Re: EMD Dispatching Controversy?

[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

[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

[Guest guest]

Thom,

I agree the system " standardizes a quality process of information gathering

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

I didn't have a problem with MPDS, just don't understand the concept of using

the codes in communications with field crews. As you said, my opinion is not

going to change that, but I only stated an opinion. I was simply trying to

understand the reasoning behind a decision to use these codes instead of Plain

English, especially in a time when the norm is swinging toward the use of Plain

English in radio communications.

Tater

Thom Seeber wrote:

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]

Thom,

I agree the system " standardizes a quality process of information gathering

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

I didn't have a problem with MPDS, just don't understand the concept of using

the codes in communications with field crews. As you said, my opinion is not

going to change that, but I only stated an opinion. I was simply trying to

understand the reasoning behind a decision to use these codes instead of Plain

English, especially in a time when the norm is swinging toward the use of Plain

English in radio communications.

Tater

Thom Seeber wrote:

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]

Again, the time spent is miniscule, the codes read in a book just like a

flow chart, it takes all of about 5-10 seconds to find the code. The whole

thing to me is, it failed to benefit me, the service, or most importantly,

the patient at any time.

The big thing for me was that with all that could be going on with a

patient, and the varying degrees to which a patient could be short of breath

for example, not to mention the vast myriad of underlying causes, to call

all SOB calls a 'X-X-X' is near impossible.

My humble .02 cents worth.:-)

Probably why I am not in management, I use too much logic..

Just kidding all you managerial type guys...just kidding.:-)

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]

Again, the time spent is miniscule, the codes read in a book just like a

flow chart, it takes all of about 5-10 seconds to find the code. The whole

thing to me is, it failed to benefit me, the service, or most importantly,

the patient at any time.

The big thing for me was that with all that could be going on with a

patient, and the varying degrees to which a patient could be short of breath

for example, not to mention the vast myriad of underlying causes, to call

all SOB calls a 'X-X-X' is near impossible.

My humble .02 cents worth.:-)

Probably why I am not in management, I use too much logic..

Just kidding all you managerial type guys...just kidding.:-)

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]

Again, the time spent is miniscule, the codes read in a book just like a

flow chart, it takes all of about 5-10 seconds to find the code. The whole

thing to me is, it failed to benefit me, the service, or most importantly,

the patient at any time.

The big thing for me was that with all that could be going on with a

patient, and the varying degrees to which a patient could be short of breath

for example, not to mention the vast myriad of underlying causes, to call

all SOB calls a 'X-X-X' is near impossible.

My humble .02 cents worth.:-)

Probably why I am not in management, I use too much logic..

Just kidding all you managerial type guys...just kidding.:-)

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]

In a message dated 1/11/2006 5:25:28 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

texaslp@... writes:

I agree the system " standardizes a quality process of information gathering

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

Where actually, the 'card breakdown' is of more benefit to the bean counters

in comparing what was called in with what was reported by the medics in the

run report...and only if said bean counters are actually interested in

improving response capability in the community.

I didn't have a problem with MPDS, just don't understand the concept of

using the codes in communications with field crews. As you said, my opinion is

not going to change that, but I only stated an opinion. I was simply trying

to understand the reasoning behind a decision to use these codes instead of

Plain English, especially in a time when the norm is swinging toward the use of

Plain English in radio communications.

" The Norm " in fact is mandated under the ICS system....and technically,

anytime you have more than one organization responding to a given situation,

that

situation " automatically " becomes an ICS response!

ck

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/11/2006 5:25:28 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

texaslp@... writes:

I agree the system " standardizes a quality process of information gathering

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

Where actually, the 'card breakdown' is of more benefit to the bean counters

in comparing what was called in with what was reported by the medics in the

run report...and only if said bean counters are actually interested in

improving response capability in the community.

I didn't have a problem with MPDS, just don't understand the concept of

using the codes in communications with field crews. As you said, my opinion is

not going to change that, but I only stated an opinion. I was simply trying

to understand the reasoning behind a decision to use these codes instead of

Plain English, especially in a time when the norm is swinging toward the use of

Plain English in radio communications.

" The Norm " in fact is mandated under the ICS system....and technically,

anytime you have more than one organization responding to a given situation,

that

situation " automatically " becomes an ICS response!

ck

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/11/2006 5:25:28 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

texaslp@... writes:

I agree the system " standardizes a quality process of information gathering

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

Where actually, the 'card breakdown' is of more benefit to the bean counters

in comparing what was called in with what was reported by the medics in the

run report...and only if said bean counters are actually interested in

improving response capability in the community.

I didn't have a problem with MPDS, just don't understand the concept of

using the codes in communications with field crews. As you said, my opinion is

not going to change that, but I only stated an opinion. I was simply trying

to understand the reasoning behind a decision to use these codes instead of

Plain English, especially in a time when the norm is swinging toward the use of

Plain English in radio communications.

" The Norm " in fact is mandated under the ICS system....and technically,

anytime you have more than one organization responding to a given situation,

that

situation " automatically " becomes an ICS response!

ck

[Guest guest]

Bravo Dr. Bledsoe. Keep debunking the myths of EMS.

Gene G.

E.(Gene) Gandy

POB 1651

Albany, TX 76430

wegandy1938@...

[Guest guest]

Bravo Dr. Bledsoe. Keep debunking the myths of EMS.

Gene G.

E.(Gene) Gandy

POB 1651

Albany, TX 76430

wegandy1938@...

[Guest guest]

I am only now catching up on e-mail. Just a quick comment, it is important

to remember that Dr. Clawson's original intent was not to provide

pre-arrival instructions. Dr. Clawson was the medical director for Salt

Lake City. They were trying to address the issue of not enough paramedics

to respond to every call. At the time there was a controversy about whether

to send a unit to every call, or only the life threatening ones - call

screening versus priority medical dispatch. Dr. Clawson came up with

Priority Medical Dispatch. Pre-arrival instructions were to help bridge the

time until a unit arrived.

Forrest C. Wood, Jr. (Woody)

Re: EMD Dispatching Controversy?

>

>

> Wes, EMD systems like MPDS are a useful, and life saving tool. But, like

> anything else we do, without the three levels of Improvement

(retrospective,

> concurrent and prospective), and system will have flaws. Another

important

> note, if you do Improvement activities, have a feedback function at all

levels

> incuding field and the communications center staff, and share the

findings!

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I am only now catching up on e-mail. Just a quick comment, it is important

to remember that Dr. Clawson's original intent was not to provide

pre-arrival instructions. Dr. Clawson was the medical director for Salt

Lake City. They were trying to address the issue of not enough paramedics

to respond to every call. At the time there was a controversy about whether

to send a unit to every call, or only the life threatening ones - call

screening versus priority medical dispatch. Dr. Clawson came up with

Priority Medical Dispatch. Pre-arrival instructions were to help bridge the

time until a unit arrived.

Forrest C. Wood, Jr. (Woody)

Re: EMD Dispatching Controversy?

>

>

> Wes, EMD systems like MPDS are a useful, and life saving tool. But, like

> anything else we do, without the three levels of Improvement

(retrospective,

> concurrent and prospective), and system will have flaws. Another

important

> note, if you do Improvement activities, have a feedback function at all

levels

> incuding field and the communications center staff, and share the

findings!

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

These are the facts and they are irrefutable:

1. There has been no empiric evidence that pre-arrival dispatch instructions

affect patient outcomes.

2. The studies that have been performed show that MPD is a poor predictor of

the EMS service required. It significantly overtriages in certain diagnoses

and undertriages in others. The only area where it has stood up to scrutiny

is that it appears somewhat accurate in determining who has a non-emergent

problem.

3. With the London Ambulance Service (the largest in the world), Dr.

Cooke tried to use MPD to triage out non-emergent patients. He found the MPD

system so bad that many patients triaged out actually needed emergency

ambulances and some who were triaged as emergencies actually were not. he

found it actually increased the work of the LAS.

So, use MPD, system status management, AutoPulses, CISM, MAST and all these

other things based upon who has the flashiest PowerPoint presentation and

based upon who brings the best pizza to the meeting. Isn't that the way

things in EMS work?

MPD has created an industry and a level of provider that is not based upon

any science. But like some other EMS practices it has developed somewhat of

a cult following and ridding EMS of it will be akin to trying to herd

puppies or kill vampires.

E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP

Midlothian, Texas

Don't miss the Western States EMS Cruise!

http://proemseducators.com/index.html

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of TxWoody_wood

Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 11:33 AM

To:

Subject: Re: EMD Dispatching Controversy?

I am only now catching up on e-mail. Just a quick comment, it is important

to remember that Dr. Clawson's original intent was not to provide

pre-arrival instructions. Dr. Clawson was the medical director for Salt

Lake City. They were trying to address the issue of not enough paramedics

to respond to every call. At the time there was a controversy about whether

to send a unit to every call, or only the life threatening ones - call

screening versus priority medical dispatch. Dr. Clawson came up with

Priority Medical Dispatch. Pre-arrival instructions were to help bridge the

time until a unit arrived.

Forrest C. Wood, Jr. (Woody)

Re: EMD Dispatching Controversy?

>

>

> Wes, EMD systems like MPDS are a useful, and life saving tool. But, like

> anything else we do, without the three levels of Improvement

(retrospective,

> concurrent and prospective), and system will have flaws. Another

important

> note, if you do Improvement activities, have a feedback function at all

levels

> incuding field and the communications center staff, and share the

findings!

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

These are the facts and they are irrefutable:

1. There has been no empiric evidence that pre-arrival dispatch instructions

affect patient outcomes.

2. The studies that have been performed show that MPD is a poor predictor of

the EMS service required. It significantly overtriages in certain diagnoses

and undertriages in others. The only area where it has stood up to scrutiny

is that it appears somewhat accurate in determining who has a non-emergent

problem.

3. With the London Ambulance Service (the largest in the world), Dr.

Cooke tried to use MPD to triage out non-emergent patients. He found the MPD

system so bad that many patients triaged out actually needed emergency

ambulances and some who were triaged as emergencies actually were not. he

found it actually increased the work of the LAS.

So, use MPD, system status management, AutoPulses, CISM, MAST and all these

other things based upon who has the flashiest PowerPoint presentation and

based upon who brings the best pizza to the meeting. Isn't that the way

things in EMS work?

MPD has created an industry and a level of provider that is not based upon

any science. But like some other EMS practices it has developed somewhat of

a cult following and ridding EMS of it will be akin to trying to herd

puppies or kill vampires.

E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP

Midlothian, Texas

Don't miss the Western States EMS Cruise!

http://proemseducators.com/index.html

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of TxWoody_wood

Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 11:33 AM

To:

Subject: Re: EMD Dispatching Controversy?

I am only now catching up on e-mail. Just a quick comment, it is important

to remember that Dr. Clawson's original intent was not to provide

pre-arrival instructions. Dr. Clawson was the medical director for Salt

Lake City. They were trying to address the issue of not enough paramedics

to respond to every call. At the time there was a controversy about whether

to send a unit to every call, or only the life threatening ones - call

screening versus priority medical dispatch. Dr. Clawson came up with

Priority Medical Dispatch. Pre-arrival instructions were to help bridge the

time until a unit arrived.

Forrest C. Wood, Jr. (Woody)

Re: EMD Dispatching Controversy?

>

>

> Wes, EMD systems like MPDS are a useful, and life saving tool. But, like

> anything else we do, without the three levels of Improvement

(retrospective,

> concurrent and prospective), and system will have flaws. Another

important

> note, if you do Improvement activities, have a feedback function at all

levels

> incuding field and the communications center staff, and share the

findings!

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I think I've seen a ghost.......

wegandy1938@... wrote:

Bravo Dr. Bledsoe. Keep debunking the myths of EMS.

Gene G.

E.(Gene) Gandy

POB 1651

Albany, TX 76430

wegandy1938@...

[Guest guest]

I think I've seen a ghost.......

wegandy1938@... wrote:

Bravo Dr. Bledsoe. Keep debunking the myths of EMS.

Gene G.

E.(Gene) Gandy

POB 1651

Albany, TX 76430

wegandy1938@...