Co-Responder

[mark]

Evening all,

I am just trying to gauge the level of support from other firefighters that may be or already are on co-responder schemes.

We have been turning out a pump with a reduced crew for about 4 months now and i personally was expecting ( as informed by a Do ) that it would be heart attacks and breathing difficulties  only..............HMmmmm!
I am all for this scheme and would welcome it with open arms but have to add that this needs to be properly funded and the training in my opinion needs to be of a higher standard ( EMT-B ).

Does anyone else have a view on this.

[dave bev]

and it needs to be in the role map, just because someone has 'got legal opinion' - i ask you! legal opinion, on the other hand there are four fingers and a thumb, guffaw, guffaw.

ok without spouting fbu policy there are very good reasons, namely investment in the ambulance service being perhaps the main reason, and mark, just because a DO says something ........ even if itheir comments may have been in good faith ?

doesnt that make you feel good, knowing that you can trust the word of a senior officer? and believe me some senior officers take the chiefs word in good faith and are often let down aswell! are you going to believe and trust in the next thing they tell you? mind you isnt that the way we're going anyway, now we're being managed and not lead as in the past??

proper funding, save it for the comedy sketch! training, behave, we cant even deliver the training we're supposed to do now, never mind proper training after taking on the role (and jobs) of everyone else.

at least this is a shortened version of a 'view'!

dave bev

[messy]

I agree that training is the key issue.

Many have ponted to the fact that defibs are now avaialble for use by staff at airports, train stations and even supermarkets, and that they are very easy to operate - so why are FFs making such a fuss.

My view it's not he kit which is the problem but it's the fact we're being asked to turn out as medical crew with little or no training

The single biggest difference with co-responding is that whereas the railway worker using a defib is clearly giving 1st aid, fire crews would be responding to a 999 call as (medical) professionals. Therefore the training needs to reflect this status.

OK if the punter is in cardiac arrest, but what happens if it's some other condition and the crew are under-prepared?. If a 1st aider couldn't cope and the patient died, most would thank him/her and praise their efforts. If a FF (responding to a 999 ambulance call) fails to act properly, I reckon the relatives of the deceased may be mighty p155ed off!!!!

[Maddog]

OK if the punter is in cardiac arrest, but what happens if it's some other condition and the crew are under-prepared?.

Interesting, and just how do we make the crew prepared, train them to be paramedics?  I recently did an awful lot of research on first/co-responder schemes (9000 word paper for uni degree) and the origins of all schemes are to drive down avoidable deaths due to cardiac arrest. (By the way, if you must have a heart attack the best place to have one is on a commercial airliner or in a casino in Las Vegas!)
Co-responder schemes in the UK really took off as a result of the attendance times imposed on the ambulance service in 1999 by the dept of health, the same dept that suggested ambulance services look toward such schemes to meet their attendance times. Recognised co-responders may be mobilised by the amb service to any category 'A' call, that is a condition defined as immediately life threatening.  Just think for a moment about the sort of medical conditions that encompasses then tell me that any amount of training (short of a full paramedic) can prepare a fire crew to respond.  By the way, I am NOT advocating that Ff's should be trained as paramedics.

[mark]

I agree totally.I dont know if everyone agrees but i joined the fire service to make a difference in the community that i live in ( being RT  ), if this means tipping out to medical calls then so be it.The main problem being is that our pump was tipped out to a women in labour ( midwife already their also, now why the hell was we tipped out to that??
I think that the powers that be need to think about what they really want i have always thought that the two services should be joined if properly funded ( te he he ) as this would offer job security for every one .

[scott]

I agree totally.I dont know if everyone agrees but i joined the fire service to make a difference in the community that i live in ( being RT  ), if this means tipping out to medical calls then so be it.The main problem being is that our pump was tipped out to a women in labour ( midwife already their also, now why the hell was we tipped out to that??

Co-responding wasnt introduced to "make a difference" to the community, it was introduced to enable the ambulance service to meet their response times. The midwife must of asked for an ambulance but the nearest one dispatched was not going to reach it in the Orcon time, so a co-responder was sent to "stop the clock". Its irrelevant that the lady needed an ambulance to go to hospital and co-responders dont have the facility to transport people to hospital.

[mark]

scott i agree that co-responding was not introduced to make a difference.
As previously said this does need to be formalised and introduced into the role map as we had our aco come out and was informed that under no certain terms was this compulsory that all personnel had take join this scheme, and after he left my a/stn/o told the whole station that we must join scheme whether we like it or not.

Has anyone got a view on these underhadn tactics?

[dave bev]

im sure one organisation has a view on this mark!

dave bev

[firedaven41]

We operate Co-responder in Kent, but only from three stations. one station in particular has been tipped out to more than 100 'ambulance incidents' since becoming co-responders, 6 months ago. This, in my opinion does not show that co-responder schemes are working, but that an ambulance station is needed in these areas! Is the co-responder scheme just another fanancial shortcut?

Firedaven41

[AnthonyB]

100 calls in 6 months is nothing in ambulance service terms 7 is just a fraction of their daily calls in most of the UK, so you wouldn't get a station.

The intent of co-responding? It's a mixture of good intent (usually by those doing it) & clock stopping (usually by the service). it's not necessarily an unwillingness to increase expenditure on resources by the ambulance service, just simply a case of not being allotted enough money to do it.

[firedaven41]

AnthonyB

I appreciate your point about 100 calls in six months not being very high in ambulance service terms, but we are talking about a Fire and Rescue Service, not an ambulance service. If there is a need this great for medical service, then surely there is a need for an ambulance station. After all, we do abide by the 'Fire And Rescue Service act 2004' not the 'Fire and Rescue Parramedics act of 2004.'

Firefighters are firefighters, and no more. Yes, we have to educate people with regards to fire safety, but this should just be a fundemental part of the job. Medical care, however, should be solely on a first aider level, and not at the level that co-responder schemes generate. After all, you dont see the ambulace service tipped out to a house fire when the all of the local appliances are busy do you?

Are we in GB going the same way as America and having a combined fire/medical service??

Firedaven41

[firedaven41]

mark_uk_ff

Going back to the original post....

In Kent, Co-responders turn out in brigade cars. One of the three stations involved in the scheme originally turned out in the appliance with a reduced crew, as do your service. This has now been changed (quite rightfully) to a car aswell. My point is that can ANYBODY really justify compromising appliance availability? After all, fire stations were not just scattered about for a laugh, they were put there for a reason.


As you all may have guessed, I am not a great fan of the co-responder scheme!!

However, if the government and employers simply got on with the task of making the fire/medical service combined (as this seems to be the way we are heading) I would be  all for it. At the moment it just seems to be a complex network based around passing the financial buck, and avoiding public disapproval.

Firedaven41

[Brian Catton]

When I joined the service in 1965 we regularly co responded. At practically every call we saw the Police and all calls involving suspecting that persons were trapped or injured we saw thw ambulance service.If we arrived first we did the job of all three services. There was never any complaints about being ambulance operatives or traffic police. We had to take the first aid exam every year of course. There were a lot of advantages. We got to know our counterparts in the other services on first name terms and there was never any talk about closing stations. Right, now back to present day and IRMP'S. The way the service is moving towards more effective utilization of resources has got to be the way forward.

[messy]

AnthonyB


Firefighters are firefighters, and no more.

Firedaven: Is that what you really want? To be merely a water squirter?

At a time when we are asking to be treated as professionals and claim (indeed demand) salaries & conditions to match, that sort of out of date view makes my blood boil. I welcome any new skills which enhance my ability to do the job as long as it's subject to proper resourcing - including training.

We should have enhanced medical skills and defibs on all pumps but only as support to our current role at fires and SS calls.

I too have my reservations about co-responding. Mainly that we will be responding to 999 requests for paramedics and will be seen by the public as medical professionals when attending these most severe medical emergencies. If it is a cardiac difficulty I am sure we'll cope with the training given. But what if it isn't?

The area of London where LFB management wish to trial co responding has a high ethnic minority population (in fact ethnic majority population) many of who will not have english as their 1st language. Ambulance controllers may easily despatch a pump to a non cardiac problem given these circumstances.What then? A child who has swallowed bleach, a pensioner who has had a fit, a teenager who has OD'd - will we be trained for that? Er - No.

So Firedaven, it might pay to approach this difficulty with a slightly more considered attitude rather than the naive "I am only a firefighter" angle.

[colin todd]

Keep calm Messey, you are beconing obsessed. it will make you ill and then you will need an ambulance or is it a fire engine. i get confused.