Re: MPDS and Patient Assessment

[Guest guest]

Unfortunately, our experience has been the more information the crew gets

ahead of time, the more tunnel vision they develop thinking they already

know what is going on with the patient. It results in a less thorough

assessment.

Bullard BS, LP

Operations Manager

Lubbock Aid Ambulance

<http://www.lubbockambulance.com/> http://www.lubbockambulance.com

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of

Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 2:41 PM

To:

Subject: RE: MPDS and Patient Assessment

Importance: High

Anecdotally speaking, and speaking as former field medic, I'd say you always

have a guarded suspicion.

MPDS and Patient Assessment

I'd like to pose this question particularly to the EMS educators and

QA/QI/QC folks...

Do you believe (anecdotally or empirically) that receiving MPDS/EMD call

information has any bearing on the field crews' patient assessment? For

example, if the dispatcher tells the crew that the call is a " Priority 3

respiratory, " that the crew will, perhaps subconsciously, focus on a

respiratory emergency and exclude other possibilities?

Thanks,

Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

Austin, Texas

[Guest guest]

This thread goes back to a rally great lecture I heard at the Texas EMS

Conference back in 2004. The speaker said that you should be prepared on every

call with the equipment you need or may need. There is a mobile equipment

carrying device in every ambulance (stretcher). Place the monitor, airway bag

(including a few trauma related supplies), drug box, and suction unit on there

and secure. This can be done at the end of every call, therefore giving you a

jumpstart on the next call. Now for 90% of the calls we run, you’ll have

everything with you.

That guy was a genius!!!!! The Conference really needs to have him return.

Tater

rwwoodknot wrote:

Wes,

I feel that the dispatch information to the crews should be very

limited, I do not like the idea of the dispatcher diagnosing the

call over the phone, I've seen it too many times that the dispatcher

gets bad information and have seen crews get tunnel vision on the

call due to the dispatchers diagnosis.

Now let me say this there are some very good dispatchers out

there. I seen Thom Seber reply to this and I believe he is one of

the greats. Unfortunatly the world is not full of dispatchers like

Thom who have years and years and years etc. of experience as a

paramedic to back up his dispatch experience.

I do have solution to the problem though:

Make all dispatcher be EMD trained seasoned paramedics and require

all patients who call 911 to be well trained EMT's with lots and

lots of common sense really this is a bad idea cause we probably

would not have a job due to the drastic drop in call volume.

oh well have a good day

and just to make note these are only my opinions and do not reflect

on any employer or associate.

sorry for the spelling

Ross Bradley, EMT-P

>

> I believe that my first thought would lean toward a respiratory

> emergency. However, I would also be looking for underlying issues

that

> could be the cause of the respiratory emergency or something more

severe

> than the pt complaint.

>

> Dan Bird, EMT-P, EM

>

> MPDS and Patient Assessment

>

> I'd like to pose this question particularly to the EMS educators

and

> QA/QI/QC folks...

>

> Do you believe (anecdotally or empirically) that receiving

MPDS/EMD call

> information has any bearing on the field crews' patient assessment?

> For example, if the dispatcher tells the crew that the call is a

> " Priority 3 respiratory, " that the crew will, perhaps

subconsciously,

> focus on a respiratory emergency and exclude other possibilities?

>

> Thanks,

> Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

> Austin, Texas

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

This thread goes back to a rally great lecture I heard at the Texas EMS

Conference back in 2004. The speaker said that you should be prepared on every

call with the equipment you need or may need. There is a mobile equipment

carrying device in every ambulance (stretcher). Place the monitor, airway bag

(including a few trauma related supplies), drug box, and suction unit on there

and secure. This can be done at the end of every call, therefore giving you a

jumpstart on the next call. Now for 90% of the calls we run, you’ll have

everything with you.

That guy was a genius!!!!! The Conference really needs to have him return.

Tater

rwwoodknot wrote:

Wes,

I feel that the dispatch information to the crews should be very

limited, I do not like the idea of the dispatcher diagnosing the

call over the phone, I've seen it too many times that the dispatcher

gets bad information and have seen crews get tunnel vision on the

call due to the dispatchers diagnosis.

Now let me say this there are some very good dispatchers out

there. I seen Thom Seber reply to this and I believe he is one of

the greats. Unfortunatly the world is not full of dispatchers like

Thom who have years and years and years etc. of experience as a

paramedic to back up his dispatch experience.

I do have solution to the problem though:

Make all dispatcher be EMD trained seasoned paramedics and require

all patients who call 911 to be well trained EMT's with lots and

lots of common sense really this is a bad idea cause we probably

would not have a job due to the drastic drop in call volume.

oh well have a good day

and just to make note these are only my opinions and do not reflect

on any employer or associate.

sorry for the spelling

Ross Bradley, EMT-P

>

> I believe that my first thought would lean toward a respiratory

> emergency. However, I would also be looking for underlying issues

that

> could be the cause of the respiratory emergency or something more

severe

> than the pt complaint.

>

> Dan Bird, EMT-P, EM

>

> MPDS and Patient Assessment

>

> I'd like to pose this question particularly to the EMS educators

and

> QA/QI/QC folks...

>

> Do you believe (anecdotally or empirically) that receiving

MPDS/EMD call

> information has any bearing on the field crews' patient assessment?

> For example, if the dispatcher tells the crew that the call is a

> " Priority 3 respiratory, " that the crew will, perhaps

subconsciously,

> focus on a respiratory emergency and exclude other possibilities?

>

> Thanks,

> Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

> Austin, Texas

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

This thread goes back to a rally great lecture I heard at the Texas EMS

Conference back in 2004. The speaker said that you should be prepared on every

call with the equipment you need or may need. There is a mobile equipment

carrying device in every ambulance (stretcher). Place the monitor, airway bag

(including a few trauma related supplies), drug box, and suction unit on there

and secure. This can be done at the end of every call, therefore giving you a

jumpstart on the next call. Now for 90% of the calls we run, you’ll have

everything with you.

That guy was a genius!!!!! The Conference really needs to have him return.

Tater

rwwoodknot wrote:

Wes,

I feel that the dispatch information to the crews should be very

limited, I do not like the idea of the dispatcher diagnosing the

call over the phone, I've seen it too many times that the dispatcher

gets bad information and have seen crews get tunnel vision on the

call due to the dispatchers diagnosis.

Now let me say this there are some very good dispatchers out

there. I seen Thom Seber reply to this and I believe he is one of

the greats. Unfortunatly the world is not full of dispatchers like

Thom who have years and years and years etc. of experience as a

paramedic to back up his dispatch experience.

I do have solution to the problem though:

Make all dispatcher be EMD trained seasoned paramedics and require

all patients who call 911 to be well trained EMT's with lots and

lots of common sense really this is a bad idea cause we probably

would not have a job due to the drastic drop in call volume.

oh well have a good day

and just to make note these are only my opinions and do not reflect

on any employer or associate.

sorry for the spelling

Ross Bradley, EMT-P

>

> I believe that my first thought would lean toward a respiratory

> emergency. However, I would also be looking for underlying issues

that

> could be the cause of the respiratory emergency or something more

severe

> than the pt complaint.

>

> Dan Bird, EMT-P, EM

>

> MPDS and Patient Assessment

>

> I'd like to pose this question particularly to the EMS educators

and

> QA/QI/QC folks...

>

> Do you believe (anecdotally or empirically) that receiving

MPDS/EMD call

> information has any bearing on the field crews' patient assessment?

> For example, if the dispatcher tells the crew that the call is a

> " Priority 3 respiratory, " that the crew will, perhaps

subconsciously,

> focus on a respiratory emergency and exclude other possibilities?

>

> Thanks,

> Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

> Austin, Texas

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

How much of this information we obtain is correct anyway?? Like Mr. Gump

said " It's like a box of chocolate, you never know what your gonna get. "

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of E. Tate

Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:32 AM

To:

Subject: Re: Re: MPDS and Patient Assessment

This thread goes back to a rally great lecture I heard at the Texas EMS

Conference back in 2004. The speaker said that you should be prepared on

every call with the equipment you need or may need. There is a mobile

equipment carrying device in every ambulance (stretcher). Place the

monitor, airway bag (including a few trauma related supplies), drug box, and

suction unit on there and secure. This can be done at the end of every

call, therefore giving you a jumpstart on the next call. Now for 90% of the

calls we run, you'll have everything with you.

That guy was a genius!!!!! The Conference really needs to have him

return.

Tater

rwwoodknot wrote:

Wes,

I feel that the dispatch information to the crews should be very

limited, I do not like the idea of the dispatcher diagnosing the

call over the phone, I've seen it too many times that the dispatcher

gets bad information and have seen crews get tunnel vision on the

call due to the dispatchers diagnosis.

Now let me say this there are some very good dispatchers out

there. I seen Thom Seber reply to this and I believe he is one of

the greats. Unfortunatly the world is not full of dispatchers like

Thom who have years and years and years etc. of experience as a

paramedic to back up his dispatch experience.

I do have solution to the problem though:

Make all dispatcher be EMD trained seasoned paramedics and require

all patients who call 911 to be well trained EMT's with lots and

lots of common sense really this is a bad idea cause we probably

would not have a job due to the drastic drop in call volume.

oh well have a good day

and just to make note these are only my opinions and do not reflect

on any employer or associate.

sorry for the spelling

Ross Bradley, EMT-P

>

> I believe that my first thought would lean toward a respiratory

> emergency. However, I would also be looking for underlying issues

that

> could be the cause of the respiratory emergency or something more

severe

> than the pt complaint.

>

> Dan Bird, EMT-P, EM

>

> MPDS and Patient Assessment

>

> I'd like to pose this question particularly to the EMS educators

and

> QA/QI/QC folks...

>

> Do you believe (anecdotally or empirically) that receiving

MPDS/EMD call

> information has any bearing on the field crews' patient assessment?

> For example, if the dispatcher tells the crew that the call is a

> " Priority 3 respiratory, " that the crew will, perhaps

subconsciously,

> focus on a respiratory emergency and exclude other possibilities?

>

> Thanks,

> Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

> Austin, Texas

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

How much of this information we obtain is correct anyway?? Like Mr. Gump

said " It's like a box of chocolate, you never know what your gonna get. "

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of E. Tate

Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:32 AM

To:

Subject: Re: Re: MPDS and Patient Assessment

This thread goes back to a rally great lecture I heard at the Texas EMS

Conference back in 2004. The speaker said that you should be prepared on

every call with the equipment you need or may need. There is a mobile

equipment carrying device in every ambulance (stretcher). Place the

monitor, airway bag (including a few trauma related supplies), drug box, and

suction unit on there and secure. This can be done at the end of every

call, therefore giving you a jumpstart on the next call. Now for 90% of the

calls we run, you'll have everything with you.

That guy was a genius!!!!! The Conference really needs to have him

return.

Tater

rwwoodknot wrote:

Wes,

I feel that the dispatch information to the crews should be very

limited, I do not like the idea of the dispatcher diagnosing the

call over the phone, I've seen it too many times that the dispatcher

gets bad information and have seen crews get tunnel vision on the

call due to the dispatchers diagnosis.

Now let me say this there are some very good dispatchers out

there. I seen Thom Seber reply to this and I believe he is one of

the greats. Unfortunatly the world is not full of dispatchers like

Thom who have years and years and years etc. of experience as a

paramedic to back up his dispatch experience.

I do have solution to the problem though:

Make all dispatcher be EMD trained seasoned paramedics and require

all patients who call 911 to be well trained EMT's with lots and

lots of common sense really this is a bad idea cause we probably

would not have a job due to the drastic drop in call volume.

oh well have a good day

and just to make note these are only my opinions and do not reflect

on any employer or associate.

sorry for the spelling

Ross Bradley, EMT-P

>

> I believe that my first thought would lean toward a respiratory

> emergency. However, I would also be looking for underlying issues

that

> could be the cause of the respiratory emergency or something more

severe

> than the pt complaint.

>

> Dan Bird, EMT-P, EM

>

> MPDS and Patient Assessment

>

> I'd like to pose this question particularly to the EMS educators

and

> QA/QI/QC folks...

>

> Do you believe (anecdotally or empirically) that receiving

MPDS/EMD call

> information has any bearing on the field crews' patient assessment?

> For example, if the dispatcher tells the crew that the call is a

> " Priority 3 respiratory, " that the crew will, perhaps

subconsciously,

> focus on a respiratory emergency and exclude other possibilities?

>

> Thanks,

> Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

> Austin, Texas

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

How much of this information we obtain is correct anyway?? Like Mr. Gump

said " It's like a box of chocolate, you never know what your gonna get. "

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of E. Tate

Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:32 AM

To:

Subject: Re: Re: MPDS and Patient Assessment

This thread goes back to a rally great lecture I heard at the Texas EMS

Conference back in 2004. The speaker said that you should be prepared on

every call with the equipment you need or may need. There is a mobile

equipment carrying device in every ambulance (stretcher). Place the

monitor, airway bag (including a few trauma related supplies), drug box, and

suction unit on there and secure. This can be done at the end of every

call, therefore giving you a jumpstart on the next call. Now for 90% of the

calls we run, you'll have everything with you.

That guy was a genius!!!!! The Conference really needs to have him

return.

Tater

rwwoodknot wrote:

Wes,

I feel that the dispatch information to the crews should be very

limited, I do not like the idea of the dispatcher diagnosing the

call over the phone, I've seen it too many times that the dispatcher

gets bad information and have seen crews get tunnel vision on the

call due to the dispatchers diagnosis.

Now let me say this there are some very good dispatchers out

there. I seen Thom Seber reply to this and I believe he is one of

the greats. Unfortunatly the world is not full of dispatchers like

Thom who have years and years and years etc. of experience as a

paramedic to back up his dispatch experience.

I do have solution to the problem though:

Make all dispatcher be EMD trained seasoned paramedics and require

all patients who call 911 to be well trained EMT's with lots and

lots of common sense really this is a bad idea cause we probably

would not have a job due to the drastic drop in call volume.

oh well have a good day

and just to make note these are only my opinions and do not reflect

on any employer or associate.

sorry for the spelling

Ross Bradley, EMT-P

>

> I believe that my first thought would lean toward a respiratory

> emergency. However, I would also be looking for underlying issues

that

> could be the cause of the respiratory emergency or something more

severe

> than the pt complaint.

>

> Dan Bird, EMT-P, EM

>

> MPDS and Patient Assessment

>

> I'd like to pose this question particularly to the EMS educators

and

> QA/QI/QC folks...

>

> Do you believe (anecdotally or empirically) that receiving

MPDS/EMD call

> information has any bearing on the field crews' patient assessment?

> For example, if the dispatcher tells the crew that the call is a

> " Priority 3 respiratory, " that the crew will, perhaps

subconsciously,

> focus on a respiratory emergency and exclude other possibilities?

>

> Thanks,

> Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

> Austin, Texas

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Not always true. Do you have research to back this

up? A good medic covers all avenues of possibilities

while enroute.

Sal

--- Supervisor

wrote:

> Unfortunately, our experience has been the more

> information the crew gets

> ahead of time, the more tunnel vision they develop

> thinking they already

> know what is going on with the patient. It results

> in a less thorough

> assessment.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Bullard BS, LP

>

> Operations Manager

>

> Lubbock Aid Ambulance

>

> <http://www.lubbockambulance.com/>

> http://www.lubbockambulance.com

>

>

>

> _____

>

> From:

> [mailto: ] On

> Behalf Of

> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 2:41 PM

> To:

> Subject: RE: MPDS and Patient

> Assessment

> Importance: High

>

>

>

> Anecdotally speaking, and speaking as former field

> medic, I'd say you always

> have a guarded suspicion.

>

> MPDS and Patient Assessment

>

> I'd like to pose this question particularly to the

> EMS educators and

> QA/QI/QC folks...

>

> Do you believe (anecdotally or empirically) that

> receiving MPDS/EMD call

> information has any bearing on the field crews'

> patient assessment? For

> example, if the dispatcher tells the crew that the

> call is a " Priority 3

> respiratory, " that the crew will, perhaps

> subconsciously, focus on a

> respiratory emergency and exclude other

> possibilities?

>

> Thanks,

> Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

> Austin, Texas

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

The advantage to using the MPDS is it cuts down on

radio traffic.

Sal

--- " E. Tate " wrote:

> This thread goes back to a rally great lecture I

> heard at the Texas EMS Conference back in 2004. The

> speaker said that you should be prepared on every

> call with the equipment you need or may need. There

> is a mobile equipment carrying device in every

> ambulance (stretcher). Place the monitor, airway

> bag (including a few trauma related supplies), drug

> box, and suction unit on there and secure. This can

> be done at the end of every call, therefore giving

> you a jumpstart on the next call. Now for 90% of

> the calls we run, you’ll have everything with you.

>

> That guy was a genius!!!!! The Conference really

> needs to have him return.

>

>

> Tater

>

>

> rwwoodknot wrote:

> Wes,

> I feel that the dispatch information to the

> crews should be very

> limited, I do not like the idea of the dispatcher

> diagnosing the

> call over the phone, I've seen it too many times

> that the dispatcher

> gets bad information and have seen crews get tunnel

> vision on the

> call due to the dispatchers diagnosis.

> Now let me say this there are some very good

> dispatchers out

> there. I seen Thom Seber reply to this and I

> believe he is one of

> the greats. Unfortunatly the world is not full of

> dispatchers like

> Thom who have years and years and years etc. of

> experience as a

> paramedic to back up his dispatch experience.

>

> I do have solution to the problem though:

>

> Make all dispatcher be EMD trained seasoned

> paramedics and require

> all patients who call 911 to be well trained EMT's

> with lots and

> lots of common sense really this is a bad idea

> cause we probably

> would not have a job due to the drastic drop in call

> volume.

>

> oh well have a good day

>

> and just to make note these are only my opinions and

> do not reflect

> on any employer or associate.

>

> sorry for the spelling

>

> Ross Bradley, EMT-P

>

>

> >

> > I believe that my first thought would lean toward

> a respiratory

> > emergency. However, I would also be looking for

> underlying issues

> that

> > could be the cause of the respiratory emergency or

> something more

> severe

> > than the pt complaint.

> >

> > Dan Bird, EMT-P, EM

> >

> > MPDS and Patient Assessment

> >

> > I'd like to pose this question particularly to the

> EMS educators

> and

> > QA/QI/QC folks...

> >

> > Do you believe (anecdotally or empirically) that

> receiving

> MPDS/EMD call

> > information has any bearing on the field crews'

> patient assessment?

> > For example, if the dispatcher tells the crew that

> the call is a

> > " Priority 3 respiratory, " that the crew will,

> perhaps

> subconsciously,

> > focus on a respiratory emergency and exclude other

> possibilities?

> >

> > Thanks,

> > Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

> > Austin, Texas

> >

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

The advantage to using the MPDS is it cuts down on

radio traffic.

Sal

--- " E. Tate " wrote:

> This thread goes back to a rally great lecture I

> heard at the Texas EMS Conference back in 2004. The

> speaker said that you should be prepared on every

> call with the equipment you need or may need. There

> is a mobile equipment carrying device in every

> ambulance (stretcher). Place the monitor, airway

> bag (including a few trauma related supplies), drug

> box, and suction unit on there and secure. This can

> be done at the end of every call, therefore giving

> you a jumpstart on the next call. Now for 90% of

> the calls we run, you’ll have everything with you.

>

> That guy was a genius!!!!! The Conference really

> needs to have him return.

>

>

> Tater

>

>

> rwwoodknot wrote:

> Wes,

> I feel that the dispatch information to the

> crews should be very

> limited, I do not like the idea of the dispatcher

> diagnosing the

> call over the phone, I've seen it too many times

> that the dispatcher

> gets bad information and have seen crews get tunnel

> vision on the

> call due to the dispatchers diagnosis.

> Now let me say this there are some very good

> dispatchers out

> there. I seen Thom Seber reply to this and I

> believe he is one of

> the greats. Unfortunatly the world is not full of

> dispatchers like

> Thom who have years and years and years etc. of

> experience as a

> paramedic to back up his dispatch experience.

>

> I do have solution to the problem though:

>

> Make all dispatcher be EMD trained seasoned

> paramedics and require

> all patients who call 911 to be well trained EMT's

> with lots and

> lots of common sense really this is a bad idea

> cause we probably

> would not have a job due to the drastic drop in call

> volume.

>

> oh well have a good day

>

> and just to make note these are only my opinions and

> do not reflect

> on any employer or associate.

>

> sorry for the spelling

>

> Ross Bradley, EMT-P

>

>

> >

> > I believe that my first thought would lean toward

> a respiratory

> > emergency. However, I would also be looking for

> underlying issues

> that

> > could be the cause of the respiratory emergency or

> something more

> severe

> > than the pt complaint.

> >

> > Dan Bird, EMT-P, EM

> >

> > MPDS and Patient Assessment

> >

> > I'd like to pose this question particularly to the

> EMS educators

> and

> > QA/QI/QC folks...

> >

> > Do you believe (anecdotally or empirically) that

> receiving

> MPDS/EMD call

> > information has any bearing on the field crews'

> patient assessment?

> > For example, if the dispatcher tells the crew that

> the call is a

> > " Priority 3 respiratory, " that the crew will,

> perhaps

> subconsciously,

> > focus on a respiratory emergency and exclude other

> possibilities?

> >

> > Thanks,

> > Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

> > Austin, Texas

> >

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

There are certainly some interesting discussions regarding Medical Priority

Dispatch Systems (MPDS) going on and its clear to me that there is a lot of

misconception regarding the purpose and value of the system. Years ago, TDH not

only endorsed the concept of EMD, but developed, in conjunction with permission

from King County Wa, a hybrid of the system that allowed for extended time on

the phone and extended dispatch communications due to prolonged travel time some

agencies in our state face daily. There are also Rules regarding EMD in the

state to encourage continued implementation of EMD statewide.

Fact: EMD is a standard of care with the nation, one that is expected by the

public. It is also fact as Mike alluded to, that the system requires

physician oversight for QA, a standardized, approved set of pre-arrival cards,

and lastly, but not least, initial training and CE training. It has, when used

properly, been shown to reduce the incidence of unnecessary Code 3 responses to

scenes as well as a better allocation of resources, BLS vs MICU response.

Myth: It is not used to diagnose any ailment or illness, it asks a series of

questions to try and isolate a potential problem and allows telecommunicators

the ability to provide callers with immediate lifesaving/scene safety related

tasks. It is not designed to " hide " calls from anyone, nor is it infallible. As

with any " human based " process it is subject to lack of common sense, lack of

training and lack of QA processes.

There are a number of entities which offer EMD education courses to include

Medical priority, APCO, Power Phone and TEEX also offers the course which was

developed in state. The choice of the one you pick is largely based on how much

money you want to spend and what you want your system to do.

Rinard

>>> scapuchino@... 1/11/2006 12:40 PM >>>

The advantage to using the MPDS is it cuts down on

radio traffic.

Sal

--- " E. Tate " wrote:

> This thread goes back to a rally great lecture I

> heard at the Texas EMS Conference back in 2004. The

> speaker said that you should be prepared on every

> call with the equipment you need or may need. There

> is a mobile equipment carrying device in every

> ambulance (stretcher). Place the monitor, airway

> bag (including a few trauma related supplies), drug

> box, and suction unit on there and secure. This can

> be done at the end of every call, therefore giving

> you a jumpstart on the next call. Now for 90% of

> the calls we run, you'll have everything with you.

>

> That guy was a genius!!!!! The Conference really

> needs to have him return.

>

>

> Tater

>

>

> rwwoodknot wrote:

> Wes,

> I feel that the dispatch information to the

> crews should be very

> limited, I do not like the idea of the dispatcher

> diagnosing the

> call over the phone, I've seen it too many times

> that the dispatcher

> gets bad information and have seen crews get tunnel

> vision on the

> call due to the dispatchers diagnosis.

> Now let me say this there are some very good

> dispatchers out

> there. I seen Thom Seber reply to this and I

> believe he is one of

> the greats. Unfortunatly the world is not full of

> dispatchers like

> Thom who have years and years and years etc. of

> experience as a

> paramedic to back up his dispatch experience.

>

> I do have solution to the problem though:

>

> Make all dispatcher be EMD trained seasoned

> paramedics and require

> all patients who call 911 to be well trained EMT's

> with lots and

> lots of common sense really this is a bad idea

> cause we probably

> would not have a job due to the drastic drop in call

> volume.

>

> oh well have a good day

>

> and just to make note these are only my opinions and

> do not reflect

> on any employer or associate.

>

> sorry for the spelling

>

> Ross Bradley, EMT-P

>

>

> >

> > I believe that my first thought would lean toward

> a respiratory

> > emergency. However, I would also be looking for

> underlying issues

> that

> > could be the cause of the respiratory emergency or

> something more

> severe

> > than the pt complaint.

> >

> > Dan Bird, EMT-P, EM

> >

> > MPDS and Patient Assessment

> >

> > I'd like to pose this question particularly to the

> EMS educators

> and

> > QA/QI/QC folks...

> >

> > Do you believe (anecdotally or empirically) that

> receiving

> MPDS/EMD call

> > information has any bearing on the field crews'

> patient assessment?

> > For example, if the dispatcher tells the crew that

> the call is a

> > " Priority 3 respiratory, " that the crew will,

> perhaps

> subconsciously,

> > focus on a respiratory emergency and exclude other

> possibilities?

> >

> > Thanks,

> > Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

> > Austin, Texas

> >

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

--

Is there any caselaw to support your assertion that EMD is the standard of care?

And how does the public expect EMD?

-Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

Attorney at Law / Emergency Medical Technician

Austin, Texas

MPDS and Patient Assessment

> >

> > I'd like to pose this question particularly to the

> EMS educators

> and

> > QA/QI/QC folks...

> >

> > Do you believe (anecdotally or empirically) that

> receiving

> MPDS/EMD call

> > information has any bearing on the field crews'

> patient assessment?

> > For example, if the dispatcher tells the crew that

> the call is a

> > " Priority 3 respiratory, " that the crew will,

> perhaps

> subconsciously,

> > focus on a respiratory emergency and exclude other

> possibilities?

> >

> > Thanks,

> > Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

> > Austin, Texas

> >

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

--

Is there any caselaw to support your assertion that EMD is the standard of care?

And how does the public expect EMD?

-Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

Attorney at Law / Emergency Medical Technician

Austin, Texas

MPDS and Patient Assessment

> >

> > I'd like to pose this question particularly to the

> EMS educators

> and

> > QA/QI/QC folks...

> >

> > Do you believe (anecdotally or empirically) that

> receiving

> MPDS/EMD call

> > information has any bearing on the field crews'

> patient assessment?

> > For example, if the dispatcher tells the crew that

> the call is a

> > " Priority 3 respiratory, " that the crew will,

> perhaps

> subconsciously,

> > focus on a respiratory emergency and exclude other

> possibilities?

> >

> > Thanks,

> > Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

> > Austin, Texas

> >

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

" Rinard " <.Rinard@t...> wrote:

>

> It has, when used properly, been shown to reduce the incidence of

> unnecessary Code 3 responses to scenes as well as a better

> allocation of resources, BLS vs MICU response.

I think the key term to be remembered here is " unnecessary. " Reducing

code 3 responses is easy. You don't have to have MPDS to do that.

But the goal should be to reduce unnecessary code 3 responses while

not incidentally delaying the response to high priority patients. Do

we have any scientifically validated research to confirm MPDS actualy

does this? This would preferably be research conducted independently,

not by one of Dr. Clawson's organizations.

Without statistics on how many priority 1 or 2 runs were

inappropriately dispatched as priority 3 or 4, any focus on how many

code 3 runs were avoided is meaningless. We can't throw the baby out

with the bath water.

Rob

[Guest guest]

" Rinard " <.Rinard@t...> wrote:

>

> It has, when used properly, been shown to reduce the incidence of

> unnecessary Code 3 responses to scenes as well as a better

> allocation of resources, BLS vs MICU response.

I think the key term to be remembered here is " unnecessary. " Reducing

code 3 responses is easy. You don't have to have MPDS to do that.

But the goal should be to reduce unnecessary code 3 responses while

not incidentally delaying the response to high priority patients. Do

we have any scientifically validated research to confirm MPDS actualy

does this? This would preferably be research conducted independently,

not by one of Dr. Clawson's organizations.

Without statistics on how many priority 1 or 2 runs were

inappropriately dispatched as priority 3 or 4, any focus on how many

code 3 runs were avoided is meaningless. We can't throw the baby out

with the bath water.

Rob

[Guest guest]

Wes,

I'm not sure of any case law, but how does the public expect EMD?

Television, remember Resuce 9-1-1, I still hear remarks from some

family members of what they expect when they call 9-1-1.

The show Paramedics, The public sees this and they expect it.

Danny

> > >

> > > I believe that my first thought would lean toward

> > a respiratory

> > > emergency. However, I would also be looking for

> > underlying issues

> > that

> > > could be the cause of the respiratory emergency or

> > something more

> > severe

> > > than the pt complaint.

> > >

> > > Dan Bird, EMT-P, EM

> > >

> > > MPDS and Patient Assessment

> > >

> > > I'd like to pose this question particularly to the

> > EMS educators

> > and

> > > QA/QI/QC folks...

> > >

> > > Do you believe (anecdotally or empirically) that

> > receiving

> > MPDS/EMD call

> > > information has any bearing on the field crews'

> > patient assessment?

> > > For example, if the dispatcher tells the crew that

> > the call is a

> > > " Priority 3 respiratory, " that the crew will,

> > perhaps

> > subconsciously,

> > > focus on a respiratory emergency and exclude other

> > possibilities?

> > >

> > > Thanks,

> > > Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

> > > Austin, Texas

> > >

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Wes,

I'm not sure of any case law, but how does the public expect EMD?

Television, remember Resuce 9-1-1, I still hear remarks from some

family members of what they expect when they call 9-1-1.

The show Paramedics, The public sees this and they expect it.

Danny

> > >

> > > I believe that my first thought would lean toward

> > a respiratory

> > > emergency. However, I would also be looking for

> > underlying issues

> > that

> > > could be the cause of the respiratory emergency or

> > something more

> > severe

> > > than the pt complaint.

> > >

> > > Dan Bird, EMT-P, EM

> > >

> > > MPDS and Patient Assessment

> > >

> > > I'd like to pose this question particularly to the

> > EMS educators

> > and

> > > QA/QI/QC folks...

> > >

> > > Do you believe (anecdotally or empirically) that

> > receiving

> > MPDS/EMD call

> > > information has any bearing on the field crews'

> > patient assessment?

> > > For example, if the dispatcher tells the crew that

> > the call is a

> > > " Priority 3 respiratory, " that the crew will,

> > perhaps

> > subconsciously,

> > > focus on a respiratory emergency and exclude other

> > possibilities?

> > >

> > > Thanks,

> > > Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

> > > Austin, Texas

> > >

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Wes,

I'm not sure of any case law, but how does the public expect EMD?

Television, remember Resuce 9-1-1, I still hear remarks from some

family members of what they expect when they call 9-1-1.

The show Paramedics, The public sees this and they expect it.

Danny

> > >

> > > I believe that my first thought would lean toward

> > a respiratory

> > > emergency. However, I would also be looking for

> > underlying issues

> > that

> > > could be the cause of the respiratory emergency or

> > something more

> > severe

> > > than the pt complaint.

> > >

> > > Dan Bird, EMT-P, EM

> > >

> > > MPDS and Patient Assessment

> > >

> > > I'd like to pose this question particularly to the

> > EMS educators

> > and

> > > QA/QI/QC folks...

> > >

> > > Do you believe (anecdotally or empirically) that

> > receiving

> > MPDS/EMD call

> > > information has any bearing on the field crews'

> > patient assessment?

> > > For example, if the dispatcher tells the crew that

> > the call is a

> > > " Priority 3 respiratory, " that the crew will,

> > perhaps

> > subconsciously,

> > > focus on a respiratory emergency and exclude other

> > possibilities?

> > >

> > > Thanks,

> > > Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

> > > Austin, Texas

> > >

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

I have found that case law has a smaller effect on standard of care, than

public perception does.

MPDS and Patient Assessment

> > >

> > > I'd like to pose this question particularly to the

> > EMS educators

> > and

> > > QA/QI/QC folks...

> > >

> > > Do you believe (anecdotally or empirically) that

> > receiving

> > MPDS/EMD call

> > > information has any bearing on the field crews'

> > patient assessment?

> > > For example, if the dispatcher tells the crew that

> > the call is a

> > > " Priority 3 respiratory, " that the crew will,

> > perhaps

> > subconsciously,

> > > focus on a respiratory emergency and exclude other

> > possibilities?

> > >

> > > Thanks,

> > > Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

> > > Austin, Texas

> > >

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

I have found that case law has a smaller effect on standard of care, than

public perception does.

MPDS and Patient Assessment

> > >

> > > I'd like to pose this question particularly to the

> > EMS educators

> > and

> > > QA/QI/QC folks...

> > >

> > > Do you believe (anecdotally or empirically) that

> > receiving

> > MPDS/EMD call

> > > information has any bearing on the field crews'

> > patient assessment?

> > > For example, if the dispatcher tells the crew that

> > the call is a

> > > " Priority 3 respiratory, " that the crew will,

> > perhaps

> > subconsciously,

> > > focus on a respiratory emergency and exclude other

> > possibilities?

> > >

> > > Thanks,

> > > Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

> > > Austin, Texas

> > >

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

I have found that case law has a smaller effect on standard of care, than

public perception does.

MPDS and Patient Assessment

> > >

> > > I'd like to pose this question particularly to the

> > EMS educators

> > and

> > > QA/QI/QC folks...

> > >

> > > Do you believe (anecdotally or empirically) that

> > receiving

> > MPDS/EMD call

> > > information has any bearing on the field crews'

> > patient assessment?

> > > For example, if the dispatcher tells the crew that

> > the call is a

> > > " Priority 3 respiratory, " that the crew will,

> > perhaps

> > subconsciously,

> > > focus on a respiratory emergency and exclude other

> > possibilities?

> > >

> > > Thanks,

> > > Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

> > > Austin, Texas

> > >

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Danny -- do they? I may not have the experience you do, but I've never had a

family ask me for specific treatment or interventions outside of the usual

drug-seeking behavior. Is there any data to indicate that the public does expect

EMD?

-Wes

MPDS and Patient Assessment

> > >

> > > I'd like to pose this question particularly to the

> > EMS educators

> > and

> > > QA/QI/QC folks...

> > >

> > > Do you believe (anecdotally or empirically) that

> > receiving

> > MPDS/EMD call

> > > information has any bearing on the field crews'

> > patient assessment?

> > > For example, if the dispatcher tells the crew that

> > the call is a

> > > " Priority 3 respiratory, " that the crew will,

> > perhaps

> > subconsciously,

> > > focus on a respiratory emergency and exclude other

> > possibilities?

> > >

> > > Thanks,

> > > Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

> > > Austin, Texas

> > >

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Danny -- do they? I may not have the experience you do, but I've never had a

family ask me for specific treatment or interventions outside of the usual

drug-seeking behavior. Is there any data to indicate that the public does expect

EMD?

-Wes

MPDS and Patient Assessment

> > >

> > > I'd like to pose this question particularly to the

> > EMS educators

> > and

> > > QA/QI/QC folks...

> > >

> > > Do you believe (anecdotally or empirically) that

> > receiving

> > MPDS/EMD call

> > > information has any bearing on the field crews'

> > patient assessment?

> > > For example, if the dispatcher tells the crew that

> > the call is a

> > > " Priority 3 respiratory, " that the crew will,

> > perhaps

> > subconsciously,

> > > focus on a respiratory emergency and exclude other

> > possibilities?

> > >

> > > Thanks,

> > > Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

> > > Austin, Texas

> > >

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Someone should do that study.for real

MPDS and Patient Assessment

> > >

> > > I'd like to pose this question particularly to the

> > EMS educators

> > and

> > > QA/QI/QC folks...

> > >

> > > Do you believe (anecdotally or empirically) that

> > receiving

> > MPDS/EMD call

> > > information has any bearing on the field crews'

> > patient assessment?

> > > For example, if the dispatcher tells the crew that

> > the call is a

> > > " Priority 3 respiratory, " that the crew will,

> > perhaps

> > subconsciously,

> > > focus on a respiratory emergency and exclude other

> > possibilities?

> > >

> > > Thanks,

> > > Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

> > > Austin, Texas

> > >

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Someone should do that study.for real

MPDS and Patient Assessment

> > >

> > > I'd like to pose this question particularly to the

> > EMS educators

> > and

> > > QA/QI/QC folks...

> > >

> > > Do you believe (anecdotally or empirically) that

> > receiving

> > MPDS/EMD call

> > > information has any bearing on the field crews'

> > patient assessment?

> > > For example, if the dispatcher tells the crew that

> > the call is a

> > > " Priority 3 respiratory, " that the crew will,

> > perhaps

> > subconsciously,

> > > focus on a respiratory emergency and exclude other

> > possibilities?

> > >

> > > Thanks,

> > > Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B

> > > Austin, Texas

> > >

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >