Talk:Emergency medical services in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amulance Types[edit]

I re-did the ambulance type section, they had 3 versions of Mediums, three type 3s (with one labeled as a 2), and one type 1. I fixed it to include echos, and military ones. Found a picture of a romanian Type-2 and put it there for the pic. Dasbrick (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Romanian image. WHAT was the title of the article???Emrgmgmtca (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted the revert. The Romanian ambulance IS a picture of a type 2. It's better to have a non-US ambulance that demonstrates what a type 2 looks like than a picture of a type 3 US ambulance mislabeled as a type 2 ambulance. Get a picture of a type 2 American ambulance and replace it. Don't revert it to a wrong picture. JPINFV (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Romanian picture has been deleted. The only thing that is accurate about it is that it is a van. The article is about EMS in the United States, not about eastern Europe, and so, the inclusion of this image is inaccurate and incorrect. The ambulance in the photo conforms to the European Union standard CEN-1789 for Class B, which is completely different from KKK-1822 Type II, and so is completely inaccurate and incorrect in that respect as well. We want accurate information, not 'filler', and there is no good reason to include something that is inaccurate or potentially misleading in order to simply fill a space. I've had a good look through Commons looking for an American KKK-1822 Type II ambulance image, without any success. You were completely correct to change the original mislabeled image. Accuracy IS important! If the inclusion of a Type II image is important to you, please find an appropriate image, obtain the necessary permission, and upload it. We'd be more than happy to include it. Emrgmgmtca (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"We'd be more than happy to include it." Who's article do you think this is? I suggest you take a look at wp:own before taking such a holier than thou tone. Also, I must ask, what obvious feature is missing between the EU van style ambulance shown in that picture and an US type 2? JPINFV (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch!!! Not really sure what makes you think that it's okay to talk to me like that. Well now, let's see...the 'we' that I was referring to was the Emergency Medicine and EMS Task Force. I wasn't being proprietary at all...simply trying to maintain a level of quality in the article content, and there are a group of us working on trying to achieve that. Hence the 'we'. I was simply doing what lots of editors here do on a daily basis. There is nothing proprietary about rooting out information that is patently nonsense from otherwise good articles. To quote you: The Romanian ambulance IS a picture of a type 2. It's better to have a non-US ambulance that demonstrates what a type 2 looks like than a picture of a type 3 US ambulance mislabeled as a type 2 ambulance. The cold, hard, unarguable fact is that it is NOT. It might LOOK like a Type II to someone who didn't know any better, but it very clearly isn't one! Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that 'close enough' is NOT the standard that is intended here for article content. Misinforming the reader is still misinforming the reader, even with the best of intent. So we both made a mistake...I shouldn't have simply reverted the article to an incorrect image, and you shouldn't have taken a 'better than nothing' approach to something that is supposed to have a higher standard than that. And it seems to me that when I suggested that you might want to find an appropriate picture (I'd already looked), there was fundamentally no difference between that and you directing me to: Get a picture of a type 2 American ambulance and replace it. Don't revert it to a wrong picture. I tend to mirror the tone in which I am addressed. With respect to the accuracy of the image...the fact is that you can't have it both ways! Attached at the side are two images; one an ambulance from India, and the other an ambulance from Thailand. Perhaps we should include one of these under the heading of Type II. They aren't, but according to your own definition, they ARE a van and they ARE an ambulance, and that's close enough...isn't it? If calling a Type III a Type II by mistake is important (I didn't do that by the way, and would have corrected it when I saw it), then so is calling a European Class B an American Type II. With respect to the differences, each standard is about 35 pages long, and apart from the fact that they both start out as delivery vans, the list of differences is pretty extensive. If you want an obvious one, the blue warning lights on the European ambulance are part of the standard there, and illegal here. You won't find a squad bench in a Class B; they've been banned for safety reasons. The compartment design and lifting height standards are completely different, and most European Class 'B's are seriously underpowered by American standards. All of that is interesting, but in the end it comes down to the fact that, just as you originally suggested, accuracy is important, and you can't call anything something that its' not, argue that it looks the same and expect to have much credibility. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and in an encyclopedia, you'll never see a picture of an Emu in the Ostrich article, because they kind of look the same... Hopefully now, with all of that clarified, we can eliminate all of the 'chest beating' and we can move forward in a positive way! Emrgmgmtca (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) I'd rather have no picture than have a wrong picture. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does[edit]

Does anyone know the best place to locate ambulance accident rates/statistics in the United States?

Research it on Google. Amos Han Talk 00:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EMS Magazine. Dasbrick (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

C for now, and a likely upgrade later. I'd like to see the lists towards the top turned into well-explained sentences or even paragraphs. It took me a while to figure out what the "third service" meant, even though it's sort of explained right there.

Also you might ask for a general copy edit, as there are some occasional grammar errors (for example, it should be "hospital-based", with the hyphen). Try leaving a nice note for User:Chaoticfluffy; she might have time to do it (and I think she does good work in that area) or be able to point you at the right group for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks as always, for the guidance. I've expanded those lists at the top out into multiple paragraphs and added 14-15 references to support them. As always with your suggestions, it reads a LOT better!I've also established contact with Chaoticfluffy, who is looking forward to taking the copyediting project on (turns out she's an EMT!)and thinks it will be fun! Part of this is my fault...usually when I look at an article, I simply look at the existing content and then do a complete re-write. In this case, with so much content there I attempted, where possible, to enhance it a little, but basically left it the same style-wise and re-arranged to comply with the new format. I'm concluding that my original approach DOES provide a better result! Emrgmgmtca (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've upgraded the assessment based on the recent work. Thanks for your work. Have you invited ChaoticFluffy to join WPMED (or at least to put the EMS task force on her watchlist)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys :) I actually just added myself, I think (I had to join the Medicine project, or did I do it wrong?). I'm not sure what I can do besides copyediting, but I'm always open for that, at least. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did it correctly. I've also created a task force-specific list and added your name there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Merge Paramedics in the United States into Emergency medical services in the United States WarwulfX (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed a merger between Paramedics in the United States and Emergency medical services in the United States. Paramedics are an integral part of EMS in the US. Also, the Paramedic article has information that is general to all levels of EMS care, which would be best served here. Thoughts? WarwulfX (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be no discussion on the matter. Per WP:MERGE I'm going to go ahead and close the discussion and move ahead with the merger. WarwulfX (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There was no follow-through on this, which is just as well. These are not content forks. I see from Emergency medical responder levels by U.S. state that "paramedic" is but one of several job titles employed by emergency medical services in the United States. Why single this one out for merging, and not the others? I'm removing the templates. These articles could be better integrated however, and I'll work a bit on that. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The more reasonable merging possibility would be Paramedics in the United States into Paramedic. Not that I'm proposing that; if the differences in the profession among the nations of the world are significant, then separate articles may be justified. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added Acadian Air Med image[edit]

I work in PR & Marketing for Acadian and felt that our air ambulance image would contribute to this page. Please let me know if there is another, better way to have done this. Thanks!

Added Acadian Air Med image[edit]

I work in PR & Marketing for Acadian and felt that our air ambulance image would contribute to this page. Please let me know if there is another, better way to have done this. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabrina LeBeouf (talk • contribs) 15:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Emergency medical services in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Emergency medical services in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Hello everyone, I am interested in adding a section discussing noise exposure from ambulances. Several studies have been posted studying the different levels of exposure for emergency service responders. I feel that this is an important consideration for EMS since hearing loss due to noise will severely affect their ability to carry out their services. Ideas I had include the level of exposure and how this is remediated within ambulances. Katies268 (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emergency_medical_services_in_the_United_States&oldid=1201744292"