Editorial: KAEMT urges support for HB469

February 22, 2002

S T A T E N E W S B R I E F

News Index | The Kentucky EMS Connection Main Index

Editorial: KAEMT urges support for HB469

By BOBBY THACKER
President, Kentucky Association of EMTs

LOUISVILLE — On Thursday, February 21 I met with James Ritchey (Kentucky Ambulance Providers Association), Mike Swift (Kentucky Ambulance Providers Association), David Mather (Kentucky Association of EMTs) and Brian Bishop (Kentucky Board of Emergency Medical Services) in regards to the issues that had been presented to me by members of KAEMT.

During this meeting every issue that was presented was covered and a logical answer or response was given for each. Unfortunately, these answers that I share with you may not be the resolution you are looking for but are the result of several factors that I will try to explain.

Also, the issue of whether Paramedics should work in the hospital emergency department will not be directly addressed due to this never being an issue with me or any written or verbal message that I received from any KAEMT member. Somehow, my previous statements were turned around to suit those that needed to express their own opinion on my behalf. It is true though that personally I do not agree with Paramedics working in ER’s, that is my opinion at not those of KAEMT nor the majority of Paramedics within the Commonwealth. I have no opinion on those that wish to and it may certainly be beneficial to those who do.

The following was the result of this meeting:

Section 9-1(f) Issue regarding failing to make essential entries on essential records. It was purposed this sentence should reflect the tern "Intentionally" and it was agreed that this could possibly be added.
Section 9-3 (b)(c)(d)(e)(h) The term "reasonably" is undefined and since a broad definition could be assigned at any time it was not clear as to how each matter would be addressed. The term "reasonably" is commonly used in similar documents and administrative regulations can help define this term once this Bill is adopted.
Section 9-3(i) Issue regarding failing to make essential entries on essential records. It was purposed this sentence should reflect the term "Intentionally" and it was agreed that this could possibly be added.
Section 10-3(a) Issue regarding reporting violations in writing, placing the liable for making this report. Documents in writing are more reliable and will help reduce false reports and false complaints.
Section 10-3(d) Issue regarding the requirement to use name and other personal contact information of the complainant. The accused has the right to meet their accuser.
Section 10-4. Unsigned documents shall not be acted upon unless signed. It is at the discretion of the Executive Director to receive unsigned documents based upon the severity and validity of the complaint.
Section 10-9. Did not address how the accused is to be notified and the legal rights of the accused to prove that he/she actually received the document. There are obviously several methods of notification but it does afford the accused the opportunity to avoid receipt. Administrative regulation could address an appeal process for those who believe they were never notified.
Section 10-22 Issue regarding the actual legal rights of the Executive Director to impose fines on the provider on an issue that is directly related to criminal justice. The accused can appeal to the Franklin Circuit Court.
Section 18-9 Issue regarding rights of card holder and being free of harassment. The only time demand will be required is while the card holder is performing their duties.
Section 18-10 Issue regarding the wording "prima facie evidence." Prima facie will be removed.
Section 31-3 Issue regarding a Paramedic drawing blood from criminal defendant. The term "may" was purposefully added to give the medic the option as to whether they draw blood for other than medical reasons.
Section 31-5(b) Event though this issue was not covered, we did clarify its meaning. The paramedic shall/can render patient care services only under the orders of a physician or Advanced Registered Nurse. The Paramedic can only receive a patient care order from a Nurse who is relaying that information from a physician or Advanced Registered Nurse. This is not implying that the operational control of a Paramedic can not be from the assigned nurse or nurses. We did directly address the removal from the previous version of HB 469 that directly addressed the pre-hospital setting and who a paramedic can receive medical directions from. This was removed because it limited those addressed and if one was addressed, then all career fields should be addressed. It was clearly identified in previous sections that in the pre-hospital setting a paramedic can only take medical orders from a physician in the pre-hospital environment.

Obviously these are very condensed version of the answers I received. I tried my best to keep each response at its very minimum. These answers may not necessarily completely reflect the entire answer I received.

HB 469 has many positive points with that will significantly increase the scope of practice for all levels of EMS professionals. Even though we don’t all agree with every issue addressed, this Bill will make a positive impact to our chosen career.

It is in my opinion after reviewing these issues with the members of KAPA and its legislative committee that this Bill deserves the support of the EMS community. I will not however try to convince you to modify your position. All I ask is if you do have a position, please be sure that you fully understand this Bill and the impact that it will have in the future. If nothing else, please pay particular attention to the expanded scope of practice and the possibilities it will open for us in the very near future.

On another positive note, during our three hour conversation we also took the time to discuss the future of EMS and some possibilities for the very near future. Among those topics was EMT-Intermediate, Incentive pay, Hazardous Duty Retirement, along with many other future plans.

If you should have any questions regarding HB 469 I recommend that you contact James Ritchey at the following email address: DirectorACEMS@aol.com or you may contact David Mather politics@kaemt.org or me at president@kaemt.org.

BACK TO NEWS INDEX

BACK TO MAIN INDEX

COMMENTS