RE: 911:: Medical History - (mental)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/22/01 4:25:00 PM Mountain Standard Time,

rweintraut@... writes:

<< But... you still have the question of privacy. >>

Then why is it that NCIC has codes for these things? sure it's for LE use

only, but it's still telling folks that an individual has a medical condition.

It's all an officer safety issue, even if your " officer " is a paramedic, EMT

or firefighter.

Kathy

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/22/01 6:25:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,

rweintraut@... writes:

>

> The medical responder, using Universal Precautions, on every

> call, does not need the prior knowledge of the communicable

> disease

I agree with this statement. My biggest concern is the officers responding.

We send an officer to EVERY squad call. Most of these are very routine;

broken leg, fall victim, etc. While our rescue squad members respond with

the mind set to use universal precautions since their job is to offer medical

help I expect that they do not need to be reminded. Our officers response is

often for nothing more than to mark the location to make it easier for rescue

to find or just to hold a hand and offer comfort while waiting for the

volunteers to arrive. I don't think they respond with the same thoughts

about communicable diseases.

Our code system works for us. It offers the little extra safety net we all

like to provide and it does not compromise the patients right to privacy.

I'm not sure how this would " fly " if it was ever challenged in court, but I

can't imagine that even the dumbest judge could see this as violating

anyone's rights.

Patty

BTPD NJ

[Guest guest]

It's a very interesting question.

My department has always used a ten code when sending a unit

to a call with a " possible mental. "

But... would this also fall under the " privacy act " as a medical

condition?

I don't know...

I can say... " I'm going to tell my officer that there is a possible

mental involved, for officer safety reasons " .

My officer, going to the " mental " does not have the

Universal Precautions to protect him/her against the possible

violent actions of the mental.

Others will say the same about airing information on

communicable disease.

My answer....

The medical responder, using Universal Precautions, on every

call, does not need the prior knowledge of the communicable

disease.

But... you still have the question of privacy.

Very interesting.

Weintraut

[Guest guest]

<< But... you still have the question of privacy. >>

Dispatching the behavior, combative etc.. There is certainly

no problem there...

Is there a problem using the term " possible mental " or a

code for the same?

I think there might be. But I honestly don't know.

>Then why is it that NCIC has codes for these things?

While an NCIC code on a wanted return is one thing, broadcasting

personal medical history over the air is another.

NCIC has several records that I would not broadcast over the

air, unless I felt it was absolutely necessary for officer safety reasons.

When the record clearly states " do not arrest based on this

record " ... I become very concerned about broadcasting the

information...

Weintraut

[Guest guest]

>I'm not sure how this would " fly " if it was ever challenged in court, but I

can't imagine that even the dumbest judge could see this as violating

anyone's rights.<

I know exactly what you're saying... and your circumstance of sending

an officer to every run, it's easy to see your concern...

But I'm certain that your code system, and even your excellent

reasons for broadcasting the information, would make no difference.

I would suggest that your center talk to your city/county/state attorney

about your liability with this issue.

Weintraut

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/22/01 8:48:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,

studfrog@... writes:

> You are so wrong... Think about this scenario... You have an officer

> who knows your codes and their neighbor requested an ambulance... you

> then provide a code to responding officers that patient has a

> communicable disease... now the officer who happens to be the persons

> neighbor hears this... well you just violated that patients right to

> privacy

I can promise you that even if we did not provide any warning on the radio

and our officers discovered that " Officer so and so's " neighbor had a

communicable disease that information would travel through the department

faster than we could ever put it out on the radio. We are a relatively small

department in a county of relatively small departments who monitor each

others radio frequencys. In most cases when we give a squad call out the

officers will warn each other about any obviously dangerous conditions

including communicable diseases.

Patty

BTPD NJ

[Guest guest]

If your officers do not have available any type of protection for a

medical patient... then they should not be going on them. OSHA does

require that any personnel that may have contact with bodily fluids

must have available to them equipment and proper training.

You are so wrong... Think about this scenario... You have an officer

who knows your codes and their neighbor requested an ambulance... you

then provide a code to responding officers that patient has a

communicable disease... now the officer who happens to be the persons

neighbor hears this... well you just violated that patients right to

privacy.

Basically if your officers do not have the protection available to

them for these types of calls, they have no business being there...

just like a Paramedic doesn't need to be running into a " shots fired "

call.

>In a message dated 12/22/01 6:25:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,

>rweintraut@... writes:

>

>

>>

>> The medical responder, using Universal Precautions, on every

>> call, does not need the prior knowledge of the communicable

>> disease

>

>I agree with this statement. My biggest concern is the officers responding.

>We send an officer to EVERY squad call. Most of these are very routine;

>broken leg, fall victim, etc. While our rescue squad members respond with

>the mind set to use universal precautions since their job is to offer medical

>help I expect that they do not need to be reminded. Our officers response is

>often for nothing more than to mark the location to make it easier for rescue

>to find or just to hold a hand and offer comfort while waiting for the

>volunteers to arrive. I don't think they respond with the same thoughts

>about communicable diseases.

>

>Our code system works for us. It offers the little extra safety net we all

>like to provide and it does not compromise the patients right to privacy.

>I'm not sure how this would " fly " if it was ever challenged in court, but I

>can't imagine that even the dumbest judge could see this as violating

>anyone's rights.

>

>Patty

>BTPD NJ

[Guest guest]

--- Danny s Jr wrote:

> Basically if your officers do not have the

> protection available to

> them for these types of calls, they have no business

> being there...

> just like a Paramedic doesn't need to be running

> into a " shots fired "

> call.

>

>

I've run this by some officers I know, and also

thought about it a lot because I am military police.

The concern is not about merely medical situations.

The concern is about people who might fight you--and a

lot of them bite. Now, granted, I want to avoid

getting bitten no matter what, but sometimes the best

ways to subdue a subject leave you open for this and

if you know this subject has a communicable disease,

you are going to employ different strategies to subdue

him/her.

OK, so the law says we can't tell them--is this right?

I disagree with the law, and now that I have this

knowledge, I will try to do something to change it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want anyone pawing through

my medical records, but it's like the little girl who

got suspended from school because she gave a friend

some Tylenol and the school had a no drugs policy.

Why don't we use a little common sense when applying

the law? I know it's a lot to ask in this day and

time, but I can always hope that logic will eventually

prevail.

Stepping off my soapbox now.

=====

Kim

I make a difference

Tulsa, OK

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Jumped on this one late in the game....here's my two cents on the issue.....

As a responding officer/ems/fire person...You must always go into every call

being prepared for the worst. Reference HIV..etc.....just go in thinking that

each person has it. That is the best protection. Protection for yourself, and

non invasive on each persons rights.

Happy day, be safe!

Cin in good ole Ohio~~

[Guest guest]

And that is against the law. These laws were enacted to protect

patients, not responding personnel. By sharing this information with

one another you are do just what the laws were enacted to prevent.

Its amazing just how our professionals have little regard to patients

rights.

In the EMS field, we have a term and responsibility called Patient's

Advocate. Which basically means that it is our job as professionals

to make sure the patient's rights remain intact and that they receive

the correct care for their condition.

>I can promise you that even if we did not provide any warning on the radio

>and our officers discovered that " Officer so and so's " neighbor had a

>communicable disease that information would travel through the department

>faster than we could ever put it out on the radio. We are a relatively small

>department in a county of relatively small departments who monitor each

>others radio frequencys. In most cases when we give a squad call out the

>officers will warn each other about any obviously dangerous conditions

>including communicable diseases.

>

>Patty

>

>BTPD NJ

[Guest guest]

kim wrote: <<< The concern is not about merely medical situations. The

concern is about people who might fight you--and a lot of them bite. >>>

kim, that's why it is better to warn responders about previous, documented

behavior such as biting, combativeness, etc. rather than any disease they

may have.

rich

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

> << But... you still have the question of privacy. >>

>

> Dispatching the behavior, combative etc.. There is certainly

> no problem there...

>

> Is there a problem using the term " possible mental " or a

> code for the same?

>

> I think there might be. But I honestly don't know.

> +++++++++++++parts deleted++++++++++++

When the subject was " combative etc " we use a Section from the Calif Welfare

and Institutions Code, 5150W/I (danger to self or others). Which fit the

bill and was a code we frequently used with mental type calls. Never had a

kickback on that. I know times have changed a bit (Ha!) since I sat the

Chair.

Vern