Guest guest Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 City to pay $100,000 in death Medics should have advised woman to go to hospital By Mark Ferenchik The Columbus Dispatch Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:01 AM More than six years ago, 37-year-old Goldie Beck woke up in the middle of the night in her Hilltop home with chest pains and shortness of breath. Her husband called Columbus paramedics, who ran tests that proved inconclusive. She signed a waiver declining to go to the hospital. The medics told her to eat some bread and take Rolaids, her attorney said. Beck died of a heart attack less than an hour after medics left. Now the city will be paying $100,000 because medics did not follow correct protocol, City Attorney C. Pfeiffer said. The Columbus City Council approved the lawsuit settlement to her husband, Beck, yesterday. After paramedics arrived at 3:52 a.m. on May 27, 2000, they ran an electrocardiogram, which showed nothing, Columbus Public Safety Director J. Brown said. Beck's attorney, Blue, said paramedics told her she didn't need to go to the hospital. Pfeiffer told the council yesterday that Mrs. Beck did sign a refusal to transport, but that medics should have advised her to go to the hospital. " That was not done, " Pfeiffer said. Jack Reall, president of the Columbus firefighters union, said he's not familiar with the case. But he said that medics do not refuse transportation. " If it doesn't show anything on the EKG, it's very difficult to give someone a definitive answer, " Reall said. " It's up to you. If you want to go to the hospital, we'll take you to the hospital of your choice. It's not a position where we want to strong-arm anyone. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 I believe that I have written extensively on this topic recently. I think it was also on this list, but if not, let me know and I will repeat it. Refusals must contain certain specific factual information or they are no good. Most of them are conclusionary only. Gene G. > > She signed a patient refusal form and the city still had to pay $100,000.00. > She refused treatment it would appear. I have seen, on many occasions, > patients sign refusal forms only to say later they did not understand them, > were coerced into signing them, or similar reasons. In every case, including > one not that long ago in Dallas, the jury or judge sided with the patient. > The US legal system goes to great lengths to protect idiots from signing > away their rights. > > _____ > > From: texasems-l@yahoogrotexasem [mailto:texasems-l@yahoogrotexasem] On > Behalf Of Danny > Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 8:31 AM > To: texasems-l@yahoogrotexasem > Subject: Re: Patient Refusal Forms of Little Value > > Where is it that the Patient refusal forms were the failure? > > The medics, just from the news article; appear to have not done a proper > assessment and then gave advice they should have refrained from giving. > > This would be another reason for writing a narrative with the refusal form, > in my opinion. > > Here is the problem as I see it: > > 1) All patients should go to the hospital who wish to. > > 2) All patients should have a proper assessment every time. Complacency is > where the problem begins. > > 3) All patients should have the ability to refuse treatment. > > 4) All EMS personnel should understand that not everyone we see will tell us > everything everytime. Suspect the worst and hope for the best. > > 5) Supervisors should do just that, SUPERVISE. > > My Opinion this morning which is probably not everyones. > > Why do we blame the equipment when it appears to be an operator problem? > > " Bledsoe, DO " <bbledsoe@earthlinkbb<mailto:bbledsoe%mailto:bbledmai> > net> wrote: > City to pay $100,000 in death > > Medics should have advised woman to go to hospital > > By Mark Ferenchik > > The Columbus Dispatch > > Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:01 AM > > More than six years ago, 37-year-old Goldie Beck woke up in the middle of > the night in her Hilltop home with chest pains and shortness of breath. > > Her husband called Columbus paramedics, who ran tests that proved > inconclusive. She signed a waiver declining to go to the hospital. The > medics told her to eat some bread and take Rolaids, her attorney said. > > Beck died of a heart attack less than an hour after medics left. Now the > city will be paying $100,000 because medics did not follow correct protocol, > City Attorney C. Pfeiffer said. > > The Columbus City Council approved the lawsuit settlement to her husband, > Beck, yesterday. > > After paramedics arrived at 3:52 a.m. on May 27, 2000, they ran an > electrocardiogram, which showed nothing, Columbus Public Safety Director > J. Brown said. > > Beck's attorney, Blue, said paramedics told her she didn't need to go > to the hospital. Pfeiffer told the council yesterday that Mrs. Beck did sign > a refusal to transport, but that medics should have advised her to go to the > hospital. > > " That was not done, " Pfeiffer said. > > Jack Reall, president of the Columbus firefighters union, said he's not > familiar with the case. But he said that medics do not refuse > transportation. > > " If it doesn't show anything on the EKG, it's very difficult to give someone > a definitive answer, " Reall said. > > " It's up to you. If you want to go to the hospital, we'll take you to the > hospital of your choice. It's not a position where we want to strong-arm > anyone. " > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 I suspect you're talking about Dallas. I could buy my own private island with a 747 to transport me back and forth with all them money they have paid in damages. Paramedic instituted refusals are a recipe for lawsuit. Gene G. > > Paramedic lead refusals always fail. There is an urban EMS in North > Texas that provides paramedic lead refusals which have lead to many > deaths and lawsuits, but they are still carried out. Just transport - > it's just easier that way... > > -MH > > >>> Danny <petsardlj@sbcglobalpets> 9/22/2006 8:31 am >>> > Where is it that the Patient refusal forms were the failure? > > The medics, just from the news article; appear to have not done a > proper assessment and then gave advice they should have refrained from > giving. > > This would be another reason for writing a narrative with the refusal > form, in my opinion. > > Here is the problem as I see it: > > 1) All patients should go to the hospital who wish to. > > 2) All patients should have a proper assessment every time. > Complacency is where the problem begins. > > 3) All patients should have the ability to refuse treatment. > > 4) All EMS personnel should understand that not everyone we see will > tell us everything everytime. Suspect the worst and hope for the best. > > 5) Supervisors should do just that, SUPERVISE. > > My Opinion this morning which is probably not everyones. > > Why do we blame the equipment when it appears to be an operator > problem? > > > " Bledsoe, DO " wrote: > City to pay $100,000 in death > > Medics should have advised woman to go to hospital > > By Mark Ferenchik > > The Columbus Dispatch > > Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:01 AM > > More than six years ago, 37-year-old Goldie Beck woke up in the middle > of > the night in her Hilltop home with chest pains and shortness of > breath. > > Her husband called Columbus paramedics, who ran tests that proved > inconclusive. She signed a waiver declining to go to the hospital. The > medics told her to eat some bread and take Rolaids, her attorney said. > > Beck died of a heart attack less than an hour after medics left. Now > the > city will be paying $100,000 because medics did not follow correct > protocol, > City Attorney C. Pfeiffer said. > > The Columbus City Council approved the lawsuit settlement to her > husband, > Beck, yesterday. > > After paramedics arrived at 3:52 a.m. on May 27, 2000, they ran an > electrocardiogram, which showed nothing, Columbus Public Safety > Director > J. Brown said. > > Beck's attorney, Blue, said paramedics told her she didn't need > to go > to the hospital. Pfeiffer told the council yesterday that Mrs. Beck did > sign > a refusal to transport, but that medics should have advised her to go > to the > hospital. > > " That was not done, " Pfeiffer said. > > Jack Reall, president of the Columbus firefighters union, said he's > not > familiar with the case. But he said that medics do not refuse > transportation. > > " If it doesn't show anything on the EKG, it's very difficult to give > someone > a definitive answer, " Reall said. > > " It's up to you. If you want to go to the hospital, we'll take you to > the > hospital of your choice. It's not a position where we want to > strong-arm > anyone. " > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 Where is it that the Patient refusal forms were the failure? The medics, just from the news article; appear to have not done a proper assessment and then gave advice they should have refrained from giving. This would be another reason for writing a narrative with the refusal form, in my opinion. Here is the problem as I see it: 1) All patients should go to the hospital who wish to. 2) All patients should have a proper assessment every time. Complacency is where the problem begins. 3) All patients should have the ability to refuse treatment. 4) All EMS personnel should understand that not everyone we see will tell us everything everytime. Suspect the worst and hope for the best. 5) Supervisors should do just that, SUPERVISE. My Opinion this morning which is probably not everyones. Why do we blame the equipment when it appears to be an operator problem? " Bledsoe, DO " wrote: City to pay $100,000 in death Medics should have advised woman to go to hospital By Mark Ferenchik The Columbus Dispatch Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:01 AM More than six years ago, 37-year-old Goldie Beck woke up in the middle of the night in her Hilltop home with chest pains and shortness of breath. Her husband called Columbus paramedics, who ran tests that proved inconclusive. She signed a waiver declining to go to the hospital. The medics told her to eat some bread and take Rolaids, her attorney said. Beck died of a heart attack less than an hour after medics left. Now the city will be paying $100,000 because medics did not follow correct protocol, City Attorney C. Pfeiffer said. The Columbus City Council approved the lawsuit settlement to her husband, Beck, yesterday. After paramedics arrived at 3:52 a.m. on May 27, 2000, they ran an electrocardiogram, which showed nothing, Columbus Public Safety Director J. Brown said. Beck's attorney, Blue, said paramedics told her she didn't need to go to the hospital. Pfeiffer told the council yesterday that Mrs. Beck did sign a refusal to transport, but that medics should have advised her to go to the hospital. " That was not done, " Pfeiffer said. Jack Reall, president of the Columbus firefighters union, said he's not familiar with the case. But he said that medics do not refuse transportation. " If it doesn't show anything on the EKG, it's very difficult to give someone a definitive answer, " Reall said. " It's up to you. If you want to go to the hospital, we'll take you to the hospital of your choice. It's not a position where we want to strong-arm anyone. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 She signed a patient refusal form and the city still had to pay $100,000.00. She refused treatment it would appear. I have seen, on many occasions, patients sign refusal forms only to say later they did not understand them, were coerced into signing them, or similar reasons. In every case, including one not that long ago in Dallas, the jury or judge sided with the patient. The US legal system goes to great lengths to protect idiots from signing away their rights. _____ From: texasems-l [mailto:texasems-l ] On Behalf Of Danny Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 8:31 AM To: texasems-l Subject: Re: Patient Refusal Forms of Little Value Where is it that the Patient refusal forms were the failure? The medics, just from the news article; appear to have not done a proper assessment and then gave advice they should have refrained from giving. This would be another reason for writing a narrative with the refusal form, in my opinion. Here is the problem as I see it: 1) All patients should go to the hospital who wish to. 2) All patients should have a proper assessment every time. Complacency is where the problem begins. 3) All patients should have the ability to refuse treatment. 4) All EMS personnel should understand that not everyone we see will tell us everything everytime. Suspect the worst and hope for the best. 5) Supervisors should do just that, SUPERVISE. My Opinion this morning which is probably not everyones. Why do we blame the equipment when it appears to be an operator problem? " Bledsoe, DO " <bbledsoe (AT) earthlink (DOT) <mailto:bbledsoe%40earthlink.net> net> wrote: City to pay $100,000 in death Medics should have advised woman to go to hospital By Mark Ferenchik The Columbus Dispatch Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:01 AM More than six years ago, 37-year-old Goldie Beck woke up in the middle of the night in her Hilltop home with chest pains and shortness of breath. Her husband called Columbus paramedics, who ran tests that proved inconclusive. She signed a waiver declining to go to the hospital. The medics told her to eat some bread and take Rolaids, her attorney said. Beck died of a heart attack less than an hour after medics left. Now the city will be paying $100,000 because medics did not follow correct protocol, City Attorney C. Pfeiffer said. The Columbus City Council approved the lawsuit settlement to her husband, Beck, yesterday. After paramedics arrived at 3:52 a.m. on May 27, 2000, they ran an electrocardiogram, which showed nothing, Columbus Public Safety Director J. Brown said. Beck's attorney, Blue, said paramedics told her she didn't need to go to the hospital. Pfeiffer told the council yesterday that Mrs. Beck did sign a refusal to transport, but that medics should have advised her to go to the hospital. " That was not done, " Pfeiffer said. Jack Reall, president of the Columbus firefighters union, said he's not familiar with the case. But he said that medics do not refuse transportation. " If it doesn't show anything on the EKG, it's very difficult to give someone a definitive answer, " Reall said. " It's up to you. If you want to go to the hospital, we'll take you to the hospital of your choice. It's not a position where we want to strong-arm anyone. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 Remember that we are getting facts from the media, certainly not the most accurate source. Who is to say that it was the medics fault? Who is to say that they didn't do a proper assessment, inform her that she should go to the ER and be checked out? That it was her idea to eat bread and follow up with her PMD? We'll never know now, all we have is 3rd party information, and a settled lawsuit so the facts will never be played out in court. She can't testify or vote now (unless she's democrat..SORRY couldn't resist that!!!), so we will never know what happened 6 years ago... As long as there are attorneys who are behind in the car payments...there will be frivolous lawsuits settled out of court. Hatfield FF/EMT-P www.canyonlakefire-ems.org " Ubi concordia, ibi victoria " Re: Patient Refusal Forms of Little Value Where is it that the Patient refusal forms were the failure? The medics, just from the news article; appear to have not done a proper assessment and then gave advice they should have refrained from giving. This would be another reason for writing a narrative with the refusal form, in my opinion. Here is the problem as I see it: 1) All patients should go to the hospital who wish to. 2) All patients should have a proper assessment every time. Complacency is where the problem begins. 3) All patients should have the ability to refuse treatment. 4) All EMS personnel should understand that not everyone we see will tell us everything everytime. Suspect the worst and hope for the best. 5) Supervisors should do just that, SUPERVISE. My Opinion this morning which is probably not everyones. Why do we blame the equipment when it appears to be an operator problem? " Bledsoe, DO " <bbledsoe (AT) earthlink (DOT) <mailto:bbledsoe%40earthlink.net> net> wrote: City to pay $100,000 in death Medics should have advised woman to go to hospital By Mark Ferenchik The Columbus Dispatch Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:01 AM More than six years ago, 37-year-old Goldie Beck woke up in the middle of the night in her Hilltop home with chest pains and shortness of breath. Her husband called Columbus paramedics, who ran tests that proved inconclusive. She signed a waiver declining to go to the hospital. The medics told her to eat some bread and take Rolaids, her attorney said. Beck died of a heart attack less than an hour after medics left. Now the city will be paying $100,000 because medics did not follow correct protocol, City Attorney C. Pfeiffer said. The Columbus City Council approved the lawsuit settlement to her husband, Beck, yesterday. After paramedics arrived at 3:52 a.m. on May 27, 2000, they ran an electrocardiogram, which showed nothing, Columbus Public Safety Director J. Brown said. Beck's attorney, Blue, said paramedics told her she didn't need to go to the hospital. Pfeiffer told the council yesterday that Mrs. Beck did sign a refusal to transport, but that medics should have advised her to go to the hospital. " That was not done, " Pfeiffer said. Jack Reall, president of the Columbus firefighters union, said he's not familiar with the case. But he said that medics do not refuse transportation. " If it doesn't show anything on the EKG, it's very difficult to give someone a definitive answer, " Reall said. " It's up to you. If you want to go to the hospital, we'll take you to the hospital of your choice. It's not a position where we want to strong-arm anyone. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 Paramedic lead refusals always fail. There is an urban EMS in North Texas that provides paramedic lead refusals which have lead to many deaths and lawsuits, but they are still carried out. Just transport - it's just easier that way... -MH >>> Danny 9/22/2006 8:31 am >>> Where is it that the Patient refusal forms were the failure? The medics, just from the news article; appear to have not done a proper assessment and then gave advice they should have refrained from giving. This would be another reason for writing a narrative with the refusal form, in my opinion. Here is the problem as I see it: 1) All patients should go to the hospital who wish to. 2) All patients should have a proper assessment every time. Complacency is where the problem begins. 3) All patients should have the ability to refuse treatment. 4) All EMS personnel should understand that not everyone we see will tell us everything everytime. Suspect the worst and hope for the best. 5) Supervisors should do just that, SUPERVISE. My Opinion this morning which is probably not everyones. Why do we blame the equipment when it appears to be an operator problem? " Bledsoe, DO " wrote: City to pay $100,000 in death Medics should have advised woman to go to hospital By Mark Ferenchik The Columbus Dispatch Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:01 AM More than six years ago, 37-year-old Goldie Beck woke up in the middle of the night in her Hilltop home with chest pains and shortness of breath. Her husband called Columbus paramedics, who ran tests that proved inconclusive. She signed a waiver declining to go to the hospital. The medics told her to eat some bread and take Rolaids, her attorney said. Beck died of a heart attack less than an hour after medics left. Now the city will be paying $100,000 because medics did not follow correct protocol, City Attorney C. Pfeiffer said. The Columbus City Council approved the lawsuit settlement to her husband, Beck, yesterday. After paramedics arrived at 3:52 a.m. on May 27, 2000, they ran an electrocardiogram, which showed nothing, Columbus Public Safety Director J. Brown said. Beck's attorney, Blue, said paramedics told her she didn't need to go to the hospital. Pfeiffer told the council yesterday that Mrs. Beck did sign a refusal to transport, but that medics should have advised her to go to the hospital. " That was not done, " Pfeiffer said. Jack Reall, president of the Columbus firefighters union, said he's not familiar with the case. But he said that medics do not refuse transportation. " If it doesn't show anything on the EKG, it's very difficult to give someone a definitive answer, " Reall said. " It's up to you. If you want to go to the hospital, we'll take you to the hospital of your choice. It's not a position where we want to strong-arm anyone. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 This is true: Idiots are a protected species, however; what is the options if refusal forms are eliminated? Document everything? This sounds good in theory, but generally gaps will still be left. Has there been any serious discussion on what a refusal form has to say and which ones (if any) have been proven in court to be reliable? Good clinical judgement is the only protection against lawsuits, and even then that may not be enough. Perhaps we should just throw up our hands and not do anything. I DON'T THINK SO. " Bledsoe, DO " wrote: She signed a patient refusal form and the city still had to pay $100,000.00. She refused treatment it would appear. I have seen, on many occasions, patients sign refusal forms only to say later they did not understand them, were coerced into signing them, or similar reasons. In every case, including one not that long ago in Dallas, the jury or judge sided with the patient. The US legal system goes to great lengths to protect idiots from signing away their rights. _____ From: texasems-l [mailto:texasems-l ] On Behalf Of Danny Sent: Friday, September 22, 2006 8:31 AM To: texasems-l Subject: Re: Patient Refusal Forms of Little Value Where is it that the Patient refusal forms were the failure? The medics, just from the news article; appear to have not done a proper assessment and then gave advice they should have refrained from giving. This would be another reason for writing a narrative with the refusal form, in my opinion. Here is the problem as I see it: 1) All patients should go to the hospital who wish to. 2) All patients should have a proper assessment every time. Complacency is where the problem begins. 3) All patients should have the ability to refuse treatment. 4) All EMS personnel should understand that not everyone we see will tell us everything everytime. Suspect the worst and hope for the best. 5) Supervisors should do just that, SUPERVISE. My Opinion this morning which is probably not everyones. Why do we blame the equipment when it appears to be an operator problem? " Bledsoe, DO " <bbledsoe (AT) earthlink (DOT) <mailto:bbledsoe%40earthlink.net> net> wrote: City to pay $100,000 in death Medics should have advised woman to go to hospital By Mark Ferenchik The Columbus Dispatch Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:01 AM More than six years ago, 37-year-old Goldie Beck woke up in the middle of the night in her Hilltop home with chest pains and shortness of breath. Her husband called Columbus paramedics, who ran tests that proved inconclusive. She signed a waiver declining to go to the hospital. The medics told her to eat some bread and take Rolaids, her attorney said. Beck died of a heart attack less than an hour after medics left. Now the city will be paying $100,000 because medics did not follow correct protocol, City Attorney C. Pfeiffer said. The Columbus City Council approved the lawsuit settlement to her husband, Beck, yesterday. After paramedics arrived at 3:52 a.m. on May 27, 2000, they ran an electrocardiogram, which showed nothing, Columbus Public Safety Director J. Brown said. Beck's attorney, Blue, said paramedics told her she didn't need to go to the hospital. Pfeiffer told the council yesterday that Mrs. Beck did sign a refusal to transport, but that medics should have advised her to go to the hospital. " That was not done, " Pfeiffer said. Jack Reall, president of the Columbus firefighters union, said he's not familiar with the case. But he said that medics do not refuse transportation. " If it doesn't show anything on the EKG, it's very difficult to give someone a definitive answer, " Reall said. " It's up to you. If you want to go to the hospital, we'll take you to the hospital of your choice. It's not a position where we want to strong-arm anyone. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 I am not attacking the medics first. I have seen in my career where the problem usually lies at the top of the food chain. The leaders don't lead, the troops can't follow. The troops become the ones to get killed while the leaders are overlooking the battlefield figuring that maybe that should not have happened. The problem with lawsuits is that the 3rd party information is usually corraborated by other facts. Those facts (whether right or wrong) combine for a powerful offense. Do the job right. Do the job right every time. Pray that you do the job right every time. Pray that you have a better attorney than the other side. Stay poor. No one wants to sue a poor person. Hatfield wrote: Remember that we are getting facts from the media, certainly not the most accurate source. Who is to say that it was the medics fault? Who is to say that they didn't do a proper assessment, inform her that she should go to the ER and be checked out? That it was her idea to eat bread and follow up with her PMD? We'll never know now, all we have is 3rd party information, and a settled lawsuit so the facts will never be played out in court. She can't testify or vote now (unless she's democrat..SORRY couldn't resist that!!!), so we will never know what happened 6 years ago... As long as there are attorneys who are behind in the car payments...there will be frivolous lawsuits settled out of court. Hatfield FF/EMT-P www.canyonlakefire-ems.org " Ubi concordia, ibi victoria " Re: Patient Refusal Forms of Little Value Where is it that the Patient refusal forms were the failure? The medics, just from the news article; appear to have not done a proper assessment and then gave advice they should have refrained from giving. This would be another reason for writing a narrative with the refusal form, in my opinion. Here is the problem as I see it: 1) All patients should go to the hospital who wish to. 2) All patients should have a proper assessment every time. Complacency is where the problem begins. 3) All patients should have the ability to refuse treatment. 4) All EMS personnel should understand that not everyone we see will tell us everything everytime. Suspect the worst and hope for the best. 5) Supervisors should do just that, SUPERVISE. My Opinion this morning which is probably not everyones. Why do we blame the equipment when it appears to be an operator problem? " Bledsoe, DO " <bbledsoe (AT) earthlink (DOT) <mailto:bbledsoe%40earthlink.net> net> wrote: City to pay $100,000 in death Medics should have advised woman to go to hospital By Mark Ferenchik The Columbus Dispatch Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:01 AM More than six years ago, 37-year-old Goldie Beck woke up in the middle of the night in her Hilltop home with chest pains and shortness of breath. Her husband called Columbus paramedics, who ran tests that proved inconclusive. She signed a waiver declining to go to the hospital. The medics told her to eat some bread and take Rolaids, her attorney said. Beck died of a heart attack less than an hour after medics left. Now the city will be paying $100,000 because medics did not follow correct protocol, City Attorney C. Pfeiffer said. The Columbus City Council approved the lawsuit settlement to her husband, Beck, yesterday. After paramedics arrived at 3:52 a.m. on May 27, 2000, they ran an electrocardiogram, which showed nothing, Columbus Public Safety Director J. Brown said. Beck's attorney, Blue, said paramedics told her she didn't need to go to the hospital. Pfeiffer told the council yesterday that Mrs. Beck did sign a refusal to transport, but that medics should have advised her to go to the hospital. " That was not done, " Pfeiffer said. Jack Reall, president of the Columbus firefighters union, said he's not familiar with the case. But he said that medics do not refuse transportation. " If it doesn't show anything on the EKG, it's very difficult to give someone a definitive answer, " Reall said. " It's up to you. If you want to go to the hospital, we'll take you to the hospital of your choice. It's not a position where we want to strong-arm anyone. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 I disagree. It is IMPROPERLY TRAINED medics doing medic lead refusals that fail. We need to stop lowering our standards to allow the slowest one in, and insure that either the slowest one can catch up, or thin the herd. The time of " there was this medic/service " , followed by " that's why we don't do it anymore " , needs to be out the door right behind " because we've always done it that way " . Mike Hatfield FF/EMT-P www.canyonlakefire-ems.org " Ubi concordia, ibi victoria " Re: Patient Refusal Forms of Little Value Paramedic lead refusals always fail. There is an urban EMS in North Texas that provides paramedic lead refusals which have lead to many deaths and lawsuits, but they are still carried out. Just transport - it's just easier that way... -MH >>> Danny <petsardlj@sbcglobal <mailto:petsardlj%40sbcglobal.net> ..net> 9/22/2006 8:31 am >>> Where is it that the Patient refusal forms were the failure? The medics, just from the news article; appear to have not done a proper assessment and then gave advice they should have refrained from giving. This would be another reason for writing a narrative with the refusal form, in my opinion. Here is the problem as I see it: 1) All patients should go to the hospital who wish to. 2) All patients should have a proper assessment every time. Complacency is where the problem begins. 3) All patients should have the ability to refuse treatment. 4) All EMS personnel should understand that not everyone we see will tell us everything everytime. Suspect the worst and hope for the best. 5) Supervisors should do just that, SUPERVISE. My Opinion this morning which is probably not everyones. Why do we blame the equipment when it appears to be an operator problem? " Bledsoe, DO " <bbledsoe (AT) earthlink (DOT) <mailto:bbledsoe%40earthlink.net> net> wrote: City to pay $100,000 in death Medics should have advised woman to go to hospital By Mark Ferenchik The Columbus Dispatch Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:01 AM More than six years ago, 37-year-old Goldie Beck woke up in the middle of the night in her Hilltop home with chest pains and shortness of breath. Her husband called Columbus paramedics, who ran tests that proved inconclusive. She signed a waiver declining to go to the hospital. The medics told her to eat some bread and take Rolaids, her attorney said. Beck died of a heart attack less than an hour after medics left. Now the city will be paying $100,000 because medics did not follow correct protocol, City Attorney C. Pfeiffer said. The Columbus City Council approved the lawsuit settlement to her husband, Beck, yesterday. After paramedics arrived at 3:52 a.m. on May 27, 2000, they ran an electrocardiogram, which showed nothing, Columbus Public Safety Director J. Brown said. Beck's attorney, Blue, said paramedics told her she didn't need to go to the hospital. Pfeiffer told the council yesterday that Mrs. Beck did sign a refusal to transport, but that medics should have advised her to go to the hospital. " That was not done, " Pfeiffer said. Jack Reall, president of the Columbus firefighters union, said he's not familiar with the case. But he said that medics do not refuse transportation. " If it doesn't show anything on the EKG, it's very difficult to give someone a definitive answer, " Reall said. " It's up to you. If you want to go to the hospital, we'll take you to the hospital of your choice. It's not a position where we want to strong-arm anyone. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 I agree.transport is much easier. At Eagles 2005, I think it was Ossman, from Georgia, who noted once the box arrives on scene, you have spent 80% of the cost to make the run and transport the patient. There isn't a cost savings to not transporting and if the stats are correct about refusals being 50% of patient centered EMS lawsuits, it just makes sense to transport them. Re: Patient Refusal Forms of Little Value Paramedic lead refusals always fail. There is an urban EMS in North Texas that provides paramedic lead refusals which have lead to many deaths and lawsuits, but they are still carried out. Just transport - it's just easier that way... -MH >>> Danny <petsardlj@sbcglobal <mailto:petsardlj%40sbcglobal.net> .net> 9/22/2006 8:31 am >>> Where is it that the Patient refusal forms were the failure? The medics, just from the news article; appear to have not done a proper assessment and then gave advice they should have refrained from giving. This would be another reason for writing a narrative with the refusal form, in my opinion. Here is the problem as I see it: 1) All patients should go to the hospital who wish to. 2) All patients should have a proper assessment every time. Complacency is where the problem begins. 3) All patients should have the ability to refuse treatment. 4) All EMS personnel should understand that not everyone we see will tell us everything everytime. Suspect the worst and hope for the best. 5) Supervisors should do just that, SUPERVISE. My Opinion this morning which is probably not everyones. Why do we blame the equipment when it appears to be an operator problem? " Bledsoe, DO " <bbledsoe (AT) earthlink (DOT) <mailto:bbledsoe%40earthlink.net> net> wrote: City to pay $100,000 in death Medics should have advised woman to go to hospital By Mark Ferenchik The Columbus Dispatch Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:01 AM More than six years ago, 37-year-old Goldie Beck woke up in the middle of the night in her Hilltop home with chest pains and shortness of breath. Her husband called Columbus paramedics, who ran tests that proved inconclusive. She signed a waiver declining to go to the hospital. The medics told her to eat some bread and take Rolaids, her attorney said. Beck died of a heart attack less than an hour after medics left. Now the city will be paying $100,000 because medics did not follow correct protocol, City Attorney C. Pfeiffer said. The Columbus City Council approved the lawsuit settlement to her husband, Beck, yesterday. After paramedics arrived at 3:52 a.m. on May 27, 2000, they ran an electrocardiogram, which showed nothing, Columbus Public Safety Director J. Brown said. Beck's attorney, Blue, said paramedics told her she didn't need to go to the hospital. Pfeiffer told the council yesterday that Mrs. Beck did sign a refusal to transport, but that medics should have advised her to go to the hospital. " That was not done, " Pfeiffer said. Jack Reall, president of the Columbus firefighters union, said he's not familiar with the case. But he said that medics do not refuse transportation. " If it doesn't show anything on the EKG, it's very difficult to give someone a definitive answer, " Reall said. " It's up to you. If you want to go to the hospital, we'll take you to the hospital of your choice. It's not a position where we want to strong-arm anyone. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2006 Report Share Posted September 25, 2006 The service I work for operates on a " You call, we haul " principal. If a patient calls for an ambulance, we ask, " What hospital do you wish to go to? " Instead of " Do you want to go to the hospital? " We get fewer refusals as a result and avoid this type of litigation when possible. Better to haul and not be necessary than to obtain a refusal when a trip to the hospital would be better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2006 Report Share Posted September 28, 2006 If a patient calls 911 and then " refuses " transport I am VERY suspect. What that implies to me is that something happened after the call to change their mind. Most likely what happened is communication of some sort from the EMS system reassured them that they did NOT need transport. (i.e. medic practicing medicine or using devices like EKG and BP cuff that gives the person the impression they have been evaluated and " everything looks good. " ) Now, this is a different situation than when someone ELSE has called 911. For example, at an MVC, many well meaning people may observe and call 911 who then finds a person with minial injuries or none and does not want transport. Ask yourself, however, if the PATIENT called 911, why woudl they THEN refuse transport. This is a hot topic for me as I have personally talked to medics who have them sign the pt refusal form when in fact the medic refused transport. It is common and it lacks integrity. If the medic feels like it is a stubbed toe and not worthy of transport that should be well documented and they should sign off on that. In some systems that is NOT what happens. I personally feel that patient " refusal " is a high risk situation that should require online medical control involvement. I have seen or heard so many stories of " refusal " that I would firmly be biased in favor of the patient. The system needs fixing. Kirk D. Mahon, MD, ABEM 6106 Keller Springs Rd Dallas, TX 75248 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2006 Report Share Posted September 28, 2006 I can't agree with you enough. However, don't judge all systems by one or a few. I may be wrong but I feel that it falls in the category of lack of supervision of the medics. Older tenure medics that understand what EMS is really about and not just being a Para God should instill in the younger ones that we are indeed here for the patients and not our own egos. The system they work for should make it very clear that if a patient calls they should be offered the opportunity of a transport. I am not saying lets capture that dollar. I am saying offer it with impact if you feel the patient really needs it and out of courtesy even if you feel they don't. Sometimes folks call out of anxiety for something really really minor. At this point after you have assessed the patient explain to them that their condition seems to be fine but if they would like that you would be happy to transport them. Here we even offer to follow them to the E.R. Its all about attitude. Actually its about to much attitude. We have all been their and with time and a little guidance the fire eaters will outgrow it if they stay in the business. Until then we just need to keep an eye on them and offer that guidance. Henry RE: Patient Refusal Forms of Little Value If a patient calls 911 and then " refuses " transport I am VERY suspect. What that implies to me is that something happened after the call to change their mind. Most likely what happened is communication of some sort from the EMS system reassured them that they did NOT need transport. (i.e. medic practicing medicine or using devices like EKG and BP cuff that gives the person the impression they have been evaluated and " everything looks good. " ) Now, this is a different situation than when someone ELSE has called 911. For example, at an MVC, many well meaning people may observe and call 911 who then finds a person with minial injuries or none and does not want transport. Ask yourself, however, if the PATIENT called 911, why woudl they THEN refuse transport. This is a hot topic for me as I have personally talked to medics who have them sign the pt refusal form when in fact the medic refused transport. It is common and it lacks integrity. If the medic feels like it is a stubbed toe and not worthy of transport that should be well documented and they should sign off on that. In some systems that is NOT what happens. I personally feel that patient " refusal " is a high risk situation that should require online medical control involvement. I have seen or heard so many stories of " refusal " that I would firmly be biased in favor of the patient. The system needs fixing. Kirk D. Mahon, MD, ABEM 6106 Keller Springs Rd Dallas, TX 75248 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2006 Report Share Posted September 28, 2006 I could not agree more with Dr. Mahon. Medic initiated refusals are an invitation for a lawsuit. If you don't believe me, just do a Freedom of Information request to any big city-run EMS where they allow medic refusals. I taught a course on this very thing yesterday. My advice: " You call--we haul. " It's easier and cheaper in the long run. If you MUST decline to transport, be sure that your refusal form shows present mental capacity and informed refusal. I have seen very few refusals that meet the requirements; thus, most of them are not worth the paper they're printed on because they're conclusionary rather than factual. Gene G. > > If a patient calls 911 and then " refuses " transport I am VERY suspect. What > that implies to me is that something happened after the call to change their > mind. Most likely what happened is communication of some sort from the EMS > system reassured them that they did NOT need transport. (i.e. medic > practicing medicine or using devices like EKG and BP cuff that gives the > person the impression they have been evaluated and " everything looks good. " ) > > Now, this is a different situation than when someone ELSE has called 911. > For example, at an MVC, many well meaning people may observe and call 911 > who then finds a person with minial injuries or none and does not want > transport. > > Ask yourself, however, if the PATIENT called 911, why woudl they THEN > refuse transport. > > This is a hot topic for me as I have personally talked to medics who have > them sign the pt refusal form when in fact the medic refused transport. It > is common and it lacks integrity. > > If the medic feels like it is a stubbed toe and not worthy of transport > that should be well documented and they should sign off on that. In some > systems that is NOT what happens. > > I personally feel that patient " refusal " is a high risk situation that > should require online medical control involvement. > > I have seen or heard so many stories of " refusal " that I would firmly be > biased in favor of the patient. The system needs fixing. > > Kirk D. Mahon, MD, ABEM > > 6106 Keller Springs Rd > Dallas, TX 75248 > > _ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2006 Report Share Posted September 28, 2006 I can't remember where it was done, probably Mr. Bledson knows, but there has been a study done that attempted to measure the abilities of pre-hospital caregivers to determine which patients would be admitted to the hospital. The results were abysmal. Bledsoe, I think it was, or another astute physician, once told me that the scariest thing about being an ER doctor is making the decision who to admit and who to discharge. And this is from someone who has the education and training, all the toys, bells, and whistles, to diagnose. I like Henry's approach. Let's take that " anxious " patient. I want to know WHY the patient is anxious. Lots of times patients are anxious because they think they're about to die, and lots of the time they're right. It's extremely embarrassing to have left a patient, thinking that all they need is to take an aspirin and call their family doctor in the morning, only to be called back one hour later for a code. Ruins one's day. Gene G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2006 Report Share Posted September 28, 2006 I'll answer this with an example from my personal life... > > If a patient calls 911 and then " refuses " transport I am VERY suspect. What > that implies to me is that something happened after the call to change their > mind. Most likely what happened is communication of some sort from the EMS > system reassured them that they did NOT need transport. (i.e. medic > practicing medicine or using devices like EKG and BP cuff that gives the > person the impression they have been evaluated and " everything looks good. " ) > Ask yourself, however, if the PATIENT called 911, why woudl they THEN > refuse transport. Case in point. My daughter, at the age of 4, was visiting her mother at mom's apartment. I was at work on the ambulance. My daughter was running through the house, tripped and fell and landed face first, striking her forehead on the baseboard. She lacerated her forehead above her left eye and proceeded to bleed profusely. She also got up, ran to mommy, crying the whole time - but from a " diagnostic " perspective had no loss of consciousness, was aware of strking her head, had good motor control to get up while injured, go to mommy, recognize mommy, etc. A fellow medic (different unit, same service) responded to mom's panicked 911 call. He arrived, evaluated my daughter, checked the laceration, checked my daughter's status, etc. He advised her that he could take them to the hospital, or that they could go on their own, and that there would be no difference in treatment either way, and that not being in an ambulance would likely be less traumatic to my daughter, and that there was nothing he was going to do other than provide transport (the lac was already bandaged, and obviously needed wound care). Mom refused and took her instead. Mom, the 911 caller, provided the refusal. She called 911 because she panicked at the sight of the blood, especially on her daughter, but was calmed by the arrival of trained medical personnel who checked her bandaging, checked the wound, verified that she'd done everything right, verified that my daughter appeared okay, and counseled her on her transport options and treatment choices. In her case, she refused because the arriving of the medics, and the application of their knowledge, was the care that was really needed - not the transport of my daughter. I consider this both an appropriate refusal, and appropriate guidance from the attending medic(s) - but I also realize that this is a personal story and " anecdotal. " > This is a hot topic for me as I have personally talked to medics who have > them sign the pt refusal form when in fact the medic refused transport. It > is common and it lacks integrity. > If the medic feels like it is a stubbed toe and not worthy of transport > that should be well documented and they should sign off on that. In some > systems that is NOT what happens. Absolutely. Paramedics shouldn't cut corners and have patients sign refusals that didn't in fact refuse AMA, but at the paramedic's suggestion or inclination - that borders on false documentation at the worst, laziness (not being willing to document at the level required for a paramedic-counseled, non-AMA refusal. Some systems, however, won't allow the stubbed toe to be counseled to refuse, so the paramedic is stuck between making a transport that he knows isn't in the best interest of the patient or in the best interest of the community served by the now-out-of-service EMS unit. I can understand the reasons, in that case, for the paramedic getting the patient to sign a refusal. Not that I agree with it, but I think that points more at the problems with " absolutely " restrictive protocols, policies and procedures. > I personally feel that patient " refusal " is a high risk situation that > should require online medical control involvement. As much as I hate to do it (almost as a source of pride), I have to say that the current science supports your opinion. That *really* grates on me as I'd like to think that paramedicine (had) can progress(ed) to the point that medics could help qualify the need for emergent treatment, but there's nothing that currently says that's the case. So, for now, you're right... Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2006 Report Share Posted September 28, 2006 Henry, I totally agree with you. And I should have said, " I know one system that needs fixing. " I have had experience with several that do NOT have the issues discussed. Would anybody condone the following scenario: 90 year old lady has syncope and family calls 911. She comes to and is asymptomatic on EMS arrival. An ekg is done and since it is normal she doesn;'t come to the ER. What do you think just happened there? The official llights and sirens and badges would assure anybody that they are dealing with a proper authority to make that decision. However, syncope (especially in an older person) is a problem that needs a lot of detailed history, exam, labs, and monitoring. They need a physician evaluation. An ecg is not enough and it is a disservice to use it at the scene if your are then going to let people assume that the " machine that goes beep " says everything is ok and use that information to not transport....this is similar to the case mentioned in the article. If you are worried enough to do an ecg then you had damn well better transport. I am a huge believer in autonomy (not paternalism) but you need to make sure that the patient gets in the box. The real truth is, if they don't, there is a very good chance it is due to your communication about your assessment and the ecg that weighed in. That is dangerous. Kirk D. Mahon, MD, ABEM 6106 Keller Springs Rd Dallas, TX 75248 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2006 Report Share Posted September 28, 2006 Dear Humble, You're right if the world were perfect. And you're probably right that SOME medics can make those distinctions. I have no problem with discussing alternatives with the patient with an isolated minor finger laceration, a stubbed toe, and so forth, but in all cases it is preferable for the patient to make the decision for treat and transport vs. no treat and transport. The abusers are a problem all their own. What they really need is social services to help them with the underlying problems that cause them to abuse. But all in all, if a patient really wants to go, I'm going to take them. I don't ever want to have it come back on me that I refused someone who actually needed treatment. I remember one night with a large city FD EMS where we made three calls to the same place for a 3 year old child with an earache. Each time the mother was told that this wasn't an emergency and that she should drive to the ER with the child herself. She pleaded that she did not have transportation, et cetera. I could hardly keep my mouth shut, but since I was a guest, I did. However, on the third call, one of the medics made the astute observation that we might as well go ahead and transport because we were going to get called all night if we didn't. So on the third time we transported. Of course, if that service had ANY sort of effective supervision at that time, that wouldn't have happened. The kid was sick. I'm told that things have changed. I certainly hope so. GG > > There are actually a number of studies out there that talk about Paramedic > initiated refusals. > > In some instances it is a liability looking for a place to happen, however, > there are instances that Paramedic initiated refusals are appropriate. Now > before we get a rope and look for a tall tree..let me explain. In instances > where a definitive cause of a sign or symptom cannot be found, then the > patient should in fact be transported, or be encouraged to be transported, > syncope in the elderly, as explained by Mike , is generally caused by a > cardiac event of some kind, and should never be ignored or played down, > treated with a high index of suspicion and cared for accordingly. Abdominal > pain is another catch all for transport, etc. etc. > > There area small number of abusers of the system. Those that require a > ride, and nothing more. Do they need a ride? Yep. Do they need a ride in an > ambulance? Nope. Can we arrange for alternative transportation? That's the > question. Then it comes down to, which patients qualify for alternative > transport. > > I do believe that with the right training, the right oversight and good QI, > that there are a number of patients that can be refused transport. > > Are there medics who are not astute enough to learn it? Are there some that > will get refusals because they are too lazy to transport? Yes on both > counts, and they need to find another career field, we cannot slow this > field down for the slowest person, we need to continue to move forward and > thin the herd as necessary. > > Just my humble opinion...being the humble person that I am.:-) > > Mike > > Hatfield FF/EMT-P > > www.canyonlakefire- www.ca > > " Ubi concordia, ibi victoria " > > Re: Patient Refusal Forms of Little Value > > I can't remember where it was done, probably Mr. Bledson knows, but there > has > been a study done that attempted to measure the abilities of pre-hospital > caregivers to determine which patients would be admitted to the hospital. > The > results were abysmal. > > Bledsoe, I think it was, or another astute physician, once told me that the > scariest thing about being an ER doctor is making the decision who to admit > and > who to discharge. And this is from someone who has the education and > training, all the toys, bells, and whistles, to diagnose. > > I like Henry's approach. Let's take that " anxious " patient. I want to > know WHY the patient is anxious. Lots of times patients are anxious because > they think they're about to die, and lots of the time they're right. It's > extremely embarrassing to have left a patient, thinking that all they need > is to > take an aspirin and call their family doctor in the morning, only to be > called > back one hour later for a code. > > Ruins one's day. > > Gene G. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2006 Report Share Posted September 28, 2006 Ditto Dudley. And have we forgotten that we're supposed to be patient advocates? Why are we there? For the wellbeing of the company, or for the wellbeing of our patients? GG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2006 Report Share Posted September 28, 2006 > Would anybody condone the following scenario: > 90 year old lady has syncope and family calls 911. She comes to and is > asymptomatic on EMS arrival. An ekg is done and since it is normal she > doesn;'t come to the ER. What do you think just happened there? Uhh, " something above my pay grade? " Seriously, I remember from a recent geriatric class that about 2/3rds of all falls in geriatric patients are syncope-related, and the majority of those are cardiac-related. As to what happened here, I could make any number of wild guesses, but I'm trained to suspect cardiac problems such as an unseen run of vtach, or a brief episode of bradycardia, or tachycardia resolved by fainting (SVT)... either way, I can't tell what happened - but more importantly, I can't tell what DIDN'T happen, either. More follows... > The official llights and sirens and badges would assure anybody that they > are dealing with a proper authority to make that decision. However, syncope > (especially in an older person) is a problem that needs a lot of detailed > history, exam, labs, and monitoring. They need a physician evaluation. An > ecg is not enough and it is a disservice to use it at the scene if your are > then going to let people assume that the " machine that goes beep " says > everything is ok and use that information to not transport....this is > similar to the case mentioned in the article. I was trained in my " basic " paramedic school that the ECG is at best 30 minutes behind the precipitating event. So a negative ECG doesn't rule out cardiac problems, it just doesn't rule IN anything I can (or should) treat. Much like " head pain " in the ER - the CT won't rule out a head bleed, only rule it in - the LP is the diagnostic test. Same goes for ECG in the field. Certainly not someone I'd comfortably obtain a refusal from. > If you are worried enough to do an ecg then you had damn well better > transport. I am a huge believer in autonomy (not paternalism) but you need > to make sure that the patient gets in the box. The real truth is, if they > don't, there is a very good chance it is due to your communication about > your assessment and the ecg that weighed in. That is dangerous. I can agree with this... that's probably a good way to pass on that nugget (if you're worried enough...) - one of the " quotables " of this list this year. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2006 Report Share Posted September 28, 2006 The main reason I don't refuse patients who I'm tempted to think don't have anything serious wrong with them is NOT what I know, but what I know that I DON'T know. For example, here are some of the causes of abdominal pain: parietal peritoneal inflammation due to infection (appendix, PID) parietal peritoneal inflammation due to chemical irritation (perforated gastric or peptic ulcer; pancreatitis, Mittelschmerz, ruptured ectopic pregnancy) inflammation of bowel wall Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, microscopic colitis diverticulitis gastroenteritis lactose intolerance celiac sprue sarcoidosis vasculitis mechanical obstruction of hollow viscera gallstones vascular disturbances embolism thrombosis vascular rupture torsional occlusion (volvulus) sickle cell anemia renal vein entrapment superior mesenteric artery syndrome (nutcracker syndrome) mesenteric traction muscle trauma muscular infection distention of visceral surfaces such as hepatic or renal capsule referred pain from the thorax (MI, pneumonia), spine, genitals (testicular torsion) metabolic disturbance (lead poisoning, black widow spider bite, uremia, DKA, porphyria, C1-esterase inhibitor deficiency, adrenal insufficiency) tabes dorsalis herpes zoster Lyme disease Irritable Bowel Syndrome torsion of the ovary, endometriosis diarrhea meningitis cholecystitis pyelonephritis hepatitis mesenteric adenitis subdiaphragmatic abscess cancer of the ovary, bowel, stomach, liver, kidney, etc ascites And there are surely others Any medic who feels comfortable telling someone with vague abdominal pain that it's just an upset stomach is playing with fire, and will soon see the judge and jury. And that's the kindest thing I can say about such a person. If I were a board certified general surgeon or gastroenterologist in the ambulance, I still wouldn't street such a patient. Yet paramedics do it every day. It boggles the mind. Gene G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2006 Report Share Posted September 28, 2006 There are actually a number of studies out there that talk about Paramedic initiated refusals. In some instances it is a liability looking for a place to happen, however, there are instances that Paramedic initiated refusals are appropriate. Now before we get a rope and look for a tall tree..let me explain. In instances where a definitive cause of a sign or symptom cannot be found, then the patient should in fact be transported, or be encouraged to be transported, syncope in the elderly, as explained by Mike , is generally caused by a cardiac event of some kind, and should never be ignored or played down, treated with a high index of suspicion and cared for accordingly. Abdominal pain is another catch all for transport, etc. etc. There area small number of abusers of the system. Those that require a ride, and nothing more. Do they need a ride? Yep. Do they need a ride in an ambulance? Nope. Can we arrange for alternative transportation? That's the question. Then it comes down to, which patients qualify for alternative transport. I do believe that with the right training, the right oversight and good QI, that there are a number of patients that can be refused transport. Are there medics who are not astute enough to learn it? Are there some that will get refusals because they are too lazy to transport? Yes on both counts, and they need to find another career field, we cannot slow this field down for the slowest person, we need to continue to move forward and thin the herd as necessary. Just my humble opinion...being the humble person that I am.:-) Mike Hatfield FF/EMT-P www.canyonlakefire-ems.org " Ubi concordia, ibi victoria " Re: Patient Refusal Forms of Little Value I can't remember where it was done, probably Mr. Bledson knows, but there has been a study done that attempted to measure the abilities of pre-hospital caregivers to determine which patients would be admitted to the hospital. The results were abysmal. Bledsoe, I think it was, or another astute physician, once told me that the scariest thing about being an ER doctor is making the decision who to admit and who to discharge. And this is from someone who has the education and training, all the toys, bells, and whistles, to diagnose. I like Henry's approach. Let's take that " anxious " patient. I want to know WHY the patient is anxious. Lots of times patients are anxious because they think they're about to die, and lots of the time they're right. It's extremely embarrassing to have left a patient, thinking that all they need is to take an aspirin and call their family doctor in the morning, only to be called back one hour later for a code. Ruins one's day. Gene G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2006 Report Share Posted September 28, 2006 Mike, That is a great example...BUT...since we are talking anecdotal...lets say on your wife's way to the ED, your daughter began acting funny and within in minutes was either decreasing consciousness or was seizing... Would this still be an appropriate decision by a medical professional or would this be a discussion of why paramedics shouldn't be so prideful and acting like they are physicians? See, I agree with Dr. Mahon...if someone calls 911 (first party caller) wanting an ambulance, and when we arrive they no longer want to go...something has happened. Is it like your case where time has passed and things are calmer, is it a stubborn male who has had an additional 6 to 8 minutes to get deeper in denial, is it the embarrassment from 2 or 3 emergency vehicles in front of their house and the " Uh-Oh Squad " on their front lawn... Then, we walk in and, unless we are very well trained and prepared, we, as responders take on the attitude of the patient we are there to see. They say its no big deal...so it must not be a big deal.... I truly feel that WAY too often we get suckered into the mindset of our patients and/or their family and that leads us to making poor decisions... In addition to you and Dr. M's assertion of calling Medical Control, when the party is a 1st or 2nd party caller...the question " do you want to go to the hospital " should not be asked...instead ask " which hospital do you want to go to today? " IF the patient or caller is truly calmer and in a clearer head...and there is not perceivable need for ambulance transport...when they answer with " I have to go to the hospital??? " you can then reply like you showed in your example...but if not, then they are merely answering a question when they say " Main Street Hospital " ...instead of a possibly embarrassed or denying patient " overruling " the paramedic who may be giving some impression of not needing/wanting to take them to the hospital. Each time we " take " a refusal, it is a crap shoot, roll of the roulette wheel, or asking for another card when you are holding 18... Your argument about poor use of ambulance resource is only a valid argument up until someone who should have been transported isn't....and that decision is ALWAYS made in hindsight...no one has ever been sued for taking someone to the hospital by ambulance... My thoughts, Dudley Re: Patient Refusal Forms of Little Value I'll answer this with an example from my personal life... > > If a patient calls 911 and then " refuses " transport I am VERY suspect. What > that implies to me is that something happened after the call to change their > mind. Most likely what happened is communication of some sort from the EMS > system reassured them that they did NOT need transport. (i.e. medic > practicing medicine or using devices like EKG and BP cuff that gives the > person the impression they have been evaluated and " everything looks good. " ) > Ask yourself, however, if the PATIENT called 911, why woudl they THEN > refuse transport. Case in point. My daughter, at the age of 4, was visiting her mother at mom's apartment. I was at work on the ambulance. My daughter was running through the house, tripped and fell and landed face first, striking her forehead on the baseboard. She lacerated her forehead above her left eye and proceeded to bleed profusely. She also got up, ran to mommy, crying the whole time - but from a " diagnostic " perspective had no loss of consciousness, was aware of strking her head, had good motor control to get up while injured, go to mommy, recognize mommy, etc. A fellow medic (different unit, same service) responded to mom's panicked 911 call. He arrived, evaluated my daughter, checked the laceration, checked my daughter's status, etc. He advised her that he could take them to the hospital, or that they could go on their own, and that there would be no difference in treatment either way, and that not being in an ambulance would likely be less traumatic to my daughter, and that there was nothing he was going to do other than provide transport (the lac was already bandaged, and obviously needed wound care). Mom refused and took her instead. Mom, the 911 caller, provided the refusal. She called 911 because she panicked at the sight of the blood, especially on her daughter, but was calmed by the arrival of trained medical personnel who checked her bandaging, checked the wound, verified that she'd done everything right, verified that my daughter appeared okay, and counseled her on her transport options and treatment choices. In her case, she refused because the arriving of the medics, and the application of their knowledge, was the care that was really needed - not the transport of my daughter. I consider this both an appropriate refusal, and appropriate guidance from the attending medic(s) - but I also realize that this is a personal story and " anecdotal. " > This is a hot topic for me as I have personally talked to medics who have > them sign the pt refusal form when in fact the medic refused transport. It > is common and it lacks integrity. > If the medic feels like it is a stubbed toe and not worthy of transport > that should be well documented and they should sign off on that. In some > systems that is NOT what happens. Absolutely. Paramedics shouldn't cut corners and have patients sign refusals that didn't in fact refuse AMA, but at the paramedic's suggestion or inclination - that borders on false documentation at the worst, laziness (not being willing to document at the level required for a paramedic-counseled, non-AMA refusal. Some systems, however, won't allow the stubbed toe to be counseled to refuse, so the paramedic is stuck between making a transport that he knows isn't in the best interest of the patient or in the best interest of the community served by the now-out-of-service EMS unit. I can understand the reasons, in that case, for the paramedic getting the patient to sign a refusal. Not that I agree with it, but I think that points more at the problems with " absolutely " restrictive protocols, policies and procedures. > I personally feel that patient " refusal " is a high risk situation that > should require online medical control involvement. As much as I hate to do it (almost as a source of pride), I have to say that the current science supports your opinion. That *really* grates on me as I'd like to think that paramedicine (had) can progress(ed) to the point that medics could help qualify the need for emergent treatment, but there's nothing that currently says that's the case. So, for now, you're right... Mike ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2006 Report Share Posted September 28, 2006 > > Are there medics who are not astute enough to learn it? Are there some that > will get refusals because they are too lazy to transport? Yes on both > counts, and they need to find another career field, we cannot slow this > field down for the slowest person, we need to continue to move forward and > thin the herd as necessary. Think like a gazelle - don't fret if you're not the fastest... just don't be the slowest. That's the one the lions eat... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.