Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    28

    Default Request a Lucas Chest Compression System

    Has anyone requested and been awarded a Geezer Squeezer ( Auto Pulse or Lucas Unit) I cannot find it on the list of equipment.


  2. #2
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,697

    Default

    Yes, several, they're Medium priority this year. Haven't done an EMS app entry yet, probably tomorrow so if no one else posts first I'll see what might work. On the FD side the only thing that seems to work is Specialized. Not much in the way of choices.

  3. #3
    Forum Member SLY4420's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,950

    Default

    EMS Equipment selections were one of the things that were consolidated/cleaned up this year in the application.

    For Fire-based EMS, easiest selection is "EMS/Rescue Equipment" which is your catch-all category for EMS equipment. If you are non-affiliated EMS you can choose between "ALS/BLS Equipment" or "EMS/Rescue (explain)."

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Thanks..we will give it a shot.

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber ktb9780's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Auburndale, FL
    Posts
    6,031

    Default

    UUUMMHHH I hope you did not miss that point BC79er made about them being a medium priority! Very little if any chance for anything being funded at less than High priority when there is this little money in the program.
    Kurt Bradley
    Public Safety Grants Consultant

    "Never Trade Skill for Luck"

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,697

    Default

    Kurt's point being that make sure you don't have anything that's naturally higher ranking before deciding it is the project for your department/squad. They were medium last year too and were funded, so if the argument is there they can hit.

    And if a higher ranking priority has no argument, it's the same effect as it being a Low priority, meaning it won't fare well either. Had several where the PPE was bypassed because the argument wasn't as solid as a Medium priority project, and since the numbers is only half the battle and the argument gets read last, better to have that bulletproofed than figure a high priority request will do it by itself.

  7. #7
    Forum Member EMT6126's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Byrdstown TN>
    Posts
    175

    Default

    Wrote a lot of ems for equipment, this year and years before. Distance to a definitive cardiac facility is a factor. Distance to a local hospital is a good factor. How many transports that would have made a difference if a lucas was involved. How the medic can perform other duties while lucas is running. Just some thought that might help. Jeff
    I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

  8. #8
    Forum Member islandfire03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,535

    Default

    Remember also that you can't ask for funding for a Zoll geezer squeezer or a lucas thumper by name. You have to ask for funding for a mechanical CPR assist device.

    They are a hard sell as cost benefit is high on them unless you run a lot of cardiac arrests. The studies done to date have not proven them to make a definitive difference in longterm survival numbers.
    If you go to AHA site they reference several of the studies done on fairly large numbers of pt's. Cardiac care in the field is a rapidly changing science. Asking for an expensive item that is listed class IIIB may not be the best use of your grant app..
    A power stretcher that is used on every call versus a device used rarely but the same price $$$$
    Cost benefit!!!
    Yes the sales reps preach incredible #'s , but the studies don't necessarily agree.


    I say this as a service chief that bought the first geezer squeezer in our state, & have seen it work for ROSC, but the long term survival is not improved at 6 months to a year over non mechanical CPR.

    Under our new protocols we are not supposed to transport a pt in arrest.
    Work them for 20 minutes on scene and go 4 rounds of full ACLS meds and if no ROSC then call it there.

    Then again we have 30 + minutes transport to nearest hospitals , so they figure if no ROSC in the field, then the odds are slim to none that flogging a body all the way to the hospital is going to make any difference.
    Last edited by islandfire03; 11-25-2013 at 10:01 PM.

  9. #9
    Forum Member EMT6126's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Byrdstown TN>
    Posts
    175

    Default

    Ed is absolutely correct. It will be a hard sell, BUT possible as we don't know all the factors of your grant. In the words of BC79er, Roll the dice you never know. Jeff
    I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

  10. #10
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,697

    Default

    Depends on which studies you look at too, even the AHA is backtracking some of their earlier findings, might be because of technology improvements. Have 1 department that went from 1 out of 10 return of pulse to 5 out of 10 return of pulse using the CPR device. Seen several others that were beta-test locations and went from 27% up to 46%, dang near doubling the save rate. No offense to anyone, but if I code I'm thinking I'd rather have one than not squeezing the bejesus out of me.

    Plus you have safety in transport, I'd be lying if I said I was never hanging on the ceiling railing and running one-handed compressions, or sitting belted while I held whoever was thumping chest from going all over the place in the back.

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Fort Smith, AR
    Posts
    66

    Default

    I didn't mention anything about the AHA standards, studies, or even suggest that mechanical compressions were better than human compressions. Our application focused on crew safety and was funded.

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,697

    Default

    An AMA study was one of the reasons they claimed they shouldn't fund them at all, due to a supposed lack of evidence that they were effective, regardless of crew safety. Wasn't until they took a look and realized that the only study was 2006 that AHA cited, and they wouldn't review all of the newer ones so they could voice an updated position, just kept the 6 year old view that they didn't work.

    Of course after evidence was presented showing they were effective, and that crew safety was a huge part of it, they did an about face last year on that standing after awarding some in 2011 and then not wanting to do others after that point.

  13. #13
    Forum Member islandfire03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,535

    Default

    preaching to the choir here Brian: However as I said , we were the first to buy the autopulse in our state. We have had success with it and the machine does non stop compressions better than any human can.

    However since then our state has decided that all mechanical compression devices can no longer be used due to evidence based studies .

    I've read just about every study done in the past 10 years and the numbers are really all over the place as far as long term survivability after ROSC improvement with mechanical devices.

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber Casco18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Dove tailing what Islandfire said.

    Check with your State EMS Office first. A lot of money (public and private) was spent in Maine. Just to have the EMS people say "no good" take them off your trucks.
    "There's no such thing as a bad day,
    Some are just better than others." JFR 1914-1997

  15. #15
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,697

    Default

    Problem with medicine is that a lot of the decision makers are reviewing old stuff. Working with 2 departments that were beta study locations over the past 2 years for current technology, not the old style that all these studies claiming they don't work.

    After all, now they're saying CPR isn't any more effective with rescue breathing than without, so let's stop doing the breathing part in civilian CPR. So does that mean we shouldn't do it unless they're tubed? Got one department that running a sudden cardiac arrest save rate of 17.9% vs 8.5% national average. Witnesses SCAs save rate 46.9% vs 26.3% nationwide. CPR Devices been in use for years along with AEDs and community education, population of almost 200k.

    And then there's the engineer in me that can easily say it's an easy movement to mimic with a machine. One time that I will say the machine can do something tactfully and more consistently when it involves a human than another human can do under the same conditions. Just my .02, worth every bit of the paper this thought isn't written on...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Closeout issues , system generating payment request
    By chiefb1 in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-04-2013, 09:28 AM
  2. Compression Vs. Exhaust Brake
    By MG3610 in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 01-17-2007, 01:10 PM
  3. International Chassis Compression Brake Warning!!!!
    By tomwnh in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-22-2005, 11:55 AM
  4. water compression
    By CaptainMikey in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-03-2004, 10:02 PM
  5. LUCAS
    By ENGINE1631 in forum University of Extrication
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-24-2001, 12:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts