200 every two years per rig for a tool that is hardly ever used. As been said, we're taxis, and we rarely find ourselves in predicaments where carrying an AED may be justified.
Also, the only companies that I know of that are authorized to carry AEDs in in LA County are the fire departments and BLS companies with 911 contracts.
Technically speaking, unless your company is an authorized AED provider, you are not allowed to operate an AED while on duty. Would I anyway? Yes, but technically EMTs may only operate them if their service is an authorized AED provider. Why all this hoopla? Well I have two theories. First is that the EMSAs feel that if you give AEDs to IFT BLS companies, it will give them a false sense of security and cause them to accept patients that instead warrant a call to FD. If this is true, I find it pointless, as this sort of stupidity already occurs without AEDs on the rig. Second, I remember reading somewhere...maybe the CA EMSA website...that AEDs were still a trial program! I'm hoping I read it wrong or that the page is out of date, because to still have AEDs as a trial program is so...well....California! :rofl:
Even if the EMS Agencies removed all the authorization hoopla, most companies simply couldn't justify spending $1,200 per rig, and another $200 every two years per rig for a tool that is hardly ever used. As been said, we're taxis, and we rarely find ourselves in predicaments where carrying an AED may be justified.
Also, the only companies that I know of that are authorized to carry AEDs in in LA County are the fire departments and BLS companies with 911 contracts.
Last edited by a moderator: