Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response to Cheney incident

Rate this topic

Guest guest

By Guest guest
in Health, Medicine and Natural Healing 06

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Very Simple Answer: Why was he flown.....1. HE WAS A FRIEND OF THE VICE

PRESIDENT . 2. HE HAD JUST BEEN SHOT BY THE SAME V.P. Wouldn't you have

flow the same patient knowing that you actions would be under national

scrutiny...Why is everyone missing this simple explanation and arguing a

mute point? Time to move on to the next subject..

-

---- Original Message -----

To: < >

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:00 PM

Subject: RE: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

I am still at a loss as to why he was flown. Of course we do not have all

the information but based on what I have read and seen on the news, the

patient had A-fib and some minor gsw wounds from the pellets. His condition

as I understand it was stable. So where was the good medical practice? All

medical transportation has a certain level of risk of an accident occurring.

But given the latest research on helicopter crashes, I would have to be 100

% sure that air transport is really needed and that the alternative of

ground transport would have a detrimental outcome on the patient. Otherwise

the ground transport wins out. I have had some really sick patients in my

ambulance in the past that were inter-facility transports, even though air

transport was available the ground option was chosen. With all the critical

care units out there today, can they not handle this type of transport with

good care, in a safer mode of transport and at a reasonable cost?

Don't get me wrong I agree that air transport, in particular helicopter

transport has its place in the medical system but I do not think we are

using the proper criteria to determine who goes by what means. That should

be the issue that is addressed. We need to establish a protocol based on

current research data, not speculation or just in case or because that is

the way we have always done it!

Just my opinion,

Bernie Stafford EMTP

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of STEVE BOWMAN

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 3:28 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

" the risks outweighed the benefit in this case " - and you know this because?

The doctor(s) in the ER at the hospital in Kingsville made the call to fly

him (according to the newspaper article). What criteria they used in making

their decision was not stated; however, good medical practice would normally

dictate that such a decision be made in the manner that is of most benefit

to the patient. Since we don't know the qualifications of the physician(s)

involved or the criteria they applied, second-guessing them is dangerous.

The only thing that we can be SURE of is that the helicopter got him there

much faster. The comment about " smoother " that I made before was based on a

fair amount of time spent in the back of both helicopters and ambulances -

the latter as both patient and crew. Even on a reasonably smooth road, it's

not a fun ride in teh back of an ambulance. You feel every bump, sway,

turn, etc. The major movement in the back of a heklicopter in good weather

is vibration (a fair amount of that, I admit). If I were the patient, I

would rather fly, thank you - especially when the choices are flying for

30-40 minutes or driving for 2-3 hours. . .

" E. Tate " wrote:

To what end? The hospital should have been able to establish that this was

not needed, and sent him by ground. Helicopters are not about creature

comfort, and the risks outweighed the benefit in this case.

Helo was a horrible call. I'd bet the rent-a-doc in the ER had some strange

notion that the helo was some miracle working machine.

STEVE BOWMAN wrote:

For the transfer to the higher-level facility, transport by air was much

faster and smoother for the patient.

E. Tate, LP

Whitehouse, Texas

What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? HYPERLINK

" http://www.TexasEMSAT.org " http://www.TexasEMSAT.org

---------------------------------

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Very Simple Answer: Why was he flown.....1. HE WAS A FRIEND OF THE VICE

PRESIDENT . 2. HE HAD JUST BEEN SHOT BY THE SAME V.P. Wouldn't you have

flow the same patient knowing that you actions would be under national

scrutiny...Why is everyone missing this simple explanation and arguing a

mute point? Time to move on to the next subject..

-

---- Original Message -----

To: < >

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:00 PM

Subject: RE: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

I am still at a loss as to why he was flown. Of course we do not have all

the information but based on what I have read and seen on the news, the

patient had A-fib and some minor gsw wounds from the pellets. His condition

as I understand it was stable. So where was the good medical practice? All

medical transportation has a certain level of risk of an accident occurring.

But given the latest research on helicopter crashes, I would have to be 100

% sure that air transport is really needed and that the alternative of

ground transport would have a detrimental outcome on the patient. Otherwise

the ground transport wins out. I have had some really sick patients in my

ambulance in the past that were inter-facility transports, even though air

transport was available the ground option was chosen. With all the critical

care units out there today, can they not handle this type of transport with

good care, in a safer mode of transport and at a reasonable cost?

Don't get me wrong I agree that air transport, in particular helicopter

transport has its place in the medical system but I do not think we are

using the proper criteria to determine who goes by what means. That should

be the issue that is addressed. We need to establish a protocol based on

current research data, not speculation or just in case or because that is

the way we have always done it!

Just my opinion,

Bernie Stafford EMTP

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of STEVE BOWMAN

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 3:28 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

" the risks outweighed the benefit in this case " - and you know this because?

The doctor(s) in the ER at the hospital in Kingsville made the call to fly

him (according to the newspaper article). What criteria they used in making

their decision was not stated; however, good medical practice would normally

dictate that such a decision be made in the manner that is of most benefit

to the patient. Since we don't know the qualifications of the physician(s)

involved or the criteria they applied, second-guessing them is dangerous.

The only thing that we can be SURE of is that the helicopter got him there

much faster. The comment about " smoother " that I made before was based on a

fair amount of time spent in the back of both helicopters and ambulances -

the latter as both patient and crew. Even on a reasonably smooth road, it's

not a fun ride in teh back of an ambulance. You feel every bump, sway,

turn, etc. The major movement in the back of a heklicopter in good weather

is vibration (a fair amount of that, I admit). If I were the patient, I

would rather fly, thank you - especially when the choices are flying for

30-40 minutes or driving for 2-3 hours. . .

" E. Tate " wrote:

To what end? The hospital should have been able to establish that this was

not needed, and sent him by ground. Helicopters are not about creature

comfort, and the risks outweighed the benefit in this case.

Helo was a horrible call. I'd bet the rent-a-doc in the ER had some strange

notion that the helo was some miracle working machine.

STEVE BOWMAN wrote:

For the transfer to the higher-level facility, transport by air was much

faster and smoother for the patient.

E. Tate, LP

Whitehouse, Texas

What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? HYPERLINK

" http://www.TexasEMSAT.org " http://www.TexasEMSAT.org

---------------------------------

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

What is a mute point?

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of Ross Terry

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:11 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

Very Simple Answer: Why was he flown.....1. HE WAS A FRIEND OF THE VICE

PRESIDENT . 2. HE HAD JUST BEEN SHOT BY THE SAME V.P. Wouldn't you have

flow the same patient knowing that you actions would be under national

scrutiny...Why is everyone missing this simple explanation and arguing a

mute point? Time to move on to the next subject..

-

---- Original Message -----

To: < >

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:00 PM

Subject: RE: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

I am still at a loss as to why he was flown. Of course we do not have all

the information but based on what I have read and seen on the news, the

patient had A-fib and some minor gsw wounds from the pellets. His condition

as I understand it was stable. So where was the good medical practice? All

medical transportation has a certain level of risk of an accident occurring.

But given the latest research on helicopter crashes, I would have to be 100

% sure that air transport is really needed and that the alternative of

ground transport would have a detrimental outcome on the patient. Otherwise

the ground transport wins out. I have had some really sick patients in my

ambulance in the past that were inter-facility transports, even though air

transport was available the ground option was chosen. With all the critical

care units out there today, can they not handle this type of transport with

good care, in a safer mode of transport and at a reasonable cost?

Don't get me wrong I agree that air transport, in particular helicopter

transport has its place in the medical system but I do not think we are

using the proper criteria to determine who goes by what means. That should

be the issue that is addressed. We need to establish a protocol based on

current research data, not speculation or just in case or because that is

the way we have always done it!

Just my opinion,

Bernie Stafford EMTP

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of STEVE BOWMAN

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 3:28 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

" the risks outweighed the benefit in this case " - and you know this because?

The doctor(s) in the ER at the hospital in Kingsville made the call to fly

him (according to the newspaper article). What criteria they used in making

their decision was not stated; however, good medical practice would normally

dictate that such a decision be made in the manner that is of most benefit

to the patient. Since we don't know the qualifications of the physician(s)

involved or the criteria they applied, second-guessing them is dangerous.

The only thing that we can be SURE of is that the helicopter got him there

much faster. The comment about " smoother " that I made before was based on a

fair amount of time spent in the back of both helicopters and ambulances -

the latter as both patient and crew. Even on a reasonably smooth road, it's

not a fun ride in teh back of an ambulance. You feel every bump, sway,

turn, etc. The major movement in the back of a heklicopter in good weather

is vibration (a fair amount of that, I admit). If I were the patient, I

would rather fly, thank you - especially when the choices are flying for

30-40 minutes or driving for 2-3 hours. . .

" E. Tate " wrote:

To what end? The hospital should have been able to establish that this was

not needed, and sent him by ground. Helicopters are not about creature

comfort, and the risks outweighed the benefit in this case.

Helo was a horrible call. I'd bet the rent-a-doc in the ER had some strange

notion that the helo was some miracle working machine.

STEVE BOWMAN wrote:

For the transfer to the higher-level facility, transport by air was much

faster and smoother for the patient.

E. Tate, LP

Whitehouse, Texas

What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? HYPERLINK

" http://www.TexasEMSAT.org " http://www.TexasEMSAT.org

---------------------------------

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

What is a mute point?

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of Ross Terry

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:11 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

Very Simple Answer: Why was he flown.....1. HE WAS A FRIEND OF THE VICE

PRESIDENT . 2. HE HAD JUST BEEN SHOT BY THE SAME V.P. Wouldn't you have

flow the same patient knowing that you actions would be under national

scrutiny...Why is everyone missing this simple explanation and arguing a

mute point? Time to move on to the next subject..

-

---- Original Message -----

To: < >

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:00 PM

Subject: RE: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

I am still at a loss as to why he was flown. Of course we do not have all

the information but based on what I have read and seen on the news, the

patient had A-fib and some minor gsw wounds from the pellets. His condition

as I understand it was stable. So where was the good medical practice? All

medical transportation has a certain level of risk of an accident occurring.

But given the latest research on helicopter crashes, I would have to be 100

% sure that air transport is really needed and that the alternative of

ground transport would have a detrimental outcome on the patient. Otherwise

the ground transport wins out. I have had some really sick patients in my

ambulance in the past that were inter-facility transports, even though air

transport was available the ground option was chosen. With all the critical

care units out there today, can they not handle this type of transport with

good care, in a safer mode of transport and at a reasonable cost?

Don't get me wrong I agree that air transport, in particular helicopter

transport has its place in the medical system but I do not think we are

using the proper criteria to determine who goes by what means. That should

be the issue that is addressed. We need to establish a protocol based on

current research data, not speculation or just in case or because that is

the way we have always done it!

Just my opinion,

Bernie Stafford EMTP

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of STEVE BOWMAN

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 3:28 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

" the risks outweighed the benefit in this case " - and you know this because?

The doctor(s) in the ER at the hospital in Kingsville made the call to fly

him (according to the newspaper article). What criteria they used in making

their decision was not stated; however, good medical practice would normally

dictate that such a decision be made in the manner that is of most benefit

to the patient. Since we don't know the qualifications of the physician(s)

involved or the criteria they applied, second-guessing them is dangerous.

The only thing that we can be SURE of is that the helicopter got him there

much faster. The comment about " smoother " that I made before was based on a

fair amount of time spent in the back of both helicopters and ambulances -

the latter as both patient and crew. Even on a reasonably smooth road, it's

not a fun ride in teh back of an ambulance. You feel every bump, sway,

turn, etc. The major movement in the back of a heklicopter in good weather

is vibration (a fair amount of that, I admit). If I were the patient, I

would rather fly, thank you - especially when the choices are flying for

30-40 minutes or driving for 2-3 hours. . .

" E. Tate " wrote:

To what end? The hospital should have been able to establish that this was

not needed, and sent him by ground. Helicopters are not about creature

comfort, and the risks outweighed the benefit in this case.

Helo was a horrible call. I'd bet the rent-a-doc in the ER had some strange

notion that the helo was some miracle working machine.

STEVE BOWMAN wrote:

For the transfer to the higher-level facility, transport by air was much

faster and smoother for the patient.

E. Tate, LP

Whitehouse, Texas

What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? HYPERLINK

" http://www.TexasEMSAT.org " http://www.TexasEMSAT.org

---------------------------------

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

What is a mute point?

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of Ross Terry

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:11 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

Very Simple Answer: Why was he flown.....1. HE WAS A FRIEND OF THE VICE

PRESIDENT . 2. HE HAD JUST BEEN SHOT BY THE SAME V.P. Wouldn't you have

flow the same patient knowing that you actions would be under national

scrutiny...Why is everyone missing this simple explanation and arguing a

mute point? Time to move on to the next subject..

-

---- Original Message -----

To: < >

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:00 PM

Subject: RE: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

I am still at a loss as to why he was flown. Of course we do not have all

the information but based on what I have read and seen on the news, the

patient had A-fib and some minor gsw wounds from the pellets. His condition

as I understand it was stable. So where was the good medical practice? All

medical transportation has a certain level of risk of an accident occurring.

But given the latest research on helicopter crashes, I would have to be 100

% sure that air transport is really needed and that the alternative of

ground transport would have a detrimental outcome on the patient. Otherwise

the ground transport wins out. I have had some really sick patients in my

ambulance in the past that were inter-facility transports, even though air

transport was available the ground option was chosen. With all the critical

care units out there today, can they not handle this type of transport with

good care, in a safer mode of transport and at a reasonable cost?

Don't get me wrong I agree that air transport, in particular helicopter

transport has its place in the medical system but I do not think we are

using the proper criteria to determine who goes by what means. That should

be the issue that is addressed. We need to establish a protocol based on

current research data, not speculation or just in case or because that is

the way we have always done it!

Just my opinion,

Bernie Stafford EMTP

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of STEVE BOWMAN

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 3:28 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

" the risks outweighed the benefit in this case " - and you know this because?

The doctor(s) in the ER at the hospital in Kingsville made the call to fly

him (according to the newspaper article). What criteria they used in making

their decision was not stated; however, good medical practice would normally

dictate that such a decision be made in the manner that is of most benefit

to the patient. Since we don't know the qualifications of the physician(s)

involved or the criteria they applied, second-guessing them is dangerous.

The only thing that we can be SURE of is that the helicopter got him there

much faster. The comment about " smoother " that I made before was based on a

fair amount of time spent in the back of both helicopters and ambulances -

the latter as both patient and crew. Even on a reasonably smooth road, it's

not a fun ride in teh back of an ambulance. You feel every bump, sway,

turn, etc. The major movement in the back of a heklicopter in good weather

is vibration (a fair amount of that, I admit). If I were the patient, I

would rather fly, thank you - especially when the choices are flying for

30-40 minutes or driving for 2-3 hours. . .

" E. Tate " wrote:

To what end? The hospital should have been able to establish that this was

not needed, and sent him by ground. Helicopters are not about creature

comfort, and the risks outweighed the benefit in this case.

Helo was a horrible call. I'd bet the rent-a-doc in the ER had some strange

notion that the helo was some miracle working machine.

STEVE BOWMAN wrote:

For the transfer to the higher-level facility, transport by air was much

faster and smoother for the patient.

E. Tate, LP

Whitehouse, Texas

What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? HYPERLINK

" http://www.TexasEMSAT.org " http://www.TexasEMSAT.org

---------------------------------

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

One that doesn't say anything?

Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS

response

to Cheney incident

" the risks outweighed the benefit in this case " - and you know this

because?

The doctor(s) in the ER at the hospital in Kingsville made the call to

fly

him (according to the newspaper article). What criteria they used in

making

their decision was not stated; however, good medical practice would

normally

dictate that such a decision be made in the manner that is of most

benefit

to the patient. Since we don't know the qualifications of the

physician(s)

involved or the criteria they applied, second-guessing them is

dangerous.

The only thing that we can be SURE of is that the helicopter got him

there

much faster. The comment about " smoother " that I made before was based

on a

fair amount of time spent in the back of both helicopters and ambulances

-

the latter as both patient and crew. Even on a reasonably smooth road,

it's

not a fun ride in teh back of an ambulance. You feel every bump, sway,

turn, etc. The major movement in the back of a heklicopter in good

weather

is vibration (a fair amount of that, I admit). If I were the patient,

I

would rather fly, thank you - especially when the choices are flying for

30-40 minutes or driving for 2-3 hours. . .

" E. Tate " wrote:

To what end? The hospital should have been able to establish that this

was

not needed, and sent him by ground. Helicopters are not about creature

comfort, and the risks outweighed the benefit in this case.

Helo was a horrible call. I'd bet the rent-a-doc in the ER had some

strange

notion that the helo was some miracle working machine.

STEVE BOWMAN wrote:

For the transfer to the higher-level facility, transport by air was much

faster and smoother for the patient.

E. Tate, LP

Whitehouse, Texas

What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? HYPERLINK

" http://www.TexasEMSAT.org " http://www.TexasEMSAT.org

---------------------------------

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

One that doesn't say anything?

Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS

response

to Cheney incident

" the risks outweighed the benefit in this case " - and you know this

because?

The doctor(s) in the ER at the hospital in Kingsville made the call to

fly

him (according to the newspaper article). What criteria they used in

making

their decision was not stated; however, good medical practice would

normally

dictate that such a decision be made in the manner that is of most

benefit

to the patient. Since we don't know the qualifications of the

physician(s)

involved or the criteria they applied, second-guessing them is

dangerous.

The only thing that we can be SURE of is that the helicopter got him

there

much faster. The comment about " smoother " that I made before was based

on a

fair amount of time spent in the back of both helicopters and ambulances

-

the latter as both patient and crew. Even on a reasonably smooth road,

it's

not a fun ride in teh back of an ambulance. You feel every bump, sway,

turn, etc. The major movement in the back of a heklicopter in good

weather

is vibration (a fair amount of that, I admit). If I were the patient,

I

would rather fly, thank you - especially when the choices are flying for

30-40 minutes or driving for 2-3 hours. . .

" E. Tate " wrote:

To what end? The hospital should have been able to establish that this

was

not needed, and sent him by ground. Helicopters are not about creature

comfort, and the risks outweighed the benefit in this case.

Helo was a horrible call. I'd bet the rent-a-doc in the ER had some

strange

notion that the helo was some miracle working machine.

STEVE BOWMAN wrote:

For the transfer to the higher-level facility, transport by air was much

faster and smoother for the patient.

E. Tate, LP

Whitehouse, Texas

What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? HYPERLINK

" http://www.TexasEMSAT.org " http://www.TexasEMSAT.org

---------------------------------

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

One that doesn't say anything?

Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS

response

to Cheney incident

" the risks outweighed the benefit in this case " - and you know this

because?

The doctor(s) in the ER at the hospital in Kingsville made the call to

fly

him (according to the newspaper article). What criteria they used in

making

their decision was not stated; however, good medical practice would

normally

dictate that such a decision be made in the manner that is of most

benefit

to the patient. Since we don't know the qualifications of the

physician(s)

involved or the criteria they applied, second-guessing them is

dangerous.

The only thing that we can be SURE of is that the helicopter got him

there

much faster. The comment about " smoother " that I made before was based

on a

fair amount of time spent in the back of both helicopters and ambulances

-

the latter as both patient and crew. Even on a reasonably smooth road,

it's

not a fun ride in teh back of an ambulance. You feel every bump, sway,

turn, etc. The major movement in the back of a heklicopter in good

weather

is vibration (a fair amount of that, I admit). If I were the patient,

I

would rather fly, thank you - especially when the choices are flying for

30-40 minutes or driving for 2-3 hours. . .

" E. Tate " wrote:

To what end? The hospital should have been able to establish that this

was

not needed, and sent him by ground. Helicopters are not about creature

comfort, and the risks outweighed the benefit in this case.

Helo was a horrible call. I'd bet the rent-a-doc in the ER had some

strange

notion that the helo was some miracle working machine.

STEVE BOWMAN wrote:

For the transfer to the higher-level facility, transport by air was much

faster and smoother for the patient.

E. Tate, LP

Whitehouse, Texas

What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? HYPERLINK

" http://www.TexasEMSAT.org " http://www.TexasEMSAT.org

---------------------------------

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Ross Terry wrote, " Wouldn't you have flow the same patient knowing that you

actions would be under national

scrutiny... "

No. I would have been extra careful to assure that I was following the

prevailing evidence and carefukky weighed his condition against the risks.

BEB

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of Ross Terry

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:11 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

Very Simple Answer: Why was he flown.....1. HE WAS A FRIEND OF THE VICE

PRESIDENT . 2. HE HAD JUST BEEN SHOT BY THE SAME V.P. Wouldn't you have

flow the same patient knowing that you actions would be under national

scrutiny...Why is everyone missing this simple explanation and arguing a

mute point? Time to move on to the next subject..

-

---- Original Message -----

To: < >

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:00 PM

Subject: RE: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

I am still at a loss as to why he was flown. Of course we do not have all

the information but based on what I have read and seen on the news, the

patient had A-fib and some minor gsw wounds from the pellets. His condition

as I understand it was stable. So where was the good medical practice? All

medical transportation has a certain level of risk of an accident occurring.

But given the latest research on helicopter crashes, I would have to be 100

% sure that air transport is really needed and that the alternative of

ground transport would have a detrimental outcome on the patient. Otherwise

the ground transport wins out. I have had some really sick patients in my

ambulance in the past that were inter-facility transports, even though air

transport was available the ground option was chosen. With all the critical

care units out there today, can they not handle this type of transport with

good care, in a safer mode of transport and at a reasonable cost?

Don't get me wrong I agree that air transport, in particular helicopter

transport has its place in the medical system but I do not think we are

using the proper criteria to determine who goes by what means. That should

be the issue that is addressed. We need to establish a protocol based on

current research data, not speculation or just in case or because that is

the way we have always done it!

Just my opinion,

Bernie Stafford EMTP

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of STEVE BOWMAN

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 3:28 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

" the risks outweighed the benefit in this case " - and you know this because?

The doctor(s) in the ER at the hospital in Kingsville made the call to fly

him (according to the newspaper article). What criteria they used in making

their decision was not stated; however, good medical practice would normally

dictate that such a decision be made in the manner that is of most benefit

to the patient. Since we don't know the qualifications of the physician(s)

involved or the criteria they applied, second-guessing them is dangerous.

The only thing that we can be SURE of is that the helicopter got him there

much faster. The comment about " smoother " that I made before was based on a

fair amount of time spent in the back of both helicopters and ambulances -

the latter as both patient and crew. Even on a reasonably smooth road, it's

not a fun ride in teh back of an ambulance. You feel every bump, sway,

turn, etc. The major movement in the back of a heklicopter in good weather

is vibration (a fair amount of that, I admit). If I were the patient, I

would rather fly, thank you - especially when the choices are flying for

30-40 minutes or driving for 2-3 hours. . .

" E. Tate " wrote:

To what end? The hospital should have been able to establish that this was

not needed, and sent him by ground. Helicopters are not about creature

comfort, and the risks outweighed the benefit in this case.

Helo was a horrible call. I'd bet the rent-a-doc in the ER had some strange

notion that the helo was some miracle working machine.

STEVE BOWMAN wrote:

For the transfer to the higher-level facility, transport by air was much

faster and smoother for the patient.

E. Tate, LP

Whitehouse, Texas

What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? HYPERLINK

" http://www.TexasEMSAT.org " http://www.TexasEMSAT.org

---------------------------------

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Ross Terry wrote, " Wouldn't you have flow the same patient knowing that you

actions would be under national

scrutiny... "

No. I would have been extra careful to assure that I was following the

prevailing evidence and carefukky weighed his condition against the risks.

BEB

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of Ross Terry

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:11 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

Very Simple Answer: Why was he flown.....1. HE WAS A FRIEND OF THE VICE

PRESIDENT . 2. HE HAD JUST BEEN SHOT BY THE SAME V.P. Wouldn't you have

flow the same patient knowing that you actions would be under national

scrutiny...Why is everyone missing this simple explanation and arguing a

mute point? Time to move on to the next subject..

-

---- Original Message -----

To: < >

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:00 PM

Subject: RE: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

I am still at a loss as to why he was flown. Of course we do not have all

the information but based on what I have read and seen on the news, the

patient had A-fib and some minor gsw wounds from the pellets. His condition

as I understand it was stable. So where was the good medical practice? All

medical transportation has a certain level of risk of an accident occurring.

But given the latest research on helicopter crashes, I would have to be 100

% sure that air transport is really needed and that the alternative of

ground transport would have a detrimental outcome on the patient. Otherwise

the ground transport wins out. I have had some really sick patients in my

ambulance in the past that were inter-facility transports, even though air

transport was available the ground option was chosen. With all the critical

care units out there today, can they not handle this type of transport with

good care, in a safer mode of transport and at a reasonable cost?

Don't get me wrong I agree that air transport, in particular helicopter

transport has its place in the medical system but I do not think we are

using the proper criteria to determine who goes by what means. That should

be the issue that is addressed. We need to establish a protocol based on

current research data, not speculation or just in case or because that is

the way we have always done it!

Just my opinion,

Bernie Stafford EMTP

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of STEVE BOWMAN

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 3:28 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

" the risks outweighed the benefit in this case " - and you know this because?

The doctor(s) in the ER at the hospital in Kingsville made the call to fly

him (according to the newspaper article). What criteria they used in making

their decision was not stated; however, good medical practice would normally

dictate that such a decision be made in the manner that is of most benefit

to the patient. Since we don't know the qualifications of the physician(s)

involved or the criteria they applied, second-guessing them is dangerous.

The only thing that we can be SURE of is that the helicopter got him there

much faster. The comment about " smoother " that I made before was based on a

fair amount of time spent in the back of both helicopters and ambulances -

the latter as both patient and crew. Even on a reasonably smooth road, it's

not a fun ride in teh back of an ambulance. You feel every bump, sway,

turn, etc. The major movement in the back of a heklicopter in good weather

is vibration (a fair amount of that, I admit). If I were the patient, I

would rather fly, thank you - especially when the choices are flying for

30-40 minutes or driving for 2-3 hours. . .

" E. Tate " wrote:

To what end? The hospital should have been able to establish that this was

not needed, and sent him by ground. Helicopters are not about creature

comfort, and the risks outweighed the benefit in this case.

Helo was a horrible call. I'd bet the rent-a-doc in the ER had some strange

notion that the helo was some miracle working machine.

STEVE BOWMAN wrote:

For the transfer to the higher-level facility, transport by air was much

faster and smoother for the patient.

E. Tate, LP

Whitehouse, Texas

What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? HYPERLINK

" http://www.TexasEMSAT.org " http://www.TexasEMSAT.org

---------------------------------

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Ross Terry wrote, " Wouldn't you have flow the same patient knowing that you

actions would be under national

scrutiny... "

No. I would have been extra careful to assure that I was following the

prevailing evidence and carefukky weighed his condition against the risks.

BEB

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of Ross Terry

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:11 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

Very Simple Answer: Why was he flown.....1. HE WAS A FRIEND OF THE VICE

PRESIDENT . 2. HE HAD JUST BEEN SHOT BY THE SAME V.P. Wouldn't you have

flow the same patient knowing that you actions would be under national

scrutiny...Why is everyone missing this simple explanation and arguing a

mute point? Time to move on to the next subject..

-

---- Original Message -----

To: < >

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:00 PM

Subject: RE: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

I am still at a loss as to why he was flown. Of course we do not have all

the information but based on what I have read and seen on the news, the

patient had A-fib and some minor gsw wounds from the pellets. His condition

as I understand it was stable. So where was the good medical practice? All

medical transportation has a certain level of risk of an accident occurring.

But given the latest research on helicopter crashes, I would have to be 100

% sure that air transport is really needed and that the alternative of

ground transport would have a detrimental outcome on the patient. Otherwise

the ground transport wins out. I have had some really sick patients in my

ambulance in the past that were inter-facility transports, even though air

transport was available the ground option was chosen. With all the critical

care units out there today, can they not handle this type of transport with

good care, in a safer mode of transport and at a reasonable cost?

Don't get me wrong I agree that air transport, in particular helicopter

transport has its place in the medical system but I do not think we are

using the proper criteria to determine who goes by what means. That should

be the issue that is addressed. We need to establish a protocol based on

current research data, not speculation or just in case or because that is

the way we have always done it!

Just my opinion,

Bernie Stafford EMTP

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of STEVE BOWMAN

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 3:28 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

" the risks outweighed the benefit in this case " - and you know this because?

The doctor(s) in the ER at the hospital in Kingsville made the call to fly

him (according to the newspaper article). What criteria they used in making

their decision was not stated; however, good medical practice would normally

dictate that such a decision be made in the manner that is of most benefit

to the patient. Since we don't know the qualifications of the physician(s)

involved or the criteria they applied, second-guessing them is dangerous.

The only thing that we can be SURE of is that the helicopter got him there

much faster. The comment about " smoother " that I made before was based on a

fair amount of time spent in the back of both helicopters and ambulances -

the latter as both patient and crew. Even on a reasonably smooth road, it's

not a fun ride in teh back of an ambulance. You feel every bump, sway,

turn, etc. The major movement in the back of a heklicopter in good weather

is vibration (a fair amount of that, I admit). If I were the patient, I

would rather fly, thank you - especially when the choices are flying for

30-40 minutes or driving for 2-3 hours. . .

" E. Tate " wrote:

To what end? The hospital should have been able to establish that this was

not needed, and sent him by ground. Helicopters are not about creature

comfort, and the risks outweighed the benefit in this case.

Helo was a horrible call. I'd bet the rent-a-doc in the ER had some strange

notion that the helo was some miracle working machine.

STEVE BOWMAN wrote:

For the transfer to the higher-level facility, transport by air was much

faster and smoother for the patient.

E. Tate, LP

Whitehouse, Texas

What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? HYPERLINK

" http://www.TexasEMSAT.org " http://www.TexasEMSAT.org

---------------------------------

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

It's a semi-literate point.

-Wes Ogilvie

Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

" the risks outweighed the benefit in this case " - and you know this because?

The doctor(s) in the ER at the hospital in Kingsville made the call to fly

him (according to the newspaper article). What criteria they used in making

their decision was not stated; however, good medical practice would normally

dictate that such a decision be made in the manner that is of most benefit

to the patient. Since we don't know the qualifications of the physician(s)

involved or the criteria they applied, second-guessing them is dangerous.

The only thing that we can be SURE of is that the helicopter got him there

much faster. The comment about " smoother " that I made before was based on a

fair amount of time spent in the back of both helicopters and ambulances -

the latter as both patient and crew. Even on a reasonably smooth road, it's

not a fun ride in teh back of an ambulance. You feel every bump, sway,

turn, etc. The major movement in the back of a heklicopter in good weather

is vibration (a fair amount of that, I admit). If I were the patient, I

would rather fly, thank you - especially when the choices are flying for

30-40 minutes or driving for 2-3 hours. . .

" E. Tate " wrote:

To what end? The hospital should have been able to establish that this was

not needed, and sent him by ground. Helicopters are not about creature

comfort, and the risks outweighed the benefit in this case.

Helo was a horrible call. I'd bet the rent-a-doc in the ER had some strange

notion that the helo was some miracle working machine.

STEVE BOWMAN wrote:

For the transfer to the higher-level facility, transport by air was much

faster and smoother for the patient.

E. Tate, LP

Whitehouse, Texas

What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? HYPERLINK

" http://www.TexasEMSAT.org " http://www.TexasEMSAT.org

---------------------------------

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

It's a semi-literate point.

-Wes Ogilvie

Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

" the risks outweighed the benefit in this case " - and you know this because?

The doctor(s) in the ER at the hospital in Kingsville made the call to fly

him (according to the newspaper article). What criteria they used in making

their decision was not stated; however, good medical practice would normally

dictate that such a decision be made in the manner that is of most benefit

to the patient. Since we don't know the qualifications of the physician(s)

involved or the criteria they applied, second-guessing them is dangerous.

The only thing that we can be SURE of is that the helicopter got him there

much faster. The comment about " smoother " that I made before was based on a

fair amount of time spent in the back of both helicopters and ambulances -

the latter as both patient and crew. Even on a reasonably smooth road, it's

not a fun ride in teh back of an ambulance. You feel every bump, sway,

turn, etc. The major movement in the back of a heklicopter in good weather

is vibration (a fair amount of that, I admit). If I were the patient, I

would rather fly, thank you - especially when the choices are flying for

30-40 minutes or driving for 2-3 hours. . .

" E. Tate " wrote:

To what end? The hospital should have been able to establish that this was

not needed, and sent him by ground. Helicopters are not about creature

comfort, and the risks outweighed the benefit in this case.

Helo was a horrible call. I'd bet the rent-a-doc in the ER had some strange

notion that the helo was some miracle working machine.

STEVE BOWMAN wrote:

For the transfer to the higher-level facility, transport by air was much

faster and smoother for the patient.

E. Tate, LP

Whitehouse, Texas

What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? HYPERLINK

" http://www.TexasEMSAT.org " http://www.TexasEMSAT.org

---------------------------------

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

It's a semi-literate point.

-Wes Ogilvie

Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

" the risks outweighed the benefit in this case " - and you know this because?

The doctor(s) in the ER at the hospital in Kingsville made the call to fly

him (according to the newspaper article). What criteria they used in making

their decision was not stated; however, good medical practice would normally

dictate that such a decision be made in the manner that is of most benefit

to the patient. Since we don't know the qualifications of the physician(s)

involved or the criteria they applied, second-guessing them is dangerous.

The only thing that we can be SURE of is that the helicopter got him there

much faster. The comment about " smoother " that I made before was based on a

fair amount of time spent in the back of both helicopters and ambulances -

the latter as both patient and crew. Even on a reasonably smooth road, it's

not a fun ride in teh back of an ambulance. You feel every bump, sway,

turn, etc. The major movement in the back of a heklicopter in good weather

is vibration (a fair amount of that, I admit). If I were the patient, I

would rather fly, thank you - especially when the choices are flying for

30-40 minutes or driving for 2-3 hours. . .

" E. Tate " wrote:

To what end? The hospital should have been able to establish that this was

not needed, and sent him by ground. Helicopters are not about creature

comfort, and the risks outweighed the benefit in this case.

Helo was a horrible call. I'd bet the rent-a-doc in the ER had some strange

notion that the helo was some miracle working machine.

STEVE BOWMAN wrote:

For the transfer to the higher-level facility, transport by air was much

faster and smoother for the patient.

E. Tate, LP

Whitehouse, Texas

What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? HYPERLINK

" http://www.TexasEMSAT.org " http://www.TexasEMSAT.org

---------------------------------

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Mute point: (myoot point)

1. a significant idea made by someone without producing speech or vocal sound.

2. (Often Offensive) a significant idea made by someone who is unable to

producing speech or vocal sound.

" Bledsoe, DO " wrote: What is a mute point?

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of Ross Terry

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:11 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

Very Simple Answer: Why was he flown.....1. HE WAS A FRIEND OF THE VICE

PRESIDENT . 2. HE HAD JUST BEEN SHOT BY THE SAME V.P. Wouldn't you have

flow the same patient knowing that you actions would be under national

scrutiny...Why is everyone missing this simple explanation and arguing a

mute point? Time to move on to the next subject..

-

---- Original Message -----

To: < >

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:00 PM

Subject: RE: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

I am still at a loss as to why he was flown. Of course we do not have all

the information but based on what I have read and seen on the news, the

patient had A-fib and some minor gsw wounds from the pellets. His condition

as I understand it was stable. So where was the good medical practice? All

medical transportation has a certain level of risk of an accident occurring.

But given the latest research on helicopter crashes, I would have to be 100

% sure that air transport is really needed and that the alternative of

ground transport would have a detrimental outcome on the patient. Otherwise

the ground transport wins out. I have had some really sick patients in my

ambulance in the past that were inter-facility transports, even though air

transport was available the ground option was chosen. With all the critical

care units out there today, can they not handle this type of transport with

good care, in a safer mode of transport and at a reasonable cost?

Don't get me wrong I agree that air transport, in particular helicopter

transport has its place in the medical system but I do not think we are

using the proper criteria to determine who goes by what means. That should

be the issue that is addressed. We need to establish a protocol based on

current research data, not speculation or just in case or because that is

the way we have always done it!

Just my opinion,

Bernie Stafford EMTP

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of STEVE BOWMAN

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 3:28 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

" the risks outweighed the benefit in this case " - and you know this because?

The doctor(s) in the ER at the hospital in Kingsville made the call to fly

him (according to the newspaper article). What criteria they used in making

their decision was not stated; however, good medical practice would normally

dictate that such a decision be made in the manner that is of most benefit

to the patient. Since we don't know the qualifications of the physician(s)

involved or the criteria they applied, second-guessing them is dangerous.

The only thing that we can be SURE of is that the helicopter got him there

much faster. The comment about " smoother " that I made before was based on a

fair amount of time spent in the back of both helicopters and ambulances -

the latter as both patient and crew. Even on a reasonably smooth road, it's

not a fun ride in teh back of an ambulance. You feel every bump, sway,

turn, etc. The major movement in the back of a heklicopter in good weather

is vibration (a fair amount of that, I admit). If I were the patient, I

would rather fly, thank you - especially when the choices are flying for

30-40 minutes or driving for 2-3 hours. . .

" E. Tate " wrote:

To what end? The hospital should have been able to establish that this was

not needed, and sent him by ground. Helicopters are not about creature

comfort, and the risks outweighed the benefit in this case.

Helo was a horrible call. I'd bet the rent-a-doc in the ER had some strange

notion that the helo was some miracle working machine.

STEVE BOWMAN wrote:

For the transfer to the higher-level facility, transport by air was much

faster and smoother for the patient.

E. Tate, LP

Whitehouse, Texas

What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? HYPERLINK

" http://www.TexasEMSAT.org " http://www.TexasEMSAT.org

---------------------------------

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Mute point: (myoot point)

1. a significant idea made by someone without producing speech or vocal sound.

2. (Often Offensive) a significant idea made by someone who is unable to

producing speech or vocal sound.

" Bledsoe, DO " wrote: What is a mute point?

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of Ross Terry

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:11 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

Very Simple Answer: Why was he flown.....1. HE WAS A FRIEND OF THE VICE

PRESIDENT . 2. HE HAD JUST BEEN SHOT BY THE SAME V.P. Wouldn't you have

flow the same patient knowing that you actions would be under national

scrutiny...Why is everyone missing this simple explanation and arguing a

mute point? Time to move on to the next subject..

-

---- Original Message -----

To: < >

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:00 PM

Subject: RE: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

I am still at a loss as to why he was flown. Of course we do not have all

the information but based on what I have read and seen on the news, the

patient had A-fib and some minor gsw wounds from the pellets. His condition

as I understand it was stable. So where was the good medical practice? All

medical transportation has a certain level of risk of an accident occurring.

But given the latest research on helicopter crashes, I would have to be 100

% sure that air transport is really needed and that the alternative of

ground transport would have a detrimental outcome on the patient. Otherwise

the ground transport wins out. I have had some really sick patients in my

ambulance in the past that were inter-facility transports, even though air

transport was available the ground option was chosen. With all the critical

care units out there today, can they not handle this type of transport with

good care, in a safer mode of transport and at a reasonable cost?

Don't get me wrong I agree that air transport, in particular helicopter

transport has its place in the medical system but I do not think we are

using the proper criteria to determine who goes by what means. That should

be the issue that is addressed. We need to establish a protocol based on

current research data, not speculation or just in case or because that is

the way we have always done it!

Just my opinion,

Bernie Stafford EMTP

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of STEVE BOWMAN

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 3:28 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

" the risks outweighed the benefit in this case " - and you know this because?

The doctor(s) in the ER at the hospital in Kingsville made the call to fly

him (according to the newspaper article). What criteria they used in making

their decision was not stated; however, good medical practice would normally

dictate that such a decision be made in the manner that is of most benefit

to the patient. Since we don't know the qualifications of the physician(s)

involved or the criteria they applied, second-guessing them is dangerous.

The only thing that we can be SURE of is that the helicopter got him there

much faster. The comment about " smoother " that I made before was based on a

fair amount of time spent in the back of both helicopters and ambulances -

the latter as both patient and crew. Even on a reasonably smooth road, it's

not a fun ride in teh back of an ambulance. You feel every bump, sway,

turn, etc. The major movement in the back of a heklicopter in good weather

is vibration (a fair amount of that, I admit). If I were the patient, I

would rather fly, thank you - especially when the choices are flying for

30-40 minutes or driving for 2-3 hours. . .

" E. Tate " wrote:

To what end? The hospital should have been able to establish that this was

not needed, and sent him by ground. Helicopters are not about creature

comfort, and the risks outweighed the benefit in this case.

Helo was a horrible call. I'd bet the rent-a-doc in the ER had some strange

notion that the helo was some miracle working machine.

STEVE BOWMAN wrote:

For the transfer to the higher-level facility, transport by air was much

faster and smoother for the patient.

E. Tate, LP

Whitehouse, Texas

What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? HYPERLINK

" http://www.TexasEMSAT.org " http://www.TexasEMSAT.org

---------------------------------

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Mute point: (myoot point)

1. a significant idea made by someone without producing speech or vocal sound.

2. (Often Offensive) a significant idea made by someone who is unable to

producing speech or vocal sound.

" Bledsoe, DO " wrote: What is a mute point?

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of Ross Terry

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:11 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

Very Simple Answer: Why was he flown.....1. HE WAS A FRIEND OF THE VICE

PRESIDENT . 2. HE HAD JUST BEEN SHOT BY THE SAME V.P. Wouldn't you have

flow the same patient knowing that you actions would be under national

scrutiny...Why is everyone missing this simple explanation and arguing a

mute point? Time to move on to the next subject..

-

---- Original Message -----

To: < >

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:00 PM

Subject: RE: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

I am still at a loss as to why he was flown. Of course we do not have all

the information but based on what I have read and seen on the news, the

patient had A-fib and some minor gsw wounds from the pellets. His condition

as I understand it was stable. So where was the good medical practice? All

medical transportation has a certain level of risk of an accident occurring.

But given the latest research on helicopter crashes, I would have to be 100

% sure that air transport is really needed and that the alternative of

ground transport would have a detrimental outcome on the patient. Otherwise

the ground transport wins out. I have had some really sick patients in my

ambulance in the past that were inter-facility transports, even though air

transport was available the ground option was chosen. With all the critical

care units out there today, can they not handle this type of transport with

good care, in a safer mode of transport and at a reasonable cost?

Don't get me wrong I agree that air transport, in particular helicopter

transport has its place in the medical system but I do not think we are

using the proper criteria to determine who goes by what means. That should

be the issue that is addressed. We need to establish a protocol based on

current research data, not speculation or just in case or because that is

the way we have always done it!

Just my opinion,

Bernie Stafford EMTP

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of STEVE BOWMAN

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 3:28 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

" the risks outweighed the benefit in this case " - and you know this because?

The doctor(s) in the ER at the hospital in Kingsville made the call to fly

him (according to the newspaper article). What criteria they used in making

their decision was not stated; however, good medical practice would normally

dictate that such a decision be made in the manner that is of most benefit

to the patient. Since we don't know the qualifications of the physician(s)

involved or the criteria they applied, second-guessing them is dangerous.

The only thing that we can be SURE of is that the helicopter got him there

much faster. The comment about " smoother " that I made before was based on a

fair amount of time spent in the back of both helicopters and ambulances -

the latter as both patient and crew. Even on a reasonably smooth road, it's

not a fun ride in teh back of an ambulance. You feel every bump, sway,

turn, etc. The major movement in the back of a heklicopter in good weather

is vibration (a fair amount of that, I admit). If I were the patient, I

would rather fly, thank you - especially when the choices are flying for

30-40 minutes or driving for 2-3 hours. . .

" E. Tate " wrote:

To what end? The hospital should have been able to establish that this was

not needed, and sent him by ground. Helicopters are not about creature

comfort, and the risks outweighed the benefit in this case.

Helo was a horrible call. I'd bet the rent-a-doc in the ER had some strange

notion that the helo was some miracle working machine.

STEVE BOWMAN wrote:

For the transfer to the higher-level facility, transport by air was much

faster and smoother for the patient.

E. Tate, LP

Whitehouse, Texas

What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? HYPERLINK

" http://www.TexasEMSAT.org " http://www.TexasEMSAT.org

---------------------------------

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

carefukky?

Do I dare ask?

ROFLMAO,

Tater

" Bledsoe, DO " wrote:

Ross Terry wrote, " Wouldn't you have flow the same patient knowing that you

actions would be under national

scrutiny... "

No. I would have been extra careful to assure that I was following the

prevailing evidence and carefukky weighed his condition against the risks.

BEB

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of Ross Terry

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:11 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

Very Simple Answer: Why was he flown.....1. HE WAS A FRIEND OF THE VICE

PRESIDENT . 2. HE HAD JUST BEEN SHOT BY THE SAME V.P. Wouldn't you have

flow the same patient knowing that you actions would be under national

scrutiny...Why is everyone missing this simple explanation and arguing a

mute point? Time to move on to the next subject..

-

---- Original Message -----

To: < >

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:00 PM

Subject: RE: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

I am still at a loss as to why he was flown. Of course we do not have all

the information but based on what I have read and seen on the news, the

patient had A-fib and some minor gsw wounds from the pellets. His condition

as I understand it was stable. So where was the good medical practice? All

medical transportation has a certain level of risk of an accident occurring.

But given the latest research on helicopter crashes, I would have to be 100

% sure that air transport is really needed and that the alternative of

ground transport would have a detrimental outcome on the patient. Otherwise

the ground transport wins out. I have had some really sick patients in my

ambulance in the past that were inter-facility transports, even though air

transport was available the ground option was chosen. With all the critical

care units out there today, can they not handle this type of transport with

good care, in a safer mode of transport and at a reasonable cost?

Don't get me wrong I agree that air transport, in particular helicopter

transport has its place in the medical system but I do not think we are

using the proper criteria to determine who goes by what means. That should

be the issue that is addressed. We need to establish a protocol based on

current research data, not speculation or just in case or because that is

the way we have always done it!

Just my opinion,

Bernie Stafford EMTP

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of STEVE BOWMAN

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 3:28 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

" the risks outweighed the benefit in this case " - and you know this because?

The doctor(s) in the ER at the hospital in Kingsville made the call to fly

him (according to the newspaper article). What criteria they used in making

their decision was not stated; however, good medical practice would normally

dictate that such a decision be made in the manner that is of most benefit

to the patient. Since we don't know the qualifications of the physician(s)

involved or the criteria they applied, second-guessing them is dangerous.

The only thing that we can be SURE of is that the helicopter got him there

much faster. The comment about " smoother " that I made before was based on a

fair amount of time spent in the back of both helicopters and ambulances -

the latter as both patient and crew. Even on a reasonably smooth road, it's

not a fun ride in teh back of an ambulance. You feel every bump, sway,

turn, etc. The major movement in the back of a heklicopter in good weather

is vibration (a fair amount of that, I admit). If I were the patient, I

would rather fly, thank you - especially when the choices are flying for

30-40 minutes or driving for 2-3 hours. . .

" E. Tate " wrote:

To what end? The hospital should have been able to establish that this was

not needed, and sent him by ground. Helicopters are not about creature

comfort, and the risks outweighed the benefit in this case.

Helo was a horrible call. I'd bet the rent-a-doc in the ER had some strange

notion that the helo was some miracle working machine.

STEVE BOWMAN wrote:

For the transfer to the higher-level facility, transport by air was much

faster and smoother for the patient.

E. Tate, LP

Whitehouse, Texas

What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? HYPERLINK

" http://www.TexasEMSAT.org " http://www.TexasEMSAT.org

---------------------------------

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

carefukky?

Do I dare ask?

ROFLMAO,

Tater

" Bledsoe, DO " wrote:

Ross Terry wrote, " Wouldn't you have flow the same patient knowing that you

actions would be under national

scrutiny... "

No. I would have been extra careful to assure that I was following the

prevailing evidence and carefukky weighed his condition against the risks.

BEB

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of Ross Terry

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:11 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

Very Simple Answer: Why was he flown.....1. HE WAS A FRIEND OF THE VICE

PRESIDENT . 2. HE HAD JUST BEEN SHOT BY THE SAME V.P. Wouldn't you have

flow the same patient knowing that you actions would be under national

scrutiny...Why is everyone missing this simple explanation and arguing a

mute point? Time to move on to the next subject..

-

---- Original Message -----

To: < >

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:00 PM

Subject: RE: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

I am still at a loss as to why he was flown. Of course we do not have all

the information but based on what I have read and seen on the news, the

patient had A-fib and some minor gsw wounds from the pellets. His condition

as I understand it was stable. So where was the good medical practice? All

medical transportation has a certain level of risk of an accident occurring.

But given the latest research on helicopter crashes, I would have to be 100

% sure that air transport is really needed and that the alternative of

ground transport would have a detrimental outcome on the patient. Otherwise

the ground transport wins out. I have had some really sick patients in my

ambulance in the past that were inter-facility transports, even though air

transport was available the ground option was chosen. With all the critical

care units out there today, can they not handle this type of transport with

good care, in a safer mode of transport and at a reasonable cost?

Don't get me wrong I agree that air transport, in particular helicopter

transport has its place in the medical system but I do not think we are

using the proper criteria to determine who goes by what means. That should

be the issue that is addressed. We need to establish a protocol based on

current research data, not speculation or just in case or because that is

the way we have always done it!

Just my opinion,

Bernie Stafford EMTP

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of STEVE BOWMAN

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 3:28 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

" the risks outweighed the benefit in this case " - and you know this because?

The doctor(s) in the ER at the hospital in Kingsville made the call to fly

him (according to the newspaper article). What criteria they used in making

their decision was not stated; however, good medical practice would normally

dictate that such a decision be made in the manner that is of most benefit

to the patient. Since we don't know the qualifications of the physician(s)

involved or the criteria they applied, second-guessing them is dangerous.

The only thing that we can be SURE of is that the helicopter got him there

much faster. The comment about " smoother " that I made before was based on a

fair amount of time spent in the back of both helicopters and ambulances -

the latter as both patient and crew. Even on a reasonably smooth road, it's

not a fun ride in teh back of an ambulance. You feel every bump, sway,

turn, etc. The major movement in the back of a heklicopter in good weather

is vibration (a fair amount of that, I admit). If I were the patient, I

would rather fly, thank you - especially when the choices are flying for

30-40 minutes or driving for 2-3 hours. . .

" E. Tate " wrote:

To what end? The hospital should have been able to establish that this was

not needed, and sent him by ground. Helicopters are not about creature

comfort, and the risks outweighed the benefit in this case.

Helo was a horrible call. I'd bet the rent-a-doc in the ER had some strange

notion that the helo was some miracle working machine.

STEVE BOWMAN wrote:

For the transfer to the higher-level facility, transport by air was much

faster and smoother for the patient.

E. Tate, LP

Whitehouse, Texas

What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? HYPERLINK

" http://www.TexasEMSAT.org " http://www.TexasEMSAT.org

---------------------------------

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

carefukky?

Do I dare ask?

ROFLMAO,

Tater

" Bledsoe, DO " wrote:

Ross Terry wrote, " Wouldn't you have flow the same patient knowing that you

actions would be under national

scrutiny... "

No. I would have been extra careful to assure that I was following the

prevailing evidence and carefukky weighed his condition against the risks.

BEB

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of Ross Terry

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:11 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

Very Simple Answer: Why was he flown.....1. HE WAS A FRIEND OF THE VICE

PRESIDENT . 2. HE HAD JUST BEEN SHOT BY THE SAME V.P. Wouldn't you have

flow the same patient knowing that you actions would be under national

scrutiny...Why is everyone missing this simple explanation and arguing a

mute point? Time to move on to the next subject..

-

---- Original Message -----

To: < >

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:00 PM

Subject: RE: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

I am still at a loss as to why he was flown. Of course we do not have all

the information but based on what I have read and seen on the news, the

patient had A-fib and some minor gsw wounds from the pellets. His condition

as I understand it was stable. So where was the good medical practice? All

medical transportation has a certain level of risk of an accident occurring.

But given the latest research on helicopter crashes, I would have to be 100

% sure that air transport is really needed and that the alternative of

ground transport would have a detrimental outcome on the patient. Otherwise

the ground transport wins out. I have had some really sick patients in my

ambulance in the past that were inter-facility transports, even though air

transport was available the ground option was chosen. With all the critical

care units out there today, can they not handle this type of transport with

good care, in a safer mode of transport and at a reasonable cost?

Don't get me wrong I agree that air transport, in particular helicopter

transport has its place in the medical system but I do not think we are

using the proper criteria to determine who goes by what means. That should

be the issue that is addressed. We need to establish a protocol based on

current research data, not speculation or just in case or because that is

the way we have always done it!

Just my opinion,

Bernie Stafford EMTP

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of STEVE BOWMAN

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 3:28 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

" the risks outweighed the benefit in this case " - and you know this because?

The doctor(s) in the ER at the hospital in Kingsville made the call to fly

him (according to the newspaper article). What criteria they used in making

their decision was not stated; however, good medical practice would normally

dictate that such a decision be made in the manner that is of most benefit

to the patient. Since we don't know the qualifications of the physician(s)

involved or the criteria they applied, second-guessing them is dangerous.

The only thing that we can be SURE of is that the helicopter got him there

much faster. The comment about " smoother " that I made before was based on a

fair amount of time spent in the back of both helicopters and ambulances -

the latter as both patient and crew. Even on a reasonably smooth road, it's

not a fun ride in teh back of an ambulance. You feel every bump, sway,

turn, etc. The major movement in the back of a heklicopter in good weather

is vibration (a fair amount of that, I admit). If I were the patient, I

would rather fly, thank you - especially when the choices are flying for

30-40 minutes or driving for 2-3 hours. . .

" E. Tate " wrote:

To what end? The hospital should have been able to establish that this was

not needed, and sent him by ground. Helicopters are not about creature

comfort, and the risks outweighed the benefit in this case.

Helo was a horrible call. I'd bet the rent-a-doc in the ER had some strange

notion that the helo was some miracle working machine.

STEVE BOWMAN wrote:

For the transfer to the higher-level facility, transport by air was much

faster and smoother for the patient.

E. Tate, LP

Whitehouse, Texas

What's stopping you from joining EMSAT? HYPERLINK

" http://www.TexasEMSAT.org " http://www.TexasEMSAT.org

---------------------------------

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

>

> I am still at a loss as to why he was flown.

Because a sitting vice-president shot him, so the federal government will be

paying his medical bills. Cost didn't matter, so cool-factor came into

play, and the secret service agents are USED to helicopters taking them

everywhere.

With regards to helicopter safety, when's the last time the Presidential

copter (or any for the white house staff) crashed? If they're so unsafe,

why's the government using them so often?

Mike :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

>

> I am still at a loss as to why he was flown.

Because a sitting vice-president shot him, so the federal government will be

paying his medical bills. Cost didn't matter, so cool-factor came into

play, and the secret service agents are USED to helicopters taking them

everywhere.

With regards to helicopter safety, when's the last time the Presidential

copter (or any for the white house staff) crashed? If they're so unsafe,

why's the government using them so often?

Mike :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

You are correct Mike that a helicopter used by the President and Vice

President are the safest aircraft in the US. But I thought this patient was

flown by a private company? I also know that given the players in this show,

no doubt that all means would be used.

As far as use of helicopters by the government, the military is the single

biggest user of air operations. Take a look at the current theaters of

military operation where there have been many military helicopter crashes. I

do not have the statics of how many crashes have occurred but I can remember

multiple television reports of crashes not attributed to enemy fire.

But that is not the main point I was making I was asking why we still use

helicopter as much as we do and you made my point better than I did by

saying it is cool and we do it all the time. That is what we as a profession

need to take a long hard look at the practice of flying patients and see if

it there is a difference in the patient outcome worth the dangers and cost

of a flight.

Bernie Stafford EMTP

________________________________________

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of Mike

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:42 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

>

> I am still at a loss as to why he was flown.

Because a sitting vice-president shot him, so the federal government will be

paying his medical bills.  Cost didn't matter, so cool-factor came into

play, and the secret service agents are USED to helicopters taking them

everywhere.

With regards to helicopter safety, when's the last time the Presidential

copter (or any for the white house staff) crashed?  If they're so unsafe,

why's the government using them so often?

Mike :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

You are correct Mike that a helicopter used by the President and Vice

President are the safest aircraft in the US. But I thought this patient was

flown by a private company? I also know that given the players in this show,

no doubt that all means would be used.

As far as use of helicopters by the government, the military is the single

biggest user of air operations. Take a look at the current theaters of

military operation where there have been many military helicopter crashes. I

do not have the statics of how many crashes have occurred but I can remember

multiple television reports of crashes not attributed to enemy fire.

But that is not the main point I was making I was asking why we still use

helicopter as much as we do and you made my point better than I did by

saying it is cool and we do it all the time. That is what we as a profession

need to take a long hard look at the practice of flying patients and see if

it there is a difference in the patient outcome worth the dangers and cost

of a flight.

Bernie Stafford EMTP

________________________________________

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of Mike

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:42 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

>

> I am still at a loss as to why he was flown.

Because a sitting vice-president shot him, so the federal government will be

paying his medical bills.  Cost didn't matter, so cool-factor came into

play, and the secret service agents are USED to helicopters taking them

everywhere.

With regards to helicopter safety, when's the last time the Presidential

copter (or any for the white house staff) crashed?  If they're so unsafe,

why's the government using them so often?

Mike :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

You are correct Mike that a helicopter used by the President and Vice

President are the safest aircraft in the US. But I thought this patient was

flown by a private company? I also know that given the players in this show,

no doubt that all means would be used.

As far as use of helicopters by the government, the military is the single

biggest user of air operations. Take a look at the current theaters of

military operation where there have been many military helicopter crashes. I

do not have the statics of how many crashes have occurred but I can remember

multiple television reports of crashes not attributed to enemy fire.

But that is not the main point I was making I was asking why we still use

helicopter as much as we do and you made my point better than I did by

saying it is cool and we do it all the time. That is what we as a profession

need to take a long hard look at the practice of flying patients and see if

it there is a difference in the patient outcome worth the dangers and cost

of a flight.

Bernie Stafford EMTP

________________________________________

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of Mike

Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 4:42 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Corpus Christi newspaper reports on EMS response

to Cheney incident

>

> I am still at a loss as to why he was flown.

Because a sitting vice-president shot him, so the federal government will be

paying his medical bills.  Cost didn't matter, so cool-factor came into

play, and the secret service agents are USED to helicopters taking them

everywhere.

With regards to helicopter safety, when's the last time the Presidential

copter (or any for the white house staff) crashed?  If they're so unsafe,

why's the government using them so often?

Mike :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...