Some EMS Stuff

I was gone for a couple of days. Our USAR team headed to Texas in the event that Hurricane Dean turned into a "Katrina-sized" storm. One morning's USA Today had the following article:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-08-20-ems-atlanta_N.htm

It made me think a little about how we really measure an EMS System's effectiveness. Some places go by response times. Others go by cardiac arrest save rates. In my opinion, it is nice (and essential) to have rapid response times and high cardiac arrest save rates, but this should not be the wholesale measuring stick for an EMS System's performance. The article "assumes" that if cardiac arrest save rates are high, that the rest of the system should be good. This, I feel, is a little short-sighted and doesn't take a lot of other important things into account. Even with all the research and new cardiac arrest algorithms, codes are still a "crap shoot." The moon and stars have to align just right for the chain of survival's links to come together. There needs to be a better gauge of a system: clinical accuracy, for instance. How well does a EMT or Medic give a clinical impression? How good are their assessments? If they have an accurate impression, then is their treatment aggresssive, just right, or lacking? If folks are going to use statistics, use real ones...not BS stuff to make themselves look better. For instance...a lot of the cardiac arrest save rates are based only on patients that present in ventricular fibrillation. Other rhythms are thrown out in their statistics.

How do we do this? I don't know. I just know that the media likes to start things, and we really need to get to the root of the problem.

Enough of a rant for now. Stay safe, and learn something new today!!!