...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>The Internet Journal of Rescue and Disaster Medicine >Rebuttal To 'EMS Response to Columbine: Lessons Learned'
【24h】

Rebuttal To 'EMS Response to Columbine: Lessons Learned'

机译：驳斥“ EMS对哥伦拜恩的反应：经验教训”

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

To the Editor,I would like to present a different perspective from that expressed in the article “EMS Response to Columbine: Lessons Learned” (Internet Journal of Rescue & Disaster Medicine, Vol. 5 Issue 1, pp. 48-62) by Howard Mell and Matthew Sztajnkrycer. I realize the authors were simply reporting what was published as part of the U.S. Fire Administration Major Incidents Investigation Team report they cited. As I have pointed out to the person listed as the responsible party for that report, however, there is an important inaccuracy which this paper published in your journal then repeated. The final paragraph before the conclusion of the document reports “Unfortunately, prior to deployment, the physician, on his own initiative, assembled a team of on-scene paramedics to search the school with him. At 4:45 p.m., against orders from law enforcement and fire commands, the physician and his ad-hoc team entered the school to pronounce the dead”. I am the physician that was at this scene and whose activities included pronouncing these kids dead, and the statement above is absolutely false. I did go in and do the pronouncements, but it was at the request of, not against, law enforcement.I think anyone who is familiar with scenes like this understands it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for me to enter “against” law enforcement orders. I also have tremendous respect for law enforcement and the fire department (and in fact, am the medical director for the Denver Fire Department), and would never knowingly refuse or ignore an order or request by either entity. I won't comment further on the “investigation” that lead to the U.S. Fire Administration report, other than to say it did NOT include any input from me or other Denver EMS personnel who were very involved in this scene. I certainly agree that my communication with what this report refers to as the incident command of this scene could certainly have been better, and if I were put in this situation again, I would absolutely handle the communication and involvement with incident command differently. I learned a great deal from this event, just as everyone else did. I also certainly agree with what I believe the overall purpose of the article you published was; for us all to learn from these incidents so that we can provide the best possible care to the citizens we serve. I believe EVERYONE taking part in the Columbine incident, as with all other incidents of this nature that I am aware of, would admit they took actions that might have been approached differently by others, and would support the opportunity for everyone to learn from this event. Also important, in my opinion, is to correct inaccuracies where they develop, and under no circumstances were any orders or requests from fire command communicated to me, and it was in fact at law enforcement's request, and under their escort, that I did the pronouncements. There would have been no other way for me to access this scene. The fire and EMS personnel that accompanied me into the building did so of their own determination, not under my order.I appreciate the author's work in providing an opportunity for others to learn from this incident, and thank you for the opportunity to provide this input.Sincerely, Christopher B. Colwell, M.D.Medical Director, Denver Paramedic Division and Denver Fire Department Associate Director, Department of Emergency Medicine Denver Health Medical Center
机译：对于编辑，我想表达与霍华德在“ EMS对哥伦拜恩的反应：经验教训”（互联网急救与灾难医学杂志，第5卷，第1期，第48-62页）中表达的观点不同的观点。梅尔（Mell）和马修（Matthew Sztajnkrycer）。我意识到作者只是在报道他们引用的美国消防局重大事件调查小组报告中发布的内容。正如我所指出的那样，该报告的责任方是该人，但这篇论文在您的期刊上发表后又重复了一个重要的错误之处。该文件结论之前的最后一段报告说：“不幸的是，在部署之前，医生是由他主动发起的，由现场护理人员组成的团队与他一起搜寻学校。下午4时45分，在违反执法和消防命令的情况下，医生及其专案小组进入学校宣告死者。我是当时在现场的医生，他的活动包括宣告这些孩子死了，上面的说法绝对是错误的。我确实进去做了宣告，但这是应执法部门的要求而不是反对。我认为熟悉这种情况的人都知道，即​​使不是不可能，我也很难进入“反对”的行列。执法命令。我也非常尊重执法部门和消防部门（事实上，我是丹佛消防部门的医疗主管），并且永远不会故意拒绝或忽略任何一个实体的命令或要求。我不会对导致美国消防局报告的“调查”做进一步评论，只说它不包括我或其他非常参与此事的丹佛EMS人员的任何投入。我当然同意，我与本报告所说的该现场事件指挥官之间的沟通肯定会更好，并且如果我再次处于这种情况下，我绝对会以不同的方式处理与事件指挥官之间的沟通和参与。就像其他所有人一样，我从这次活动中学到了很多东西。我当然也同意我认为您发表的文章的总体目的是什么;让我们所有人从这些事件中学习，以便我们可以为所服务的公民提供最好的护理。我相信，与我所知道的所有其他此类性质的事件一样，每个参与哥伦拜恩事件的人都将承认他们所采取的行动可能被其他人采取了不同的方式，并会为每个人提供从该事件中学习的机会。我认为，同样重要的是要纠正不准确之处，并且在任何情况下都不会向我传达任何消防命令或命令，事实上，在执法人员的要求下，在他们的护送下，我做了声明。我没有其他方法可以访问此场景。陪同我进入建筑物的消防和EMS人员是由自己决定的，而不是在我的命令下进行。我感谢作者为他人提供了从该事件中学习的机会的工作，并感谢您提供此建议的机会。此致，丹佛护理人员分部医学主任，丹佛消防部门医学主任Christopher B. Colwell丹佛健康医学中心急诊医学部副主任

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号