John Reimer wrote:
> John Demme wrote:
> 
>>
>> Actually, I know I few people on my volunteer EMT squad who are also introverts.  Myself included.
> 
> 
> Ah well, good to know I'm not the only one.  I hear introversion is a not-so-uncommon quality in actors and actresses.  Actually, EMT's and actors aren't a whole lot different. ;-)

If one takes protocol and a script to be similar, I would agree.  Of couse I think I'd get some weird looks if, while working on a patient, I  suddenly scream, "LINE?!?!"

John Demme wrote:
> John Reimer wrote:
> 
>> John Demme wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Actually, I know I few people on my volunteer EMT squad who are also introverts.  Myself included.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah well, good to know I'm not the only one.  I hear introversion is a not-so-uncommon quality in actors and actresses.  Actually, EMT's and actors aren't a whole lot different. ;-)
> 
> 
> If one takes protocol and a script to be similar, I would agree.  Of couse I think I'd get some weird looks if, while working on a patient, I  suddenly scream, "LINE?!?!"

He he. No, I wasn't referring to protocols as an analogy.  You got to innovate too much in this job for that analogy to hold.  The job rarely flows like a script... ha I wish.

I don't know what your experience is, but I meant much of the job is an act.  You've got to pretend you know exactly what to do, when, in many situations, you actually don't; you have to exude confidence and calm reassurance in situations that are emotional and chaotic.  In short, you have to be somebody you are not (at least most people aren't): but since you have the uniform and the badge, people think you've got the answers.  Much of it becomes "just an act" for the benefit of public.  This doesn't remove the possibility of being genuine, but the uniform and the job dictates that you follow certain procedures that you wouldn't do in plain clothes -- thus... it's a bit of an act. :-)

And about the "LINE?!?!" part.. that's not too far from the truth in some of my experiences.  Though I wouldn't scream the part, I've had my share of looking pretty confused on the scene. :-)  Experience has shown me that the better I can hide that absolute horrible feeling of uncertainty, the better; I "act" like I know what I'm doing in difficult situations (meanwhile my mind cranks away trying to concoct solutions). That's one of the secrets to patient care.  The calmer the scene one can maintain, the better the organization and outcome.  Protocols may actually have less influence on outcomes than this.

Now that everyone knows that's is just an "act", we're ruined.... Oh no! :-D

Ah... but this is getting a might bit off topic.

Later,

John

John Reimer wrote:
> John Demme wrote:
> 
>> John Reimer wrote:
>>
>>> John Demme wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I know I few people on my volunteer EMT squad who are also introverts.  Myself included.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ah well, good to know I'm not the only one.  I hear introversion is a not-so-uncommon quality in actors and actresses.  Actually, EMT's and actors aren't a whole lot different. ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> If one takes protocol and a script to be similar, I would agree.  Of couse I think I'd get some weird looks if, while working on a patient, I  suddenly scream, "LINE?!?!"
> 
> 
> He he. No, I wasn't referring to protocols as an analogy.  You got to innovate too much in this job for that analogy to hold.  The job rarely flows like a script... ha I wish.
> 
> I don't know what your experience is, but I meant much of the job is an act.  You've got to pretend you know exactly what to do, when, in many situations, you actually don't; you have to exude confidence and calm reassurance in situations that are emotional and chaotic.  In short, you have to be somebody you are not (at least most people aren't): but since you have the uniform and the badge, people think you've got the answers.  Much of it becomes "just an act" for the benefit of public.  This doesn't remove the possibility of being genuine, but the uniform and the job dictates that you follow certain procedures that you wouldn't do in plain clothes -- thus... it's a bit of an act. :-)
> 
> And about the "LINE?!?!" part.. that's not too far from the truth in some of my experiences.  Though I wouldn't scream the part, I've had my share of looking pretty confused on the scene. :-)  Experience has shown me that the better I can hide that absolute horrible feeling of uncertainty, the better; I "act" like I know what I'm doing in difficult situations (meanwhile my mind cranks away trying to concoct solutions). That's one of the secrets to patient care.  The calmer the scene one can maintain, the better the organization and outcome.  Protocols may actually have less influence on outcomes than this.
> 
> Now that everyone knows that's is just an "act", we're ruined.... Oh no! :-D
> 
> Ah... but this is getting a might bit off topic.
> 
> Later,
> 
> John

As for the part about confidence, I find that to be more true about life in general than any specific profession.  It's rare that I'm not confident... sometimes I'll be confident that I don't know something, but confident nonetheless.

As for protocol vs improv, I agree that improv is the way to go, but in my (admittly short) experience, at home in New Jersey, we are being push to the protocol side.  Do we practice that way?  Only to an extent, and most interactions with other units.

I don't like the way it's heading, but I was told during my initial EMT training, that all EMTs do (officially) is follow protocol.  Unfortunate.

I wonder if there's some way to relate this to software?

John

John Demme wrote:

> As for the part about confidence, I find that to be more true about life in general than any specific profession.  It's rare that I'm not confident... sometimes I'll be confident that I don't know something, but confident nonetheless.

Well... we'll put that down to a difference in personality. :-)  The result is the same, I wager.  I used to have an over abundance of confidence, but found being without was much safer for me.  I manage things better without it, believe it or not.  Of course, the word can be interpreted in more ways than one.  Success in my profession is not related necessarily to my confidence level; it's more reflected in my patient's final opinion of me (not necessarily the best measurement; but so far a good one!)

> As for protocol vs improv, I agree that improv is the way to go, but in my (admittly short) experience, at home in New Jersey, we are being push to the protocol side.  Do we practice that way?  Only to an extent, and most interactions with other units.

Protocol /must/ be the final official word.  Adhering to it is the only way an EMT protects himself legally.  But in the real world, the EMT realizes that he or she must interpret the protocol for the situation because situations don't always allow for the protocols scripted sequence.  I prefer to see it as a "guideline" /unofficially/ in that case.  As long as I have an explanation for why I did something and as long as I can explain it in terms of a protocol, I've met my goal. I'm safe.  There can never be any such thing as "going outside your protocol."  If you do, you're in trouble.


> I don't like the way it's heading, but I was told during my initial EMT training, that all EMTs do (officially) is follow protocol.  Unfortunate.


Correct. It has to be that way to protect the technician.   That said, different states/provinces/countries do stress these matters differently.  So it's wise to stick to what you've been taught.  Here, /some/ of our protocols are a little open-ended (they're designed to be that way).  People tend to interpret some of them differently.  For irresponsible individuals, or those that don't think to deeply, this can be a bad thing.


> I wonder if there's some way to relate this to software?
> 
> John


Well, it won't be the first time this newsgroup has drifted off topic, so I don't think we'll be booted for making it into an EMS discussion forum... at least not just yet. :-)

- John R.

John Reimer wrote:
> John Demme wrote:
> 
>> As for the part about confidence, I find that to be more true about life in general than any specific profession.  It's rare that I'm not confident... sometimes I'll be confident that I don't know something, but confident nonetheless.
> 
> 
> Well... we'll put that down to a difference in personality. :-)  The result is the same, I wager.  I used to have an over abundance of confidence, but found being without was much safer for me.  I manage things better without it, believe it or not.  Of course, the word can be interpreted in more ways than one.  Success in my profession is not related necessarily to my confidence level; it's more reflected in my patient's final opinion of me (not necessarily the best measurement; but so far a good one!)
> 
>> As for protocol vs improv, I agree that improv is the way to go, but in my (admittly short) experience, at home in New Jersey, we are being push to the protocol side.  Do we practice that way?  Only to an extent, and most interactions with other units.
> 
> 
> Protocol /must/ be the final official word.  Adhering to it is the only way an EMT protects himself legally.  But in the real world, the EMT realizes that he or she must interpret the protocol for the situation because situations don't always allow for the protocols scripted sequence.  I prefer to see it as a "guideline" /unofficially/ in that case.  As long as I have an explanation for why I did something and as long as I can explain it in terms of a protocol, I've met my goal. I'm safe.  There can never be any such thing as "going outside your protocol."  If you do, you're in trouble.
> 
> 
>> I don't like the way it's heading, but I was told during my initial EMT training, that all EMTs do (officially) is follow protocol.  Unfortunate.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. It has to be that way to protect the technician.   That said, different states/provinces/countries do stress these matters differently.  So it's wise to stick to what you've been taught.  Here, /some/ of our protocols are a little open-ended (they're designed to be that way).  People tend to interpret some of them differently.  For irresponsible individuals, or those that don't think to deeply, this can be a bad thing.
> 
> 
>> I wonder if there's some way to relate this to software?
>>
>> John
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it won't be the first time this newsgroup has drifted off topic, so I don't think we'll be booted for making it into an EMS discussion forum... at least not just yet. :-)
> 
> - John R.

I think we are in agreement.  I'm merely comparing the new style to the old certification.  The old way (according to the guys I've talked) was to teach students how to determine the "norm", then determine what's wrong with the patient, then treat the ailment with various treatments also taught.

With the newer style (which I was taught) feels much more like treating symptoms.  E.G., if the patient has symptoms X,Y,Z, then do A,B,C.  This is what I meant by protocol.... procedure is perhaps a better word? Protocol has a slightly different meaning in this field.

Of course we /never/ step outside what we are allowed to do.  For instance, as an EMT-B, I'm not permitted to start an IV.  I never have, and probably never will.

John

>> As for the part about confidence, I find that to be more true about life in general than any specific profession.  It's rare that I'm not confident... sometimes I'll be confident that I don't know something, but confident nonetheless.

Sorry to <snip> the rest, but I wanted to just say:

IMX, the smarter and wiser someone is, or has become, the greater their appreciation for their ignorance.

Mike Gunderloy was nice enough to review IC++ (http://www.adtmag.com/blogs/devcentral/blog.asp?id=10458) and said that "Matthew Wilson is ... fearsomely knowledgable about C++". It made me both blush and laugh. I'll tell you why.

The late '90s was a time when C++ knowledge was more highly prized than perhaps it is now, and it's certainly the case that the language was younger and there was less of the upper-echelon (TMP anyone??) than now abounds. I can remember how, with (in hindsight) mortifying hubris, I used to think that there couldn't be more than a few dozen people on earth who knew more C++ than I did.

I look back on the code I used to write then and am very embarassed. If I had under my care someone producing that stuff, I'd be giving them an intense remedial course in both C++ practice and professional ethics. I'd also make them read "The Art of UNIX Programming", with particular focus on the principles of simplicity and discoverability, at the least.

Furthermore, in terms of the scope of what I then knew about C++, my sentiment was utterly absurd. I knew barely any generics, didn't really comprehend the C++ object model particularly well, and knew far less about portability than I do now.

I now *know* that I'm not all-knowing on C++. Indeed, it's still the case that I am constantly surprised at what I don't know. I don't know how many people there are who know more than C++ than I do, but I'm pretty confident it's four or more figures, and not 2!

However, ..., the counterpoint to this is that I have learned an appropriate interpretation of confidence in my practice of C++. I know now that, by dint of will, experience and the almost infinite variety of capabilities of this strange language, that I can make C++ do almost anything I dream up.

I now think that the specifics of a language, and any attendant langauge lawyering, are far less important than a person's desire, intent, dedication, pride in their work and, importantly, perspective on their own skills. Furthermore, I now know that it's just as important to have access to people more knowledgable and/or experienced than oneself. We are fortunate in this group that both criteria are amply satisfied.

> Well, it won't be the first time this newsgroup has drifted off topic, so I don't think we'll be booted for making it into an EMS discussion forum... at least not just yet. :-)

No fear! It's interesting to read about the lives of people with different experiences. I hope that this characteristic of the Digital Mars newsgroups never changes.


Cheers

:-)

Matthew

In article <cu90sj$1e0s$2@digitaldaemon.com>, John Demme says...
>
>As for protocol vs improv, I agree that improv is the way to go, but in my (admittly short) experience, at home in New Jersey, we are being push to the protocol side.  Do we practice that way?  Only to an extent, and most interactions with other units.
>
>I don't like the way it's heading, but I was told during my initial EMT training, that all EMTs do (officially) is follow protocol.  Unfortunate.
>
>I wonder if there's some way to relate this to software?
>

Absolutely there is.

I feel that every programmer here, from novice to expert, can acknowledge that sometimes your bookshelf will fail (if not outright betray) you.  At some point, all that study, experience and peparation boils down to how well you can improvise a good solution to the problem.  After all, I doubt we'd all be in this if there wasn't *some* kind of creative element involved here.

I'd like to think that being an EMT has a certain "MacGuyver" feel to it.  I know that engineering certainly does. :)

Now perhaps this a bit too mechanistic for some folks, but the human body is basically a wonderfully complicated machine. I'll add that its so "perfect" that it doesn't run without fault but has built-in fault protection... like D!

To add to this relationship, an anesthesiologist friend of mine tends to draw parallels between patient treatment and hacking his G5.

So like software engineering, medical treatment of most forms involves the same basic skills:

- Understanding a complex web of interacting parts/systems
- Identifying where the problem is (and what if possible)
- Applying a proven or improvised solution
- Knowing when a problem is unsolvable

Now in the workplace, the protocol vs intuition bit is a big issue.  Take a look at the Capability Maturity Model for example.  It basically says that in order to progress as a software engineering team, you must adopt rigid controls in order to mitigate risk, error and ultimately achieve reasonable timelines and deliveries.

http://www.emoxie.com/whitepapers/CMMandISO9001-v2.html

Now, what does CMM have to do with being an EMT?  The model drives home the notion that relying on "Heroes" is fine for a start, but you need to not rely upon superstar talent in order to have repeatable success.  I immediately thought of this concept when you mentioned your boss' words.  For an EMT, in order to mitigate risk of litigation and loss of life, strict protocols and procedures are needed to maintain an acceptable standard of service.

http://www.ee.ryerson.ca:8080/~elf/hack/heroes.html

(I'm also a former boy-scout, so I'm familiar with basic first aid.  I remember becomming CPR certified a decade ago, and all the rules that come with it; and that was just for "patient has no breathing and maybe a pulse".  But I can only imagine what being trained for gunshots wounds, auto accidents, massive burns, deep knife wounds, severe head trauma, field triage, et al. would entail. ::shudder::)

The good thing is that in both fields one can acknowledge that while *depending* on heroics isn't a good idea, such talent is always a boon to business.

- EricAnderton at yahoo

pragma wrote:
> I'd like to think that being an EMT has a certain "MacGuyver" feel to it.  I
> know that engineering certainly does. :)

I'd like to think that as well, unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately for the patient) it's not quite like that.  As John said, we are /very/ responsible for our actions.

Brings to mind a story I was told wherein the first EMT to the scene did an emergency tracheostomy... with his pen knife.  As I recall, he saved the patient's life, but got the boot.

John

John Reimer wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> Now that everyone knows that's is just an "act", we're ruined.... Oh no! :-D
> 

I don't think I'll ever go to a hospital again.... lol...

_______________________
Carlos Santander Bernal

John Reimer wrote:
> Walter wrote:
> 
>> "John Reimer" <brk_6502@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:cu6h5v$2tl5$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>>> I think few people in this field fit the stereotypical geek profile
>>
>>
>> anymore.
>>
>> I do.
>>
>>
> 
> He he, well you must be a special, multi-faceted geek then, which makes you even more special than us wannabes.
> 
> Stereotypical geeks don't jog. I believe you do.
> 
> Stereotypical geeks don't rebuild novelty cars.  That's something you do, isn't it?
> 
> Walter, as much as you may aspire to it, I'm afraid I can't give you the official seal of stereotypical geekdom.  As one of your loyal fans, that can't happen. Yeah, you're a geek, but, sorry, you don't qualify for TV.
> 
> Ah, but who cares?
> 
> I guess it really doesn't matter anyway, does it?  More than half the people on the list have some sort of geek blood flowing through their veins or they wouldn't be sticking around to see where D goes.
> 
> Have I dug myself deep enough yet? :-)
> 
> - John R.
> 

I don't like to think I'm a geek. Not because I think it's a bad thing, but because the world we've created is full so many different things that just sticking to typical geek stuff doesn't make much sense to me (sorry to whoever feels affected by that). However, I must agree with John in that there's a bit of "geek-ness" in most of us, me in particular. The real problem with that is what Matthew said: that we human beings are so stupid to understand and accept each other. So, if we've chosen to be geeks, what's wrong with that?

I went to the beach with my family. I really like the beach: I like the sun, the sand, the sea, the food and the girls. But I don't like it when it's too crowded, like this past weekend (being carnival, there were the usual dose of tourists. Although some people were scared for the possibility of a tsunami). I much prefer to have peace and truly rest (which is different to "rest in peace"). However, against what I already know, I went out at night for the usual "Wild On" stuff. But I didn't enjoy it (it was not that bad, but it wasn't good either). I can't remember a single time when I went out at night and actually had a really good time. Due to that, many times I've chosen not to go, and people find that weird, think I'm crazy, think I'm a bored person. Why? Just because we find fun in different things?. I like sports, I like music, I like movies, I like TV. Most people like those things too: let's have fun with that. But I also like to be at home and I don't like crowds. Is that a bad thing? Am I/are we freaks who should be sent to another planet and leave the "normal" ones here?

That's were the problem is: after I don't know how many thousands of years of being at the top of the world, we still don't know how (or don't want) to accept that, while being the same, we are different and can't just force the rest to be like us. "Diversity of opinions is important: that's what make horse-racing possible".

_______________________
Carlos Santander Bernal