- Joined
- Dec 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,503
- Display Name
Display name:
GeorgeC
No emergency/precautionary landing?!? Especially after the doctors initial efforts seemed to make things worse? Sure, the doc said it wasn't necessary then, but if it did become necessary, it would take some time to get down.
Good aticle to read, thanks.I obviously wasn't there, but here goes a little armchair quarterbacking:
No emergency/precautionary landing?!? Especially after the doctors initial efforts seemed to make things worse? Sure, the doc said it wasn't necessary then, but if it did become necessary, it would take some time to get down. Aside from any (basically zero) chance of legal action against the pilot should something happen, I personally wouldn't want that on my conscience. Knowing there would have been an easy solution for me to save a life, but decided against it...
Again, It's easy for me to pick it apart not being. I'm not saying the pilot was dead wrong and made a bad choice. Just saying, with the information presented, I can't see myself following the same course of action.
What are ya'lls thoughts on it, from the pilot's point of view?
Good article
Don't get me wrong, I definitely see where ya'll are coming from, but I still just can't see myself taking this same course of action.I wouldn't see the need in this case. A physician is present, has all the necessary equipment and is administering the proper interventions according to the patient's condition. Moreover, the pilots I'm presuming didn't have the necessary training to evaluate the patient for themselves. I spent 15 years in health care and often times multiple interventions may be necessary to resolve or stabilize a condition. The doc clearly had a ton of options available and they were effective.
FWIW, here is the standard treatment for what that patient had going on: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/135065-treatment#aw2aab6b6b1aa
I remember being in training and hearing them say that you can ask for a doctor on board if you need help with something, but don't expect any of them to raise there hands because of the liability they assume in that situation. In the litigious would we live in im not surprised but it looks like from the information that he provided that never happens. anyway good story.
...when we rolled up on a major MVA
Seems Henning is omnipotent. I don't even know the guy, but he seems to weigh in on about every thread, regardless if content, with technical advice and a story about his involvement. BTW, was I correct in guessing MVA means Motor Vehicle Accident?You must have some ems/public safety knowledge to use the MVA acronym...although they call them MVCs now
Don't get me wrong, I definitely see where ya'll are coming from, but I still just can't see myself taking this same course of action.
GauzeGuy, according to your article, it states the three (presumably main) items needed for treatment are "high-flow oxygen, cardiac monitoring, and intravenous (IV) access." According to the doctor himself, he didn't have, but definitely wanted, a pulse oximeter. Which according to my admittedly very limited knowledge, is about the only way, aside form blood samples, to measure blood oxygen saturation. Not sure about you, but every educational institution I've been to, a 66% is pretty bad.
And I'd be willing to bet, if she would have had the reaction worsen and then die, everybody would be condemning the pilot for not landing sooner. Just sayin'.
Liability should not be an issue for those who render good faith assistance in the air:
1998 Aviation Medical Assistance Act:
"An individual shall not be liable for damages in any action brought in a Federal or State court arising out of the acts or omissions of the individual in providing or attempting to provide assistance in the case of an in-flight medical emergency unless the individual, while rendering such assistance, is guilty of gross negligence or willful misconduct."
BTW, was I correct in guessing MVA means Motor Vehicle Accident?
And I'd be willing to bet, if she would have had the reaction worsen and then die, everybody would be condemning the pilot for not landing sooner. Just sayin'.
That article/interview matches my experience in similar situations. Both times, the FO was sent to the back to talk to me about diverting. In neither situation did I feel that a diversion was necessary (one would have been to Iceland). On one of the trips, they did however descend to an altitude that allowed sealevel cabin pressure and we received a direct approach and no taxi delays. The medical kit was indeed very complete and the cabin staff was very professional and helpful.
You messed up! Reykjavik is the best layover ever!
Yep...although now called "motor vehicle collisions" because "accident" implies no one is at fault. I'm sure there's a lawyer somewhere we can thank for that clarification
It was Multiple Vehicle Accident the way I learned it meaning 'be prepared for a lot of people injured'
Ah...we used "MVA/MVC" as "motor vehicle accident/collision". For what you're talking about (where we know we're walking into more than just two or three cars), it's dispatched as a "possible MCI" (mass casualty incident).
Hmm....the one thing no one seems to have mentioned is what I would have been most worried about: airway management. IV's, drugs, etc are nice but, and I'm speaking from past and quite stressful experiences, a difficult airway with no equipment (except possibly a ball point pen) is a bad deal. I've had my share of pucker factor in a controlled, ER setting...hate to imagine it up there!!
I obviously wasn't there, but here goes a little armchair quarterbacking:
No emergency/precautionary landing?!? Especially after the doctors initial efforts seemed to make things worse? Sure, the doc said it wasn't necessary then, but if it did become necessary, it would take some time to get down. Aside from any (basically zero) chance of legal action against the pilot should something happen, I personally wouldn't want that on my conscience. Knowing there would have been an easy solution for me to save a life, but decided against it...
Again, It's easy for me to pick it apart not being. I'm not saying the pilot was dead wrong and made a bad choice. Just saying, with the information presented, I can't see myself following the same course of action.
What are ya'lls thoughts on it, from the pilot's point of view?
He established IV access and administered fluids, Benadryl and Adrenalin - that's the standard treatment for anaphylactic shock.
He could have pushed some steroids through that line if required...
I provided emergency care on three occasions while flying as a passenger on commercial flights.
Except in one case, where an intensive care specialist was also a passenger, the physicians ( without emergency care training ) were happy to let a paramedic (me) take over and handle the case...
Back when I worked on ambulances and as an RT, steroids were also part of the standard treatment. That said, I don't recall ever seeing steroids in any of the airline kits
Not sure what the airlines carry today in their medical kits...
Back in the nineties, EL-AL had Solu-Medrol ( methylprednisolone )and Ultracorten ( Prednisolone ) in the emergency pack...
You messed up! Reykjavik is the best layover ever!
The other one happened on a flight back from Las Vegas after an emergency medicine conference. There were at least six EM or critical care docs on board. If you have to have an in-flight medical emergency....
I suggested was that she take some oral Benadryl (an antihistamine) and try to relax a little bit, which she agreed to. I got a few Benadryl capsules from the medikit and gave it to her, and I told her that I'd check back with her in 15-20 minutes to see if she felt better. Since I was sitting just 2 rows behind her I didn't think I needed to stay next to her the entire time.
After about 15 minutes, she was still having difficulty breathing, so at that point I suggested giving her some oxygen, starting an IV, giving some fluids, and administering a little IV Benadryl to see if it would work faster than oral medications. About 5 minutes after I did this, she complained about feeling worse so I administered a shot of epinephrine (luckily, she had carried 2 Epi-Pen vials on board with her) in her thigh, which freaked her out but she felt a little better after that.
Sorry, but at this point I'd be requesting to land ASAP. Perhaps a better question is does it pass the "family sniff test?" If this was your child or mother, what would you do?
Again, a 300# lady with a likely difficult airway who has coded from a similar event in the past, minimal equipment, uncontrolled setting...this has the potential to go very wrong very fast.
Personally, I have to question the wisdom of anyone with such severe allergies getting aboard a pressurized cockpit in the first place.
I don't know.. I've heard that one of the most dangerous situations in aviation is when two CFIs are flying together. Maybe it's the same with doctors.
Lot's of what-ifs there... The cabin was obviously not a very controlled environment, because it's possible she got the initial case due to circulating air particles. It'd be pretty easy for it to happen again and worsen the situation.An experienced emergency care provider can generally perform a reliable evaluation of the case severity...
The patient didn't appear to be crashing...if she was fully conscious, without a dramatic tachypnea - and with a good hemodynamic status...I would have taken a similar decision...
The first class cabin of an airliner is a pretty "controlled" environment compared to some of the places I've been as a medic...
He had a laryngoscope ( I presume ) and endotracheal tubes, a BVM, an AED, IV access equipment, ACLS medications...sounds pretty adequate to treat such a case...
You cannot treat every patient as if it was your "child or mother" ( you never treat your family objectively...)
One more thing...how long would it take to make an emergency descent to the nearest airport ( with a decent hospital in the area ) ?
How long before she can be transferred to a waiting ambulance ? ( with or without Advanced Life Support available ? )
How long before she is admitted to the ER ?
What happens when you're in the middle of a transoceanic flight ?
You're crossing Africa on your way to Capetown...do you divert to some hospital in Congo or Rwanda ?
The patient didn't appear to be crashing...if she was fully conscious, without a dramatic tachypnea - and with a good hemodynamic status...I would have taken a similar decision...
So, you'd make the decision to land after she starts crashing?
The first class cabin of an airliner is a pretty "controlled" environment compared to some of the places I've been as a medic...
Far less controlled than an OR, ER, or even the back of an ambulance. And, we're not taking combat or the site of a horrific accident here.
He had a laryngoscope ( I presume ) and endotracheal tubes, a BVM, an AED, IV access equipment, ACLS medications...sounds pretty adequate to treat such a case...[/I]
Why do you presume this? Also, why do you presume this will be a typical intubation? Ever intubate an obese pt with angioedema?!? Are you presuming there's a cric kit in the overhead, too? Again, this lady's coded in the past, she's complaining of her airway swelling, and she feels worse after the IV Benadryl. Maybe I'm just picturing her looking worse than she actually did.
You cannot treat every patient as if it was your "child or mother" ( you never treat your family objectively...)[/I]
I've been practicing medicine for a while now and I'm proud to say I ask myself that question often. Hope that never changes.
Only if they are the ones doing the flying!
Cric kits and advanced airway equipment?!? If you say so, but I'm betting a few simple oral airways are all they stock. And, if your plan B is cricing them, you really didn't put too much thought into plan A.
There's no reason to take chances with other people's lives. I knew a few guys like that...they'd make way too many attempts at critical procedures, or "monitor" their pt's while they slowly crumped before asking for help. Just never could see the bigger picture.