...a comparison of the effectiveness of one vs. two paramedics on scene in chest pain calls. This was a prospective study, which is good, and fairly unusual in prehospital research. They compared 92 patients, 37 treated by 2 medics, and 55 treated by 1 medic. The only test that reached statistical significance was that, on average, patients treated by 2 medics had their chest pain resolve 2.4 minutes earlier. There was no statistical difference between time to IV, first nitro, or second nitro (although there was a trend towards decreased times for two-medic crews).Interestingly, the authors claim that this provided evidence for the superiority of 2-medic crews, which is a bit of a stretch to me, as I noted at the time.
CONCLUSION: Two paramedic crews were more error-prone and did not perform most interventions more rapidly with the exception of intubation. These data do not support the proposition that two paramedic crews provide higher quality cardiac care than paramedic-EMT crews in a simulated ventricular fibrillation arrest.
We found no significant difference between the two, except (again, as I recall) that a two-medic team was more likely to start an IV than a one-medic truck.
Do you think that has to do with laziness. Not taking a shot at your guys specifically, but I know there are lazy ones in every service, and I wonder if when they are dual-medics, they figure "well I'm up for this call, so I'll just do the stuff", vs. a EMT-Medic truck where the thought is "I'm already down 4 charts, this guy is borderline BLS, I don't need a 5th chart"....I observe that with many of our medics that get lazy on that 5th ALS call or that call 15 minutes to shift change when relief isn't there.
No, the stats just gave the range of compliance, from 1.6% to 84%. The 2-medic crews had a slightly higher average compliance than the split crews, but the difference wasn't statistically signficant (48 vs 44%).Dr. Ex. Was there any indication on which type of crew (double v mixed) provided only 10 seconds of compression?