Printable View
We spend much time on this forum discussing LODD's, as we should. But I am sure everyone here knows what the leading cause of Firefighter LODD's is. What are your thoughts on this issue and what are you and your Department doing to improve the situation???
'Traumatic injuries' is the leading cause of US firefighters deaths and this is on the increase. Heart attacks are the second highest cause of LODDs but this is steadily on the decrease as a cause and is well below the average cause of death when compared with the general 'non-firefighter' population.
A lot can be still done to reduce BOTH LODD stat's.
Members with prior heart conditions should not be actively serving :eek: and all firehouses should get a Coram patented fitness centre/juice bar :D to encourage a structured and healthy lifestyle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulGRIMWOOD
I guess the 40 inch TV is optional :p
JOn
I'm not sure where you got your data. For 2004, 66 out of 117 LODDs were the result of "Stress and Overexertion" (Source: US Fire Administration)Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulGRIMWOOD
Our department has implemented a welness program and a physical fitness coordinator.Quote:
Originally Posted by HM604OH
We've been going in for physicals and been getting PT tests every year for the past five or six years.
They've been able to get some good stats and records on us. If nothing else it motivates a lot of us to get on the ball if we are doing poorly.
I think all the stations have work out equipment now. Getting an old fart like me to work out is another problem. :D
Hard to give up chicken fried deer backstrap and catfish.
Yes 2004 was a dramatic year in the stats for 'over exertion' victims (not all but mostly due to heart attacks). But if you go back over the past decade the heart attack LODDs totalled 44%. Approximately 2 firefighters go LODD per 100,000 fires through heart attack .... this increases to over 2.3 firefighters for traumatic injuries (inside structures) .... over past ten years.Quote:
Originally Posted by HM604OH
Also note, heart attacks that occur within 24 hours of the incident are now being considered LODD, at least in NJ. This only started in the last year or two.
Our department is doing absolutely nothing! Our city is scared of the liability if a firefighter has a heart attack during any type of exercise, and is to cheap to send us to an annual physical. Now that hurricane Katrina as wipe out our city this will not change anytime soon.
My department pays to have the batteries in my pace-maker changed every year. Does that count as helping? I am just kidding of course.
I know this is a serious subject, but some of our departments cant afford a pot to **** in or a window to throw it out of. Excersize equipment is the farthest thing from our minds. We, as individuals, notice how exhausted we are after a hard call and that is our motivation to stay fit.
I think a greater emphasis on wellness/physical training is in need, but how do you do that when we are already strapped for personel?
I have to respectfully disagree with some of what I've read from other posts, including posts in other threads on this subject. THE REST OF THE WORLD NEEDS TO BUTT OUT OF MY LIFESTYLE. I happen to be quite healthy and in very good shape for my age (64). I have a thorough physical on a regular basis, most recent was last month, which include the requirements for a CDL Drivers License which I currently hold. CDL Physicals are tougher than most folks realize, and my Doc is very good at finding anything that needs attention. Point here is that a person needs an ADEQUATE checkup, on a regular basis, and they need to follow their doctors advice. When Doctor Dave tells me to get off the rig, I'll get off, I am not getting off because of other people's opinion of how the rules should read. I do not agree that someone with a prior Heart Attack should automatically be removed from active status. I DO agree that such a person should be guided by his/her doctor's advice. I'll say what no one else wants to admit, We will never attain a zero LODD year in America's Fire Service. It is an admirable goal, and I support doing what is reasonable to reduce the numbers, but there are a few folks out there who are starting to look a bit more than reasonable in their ideas for attaining such a goal.
Over the past 25 years, medical documentation has been available for 670 of the 1,236 firefighter heart attack victims. Of those 670 victims, 49.1 percent had had prior heart attacks or bypass surgery and another 31.3 percent had severe arteriosclerotic heart disease. Another 12.7 percent had hypertension or diabetes.
I find those statistics pretty alarming. However, without wishing to be right .... or voicing an unpopular opinion .... or at the risk of causing any colleagues offense .... I think the matter is worthy of debate.
What we are talking about are -
1. The right to one's freedom of choice. One chooses to do the job, with a medical history of heart related problems, and one has the right to do so. Beyond question in most situations I would imagine.
2. Whether that 'right' should be taken away, for whatever reason.
Now I respect anybody's decision, where able, to serve a community as a firefighter or active chief for as long as that person wants to do the job. I would secretly like to see myself doing the same. However, is that person potentially putting the lives of colleagues at any risk? That depends on what situations that firefighter is likely to find him/herself in.
If a firefighter/chief is able to undertake fire-ground duties from an exterior and safe position then I don't see a major problem as long as ICS is maintained. If that person expects to operate on the interior of burning structures then I do see an issue here.
With deepest of respect.
Well I must admit, there are definitely parts of the operation in which someone with medical problems can help the department. I would just worry about someone who has had a heart attack agressively fighting fire for more than a short time. Not saying they cant go back after a short rest and a check-up (after all, we already have EMS onscene for rehab in most cases), but no long periods of time humping hose and working their tails off. A direct, labor intensive, attack on a fire runs healthy young lads down. I can only imagine how someone who is 300 lbs, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and weak heart may feel. There is more to fighting fire than charging in with a hose, and some of those jobs are perfect for those of us who are less fit than others.
It not only poses a threat to the well-being of the out of shape member, but it also endangers those in which he is paired up with. If a 300 lb guy has fallen, it is up to the other guy to try and drag him to safety. Some of us wont leave a guy, so we may die along with him because we are doing all we can to help him. Not a risk we should have to take.
We have several guys who are either a little bigger, or a little older, and sometimes bigger and older. Our department would suffer greatly if any of these individuals were cut because they didn't fit in the "mold" of what a physically fit guy represents.
With that said, I would not support a physical requirement to be ON the department. But I would support a physical test to determine what all the person is allowed to do at the scene. If you cant pass basic skills and physical tests, you should pick another duty that you would be more of a help performing.