Guest guest Posted January 7, 2007 Report Share Posted January 7, 2007 I just wanted to share this thought with y'all, especially since the EBM types and others with an agenda that often involves limiting EMS practices because of " statistical evidence. " People who die after receiving advanced interventions don't die from the advanced intervention. They die because they're sick enough to need the advanced intervention. (Remember the study a few years ago about chest pain patients who receive morphine experiencing worse outcomes? It's obvious -- if you're in enough pain that nitroglycerin isn't providing symptom relief through vasodilation, you're having the BIG ONE.) Additionally, how do the " experts " propose measuring if someone would've died without receiving the advanced intervention in the prehospital setting? Finally, do the statisticians have a way to eliminate deaths that weren't directly related to prehospital intervention? (e.g., a trauma code returned to the ER with ROSC, but who dies of a post-op infection). So, the next time your medical director wants to eliminate endotracheal intubation because " intubations have bad outcomes, " ask him to explain himself. As Mark Twain so eloquently said, " There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. " Let's not let advanced prehospital care be killed or dumbed down in the name of statistics. In other words, what we do isn't always complete science. The ART of medicine may have a scientific basis, but it's still about people. If we forget this, we lose our own humanity. -Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT Austin, Texas 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.