10% chance of survival is “unlikely” but it’s lives, not warm fuzzies. It may not have been cost-effective, but it was buying something real. (And it may well have been cost-effective if it was marginal use of facilities that already existed.)
10% is the number I have heard for the specific category I have heard triaged against in LA, namely patients whose heart the EMT can’t restart. Instead they can perform CPR to manually pump the heart on the trip to the hospital.
In the interest of not falling prey to the illusion of transparency, I must ask if you are familiar with normal hospital offload times in Southern California.
It was pretty common to have crews tied up waiting hours at emergency rooms even in normal circumstances.
10% chance of survival is “unlikely” but it’s lives, not warm fuzzies. It may not have been cost-effective, but it was buying something real. (And it may well have been cost-effective if it was marginal use of facilities that already existed.)
10% is the number I have heard for the specific category I have heard triaged against in LA, namely patients whose heart the EMT can’t restart. Instead they can perform CPR to manually pump the heart on the trip to the hospital.
In the interest of not falling prey to the illusion of transparency, I must ask if you are familiar with normal hospital offload times in Southern California.
It was pretty common to have crews tied up waiting hours at emergency rooms even in normal circumstances.
Sample numbers from Central California : https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://emsaac.org/%3Foption%3Dcom_fileman%26view%3Dfile%26routed%3D1%26name%3DJohn%20Surface%20-%20EMSAAC%202019%20Surface%204-23-19.pdf%26folder%3DLEMSA/Conference%26container%3Dfileman-files&ved=2ahUKEwiH85mTyIvuAhWiCjQIHYZnDhY4ChAWMAd6BAgEEAE&usg=AOvVaw1RolpERTpzHHNVMq1_abxc