Hey Gang, What's Up With The Medic and the Baby?

[Detroitnerd]

That's exactly what DIDN'T happen here.

1. The medic never said anything about requesting police assistance.

That's not right. She absolutely did, and it's a matter of record. The computer-aided dispatch record says Thomas “will not make the scene w/o SCT.” Thomas wanted a police car there before she responded. She was also very concerned about having a transporting unit, that is to say, and ambulance, on the scene. She's recorded as saying,"You got ETA on transporting unit?” She says, rather reasonably, I think: “It’s a baby not breathing, no scout available. I’m not about to be on no scene 10 minutes doing CPR. You know how these families get.”

Here's somebody who's obviously concerned about police being on scene, an exit strategy in the form of an ambulance, and not being stranded in a hostile situation. I'm not saying what she did was right, or that firing her was wrong, just that these are very real problems in Detroit that affect the ability of these units to function as they should. And this problem is guaranteed to crop up again.

2. An SUV [[or any other type of vehicle for that matter) would have no problem transporting a BABY.

I believe there are liability issues associated with taking an infant who is not breathing in the back seat of an SUV that is not designed to transport patients.

3. The mother was ALONE. There weren't "a dozen grown kids" on the scene.

That's a nightmare scenario, not an example of what happened here. But I could have clarified that better. Anyway, when you read the dispatch transcript, you can tell that nightmare scenario is a very real concern to her.

4. The result of her inaction, a deceased baby, isn't "better than what might have happened"...

You know what? I totally understand why you're angry about that death. There are few things more emotional or worth mourning in life than the deaths of children, especially a premature baby you hope will live.

But you simply can't blame all of this awful event on one person. I'm not saying this medic was justified, I'm just saying I think this tragic event is indicative of deeper organizational problems at Detroit's EMS. If Detroit is the kind of place where the medics won't go on scene without SCT, and want to get the hell out of a volatile situation, why in the hell would you put medics in cars that cannot transport?

Some of my friends more familiar with the situation tell me that the "Rapid Response Units" are just there to cut down on response time figures, that they're absolutely no good for trauma, where a person needs a surgeon, not a drug box. And Detroit's dispatch unit may lack the skills to implement them to best effect.

SUVs with medics and drug boxes work well in other places, where they're add-ons to a already properly staffed and resourced EMS department. But in Detroit they seem to be Detroit's way of cheaping out on a serious problem.

No doubt; what this woman did was a fireable offense. I'm just saying it's indicative of deeper problems with Detroit's EMS, and that this media lynching may be there to obscure them. Maybe we should focus on a system of fully staffed, functioning ambulances, as other cities do, instead of using "innovative" frills to get better numbers.

[Towne Cluber]

That's not right. She absolutely did, and it's a matter of record. The computer-aided dispatch record says Thomas “will not make the scene w/o SCT.” Thomas wanted a police car there before she responded. She was also very concerned about having a transporting unit, that is to say, and ambulance, on the scene. She's recorded as saying,"You got ETA on transporting unit?” She says, rather reasonably, I think: “It’s a baby not breathing, no scout available. I’m not about to be on no scene 10 minutes doing CPR. You know how these families get.”

Here's somebody who's obviously concerned about police being on scene, an exit strategy in the form of an ambulance, and not being stranded in a hostile situation. I'm not saying what she did was right, or that firing her was wrong, just that these are very real problems in Detroit that affect the ability of these units to function as they should. And this problem is guaranteed to crop up again.



I believe there are liability issues associated with taking an infant who is not breathing in the back seat of an SUV that is not designed to transport patients.



That's a nightmare scenario, not an example of what happened here. But I could have clarified that better. Anyway, when you read the dispatch transcript, you can tell that nightmare scenario is a very real concern to her.



You know what? I totally understand why you're angry about that death. There are few things more emotional or worth mourning in life than the deaths of children, especially a premature baby you hope will live.

But you simply can't blame all of this awful event on one person. I'm not saying this medic was justified, I'm just saying I think this tragic event is indicative of deeper organizational problems at Detroit's EMS. If Detroit is the kind of place where the medics won't go on scene without SCT, and want to get the hell out of a volatile situation, why in the hell would you put medics in cars that cannot transport?

Some of my friends more familiar with the situation tell me that the "Rapid Response Units" are just there to cut down on response time figures, that they're absolutely no good for trauma, where a person needs a surgeon, not a drug box. And Detroit's dispatch unit may lack the skills to implement them to best effect.

SUVs with medics and drug boxes work well in other places, where they're add-ons to a already properly staffed and resourced EMS department. But in Detroit they seem to be Detroit's way of cheaping out on a serious problem.

No doubt; what this woman did was a fireable offense. I'm just saying it's indicative of deeper problems with Detroit's EMS, and that this media lynching may be there to obscure them. Maybe we should focus on a system of fully staffed, functioning ambulances, as other cities do, instead of using "innovative" frills to get better numbers.

Again, the scenario that you describe in support on the former medic is not accurate.

1. You're conflating a request for an SCT [[Specialty Care Transport) with a request for a police presence. She requested the former, not the latter.

2. There aren't any liability issues with EMS transporting a patient in an SUV. Police do it with patrol cars when EMS arrival time isn't sufficient. The only liability issues are in cases like this one -- intentionally not performing one's duty.

3. Any medical, fire, accident situation is potentially volatile and potentially a nightmare scenario, however, it is not standard procedure -- nor practical -- to send police on every one of those runs as well.

4. Yes there are deep problems with Detroit EMS/Fire/DPD, but there are also deep workforce problems in Detroit [[i.e. lack of qualified workers).

5. Likewise, this lynching of anything considered "mainstream" [[the media, the government, majority public opinion) may also be a way to distract from the medic's gross negligence.

I understand why you're angry about this case and want to take the "anti-establishment" position here, but some things are just indefensible.

[Detroitnerd]

Again, the scenario that you describe in support on the former medic is not accurate.

1. You're conflating a request for an SCT [[Specialty Care Transport) with a request for a police presence. She requested the former, not the latter.

Thanks for clearing that up, but, be that as it may, she still wanted the police there. Thomas asked the dispatcher when the ambulance and police would get there. Then there's the full quote in the transcript: "It’s a baby not breathing, no scout available. I’m not about to be on no scene 10 minutes doing CPR. You know how these families get.”

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/d...ation/34176128

Read for yourself. It's right there in the article.

2. There aren't any liability issues with EMS transporting a patient in an SUV. Police do it with patrol cars when EMS arrival time isn't sufficient. The only liability issues are in cases like this one -- intentionally not performing one's duty.

That may be, but it's still beside the point. The units are not designed to transport, and that's because you don't have room to treat or stabilize a patient properly. The baby is not a good example, but how do you, say, hustle a 300-pound unconscious person into an SUV without a gurney? It's the wrong tool for the job.

3. Any medical, fire, accident situation is potentially volatile and potentially a nightmare scenario, however, it is not standard procedure -- nor practical -- to send police on every one of those runs as well.

Then, again, why use a unit that can't transport?

4. Yes there are deep problems with Detroit EMS/Fire/DPD, but there are also deep workforce problems in Detroit [[i.e. lack of qualified workers).

Seems to me that when everybody's jumping down on a specific employee with both feet, it's a good time to remind people of very specific management problems that play into it. Can't do anything about a worker who disobeys orders other than let her go, but the systemic things we CAN do things about. That's the difference.

5. Likewise, this lynching of anything considered "mainstream" [[the media, the government, majority public opinion) may also be a way to distract from the medic's gross negligence.

Nobody is working to distract from the employee's problems. The chorus of condemnation is loud and unanimous. As for the problem of EMS management pulling a fast one by using rigs that can't effectively transport patients, not so much. I think it's a good opportunity to talk about a troubled program the EMS has pursued for years.

I understand why you're angry about this case and want to take the "anti-establishment" position here, but some things are just indefensible.

Again, Towne Cluber, as I've said multiple times, I AM NOT DEFENDING THE MEDIC. If people concerned about EMS service want to improve service and prevent things like this in the future, they'd do better to spend their time trying to understand what happened instead of simply damning one employee.

[mam2009]

Thanks for clearing that up, but, be that as it may, she still wanted the police there. Thomas asked the dispatcher when the ambulance and police would get there. Then there's the full quote in the transcript: "It’s a baby not breathing, no scout available. I’m not about to be on no scene 10 minutes doing CPR. You know how these families get.”

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/d...ation/34176128

Read for yourself. It's right there in the article.



That may be, but it's still beside the point. The units are not designed to transport, and that's because you don't have room to treat or stabilize a patient properly. The baby is not a good example, but how do you, say, hustle a 300-pound unconscious person into an SUV without a gurney? It's the wrong tool for the job.



Then, again, why use a unit that can't transport?



Seems to me that when everybody's jumping down on a specific employee with both feet, it's a good time to remind people of very specific management problems that play into it. Can't do anything about a worker who disobeys orders other than let her go, but the systemic things we CAN do things about. That's the difference.



Nobody is working to distract from the employee's problems. The chorus of condemnation is loud and unanimous. As for the problem of EMS management pulling a fast one by using rigs that can't effectively transport patients, not so much. I think it's a good opportunity to talk about a troubled program the EMS has pursued for years.



Again, Towne Cluber, as I've said multiple times, I AM NOT DEFENDING THE MEDIC. If people concerned about EMS service want to improve service and prevent things like this in the future, they'd do better to spend their time trying to understand what happened instead of simply damning one employee.

http://m.clickondetroit.com/news/emt...-dies/33741914

If u open the link to the pdf document in the article, it shows the internal department investigation concluded the EMT did NOT request a scout car, only once inquired about the ETA for a scout car, never expressed to the dispatcher or any one else outside her vehicle that she was concerned for her safety, and several times refused to go treat the baby after being specifically told yo do so without explanation [[except not wanting to do CPR for ten minutes. She also said in her departmental investigation interview that she wasn't "scared."

[Detroitnerd]

http://m.clickondetroit.com/news/emt...-dies/33741914

If u open the link to the pdf document in the article, it shows the internal department investigation concluded the EMT did NOT request a scout car, only once inquired about the ETA for a scout car, never expressed to the dispatcher or any one else outside her vehicle that she was concerned for her safety, and several times refused to go treat the baby after being specifically told yo do so without explanation [[except not wanting to do CPR for ten minutes. She also said in her departmental investigation interview that she wasn't "scared."

Riiiiiiiggghht. She was asking when the police were going to be there, when the ambulance was going to be there, and "you know how these families get." And yet that totally didn't concern her, because she didn't explicitly say so. Har-de-har-har.

She just was lazy, right? Didn't want to do CPR for 10 minutes. Wanted to risk losing her job for absolutely no reason at all.

Why don't you try selling that bridge to somebody else, OK?