Re: FW: Ground ambulance accident data

[Guest guest]

Simple answer. Data collection makes jobs. Good paying jobs. The more data

you manage to get collected, the more people it takes to deal with it. When

you're the first person hired, the best way to move up is to build an empire.

Hire others to be under you. The more people you manage the higher your

budget. The higher your budget the better it looks on your resume`.

Data collection is a particularly good place to " hide " the fact that you

can't really do anything also. Nobody else understands what you do, so there

is that mystery that surrounds you. You MUST be important. And nobody wants

to challenge you. Because in order to challenge you, they have to bother to

learn what you do.

See, it's the perfect job. And it's very easy to hide the fact that you're

not doing anything meaningful with the data because it's so easy to create

charts and reports that nobody understands but are afraid to question because

they're afraid they'll look stupid.

Higher education is the hands down leader in this charade. No wonder ny

can't read. All the money that ought to be spent teaching ny to read

goes to the Office for Mental Masturbation.

When I was at TJC I saw, in 12 years, data collection mushroom. We were

constantly being required to report all kinds of stuff with names like

Outcomes Verification and so forth. As the demands on me as an administrator

to provide more and more mindless drivel to faceless offices increased, I got

more and more bitter about having to do it, and finally it virtually killed

my enthusiasm for being an administrator.

I often spoke out about that, which didn't exactly endear me to the BIG

Kahunas, the ones making big money for doing nothing much meaningful. One of

my colleagues who was particularly prone to announce that The Emperor Has No

Clothes finally got the ax because he wasn't a " team player. "

Much data collection is utter hogwash because it doesn't lead to any changes

in the way we do things. It is data collection for its ownself, and it

supports meaningless jobs.

Now, before you roast me, think about what I've said. Can any of you name a

single benefit that you've ever seen from the data that you have been sending

in for years?

I'm not talking about legitimate research to see what works and what doesn't.

We need more of that.

But every time a new PhD is looking for a topic for a dissertation, we run

the risk of having more data collection rammed down our throats.

Me, I'm going to gather data on the mating habits of Two Headed Dutch

Orphans in Brazil. That should get me a nice grant.

Cynically yours,

Gene Gandy

Gene Gandy, JD, LP

4250 East Aquarius Drive

Tucson, AZ 85718

home and fax

cell

wegandy@...

[Guest guest]

Simple answer. Data collection makes jobs. Good paying jobs. The more data

you manage to get collected, the more people it takes to deal with it. When

you're the first person hired, the best way to move up is to build an empire.

Hire others to be under you. The more people you manage the higher your

budget. The higher your budget the better it looks on your resume`.

Data collection is a particularly good place to " hide " the fact that you

can't really do anything also. Nobody else understands what you do, so there

is that mystery that surrounds you. You MUST be important. And nobody wants

to challenge you. Because in order to challenge you, they have to bother to

learn what you do.

See, it's the perfect job. And it's very easy to hide the fact that you're

not doing anything meaningful with the data because it's so easy to create

charts and reports that nobody understands but are afraid to question because

they're afraid they'll look stupid.

Higher education is the hands down leader in this charade. No wonder ny

can't read. All the money that ought to be spent teaching ny to read

goes to the Office for Mental Masturbation.

When I was at TJC I saw, in 12 years, data collection mushroom. We were

constantly being required to report all kinds of stuff with names like

Outcomes Verification and so forth. As the demands on me as an administrator

to provide more and more mindless drivel to faceless offices increased, I got

more and more bitter about having to do it, and finally it virtually killed

my enthusiasm for being an administrator.

I often spoke out about that, which didn't exactly endear me to the BIG

Kahunas, the ones making big money for doing nothing much meaningful. One of

my colleagues who was particularly prone to announce that The Emperor Has No

Clothes finally got the ax because he wasn't a " team player. "

Much data collection is utter hogwash because it doesn't lead to any changes

in the way we do things. It is data collection for its ownself, and it

supports meaningless jobs.

Now, before you roast me, think about what I've said. Can any of you name a

single benefit that you've ever seen from the data that you have been sending

in for years?

I'm not talking about legitimate research to see what works and what doesn't.

We need more of that.

But every time a new PhD is looking for a topic for a dissertation, we run

the risk of having more data collection rammed down our throats.

Me, I'm going to gather data on the mating habits of Two Headed Dutch

Orphans in Brazil. That should get me a nice grant.

Cynically yours,

Gene Gandy

Gene Gandy, JD, LP

4250 East Aquarius Drive

Tucson, AZ 85718

home and fax

cell

wegandy@...

[Guest guest]

So , you still haven't answered the big question. Where does the money

come from to buy the laptops, etc. that are necessary tor the electronic

data entry when we have trouble keeping people paid and diesel in the

ambulance with current reimbursement rates?

Jo Bell

At 10:57 PM 9/22/2002, you wrote:

>Dr. Bledsoe,

>As weird as it sounds, in this instance, yes, more technology is less

>costly and provides many more benefits. The reality is that Dudley's

>math is right on target, and if each run takes 5 minutes to enter by

>anyone besides the medic on the call, it is very expensive, in time

>and/or money. The agency already has to account for the medic's time

>(15-20 min or more) to fill out a run report. If he does it on paper,

>then someone (a data entry person, the billing clerk, the medic himself

>when he gets back to the station..) has to re-enter the data to meet the

>requirements. The really weird part of this is if the medic does the

>entry on the call, the data is almost always better since he was the one

>taking care of the patient, and if using full electronic charting, the

>software has a great deal of direct management functionality since the

>entire run report is in the database, not just the data points TDH

>wants. Performance Improvement, inventory tracking and restocking, and

>even infection control measures are improved. Austin EMS already did

>the math and could potentially have to hire 4-5 FTE's just to do the

>data entry. Even if they had to buy every truck a new laptop each year

>and add 3 hrs training to each employee (average time to learn it is

>much less, btw), it would still be much cheaper that 5 FTE's that would

>enter fewer data points. Our sense is the laptops will last much longer,

>perhaps 2-3 years although replacement costs will be an on-going thing.

>Dudley has done the math for his service and if his reimbursement goes

>up just 1% next year with electronic charting, he will have paid for

>_all_ the laptops he had to buy to participate in the EMS Pro project.

>

>One of the things we are really excited about in our scenario is that

>the management reports can easily be blindly compared to other like

>entities (given their permission obviously) so real comparative analysis

>is possible. The example of comparative data analysis I liked the most

>was watching a video of a race horse running at breakneck speed, muscles

>straining and the ground just whizzing by, until the camera zooms out

>and you realize the horse is running dead last in a pack of 8 horses.

>If we cannot compare ourselves to other similar agencies, in size,

>structure, provider type, and other pertinent factors, then we can never

>really know if we are doing a good job given the circumstances we face.

>Imagine the satisfaction of an ad-hoc report that you and 8-10 other

>agencies agree to run, where 3rd service EMS volunteer agencies in

>counties less than 50,000 could compare response times, intubation

>success rates, scene times, whatever. Finally a way to know if you your

>agency is measuring up, ahead of the pack, or needs to concentrate on

>certain areas to improve the service to their citizens. And best of all

>they automatically meet the TDH reporting requirements because the data

>is already collected!

>I for one feel that the bigger bang for the buck is in doing the full

>smash, electronic charting, not just data collection. Then and only

>then does the EMS Director have a more complete picture and has it under

>his complete control, not in a state database somewhere with less data

>points.

>

>Just my thoughts,

>See ya,

>

>

> Epley

>Executive Director

>Southwest Texas Regional Advisory Council for Trauma

>TSA-P

> - office

> - fax

>eepley@...

>www.strac.org

>

> Re: FW: Ground ambulance accident data

>

>

>:

>

>So what you are saying is that we need more technology?

>

>BEB

>

> E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP

>Midlothian, Texas

>

>All outgoing email scanned by Norton Antivirus and guaranteed " virus

>free " or your money back.

>

> Re: FW: Ground ambulance accident data

> >

> >

> > Jane, Bob, and others,

> >

> > The issue with " state-wide " data collection is that most people have

> > no idea what it is they are asking for...when epidemiology calls for

> > submission of

> > all Texas EMS runs, in their office in Austin is probably doesn't seem

> > like a

> > problem. I mean after all, no one considers that there are 733

>licensed

> > EMS

> > providers (downloaded the file from TDH just now) and if all 733 of

>them

> > did

> > ONE (1) call per day (remember although some of the 733 may not do one

> > call a

> > day...many others like SA, Houston, Dallas, El Paso, MedStar,

>Amarillo,

> > etc

> > do many many more than one) over a year that is 733*365=267,545 EMS

> > calls.

> > IF it takes ONE minute to enter in each call, it is over 4,450 hours

>per

> >

> > year.....but if you increased it to 5 minutes a call, it goes to

> > 22,295 hours per year....that's 10.7 FTE's per year to enter in one

> > call per day from each

> > of the licensed EMS Providers in Texas (no wonder it was necessary to

> > have

> > EMS agencies do it instead of TDH personnel).

> >

> > In another location where I participated in state-wide data

> > collection, the state prepared a " State-Wide Patient Care Report " and

> > mandated that everyone

> > use it. It cost our agency 1000's of dollars to educate our employees

> > on

> > this new form. The date came to send them all to the State

>(again...not

> >

> > Texas) and within 6 weeks we received a certified letter from the

> > State EMS Dept to cease and desist following the mandate for

> > submission of each run

> > report because the state could not handle our submissions much less

>the

> > other

> > 350 or 400 agencies submissions (we sent them over 20,000 PCR's in

>those

> > 6

> > weeks and we were not the largest EMS in the state).

> >

> > Now, I should not complain too loudly because with the money our RAC

> > received, we are in the process of going on-line with electronic run

> > reports....but what of those agencies who did not do this? What of

> > those who took the money to buy " a computer capable of submitting runs

>

> > via the internet " and they are now looking at how to actually make it

> > happen everyday.

> >

> > The question comes up what happens if an agency doesn't comply and

> > doesn't submit? Chances are the first impact will be their ability to

>

> > get LPG and

> > EMS funds from TDH...of course this will only hurt the agencies who

>will

> > have

> > the toughest times complying with the mandate (like Jane's example)

> > since

> > these are the easiest EMS funds to get.....

> >

> > Anyway, now we have a mandate and now we have to find a way to

> > comply...unfortunately, when a large number of agencies find this

> > mechanism...the pain and difficulty will not be seen at the regulatory

>

> > level where the success of this mandate will only encourage more.

> >

> > Just my $0.02,

> >

> > Dudley Wait

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Bob, Bob, Bob

You and I both know that we will be required to send the data no matter what.

We could talk all day about it being good data, bad data or whatever. The end

result is that we will still be required to send it. I served on the Trac-It

committee and voiced all the same concerns that you have offered. Myself and

others knowing that we were going to be forced to send in the data, attempted

to steer it into something that would at least be minimal painful to the

provider and that would provide feedback to the provider in regards to data

that is being sent in to TDH.

Speaking of TDH: We are not dealing with the TDH that works with EMS. We are

dealing with a totally different department of TDH. Mr. Zane is the

leader of the Epidemology department. Kathy is working very hard to assure

that our concerns are heard by Mr. Zane.

I have found that Mr. Zane has minimal staff who deal with data and have no

real understanding of EMS. Trac-It has been a struggle from the beginning in

regards to EMS and input from EMS. The NSR group that developed the program

was very knowledgeable and open minded. Once they were out of the picture,

things seemed to bog down.

Do I think the Trac-It system will work. Hell I don't know. What I do know is

that EMS has had about as much input as possible into the program. We have

had to badger, complain and request information over and over so that we can

upload data that we didn't want to upload in the first place. If Trac-It ever

comes to fruition it will surprise me. I really do not think that Epidemology

has the ability to manage and oversee the program. I say this because of

their track record so far.

What have we done in Calhoun County? We implemented computer reports in 1998

using a very inexpensive program (StatCo) that provides us all the data that

we need for budgeting and at the same time provides TDH their information.

The crew members type their reports and upload to our file server when that

get back to the station. With this system they also can print out a copy of

the report at the E.R. prior to leaving. We have no need to hire new office

staff to manage the data. Simply speaking we chose to implement the program

because we knew it was required. By doing so we were able to do it on our

terms and within our time frame.

Even if Trac-It were to go away and I don't think it will, we are better off

as a department because we now have reports that are printed,easy to read,

complete, spell checked, user friendly and that provides data that we need.

My friend you are absolutely right in your comments. Right does not always

enable change.

Henry Barber

Bob Kellow wrote:

> Jane,

>

> You're exactly right. Many states collect run data, but few provide any

> meaningful outcomes. In other words, the collection of data becomes the

> " end " , rather than the " means " to an identified end.

>

> What can we expect to change as a result of collecting and reporting

> these data? What will be the frequency and reliability of the state-wide

> reports? Will they be statistically valid? What elements are marked for

> trend analysis? How will these data specifically influence rule making?

> Can uniform comparisons be made: by population? - by setting? - by

> outcomes? Is there a provision for dropping this requirement if the data

> proves unusable, unreliable or invalid? Or will it just go on forever,

> regardless of utility or practicality? Was the fiscal impact on EMS

> providers ever considered? These are just a few of my questions.

>

> Bob Kellow

>

> je.hill@... wrote:

>

> > The sad thing that I have been told over and over by other ambulance

> > services

> > that many are having to try and find money in the budget to hire extra

> > staff

> > members to enter the required data because of the VOLUME of data. I

> > talked to

> > our new billing agent the other day, and he implied that he will be

> > forced to

> > raise what he charges to accomodate the MANY extra key strokes that he

> > will now

> > be forced to do - he will be submitting our data. I have always told

> > my

> > students that on any intervention that they perform, they must balance

> > the

> > potential adverse effects versus the benefit. Which is better? The

> > disease or

> > the cure? Can we also apply that to this subject? I realize that

> > epidemiological studies are necessary sometimes to help us improve

> > what we do

> > by identifying problems etc. But when the route to doing that study

> > incurs

> > more expense and problems for an already overburdened and overwhelmed

> > system, I

> > am not sure that the benefit outweighs the adverse effects. Can

> > somebody help

> > me out with this?

> >

> > Jane Hill

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Jane,

Please give me a call in regards to the data issue.

Henry

je.hill@... wrote:

> The sad thing that I have been told over and over by other ambulance services

> that many are having to try and find money in the budget to hire extra staff

> members to enter the required data because of the VOLUME of data. I talked to

> our new billing agent the other day, and he implied that he will be forced to

> raise what he charges to accomodate the MANY extra key strokes that he will

now

> be forced to do - he will be submitting our data. I have always told my

> students that on any intervention that they perform, they must balance the

> potential adverse effects versus the benefit. Which is better? The disease

or

> the cure? Can we also apply that to this subject? I realize that

> epidemiological studies are necessary sometimes to help us improve what we do

> by identifying problems etc. But when the route to doing that study incurs

> more expense and problems for an already overburdened and overwhelmed system,

I

> am not sure that the benefit outweighs the adverse effects. Can somebody help

> me out with this?

>

> Jane Hill

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Henry, can you share what it cost to set your company up on the StatCo system -

base system and then maybe an average per truck or something?

Jane

Re: FW: Ground ambulance accident data

Bob, Bob, Bob

You and I both know that we will be required to send the data no matter what.

We could talk all day about it being good data, bad data or whatever. The end

result is that we will still be required to send it. I served on the Trac-It

committee and voiced all the same concerns that you have offered. Myself and

others knowing that we were going to be forced to send in the data, attempted

to steer it into something that would at least be minimal painful to the

provider and that would provide feedback to the provider in regards to data

that is being sent in to TDH.

Speaking of TDH: We are not dealing with the TDH that works with EMS. We are

dealing with a totally different department of TDH. Mr. Zane is the

leader of the Epidemology department. Kathy is working very hard to assure

that our concerns are heard by Mr. Zane.

I have found that Mr. Zane has minimal staff who deal with data and have no

real understanding of EMS. Trac-It has been a struggle from the beginning in

regards to EMS and input from EMS. The NSR group that developed the program

was very knowledgeable and open minded. Once they were out of the picture,

things seemed to bog down.

Do I think the Trac-It system will work. Hell I don't know. What I do know is

that EMS has had about as much input as possible into the program. We have

had to badger, complain and request information over and over so that we can

upload data that we didn't want to upload in the first place. If Trac-It ever

comes to fruition it will surprise me. I really do not think that Epidemology

has the ability to manage and oversee the program. I say this because of

their track record so far.

What have we done in Calhoun County? We implemented computer reports in 1998

using a very inexpensive program (StatCo) that provides us all the data that

we need for budgeting and at the same time provides TDH their information.

The crew members type their reports and upload to our file server when that

get back to the station. With this system they also can print out a copy of

the report at the E.R. prior to leaving. We have no need to hire new office

staff to manage the data. Simply speaking we chose to implement the program

because we knew it was required. By doing so we were able to do it on our

terms and within our time frame.

Even if Trac-It were to go away and I don't think it will, we are better off

as a department because we now have reports that are printed,easy to read,

complete, spell checked, user friendly and that provides data that we need.

My friend you are absolutely right in your comments. Right does not always

enable change.

Henry Barber

Bob Kellow wrote:

> Jane,

>

> You're exactly right. Many states collect run data, but few provide any

> meaningful outcomes. In other words, the collection of data becomes the

> " end " , rather than the " means " to an identified end.

>

> What can we expect to change as a result of collecting and reporting

> these data? What will be the frequency and reliability of the state-wide

> reports? Will they be statistically valid? What elements are marked for

> trend analysis? How will these data specifically influence rule making?

> Can uniform comparisons be made: by population? - by setting? - by

> outcomes? Is there a provision for dropping this requirement if the data

> proves unusable, unreliable or invalid? Or will it just go on forever,

> regardless of utility or practicality? Was the fiscal impact on EMS

> providers ever considered? These are just a few of my questions.

>

> Bob Kellow

>

> je.hill@... wrote:

>

> > The sad thing that I have been told over and over by other ambulance

> > services

> > that many are having to try and find money in the budget to hire extra

> > staff

> > members to enter the required data because of the VOLUME of data. I

> > talked to

> > our new billing agent the other day, and he implied that he will be

> > forced to

> > raise what he charges to accomodate the MANY extra key strokes that he

> > will now

> > be forced to do - he will be submitting our data. I have always told

> > my

> > students that on any intervention that they perform, they must balance

> > the

> > potential adverse effects versus the benefit. Which is better? The

> > disease or

> > the cure? Can we also apply that to this subject? I realize that

> > epidemiological studies are necessary sometimes to help us improve

> > what we do

> > by identifying problems etc. But when the route to doing that study

> > incurs

> > more expense and problems for an already overburdened and overwhelmed

> > system, I

> > am not sure that the benefit outweighs the adverse effects. Can

> > somebody help

> > me out with this?

> >

> > Jane Hill

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

You just want to hear my voice again, don't ya??

I'll try and call you later. This issue is important, but I have to get

approval from my insurance company and then find a lease truck to replace a unit

that was involved in an ambulance versus deer accident yesterday morning. The

ambulance lost, and the deer had no liability insurance. LOL SOOOOO, I'll

retackle the data problem later today I hope.

Jane

Re: FW: Ground ambulance accident data

Jane,

Please give me a call in regards to the data issue.

Henry

je.hill@... wrote:

> The sad thing that I have been told over and over by other ambulance

services

> that many are having to try and find money in the budget to hire extra staff

> members to enter the required data because of the VOLUME of data. I talked

to

> our new billing agent the other day, and he implied that he will be forced

to

> raise what he charges to accomodate the MANY extra key strokes that he will

now

> be forced to do - he will be submitting our data. I have always told my

> students that on any intervention that they perform, they must balance the

> potential adverse effects versus the benefit. Which is better? The disease

or

> the cure? Can we also apply that to this subject? I realize that

> epidemiological studies are necessary sometimes to help us improve what we

do

> by identifying problems etc. But when the route to doing that study incurs

> more expense and problems for an already overburdened and overwhelmed

system, I

> am not sure that the benefit outweighs the adverse effects. Can somebody

help

> me out with this?

>

> Jane Hill

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

It sure beats talking to myself.

Henry

Jane Hill wrote:

> You just want to hear my voice again, don't ya??

>

> I'll try and call you later. This issue is important, but I have to get

approval from my insurance company and then find a lease truck to replace a unit

that was involved in an ambulance versus deer accident yesterday morning. The

ambulance lost, and the deer had no liability insurance. LOL SOOOOO, I'll

retackle the data problem later today I hope.

>

> Jane

> Re: FW: Ground ambulance accident data

>

> Jane,

>

> Please give me a call in regards to the data issue.

>

> Henry

>

> je.hill@... wrote:

>

> > The sad thing that I have been told over and over by other ambulance

services

> > that many are having to try and find money in the budget to hire extra

staff

> > members to enter the required data because of the VOLUME of data. I

talked to

> > our new billing agent the other day, and he implied that he will be forced

to

> > raise what he charges to accomodate the MANY extra key strokes that he

will now

> > be forced to do - he will be submitting our data. I have always told my

> > students that on any intervention that they perform, they must balance the

> > potential adverse effects versus the benefit. Which is better? The

disease or

> > the cure? Can we also apply that to this subject? I realize that

> > epidemiological studies are necessary sometimes to help us improve what we

do

> > by identifying problems etc. But when the route to doing that study

incurs

> > more expense and problems for an already overburdened and overwhelmed

system, I

> > am not sure that the benefit outweighs the adverse effects. Can somebody

help

> > me out with this?

> >

> > Jane Hill

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Henry,

In the past, I have seen at least four " minimum essential EMS data sets "

that were developed by national coalitions, associations and government

agencies. I have even participated in the development of a couple of

them myself. Following days of ruminating, chin stroking and

pontificating, someone invariably asks. " O.K., so how can we make sure

that this is uniformly implemented and maintained? "

Because no rational human would knowingly engage in the collection of

data that is destined for nowhere, the answer was always, " Link the

requirement (mandate) to funding or state administrative codes. " Jam it

down their throats. Make it a licensure requirement. Or, cut off their

funding if they don't comply. In other words, shift the burden of

compliance, maintenance and proof to the EMS providers, thereby

absolving the creator's of the document from responsibility,

accountability and fiscal consequences (obligations).

Henry, you've seen this kind of thing happen repeatedly throughout EMS

history. Once these " monsters " are created, they assume a life of their

own - roaming the countryside killing everything in sight. Given enough

time and attrition, EMS people will eventually stop questioning the

necessity or practicality of the requirements (aka: stump broke). Two

more examples of this include the GSA's KKK-A-1822-D vehicle standards,

and the NHTSA/ASTM-hatched F-30 Committee on EMS.

The EMS industry has suffered from these and other forms of predatory

intrusion and pernicious manipulation at the behest of entities that had

everything to gain and nothing to lose. I don't now, nor will I ever

subscribe to notion that we're stuck with anything - including the

byzantine practice of EMS " data collection " or similar forms of

bureaucratic self-gratification.

Bob Kellow

Henry Barber wrote:

> Bob, Bob, Bob

>

> You and I both know that we will be required to send the data no

> matter what.

> We could talk all day about it being good data, bad data or whatever.

> The end

> result is that we will still be required to send it. I served on the

> Trac-It

> committee and voiced all the same concerns that you have offered.

> Myself and

> others knowing that we were going to be forced to send in the data,

> attempted

> to steer it into something that would at least be minimal painful to

> the

> provider and that would provide feedback to the provider in regards to

> data

> that is being sent in to TDH.

>

> Speaking of TDH: We are not dealing with the TDH that works with EMS.

> We are

> dealing with a totally different department of TDH. Mr. Zane is

> the

> leader of the Epidemology department. Kathy is working very hard to

> assure

> that our concerns are heard by Mr. Zane.

>

> I have found that Mr. Zane has minimal staff who deal with data and

> have no

> real understanding of EMS. Trac-It has been a struggle from the

> beginning in

> regards to EMS and input from EMS. The NSR group that developed the

> program

> was very knowledgeable and open minded. Once they were out of the

> picture,

> things seemed to bog down.

>

> Do I think the Trac-It system will work. Hell I don't know. What I do

> know is

> that EMS has had about as much input as possible into the program. We

> have

> had to badger, complain and request information over and over so that

> we can

> upload data that we didn't want to upload in the first place. If

> Trac-It ever

> comes to fruition it will surprise me. I really do not think that

> Epidemology

> has the ability to manage and oversee the program. I say this because

> of

> their track record so far.

>

> What have we done in Calhoun County? We implemented computer reports

> in 1998

> using a very inexpensive program (StatCo) that provides us all the

> data that

> we need for budgeting and at the same time provides TDH their

> information.

> The crew members type their reports and upload to our file server when

> that

> get back to the station. With this system they also can print out a

> copy of

> the report at the E.R. prior to leaving. We have no need to hire new

> office

> staff to manage the data. Simply speaking we chose to implement the

> program

> because we knew it was required. By doing so we were able to do it on

> our

> terms and within our time frame.

>

> Even if Trac-It were to go away and I don't think it will, we are

> better off

> as a department because we now have reports that are printed,easy to

> read,

> complete, spell checked, user friendly and that provides data that we

> need.

>

> My friend you are absolutely right in your comments. Right does not

> always

> enable change.

>

> Henry Barber

>

> Bob Kellow wrote:

>

> > Jane,

> >

> > You're exactly right. Many states collect run data, but few provide

> any

> > meaningful outcomes. In other words, the collection of data becomes

> the

> > " end " , rather than the " means " to an identified end.

> >

> > What can we expect to change as a result of collecting and reporting

>

> > these data? What will be the frequency and reliability of the

> state-wide

> > reports? Will they be statistically valid? What elements are marked

> for

> > trend analysis? How will these data specifically influence rule

> making?

> > Can uniform comparisons be made: by population? - by setting? - by

> > outcomes? Is there a provision for dropping this requirement if the

> data

> > proves unusable, unreliable or invalid? Or will it just go on

> forever,

> > regardless of utility or practicality? Was the fiscal impact on EMS

> > providers ever considered? These are just a few of my questions.

> >

> > Bob Kellow

> >

> > je.hill@... wrote:

> >

> > > The sad thing that I have been told over and over by other

> ambulance

> > > services

> > > that many are having to try and find money in the budget to hire

> extra

> > > staff

> > > members to enter the required data because of the VOLUME of data.

> I

> > > talked to

> > > our new billing agent the other day, and he implied that he will

> be

> > > forced to

> > > raise what he charges to accomodate the MANY extra key strokes

> that he

> > > will now

> > > be forced to do - he will be submitting our data. I have always

> told

> > > my

> > > students that on any intervention that they perform, they must

> balance

> > > the

> > > potential adverse effects versus the benefit. Which is better?

> The

> > > disease or

> > > the cure? Can we also apply that to this subject? I realize that

>

> > > epidemiological studies are necessary sometimes to help us improve

>

> > > what we do

> > > by identifying problems etc. But when the route to doing that

> study

> > > incurs

> > > more expense and problems for an already overburdened and

> overwhelmed

> > > system, I

> > > am not sure that the benefit outweighs the adverse effects. Can

> > > somebody help

> > > me out with this?

> > >

> > > Jane Hill

> > >

> > >

> > >