Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Emergency medicine and EMS task force/Archive 3

EMS in Iceland

Emergency medical services in Iceland is now completed. Have a look and let me know what you think. All comments welcome.Emrgmgmtca (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

EMS in New Zealand

Emergency medical services in New Zealand is now completed. Have a look and let me know what you think. All comments welcome.Emrgmgmtca (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Assistance Required

Could someone please add both Emergency medical services in Iceland and Emergency medical services in New Zealand to the EMSworld navbox? I have no idea how to do this. Thanks.Emrgmgmtca (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Done. --Scott Alter 12:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

List of emergency medicine topics

Have started this page. I know we have a category but this might be a good format aswell.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

St. John Ambulance

I was wondering if articles about St. John Ambulance should come under the scope of this project, particularly because they provide emergency response and serve as EMS in a significant number of Commonwealth countries? Frmatt (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Note: in the future, I'll check before posting stupid comments! Frmatt (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

GCC Paramedic Test Review

Can someone take a look at GCC Paramedic Test Review? I'm not sure that I can rule out the possibility of it being an effort to create a study guide on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of Combat Medics

I am working on a research piece for college of our choice and had an idea for former combat medics. With all of their training, especially in the tactical environment, isn't there a process to integrate them better into the EMS services? Personally I was recruited by a S.W.A.T. team and realized that this would be a good avenue for a civilian career. The downside is that we are only given a certificate of an EMT-B which excludes them from such work until they go to college. I do have an argument piece advocating the advanced training of medics and would like to present this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Texdoc41 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure AMR should be low-importance?

It is your call and all, but shouldn't the largest private ambulance company be a higher importance than what its listed as? Smiles, Nate1028 (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:MEDA for the usual advice. In general, articles about businesses, organizations, laws applying to only one country, and other things of primarily "local" interest are the lowest priority for editors working in this area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree this is low importance on a global scale. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 21:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Help Wanted: Medical Collaboration of the Month

Hi, all. The Medical Collaboration of the Month for October 2010 is Trauma (medicine). We welcome your help! Craig Hicks (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Class of 13 PCP students

I have a class of 13 PCPs student who I am planning to do a small project with on Wikipedia. Was trying to pick out some EMS topic that would be appropriate for them to work on. Have started a list here [1]. Further suggestions? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Navbox usage

I've noticed that many EM/EMS pages have been tagged with lots of different navboxes that are inappropriate for the specific article. Generally, navbox templates should only be placed on articles that appear as a link in the navbox. Navboxes are for navigating between related articles, rather than encompassing all articles within a project. Previously (above), Emrgmgmtca proposed creating additional navboxes, and I think it is time to revisit this.

My goal is to expand upon the hierarchy of medicine-related navboxes without overlap of end-articles (meaning articles that do not also have a template named after them). Currently, you can start at {{Health care}}, which links to {{Allied health professions}} and {{Medicine}}, which links to {{Emergency medicine}}. Maybe we should create a template just for EMS-related articles (separate from {{Emergency medicine}} and {{First aid}})). These EMS-specific items could then be removed from {{Emergency medicine}}, which would need to be reorganized. And how about creating a template just for procedures/skills and medical equipment used in emergency medicine (the overlap between EM and EMS)? This should add to the hierarchy with "Emergency medical services" as a child of {{Allied health professions}} and {{Emergency medicine}}, with a potential "Emergency medicine procedures and equipment" as a child of "Emergency medical services" and "Emergency medicine". {{EMSworld}} can stand on its own, as is typical with any "by country" navboxes.

To start this process, we'd need to figure out how to organize the templates. Some ideas include vehicles, people, regulations, and patient moving devices. I'll probably go ahead and start creating a prototype, but ideas are welcomed. --Scott Alter 23:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I just created {{Emergency medical services}}. If anyone adds articles, please only include items specific to EMS (without EM or first aid overlap). --Scott Alter 00:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Should Medic be listed in the 'people' section? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think medic should be listed. Although it is an overview article, it is really just a disambiguation page. All of the people who may be called a "medic" within EMS should be listed separately in the "people" section. --Scott Alter 23:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There is room for everything under the template {{EMSworld}}. Also useful would be a section called Legislation and Standards (vehicle standards being the obvious one). Models of care would be another potential addition. Additional short courses (ACLS, ITLS, etc.) would be another. Subspecialities (aviation, dive, marine, tactical, wilderness, farm) could also be added.Emrgmgmtca (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to take what is currently under {{EMSworld}} and refocus it a bit. Perhaps when you click on Paramedic (or for that matter Emergency medical services) you get both the generic article and the 'by country' listings. You might also wish to consider listing all of the individual provider organizations under Emergency medical services by their country of origin (eg. Emergency medical services=>Emergency medical services in Canada=>British Columbia Ambulance Service). Just a thought, and might encourage people to revisit and expand all of those individual service stubs and starts that they've left lying about.Emrgmgmtca (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean that all of this should be included in {{EMSworld}}, or that {{Emergency medical services}} should be placed on articles with {{EMSworld}}? I strongly oppose listing the "by country" articles in the same general EMS template. The articles in {{Emergency medical services}} should be the articles of highest importance to EMS (and the project). All of the "by country" articles are of mid importance to the project, as they are not relevant to all of EMS. I'm not sure what you mean by "get both the generic article and the 'by country' listings" for paramedic and emergency medical services, but I think both {{EMSworld}} and {{Emergency medical services}} should appear on these two articles.

A "Legislation and Standards" section would be a good addition to {{Emergency medical services}}. I am unfamiliar with the current/existing articles relevant to this category, so someone else can add them (or at least note them here). Which articles would fall under "models of care?" I'd like to keep the courses (ACLS, ITLS, etc) in a separate template, since these are used by a variety of medical providers and not just EMS. As for the subspecialties, I'm not sure they are actual subspecialties of EMS or of medicine in general. Because the articles on these topics are not specifically tailored to the EMS aspect of the specialty, I think articles like aviation medicine, wilderness medicine, diving medicine, and military medicine could be listed as related fields instead of subspecialties. Each of these fields also deserves their own dedicated navbox templates, so I do not think we should include items specific to any of these fields in the EMS navbox.

Regarding the individual service articles, I do not think we should be encouraging their creation, as most are not notable. British Columbia Ambulance Service is a rare example of a huge agency that covers an entire province/state. Most regions have tons of smaller agencies. The current way (and I think one of the best possible ways) to find individual services by country is via Category:Ambulance services by country. If we start listing these agencies in a template, there would be no limit as to how many would be included. Would you want all EMS agencies in the world listed in the same template? Or even all of the EMS agencies in templates by country? I think it would be useless to have as a navbox. Rather than listing individual service articles in an EMS template, if they are placed in any type of navbox, the most appropriate type would be a template for the city/region that the agency serves. --Scott Alter 23:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of a cascade type effect. At the top of the hierarchy we have the existing navboxes, but (as an example) at the bottom of the Emergency medical services generic article, there would be a different navbox directing to EMS by country articles. At the bottom of those articles would be navboxes directed to the articles on the individual local services. At each tier the navbox would include a 'Back' option, which would return the reader to the next article up the hierarchy. The other question that I would ask is why we would have a category for Ambulance services by country, when we already have one for EMS by country, and the two are essentially different names for the same thing. Just my thoughts.Emrgmgmtca (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

EMS protocols

I am sure all have seen this. It is interesting as it gives how good the evidence is for different EMS treatments.

http://emergency.medicine.dal.ca/ehsprotocols/protocols/toc.cfm --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I wonder if somebody from this task force could assist me with re- writing Devon Air Ambulance Trust. I've made some headway from the shape it was in when I first cam across it, but I think it could do with a fresh pair of eyes- I've done quite a few re-writes, but this isn't really my area! Please get in touch via the article's talk page or my own. Regards, HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Emergency birth

(Intentional) Unassisted birth refers to "emergency birth" in the lead. I can't find an appropriate article. Do we not have anything? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Unassisted birth is not the same as emergency birth IMO. They should have there own pages. An unassited birth is a home birth and has been how babies have been delivered for most of human history and is still how babies are delivered in most areas of the work. A recent study ( ie this week ) found that home birth were as safe as hospital births for low risk women.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7998417.stm

True -- well, if by "home birth" you mean "home birth attended by a trained and licensed medical professional", and not "home birth while the mother is completely alone or attended only by untrained friends and relatives," which is what this article seems to be about -- but the lead of that article makes a distinction from a planned (medically) unassisted birth and an unplanned unassisted birth. Do we have (or want) an article about "baby appeared while mother was still packing for a long-planned trip to the hospital"?

It's an interesting and important distinction. From an EMS perspective, most medics believe that the most common births that they are called to attend are second children, with the mother being misled by the length of her first labour. It would be interesting to determine exactly how accurate this particular perception is, but we don't do research here. Another point to be raised is that, particularly in North America, home births with midwives in attendance appear to be on the rise. Another factor to be considered is the nature of the article... Are we going to discuss the topic in general, or describe delivery techniques? I'd be happy to participate in the development of this article. Emrgmgmtca (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

MCI page

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but would appreciate feedback on the MCI page that I'm in the process of creating. It's currently incomplete and fairly un-cited right now, but suggestions and feedback would be greatly appreciated! You can find it here Frmatt (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've moved this here, in the hope that more people will see it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I just moved the article to the main namespace. Although it is still incomplete, there is enough information to be informative to readers, and it should be easier to find for others to contribute. I removed {{Emergency medicine}}, as I do not think it is appropriate. There should probably be a new template for emergency/incident management-related articles, but I'm not quite sure what the template should focus on, or what it should be called. --Scott Alter 20:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to continue to work on it over the next few weeks. Frmatt (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Task force scope

After looking through some of the articles currently tagged for this task force, I found that some medical emergencies were included. Do we want to include types of medical emergencies within our scope? Could we include some and exclude others? Should we include all articles in List of medical emergencies (and Category:Medical emergencies)? --Scott Alter 00:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This will be a difficult area. Emergency medicine sort of contains a bit of everything in medicine from glaucoma to stubbed toes. Were one draws the line between emergency and none emergency is highly debated and variable.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree Doc. The term 'emergency' is somewhat subjective, isn't it? The other thing that I'm not sure about, and I think we would need to seek an answer from some sort of 'higher authority' before we get too far into this, is exactly how such information would be presented. If we are simply going to address the nature of the condition, its pathophysiology, and a general description of how it is treated medically, then we are probably fine. If, on the other hand, someone starts providing specific instructions for the care and management of a condition, and that information happened to be incorrect, and then someone acted upon it causing harm to another person, what is the extent of our liability? Given the number of twits wandering around here simply vandalizing pages, it would only be a matter of time before something occurred. I'm less concerned about the medical professionals who contribute than I am about the vandals and the lay readers. To begin with, it introduces a whole new type of vandalism, but more importantly, the reader may not be able to distinguish in some cases, and may regard this as authoritative information. Kind of like telling a 60 year old with a history of hypertension and an acute onset headache to 'take an aspirin'. Perhaps I'm overreacting, but it is worth considering and obtaining advice. What are your thoughts? Emrgmgmtca (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia medicine pages already give lots of bad advice. But there is bad advice in all sorts of sources from self help books to other web pages. Everyone should realize that they need to double check what they read. This applies to more than just wikipedia. Take drug advertising for example. I do not think there is much for legal concerns. The thing is all of medicine is really in the scope of emergency medicine. What is emphasised is what is acutely fatal and what is common.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree...I just wanted to raise the issue. While we're chatting, tell me...do you think that the changes that seem to be occurring in a lot of EMS are likely to change the fundamental nature of the Emergency Room, making it less an acute care setting and more of a family practice setting? My thoughts are that STEMIs now go direct to the PCI lab, we're looking at serious changes to how cardiac arrests are managed (we're currently looking at paramedic-induced hypothermia, followed by direct transport to the PCI lab for post-arrest patients), traumas no longer go to local E/Rs, but to specialized trauma units. In Toronto, the same thing for pediatrics, burns and strokes. Sexual assaults also have dedicated facilities. When you combine that with expanded scope of practice for some paramedics (Paramedic Practitioners in the UK for example), providing more comprehensive primary care and referral in the field, with an objective of keeping low acuity patients OUT of the E.R., do you ever begin to wonder what is going to be left? Emrgmgmtca (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The articles should follow WP:MEDMOS, as far as what information should be provided. A treatment/management section mentioning drugs and interventions is appropriate, but it should not be written as a how-to manual. Generally, specific information (like medication doses or how a procedure is performed) is inappropriate. Liability is not something this (or any other) project should be concerned with. Just because an article is tagged with the project's banner does not mean we claim responsibility for the content of the article. It simply means that we are interested in looking after the article. There is no duty for us to patrol articles for verification of accuracy. --Scott Alter 21:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we are all here for the patients best interest. If the patient has a STEMI they should go directly to the cath lab if that service is available. It isn't in most of Canada. Trauma centers are great, if there is one. Most of trauma services are still run by ER doc even in larger centers. Also there are still many acute MI patients who come in with there family and not by EMS. Decreasing scope of practice is happening in many areas of medicine. The only reason why we have kept the name general surgery is historical. There is nothing general about a general surgeon any more. They are abdominal surgeons. And that is before they super specialize. If you work outside one of the large centers (Toronto/Vancouver general hospital) you will deal with everything and this is not about to change any time soon. What is of concern is the increasing number of patients with out family doctors. This is what is adding the walk in clinic to the ER. And then the lack of beds is turning it into a general medical / surgical floor.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A few points:

• Whatever our own motivations and interests, Wikipedia is not written for patients (or professionals).
• Only a fool would base his critical medical treatment solely on a website like Wikipedia. See WP:Medical disclaimer.
• We can reduce the risk of real-world harm by carefully avoiding how-to details and advice about what should be done, or what patients should know, etc.

As for what should be considered within the scope of this project:

I would probably include any condition/procedure/test that is primarily handled in the emergency setting, or whose article has a substantial emergency/first aid component. So Myocardial infarction seems like an obvious thing to include: First because if someone seems to be suffering an MI in, say, a solo practitioner's office, the basic response would be "call an ambulance; he must go to the emergency room immediately", and secondly because of Myocardial infarction#First_aid.

Does that seem sensible to other people? Does it seem like a rule of thumb that you could usefully apply, without including too many articles or excluding too many? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That seems sensible, but it will be difficult to draw the line between what should be included or excluded. "Things you call an ambulance for" is a good start, but we all know that EMS and emergency rooms are often abused with non-emergency issues. Although "emergency" is a subjective term, maybe we should try and come up with more objective guidelines. There are obvious acute medical emergencies that should be included (Myocardial infarction, Anaphylaxis, Cardiac arrest, Respiratory failure). But what about chronic medical problems that may have acute episodes (Atrial fibrillation, Heart failure, Asthma, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Angina pectoris)? And things that cause medical emergencies (Embolism, Thrombosis, Bleeding, Hypoglycemia, Dehydration)? What about signs, symptoms, and other descriptors (Dyspnea, Chest pain, Urticaria, Hypoxia, Tachycardia, Hypotension)? Or non-life threatening issues (Epistaxis, Bone fracture, Wound)? An argument could be made to include all of these articles. Can anyone think of items or categories that should definitely not be included. --Scott Alter 21:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

update

I just went through some of the articles tagged with this task force, and there are a few other types of articles that need to be addressed. Some hospitals are being tagged with the EM/EMS task force. I think it is fine for WPMED to include all hospitals, but they should not be included in this task force. The only exception I can think of is if the article was on a specific emergency department or trauma unit within a hospital (such as R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, for example, which ironically is not currently part of WPMED at all). Similarly, agencies that provide EMS should also be within the scope of this task force. Another type of article that has been tagged with this task force is disasters. Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management exists and covers disasters, so there is no reason for us to include disasters. The possible exception would be articles on the medical aspects of a disaster (such as Rescue and recovery effort after the September 11 attacks or Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks). What do you think? --Scott Alter 22:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me, although I'd probably dump even the trauma centers. However, I think that other editors are better judges than I. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would believe that certain mental disorders should be included as an emergency. It seems that more and more mentally unstable patients are being overlooked, which in turn could create an even bigger problem. Case in point would be the recent office shootings in Florida and in the Northwestern U.S. Also the point of severe PTSD should be addressed as well, ie. Fort Hood shootings. As a military medic I have handled PTSD cases as an initial contact before I transferred them to the proper care. There are many more cases out there that are not seeking care.--Texdoc41 (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Added to list

I recently provided an overview of the content of Rosen's texbook of Emergencey Medicine 2010 here List of emergency medicine topics. Certain areas still need some work but I wonder if all these topics should be added to this project? The section on presentation is nice IMO as EM is symptom rather than disease based.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing help

I'm expanding my editing and picked up what was the stub New Orleans EMS of something that I know a great deal about. One particular fellow editor was eager to slap the COI tag on the article, but only after I revealed in WP:goodfaith that I was an employee of the City of New Orleans. I'd appreciate another pair of eyes on it, especially to make some notes on what else needs citations and what to build up. I'm tackling some things on the to-do list, trying to put a dent! amiller3 (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A great document outlining evidence for EMS practice

Here is a great document that list evidence for all of EMS practices. [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Are Ambulance Corps Noteworthy?

How noteworthy are ambulance corps? Just because a city has a EMS service do they *really* need a page about themselves? What should be some criteria for a EMS corps article? Peter.C • talk 04:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

My unsupported-by-anything-in-particular instinct is that, barring any unusually noteworthy acts or patients, a city's ambulance corps is roughly as notable as the city itself. So New York City's ambulance corps(s) (should we exist in a universe where they're not subsumed under FDNY, I'm not particularly well-versed in who serves what) is almost certainly notable. In a city of that size, they are likely to have responded to many noteworthy incidents. Jersey City's ambulance corps (again, should such thing exist) is probably notable. They probably had some noteworthy incidents. The ambulance corps for $small_town_in_NJ is probably not notable, unless they happen to have treated treated $Celebrity in $noteworthy_event. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest, that as with most organisations, if they meet WP:V criteria (i.e. you can provide multiple separate instances where they are talked about in reliable third party media (newspapers etc.), then they are notable. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 17:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Let he rephrase what I said before. For obvious reasons big cities like NYC deserve an article, also some small EMS systems in some circumstances. But what about "cities" you have never heard of but have 50,000+ members? Do they get articles too? Peter.C • talk 17:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The standard rules are at WP:ORG. This applies to any kind of organization at all: hospitals, clinics, charities, emergency services, etc.

The oversimplified version is that if nobody outside your hometown has written about your org, then you don't get a stand-alone article about your org. (You might get a sentence, paragraph, or section in a related article, however; for example, the ambulance corps for a town could be described in the article about the town.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

For comparison, you can see the existing articles about ambulance corps in Category:Ambulance services in the United States. Most of these do not establish notability, were created by people with COIs (ie members of the organization), are orphans, and probably do not deserve their own articles. Even the EMS services of NYC and Jersey City do not have their own articles. In NYC, some of EMS is handled by FDNY and mentioned in New York City Fire Department#Bureau of EMS. There are also hospital-based EMS services in NYC (see NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital#NewYork-Presbyterian Emergency Medical Services, for example). In Jersey City, EMS is provided by Liberty Health, the operator of Jersey City Medical Center. In my brief search, Wikipedia has no mention of Jersey City's EMS at all. --Scott Alter (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of NYC, I was just curious as to why there is no article on this site for NYC EMS (EMS provider under Health & Hospitals Corp from 1970 until the merger in 1996). I think, given the organization's importance, an article on NYC EMS would show people how advanced they were and remind them where FDNY-EMS came from. 74.192.58.206 (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent Edit to Tourniquet

Not sure if this discussion belongs here, but I noticed that the most recent edit to tourniquet removed information in a way that, in my opinion, did not improve the article. I hesitate to change or revert an edit that is clearly not vandalism. Perhaps someone here will have a better idea what to do. Also, should that article be categorized under WPMED and the EMS category? Thanks. Wafflephile (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

South Western Ambulance Service

Can anyone help with an abbreviation on South Western Ambulance Service? I recently cleaned the article up but it includes the abbreviation PTS in relation to a divisional HQ and call centre, and I can't work out what to put in full or what article to link to for further information. Do any experts on here know what it means?— Rod ^talk 11:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Patient Transport Service - routine transport of patients to hospital for planned treatment, and discharge of patients from hospital to home. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 11:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I've added this. Any other suggestions for improvement?— Rod ^talk 12:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sellick maneuver and Sellick manoeuvre

I suggest that the articles Sellick maneuver and Sellick manoeuvre should be merged 688dim (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Water sports/RNLI task force (Royal National Lifeboat Institution)

I noticed that the RNLI taskforce is classified as a watersport, shouldn't this workgroup be part of WP:MED/EMS (or WP:TRANSPORT or WP:UK) ? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Torture is an emergency medical condition

I would like to recommend that specific forms of torture be covered under Wiki Project Emergency Medicine as that is one of the most urgent medical emergencies imaginable. What if one of your patients had been partially flayed or put on a Judas Cradle by a psychopath or a group of psychopaths, wouldn't you want to know more about what was done to them, so that you could try to help them? Just because a Judas Cradle and The Pear aren't in the hospitals legendary ass box doesn't mean they don't still get used on people; if the under reporting in rape cases is any indication this would be one of the most difficult things for a victim to talk about to a doctor, or much of anyone else for that matter; whether sexual or not. I presume as a medical article it would have to use review studies done within the last 5 years to meet wpMEDRS standards. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not think we should. The torture itself would not in itself be a "medical emergency", the injuries, or rather the change from the normostatis of the person secondary to the torture, would be the medical emergency. While I am not saying these articles do not have their place on Wikipedia, I do not feel that the articles regarding torture fall under the scope of emergency medicine.Peter.C • talk • contribs 23:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Archived some threads

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggest taking a look at harmonizing two articles

Hi all, I checked out paramedicine today and was rather surprised to find very little information, especially on history, which is instead largely covered in paramedic. I really think these two articles need to be harmonized if not merged because of just how substantial their overlap is. As a concrete example paramedicine article as it is give the impression that paramedicine prior to 1996 was merely something "discussed", whereas the paramedic article strongly implies that the transition from ambulance services to the paramedics we know today took place in the 1970s.

Additionally, the paramedicine article describes paramedicine in the unfortunately obtuse statement that it is "a health profession focused on assisting individuals, families, and communities in attaining, re-attaining, and maintaining optimal health, often following acute or sudden onset of medical or traumatic events." With respect to those who wrote it, this is more or less meaningless. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Escape chair

Could someone more familiar with EMS work take a look at Escape chair and its history? It appears to have been discovered by a salesman or something. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

South Central Ambulance Service

Not sure if this is the right place but I have reverted the move of South Central Ambulance Service to South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust as we use the common name rather than the more formal name. Other trusts in Category:NHS ambulance services use the common name, is there a guideline or other discussion that these ambulance services dont use the common name?, thanks MilborneOne (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)