Hydrantcatcher wrote:Who told you this? They need to get thier information right, lets all stop and look at what is going on here, lots of people trying to do and say the right things but nobody seems to have the correct information. I suggest someone should really do some research on this if we are going to be this passionate about it. Sorry, not trying to p*ss anyone off here but I have been watching this and just getting more frusturated.
K9kazzo has the link in his post.
dentedhead wrote:That may have changed with amalgamation.EMS and Police were always employees of "Metropolitan Toronto" the fire departments were all employees of the seperate cities IE North York Etobicoke city of Toronto etc,it was more an insurance issue than a licenseing issue,
Jumped into this string a little late, but . . . wrt the Ontario HTA, firefighters were recently allowed to drive an ambulance without necessarily having the "F" class license specified. (And no, the DZ license does not cover an "F" license -- as I found out when I got my license changed to DFMZ (enough bloody letters!).)
I do not know about any other rules or policies, just HTA.
It reminds me of another special license I heard about for water rescue . . . I think I'll post that there though . . .
. . . gotta go!
It's Been A Blast
Not A Job
Most places will not allow this to happen.
One, most fire departments are local.
Two, most ems are regional.
Firefighters are not insured to drive the ambulance. Regions will not pay the premiums for them.
Fire departments will not pay the premiums either.
Even though fire is allowed, most regions have strict policies that state fire is not allowed to drive and if you need a second medic in the back have the police drive or call for a second unit.
What are we, in both fire and paramedics services, "supposed" to be all about? Last I checked, it was PATIENT CARE!! If an ambulance crew needs to use a firefighter as a driver so that they can provide a better level of care to the patient in the back, who is having a really bad day to begin with
; how is that a bad thing? Of course the firefighter should have the proper licence and in a perfect world all of us in both professions would have the proper courses to enable all of us to drive all emergency vehicles. Guess what.....its not a perfect world! The poor volley guy was just doing what he thought was best....helping out at an emergency.
And, we do drive trucks that are bigger, heavier, and loaded with moving water. So what? Does that also mean that your every day average semi driver shouldn't be allowed to drive a regular car or truck once he gets home for days off the road? A semi is a heck of a lot bigger and heavier; and potentially has a lot more liquid to slosh around than even the largest of pumper units.
The medic in the back made the decision that he needed his partners help to provide adequate patient care. Remember the "PATIENT CARE" thing? How else did he propose to get the patient to the ED? Shat happens! Unless the firefighter drove in a manner that was wreckless, I do not believe that he or the Ambulance act is to blame. Rural services are short staffed to begin with. Please don't make it even harder to provide that illusive "patient care" by taking away people who can and will help out a fellow service when the "It" hits the fan!
By the way, I do both fire and paramedic work at my full time job and am a volley FF and used to be a volley medic as well. I know all the ins and outs of both sides of the coin!
ABFF37 wrote:In Calgary, firefighters regularly drive ambulances for EMS (note: I'm not starting a debate on the term "ambulance driver" LOL, but that would literally be our job, to drive ).
When a medical call is serious enough to warrant both the medics in the back of the ambulance with the patient, EMS will request a driver from fire. Usually we are already on scene providing a medical assist, but in some cases we will be called out specifically for a driver. That happens most often if the call turns out to be more serious than initially thought, or if the patient's condition rapidly deteriorates.
Calgary Fire and EMS are both city run departments, and my understanding of the situation is that we are all covered by the city for insurance purposes, and authrized to drive for EMS when the need arises.
Also, new recruits for Calgary need to have their class 3/4 license, so they're able to operate fire apparatus (class 3) and ambulances (class 4). When the recruits are in rookie school, they complete a three day long emergency vehicle operation course, and in addition to being competent with fire apparatus, they must complete some of their training in an ambulance. So our guys are regularly called upon to assist EMS by driving to the hospital, but we have a pretty comprehensive system set up to make sure that we're trained and authorized to do so.
I'm not to sure about this but i'll find out.
I agree. Bottom line is that there is a certain degree of reality here. As I see it, Fire should be allowed to drive an ambulance. They drive large vehicles ( as mentioned in earlier posts ) and driving an ambulance should not be an issue. I mean if you were on scene and for whatever reason EMS needed you to drive I can't imgine anyone saying no. Of course keeping in mind clearing it with command.dentedhead wrote:That may have changed with amalgamation.EMS and Police were always employees of "Metropolitan Toronto" the fire departments were all employees of the seperate cities IE North York Etobicoke city of Toronto etc,it was more an insurance issue than a licenseing issue,
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests