Re: EMD Dispatching Controversy?

[Guest guest]

Wes,

You are correct, NIMS requires the use of plain English.

Tater

ExLngHrn@... wrote:

The biggest argument for plain language is interoperability. Ask your local

cop what a 10-10 is versus a Texas DPS trooper's version of 10-10. Big

difference. APCO 10-10 means a fight. DPS 10-10 means negative.

We need to move towards plain language on our primary channels. Lou Molino may

correct me, but if I remember correctly, NIMS requires plain language.

-Wes

Re: EMD Dispatching Controversy?

" Thom Seeber " <tgseeber@f...> wrote:

>

> When a service first adopts the MPDS, the normal transition is to

continue

> the plain English dispatch along with the MPDS coding until the

crews become

> accustomed to the codes, and then to eventually drop the plain

language and

> to just use the MPDS coding to simplify the dispatching.

And as a result, we end up with a bunch of medics who have memorized a

bunch of pointless " codes " but still have to look up their drug

dosages and other medical information in a pocket guide.

When you force your personnel to adapt to the system -- without any

significant benefit -- you're allowing the tail to wag the dog.

Rob

[Guest guest]

Wes,

You are correct, NIMS requires the use of plain English.

Tater

ExLngHrn@... wrote:

The biggest argument for plain language is interoperability. Ask your local

cop what a 10-10 is versus a Texas DPS trooper's version of 10-10. Big

difference. APCO 10-10 means a fight. DPS 10-10 means negative.

We need to move towards plain language on our primary channels. Lou Molino may

correct me, but if I remember correctly, NIMS requires plain language.

-Wes

Re: EMD Dispatching Controversy?

" Thom Seeber " <tgseeber@f...> wrote:

>

> When a service first adopts the MPDS, the normal transition is to

continue

> the plain English dispatch along with the MPDS coding until the

crews become

> accustomed to the codes, and then to eventually drop the plain

language and

> to just use the MPDS coding to simplify the dispatching.

And as a result, we end up with a bunch of medics who have memorized a

bunch of pointless " codes " but still have to look up their drug

dosages and other medical information in a pocket guide.

When you force your personnel to adapt to the system -- without any

significant benefit -- you're allowing the tail to wag the dog.

Rob

[Guest guest]

I have to agree with Rob on this one. I really do not see the point in using

these codes. The slightest savings in radio traffic is negligible. The added

requirement of field medics learning some ill conceived code is totally

pointless.

EMS - “We need to assist us on a 29-D-1-f at Broadway and the Loop”

PD - “What the heck is a 29-D-1-f?”

Tater

dustdevil31 wrote: " Thom Seeber " <tgseeber@f...> wrote:

>

> When a service first adopts the MPDS, the normal transition is to

continue

> the plain English dispatch along with the MPDS coding until the

crews become

> accustomed to the codes, and then to eventually drop the plain

language and

> to just use the MPDS coding to simplify the dispatching.

And as a result, we end up with a bunch of medics who have memorized a

bunch of pointless " codes " but still have to look up their drug

dosages and other medical information in a pocket guide.

When you force your personnel to adapt to the system -- without any

significant benefit -- you're allowing the tail to wag the dog.

Rob

[Guest guest]

I have to agree with Rob on this one. I really do not see the point in

using these codes. The slightest savings in radio traffic is negligible. The

added requirement of field medics learning some ill conceived code is totally

pointless.

EMS - “We need to assist us on a 29-D-1-f at Broadway and the Loop”

PD - “What the heck is a 29-D-1-f?”

Tater

dustdevil31 wrote: " Thom Seeber " <tgseeber@f...> wrote:

>

> When a service first adopts the MPDS, the normal transition is to

continue

> the plain English dispatch along with the MPDS coding until the

crews become

> accustomed to the codes, and then to eventually drop the plain

language and

> to just use the MPDS coding to simplify the dispatching.

And as a result, we end up with a bunch of medics who have memorized a

bunch of pointless " codes " but still have to look up their drug

dosages and other medical information in a pocket guide.

When you force your personnel to adapt to the system -- without any

significant benefit -- you're allowing the tail to wag the dog.

Rob

[Guest guest]

I have to agree with Rob on this one. I really do not see the point in

using these codes. The slightest savings in radio traffic is negligible. The

added requirement of field medics learning some ill conceived code is totally

pointless.

EMS - “We need to assist us on a 29-D-1-f at Broadway and the Loop”

PD - “What the heck is a 29-D-1-f?”

Tater

dustdevil31 wrote: " Thom Seeber " <tgseeber@f...> wrote:

>

> When a service first adopts the MPDS, the normal transition is to

continue

> the plain English dispatch along with the MPDS coding until the

crews become

> accustomed to the codes, and then to eventually drop the plain

language and

> to just use the MPDS coding to simplify the dispatching.

And as a result, we end up with a bunch of medics who have memorized a

bunch of pointless " codes " but still have to look up their drug

dosages and other medical information in a pocket guide.

When you force your personnel to adapt to the system -- without any

significant benefit -- you're allowing the tail to wag the dog.

Rob

[Guest guest]

I have to agree with Rob on this one. I really do not see the point in

using these codes. The slightest savings in radio traffic is negligible. The

added requirement of field medics learning some ill conceived code is totally

pointless.

EMS - “We need to assist us on a 29-D-1-f at Broadway and the Loop”

PD - “What the heck is a 29-D-1-f?”

Tater

dustdevil31 wrote: " Thom Seeber " <tgseeber@f...> wrote:

>

> When a service first adopts the MPDS, the normal transition is to

continue

> the plain English dispatch along with the MPDS coding until the

crews become

> accustomed to the codes, and then to eventually drop the plain

language and

> to just use the MPDS coding to simplify the dispatching.

And as a result, we end up with a bunch of medics who have memorized a

bunch of pointless " codes " but still have to look up their drug

dosages and other medical information in a pocket guide.

When you force your personnel to adapt to the system -- without any

significant benefit -- you're allowing the tail to wag the dog.

Rob

[Guest guest]

Tater,

Since what we are talking about is " dispatch " codes, which are used between

the EMS dispatcher and the EMS crew, I see no reason why the EMS in your

example would have reason to use that code when speaking with the PD. Let's

attempt to keep this discussion in perspective.

-Thom Seeber

Re: Re: EMD Dispatching Controversy?

I have to agree with Rob on this one. I really do not see the point in

using these codes. The slightest savings in radio traffic is negligible.

The added requirement of field medics learning some ill conceived code is

totally pointless.

EMS - " We need to assist us on a 29-D-1-f at Broadway and the Loop "

PD - " What the heck is a 29-D-1-f? "

Tater

dustdevil31 wrote: " Thom Seeber " <tgseeber@f...>

wrote:

>

> When a service first adopts the MPDS, the normal transition is to

continue

> the plain English dispatch along with the MPDS coding until the

crews become

> accustomed to the codes, and then to eventually drop the plain

language and

> to just use the MPDS coding to simplify the dispatching.

And as a result, we end up with a bunch of medics who have memorized a

bunch of pointless " codes " but still have to look up their drug

dosages and other medical information in a pocket guide.

When you force your personnel to adapt to the system -- without any

significant benefit -- you're allowing the tail to wag the dog.

Rob

[Guest guest]

Tater,

Since what we are talking about is " dispatch " codes, which are used between

the EMS dispatcher and the EMS crew, I see no reason why the EMS in your

example would have reason to use that code when speaking with the PD. Let's

attempt to keep this discussion in perspective.

-Thom Seeber

Re: Re: EMD Dispatching Controversy?

I have to agree with Rob on this one. I really do not see the point in

using these codes. The slightest savings in radio traffic is negligible.

The added requirement of field medics learning some ill conceived code is

totally pointless.

EMS - " We need to assist us on a 29-D-1-f at Broadway and the Loop "

PD - " What the heck is a 29-D-1-f? "

Tater

dustdevil31 wrote: " Thom Seeber " <tgseeber@f...>

wrote:

>

> When a service first adopts the MPDS, the normal transition is to

continue

> the plain English dispatch along with the MPDS coding until the

crews become

> accustomed to the codes, and then to eventually drop the plain

language and

> to just use the MPDS coding to simplify the dispatching.

And as a result, we end up with a bunch of medics who have memorized a

bunch of pointless " codes " but still have to look up their drug

dosages and other medical information in a pocket guide.

When you force your personnel to adapt to the system -- without any

significant benefit -- you're allowing the tail to wag the dog.

Rob

[Guest guest]

Tater,

Since what we are talking about is " dispatch " codes, which are used between

the EMS dispatcher and the EMS crew, I see no reason why the EMS in your

example would have reason to use that code when speaking with the PD. Let's

attempt to keep this discussion in perspective.

-Thom Seeber

Re: Re: EMD Dispatching Controversy?

I have to agree with Rob on this one. I really do not see the point in

using these codes. The slightest savings in radio traffic is negligible.

The added requirement of field medics learning some ill conceived code is

totally pointless.

EMS - " We need to assist us on a 29-D-1-f at Broadway and the Loop "

PD - " What the heck is a 29-D-1-f? "

Tater

dustdevil31 wrote: " Thom Seeber " <tgseeber@f...>

wrote:

>

> When a service first adopts the MPDS, the normal transition is to

continue

> the plain English dispatch along with the MPDS coding until the

crews become

> accustomed to the codes, and then to eventually drop the plain

language and

> to just use the MPDS coding to simplify the dispatching.

And as a result, we end up with a bunch of medics who have memorized a

bunch of pointless " codes " but still have to look up their drug

dosages and other medical information in a pocket guide.

When you force your personnel to adapt to the system -- without any

significant benefit -- you're allowing the tail to wag the dog.

Rob

[Guest guest]

Thom,

I'll have to admit, I went way out on the limb with that example. I’m a huge

proponent of “practice like you play”; it’s a bad habit I picked up in the

police academy. I think the use of specialized codes in dispatch can lead to

confusion and ultimately a mistake.

I was a dispatcher way back in the day, and did both MPDS and non-MPDS

dispatching without PAI’s. I do like the MPDS model better, but this has

nothing to do with actually using the codes on the radio. IMHO, the MPDS codes

should be an in dispatch item only. What's so wrong with Plain English?

Tater

Thom Seeber wrote:

Tater,

Since what we are talking about is " dispatch " codes, which are used between

the EMS dispatcher and the EMS crew, I see no reason why the EMS in your

example would have reason to use that code when speaking with the PD. Let's

attempt to keep this discussion in perspective.

-Thom Seeber

Re: Re: EMD Dispatching Controversy?

I have to agree with Rob on this one. I really do not see the point in

using these codes. The slightest savings in radio traffic is negligible.

The added requirement of field medics learning some ill conceived code is

totally pointless.

EMS - " We need to assist us on a 29-D-1-f at Broadway and the Loop "

PD - " What the heck is a 29-D-1-f? "

Tater

dustdevil31 wrote: " Thom Seeber " <tgseeber@f...>

wrote:

>

> When a service first adopts the MPDS, the normal transition is to

continue

> the plain English dispatch along with the MPDS coding until the

crews become

> accustomed to the codes, and then to eventually drop the plain

language and

> to just use the MPDS coding to simplify the dispatching.

And as a result, we end up with a bunch of medics who have memorized a

bunch of pointless " codes " but still have to look up their drug

dosages and other medical information in a pocket guide.

When you force your personnel to adapt to the system -- without any

significant benefit -- you're allowing the tail to wag the dog.

Rob

[Guest guest]

Thom,

I'll have to admit, I went way out on the limb with that example. I’m a huge

proponent of “practice like you play”; it’s a bad habit I picked up in the

police academy. I think the use of specialized codes in dispatch can lead to

confusion and ultimately a mistake.

I was a dispatcher way back in the day, and did both MPDS and non-MPDS

dispatching without PAI’s. I do like the MPDS model better, but this has

nothing to do with actually using the codes on the radio. IMHO, the MPDS codes

should be an in dispatch item only. What's so wrong with Plain English?

Tater

Thom Seeber wrote:

Tater,

Since what we are talking about is " dispatch " codes, which are used between

the EMS dispatcher and the EMS crew, I see no reason why the EMS in your

example would have reason to use that code when speaking with the PD. Let's

attempt to keep this discussion in perspective.

-Thom Seeber

Re: Re: EMD Dispatching Controversy?

I have to agree with Rob on this one. I really do not see the point in

using these codes. The slightest savings in radio traffic is negligible.

The added requirement of field medics learning some ill conceived code is

totally pointless.

EMS - " We need to assist us on a 29-D-1-f at Broadway and the Loop "

PD - " What the heck is a 29-D-1-f? "

Tater

dustdevil31 wrote: " Thom Seeber " <tgseeber@f...>

wrote:

>

> When a service first adopts the MPDS, the normal transition is to

continue

> the plain English dispatch along with the MPDS coding until the

crews become

> accustomed to the codes, and then to eventually drop the plain

language and

> to just use the MPDS coding to simplify the dispatching.

And as a result, we end up with a bunch of medics who have memorized a

bunch of pointless " codes " but still have to look up their drug

dosages and other medical information in a pocket guide.

When you force your personnel to adapt to the system -- without any

significant benefit -- you're allowing the tail to wag the dog.

Rob

[Guest guest]

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.....

hatfield wrote: No, we actually carried a 3

ring binder. After awhile, we managed to

memorize the most used ones...

Mike

Hatfield FF/EMT-P

Re: EMD Dispatching Controversy?

" Thom Seeber " <tgseeber@f...> wrote:

>

> When a service first adopts the MPDS, the normal transition is to

continue

> the plain English dispatch along with the MPDS coding until the

crews become

> accustomed to the codes, and then to eventually drop the plain

language and

> to just use the MPDS coding to simplify the dispatching.

And as a result, we end up with a bunch of medics who have memorized a

bunch of pointless " codes " but still have to look up their drug

dosages and other medical information in a pocket guide.

When you force your personnel to adapt to the system -- without any

significant benefit -- you're allowing the tail to wag the dog.

Rob

[Guest guest]

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.....

hatfield wrote: No, we actually carried a 3

ring binder. After awhile, we managed to

memorize the most used ones...

Mike

Hatfield FF/EMT-P

Re: EMD Dispatching Controversy?

" Thom Seeber " <tgseeber@f...> wrote:

>

> When a service first adopts the MPDS, the normal transition is to

continue

> the plain English dispatch along with the MPDS coding until the

crews become

> accustomed to the codes, and then to eventually drop the plain

language and

> to just use the MPDS coding to simplify the dispatching.

And as a result, we end up with a bunch of medics who have memorized a

bunch of pointless " codes " but still have to look up their drug

dosages and other medical information in a pocket guide.

When you force your personnel to adapt to the system -- without any

significant benefit -- you're allowing the tail to wag the dog.

Rob

[Guest guest]

And instead of thinking about what can be going on

with the pt I have to flip though a book to see what I

am responding to.

Sal

--- Thom Seeber wrote:

> Wes,

>

> More information can be conveyed in a faster time

> span by saying " respond to

> a 29-D-1-f " Than by saying " Traffic Injury " .

>

> -Thom Seeber

>

>

> Re: EMD Dispatching

> Controversy?

>

>

> " Thom Seeber " <tgseeber@f...> wrote:

> >

> > When a service first adopts the MPDS, the normal

> transition is to

> continue

> > the plain English dispatch along with the MPDS

> coding until the

> crews become

> > accustomed to the codes, and then to eventually

> drop the plain

> language and

> > to just use the MPDS coding to simplify the

> dispatching.

>

> And as a result, we end up with a bunch of medics

> who have memorized a

> bunch of pointless " codes " but still have to look up

> their drug

> dosages and other medical information in a pocket

> guide.

>

> When you force your personnel to adapt to the system

> -- without any

> significant benefit -- you're allowing the tail to

> wag the dog.

>

> Rob

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

And instead of thinking about what can be going on

with the pt I have to flip though a book to see what I

am responding to.

Sal

--- Thom Seeber wrote:

> Wes,

>

> More information can be conveyed in a faster time

> span by saying " respond to

> a 29-D-1-f " Than by saying " Traffic Injury " .

>

> -Thom Seeber

>

>

> Re: EMD Dispatching

> Controversy?

>

>

> " Thom Seeber " <tgseeber@f...> wrote:

> >

> > When a service first adopts the MPDS, the normal

> transition is to

> continue

> > the plain English dispatch along with the MPDS

> coding until the

> crews become

> > accustomed to the codes, and then to eventually

> drop the plain

> language and

> > to just use the MPDS coding to simplify the

> dispatching.

>

> And as a result, we end up with a bunch of medics

> who have memorized a

> bunch of pointless " codes " but still have to look up

> their drug

> dosages and other medical information in a pocket

> guide.

>

> When you force your personnel to adapt to the system

> -- without any

> significant benefit -- you're allowing the tail to

> wag the dog.

>

> Rob

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

The use of the dispatch codes or not is a choice of the service that chooses

to adopt the system. As I said before, I have seen services that have chosen

to continue with using plain language dispatch, as well as some that chose

to use the codes. That choice is theirs alone. It is not a requirement.

What you are addressing is like maybe 5% of the system, and at best is a

trivial concern. Neither your opinion nor mine will likely sway any service

to decide one way or another. By classifying the responses into one of the

identified 33 categories, it is easier for those services to determine how

their resources are utilized.

You state that you have worked as a dispatcher with service(s) that use the

system as well as service(s) that do not. Can you not say that when utilized

properly, the system standardizes a quality process of information gathering

and streamlines the delivery of that information to the responding crews?

Whether the studies were conducted by the NAED or not, they are established

studies. I submit that if anyone wants to, they should conduct their own

study. Since such a study has never been publicized, it could be deduced

that either such study(s) failed to prove the existing studies wrong, or

simply found substance to the previously published studies.

-Thom Seeber

Re: Re: EMD Dispatching Controversy?

I have to agree with Rob on this one. I really do not see the point in

using these codes. The slightest savings in radio traffic is negligible.

The added requirement of field medics learning some ill conceived code is

totally pointless.

EMS - " We need to assist us on a 29-D-1-f at Broadway and the Loop "

PD - " What the heck is a 29-D-1-f? "

Tater

dustdevil31 wrote: " Thom Seeber " <tgseeber@f...>

wrote:

>

> When a service first adopts the MPDS, the normal transition is to

continue

> the plain English dispatch along with the MPDS coding until the

crews become

> accustomed to the codes, and then to eventually drop the plain

language and

> to just use the MPDS coding to simplify the dispatching.

And as a result, we end up with a bunch of medics who have memorized a

bunch of pointless " codes " but still have to look up their drug

dosages and other medical information in a pocket guide.

When you force your personnel to adapt to the system -- without any

significant benefit -- you're allowing the tail to wag the dog.

Rob

[Guest guest]

The use of the dispatch codes or not is a choice of the service that chooses

to adopt the system. As I said before, I have seen services that have chosen

to continue with using plain language dispatch, as well as some that chose

to use the codes. That choice is theirs alone. It is not a requirement.

What you are addressing is like maybe 5% of the system, and at best is a

trivial concern. Neither your opinion nor mine will likely sway any service

to decide one way or another. By classifying the responses into one of the

identified 33 categories, it is easier for those services to determine how

their resources are utilized.

You state that you have worked as a dispatcher with service(s) that use the

system as well as service(s) that do not. Can you not say that when utilized

properly, the system standardizes a quality process of information gathering

and streamlines the delivery of that information to the responding crews?

Whether the studies were conducted by the NAED or not, they are established

studies. I submit that if anyone wants to, they should conduct their own

study. Since such a study has never been publicized, it could be deduced

that either such study(s) failed to prove the existing studies wrong, or

simply found substance to the previously published studies.

-Thom Seeber

Re: Re: EMD Dispatching Controversy?

I have to agree with Rob on this one. I really do not see the point in

using these codes. The slightest savings in radio traffic is negligible.

The added requirement of field medics learning some ill conceived code is

totally pointless.

EMS - " We need to assist us on a 29-D-1-f at Broadway and the Loop "

PD - " What the heck is a 29-D-1-f? "

Tater

dustdevil31 wrote: " Thom Seeber " <tgseeber@f...>

wrote:

>

> When a service first adopts the MPDS, the normal transition is to

continue

> the plain English dispatch along with the MPDS coding until the

crews become

> accustomed to the codes, and then to eventually drop the plain

language and

> to just use the MPDS coding to simplify the dispatching.

And as a result, we end up with a bunch of medics who have memorized a

bunch of pointless " codes " but still have to look up their drug

dosages and other medical information in a pocket guide.

When you force your personnel to adapt to the system -- without any

significant benefit -- you're allowing the tail to wag the dog.

Rob

[Guest guest]

If DHS gets their way, anyone who wants DHS grants

will have to switch to plain language.

Sal

--- ExLngHrn@... wrote:

> The biggest argument for plain language is

> interoperability. Ask your local cop what a 10-10

> is versus a Texas DPS trooper's version of 10-10.

> Big difference. APCO 10-10 means a fight. DPS

> 10-10 means negative.

>

> We need to move towards plain language on our

> primary channels. Lou Molino may correct me, but if

> I remember correctly, NIMS requires plain language.

>

> -Wes

>

> Re: EMD Dispatching

> Controversy?

>

>

> " Thom Seeber " <tgseeber@f...> wrote:

> >

> > When a service first adopts the MPDS, the normal

> transition is to

> continue

> > the plain English dispatch along with the MPDS

> coding until the

> crews become

> > accustomed to the codes, and then to eventually

> drop the plain

> language and

> > to just use the MPDS coding to simplify the

> dispatching.

>

> And as a result, we end up with a bunch of medics

> who have memorized a

> bunch of pointless " codes " but still have to look up

> their drug

> dosages and other medical information in a pocket

> guide.

>

> When you force your personnel to adapt to the system

> -- without any

> significant benefit -- you're allowing the tail to

> wag the dog.

>

> Rob

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

If DHS gets their way, anyone who wants DHS grants

will have to switch to plain language.

Sal

--- ExLngHrn@... wrote:

> The biggest argument for plain language is

> interoperability. Ask your local cop what a 10-10

> is versus a Texas DPS trooper's version of 10-10.

> Big difference. APCO 10-10 means a fight. DPS

> 10-10 means negative.

>

> We need to move towards plain language on our

> primary channels. Lou Molino may correct me, but if

> I remember correctly, NIMS requires plain language.

>

> -Wes

>

> Re: EMD Dispatching

> Controversy?

>

>

> " Thom Seeber " <tgseeber@f...> wrote:

> >

> > When a service first adopts the MPDS, the normal

> transition is to

> continue

> > the plain English dispatch along with the MPDS

> coding until the

> crews become

> > accustomed to the codes, and then to eventually

> drop the plain

> language and

> > to just use the MPDS coding to simplify the

> dispatching.

>

> And as a result, we end up with a bunch of medics

> who have memorized a

> bunch of pointless " codes " but still have to look up

> their drug

> dosages and other medical information in a pocket

> guide.

>

> When you force your personnel to adapt to the system

> -- without any

> significant benefit -- you're allowing the tail to

> wag the dog.

>

> Rob

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Alfonso,

>

> Thank you for shedding light on this statement. We didn't use

the MPDS Codes to dispatch units when I was in dispatch. I

personally can't see the advantage to doing this.

>

There are some advantages that I've seen out in the field. For

example, the 29 card has various descriptors that aid the field

medics in anticipating resources. For example, a 29-D-2F would tell

them it's a roll-over traffic collision or a 29-D-1B would tell them

it's a major incident involving a bus without spelling it all out

over the radio. However, there are some disadvantages as well.

The " unknown status " descriptors found on most cards are annoying at

best and tell the crew absolutely nothing about the scene.

> " Damn Roy, I've lost my MPDS Sooper Dooper decoder ring. What

is a 10C1 again? "

>

Been there, done that. :-)

> " ny, you idiot, that's a Chest Pain with Abnormal

breathing. You'd lose your head if it wasn't screwed on tight,

wouldn't you? "

>

> What is the advantage of using these codes? I can see some

major disadvantages.

>

> FWIW, some services use alpha pagers to dispatch, so no one ever

knows what they are doing. Even so, back to one of my original

questions, who cares? (Unless they like to jump calls….)

>

I'm not a die-hard fan of MPDS, but I can see it's advantages. To

quote the National Academy 11.2 Field Responder Guide, " (E)ach

determinant level and numbered Determinant Descriptor is, in

essence, an answer the EMD received during questioning. If an EMD

indentifies a determinant in one of the five levels or response

(alpha, bravo, charlie, delta, and echo), they dispatch the response

configuration (emergency vehicles and mode of response) as indicated

in the response section. " In essence, the EMDs are attempting to

pool the best resources for each particular call.

-Alfonso R. Ochoa

[Guest guest]

>

> Alfonso,

>

> Thank you for shedding light on this statement. We didn't use

the MPDS Codes to dispatch units when I was in dispatch. I

personally can't see the advantage to doing this.

>

There are some advantages that I've seen out in the field. For

example, the 29 card has various descriptors that aid the field

medics in anticipating resources. For example, a 29-D-2F would tell

them it's a roll-over traffic collision or a 29-D-1B would tell them

it's a major incident involving a bus without spelling it all out

over the radio. However, there are some disadvantages as well.

The " unknown status " descriptors found on most cards are annoying at

best and tell the crew absolutely nothing about the scene.

> " Damn Roy, I've lost my MPDS Sooper Dooper decoder ring. What

is a 10C1 again? "

>

Been there, done that. :-)

> " ny, you idiot, that's a Chest Pain with Abnormal

breathing. You'd lose your head if it wasn't screwed on tight,

wouldn't you? "

>

> What is the advantage of using these codes? I can see some

major disadvantages.

>

> FWIW, some services use alpha pagers to dispatch, so no one ever

knows what they are doing. Even so, back to one of my original

questions, who cares? (Unless they like to jump calls….)

>

I'm not a die-hard fan of MPDS, but I can see it's advantages. To

quote the National Academy 11.2 Field Responder Guide, " (E)ach

determinant level and numbered Determinant Descriptor is, in

essence, an answer the EMD received during questioning. If an EMD

indentifies a determinant in one of the five levels or response

(alpha, bravo, charlie, delta, and echo), they dispatch the response

configuration (emergency vehicles and mode of response) as indicated

in the response section. " In essence, the EMDs are attempting to

pool the best resources for each particular call.

-Alfonso R. Ochoa

[Guest guest]

I beg to differ, the amount of time it saves is miniscule at best, the

difference between a 'cardiac arrest', and a '9-d-3', is nothing.

After you get your initial dispatch information, most times we turn right

around, check in route, and ask for additional information anyway, so

whatever precious radio time you saved, just got used.

Having worked in both systems, EMD in Fayetteville NC, we used it for about

6 months, and the issue that came back to haunt us, was in fact

interoperability with mutual aid resources.

Plain English seems to be the simplest, most commonly understood dispatch.

Mike

Hatfield FF/EMT-P

Re: EMD Dispatching Controversy?

" Thom Seeber " <tgseeber@f...> wrote:

>

> When a service first adopts the MPDS, the normal transition is to

continue

> the plain English dispatch along with the MPDS coding until the

crews become

> accustomed to the codes, and then to eventually drop the plain

language and

> to just use the MPDS coding to simplify the dispatching.

And as a result, we end up with a bunch of medics who have memorized a

bunch of pointless " codes " but still have to look up their drug

dosages and other medical information in a pocket guide.

When you force your personnel to adapt to the system -- without any

significant benefit -- you're allowing the tail to wag the dog.

Rob

[Guest guest]

I beg to differ, the amount of time it saves is miniscule at best, the

difference between a 'cardiac arrest', and a '9-d-3', is nothing.

After you get your initial dispatch information, most times we turn right

around, check in route, and ask for additional information anyway, so

whatever precious radio time you saved, just got used.

Having worked in both systems, EMD in Fayetteville NC, we used it for about

6 months, and the issue that came back to haunt us, was in fact

interoperability with mutual aid resources.

Plain English seems to be the simplest, most commonly understood dispatch.

Mike

Hatfield FF/EMT-P

Re: EMD Dispatching Controversy?

" Thom Seeber " <tgseeber@f...> wrote:

>

> When a service first adopts the MPDS, the normal transition is to

continue

> the plain English dispatch along with the MPDS coding until the

crews become

> accustomed to the codes, and then to eventually drop the plain

language and

> to just use the MPDS coding to simplify the dispatching.

And as a result, we end up with a bunch of medics who have memorized a

bunch of pointless " codes " but still have to look up their drug

dosages and other medical information in a pocket guide.

When you force your personnel to adapt to the system -- without any

significant benefit -- you're allowing the tail to wag the dog.

Rob

[Guest guest]

I beg to differ, the amount of time it saves is miniscule at best, the

difference between a 'cardiac arrest', and a '9-d-3', is nothing.

After you get your initial dispatch information, most times we turn right

around, check in route, and ask for additional information anyway, so

whatever precious radio time you saved, just got used.

Having worked in both systems, EMD in Fayetteville NC, we used it for about

6 months, and the issue that came back to haunt us, was in fact

interoperability with mutual aid resources.

Plain English seems to be the simplest, most commonly understood dispatch.

Mike

Hatfield FF/EMT-P

Re: EMD Dispatching Controversy?

" Thom Seeber " <tgseeber@f...> wrote:

>

> When a service first adopts the MPDS, the normal transition is to

continue

> the plain English dispatch along with the MPDS coding until the

crews become

> accustomed to the codes, and then to eventually drop the plain

language and

> to just use the MPDS coding to simplify the dispatching.

And as a result, we end up with a bunch of medics who have memorized a

bunch of pointless " codes " but still have to look up their drug

dosages and other medical information in a pocket guide.

When you force your personnel to adapt to the system -- without any

significant benefit -- you're allowing the tail to wag the dog.

Rob

[Guest guest]

No, we actually carried a 3 ring binder. After awhile, we managed to

memorize the most used ones...

Mike

Hatfield FF/EMT-P

Re: EMD Dispatching Controversy?

" Thom Seeber " <tgseeber@f...> wrote:

>

> When a service first adopts the MPDS, the normal transition is to

continue

> the plain English dispatch along with the MPDS coding until the

crews become

> accustomed to the codes, and then to eventually drop the plain

language and

> to just use the MPDS coding to simplify the dispatching.

And as a result, we end up with a bunch of medics who have memorized a

bunch of pointless " codes " but still have to look up their drug

dosages and other medical information in a pocket guide.

When you force your personnel to adapt to the system -- without any

significant benefit -- you're allowing the tail to wag the dog.

Rob