RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's how the AED thing went down. Either OSHA mandated, or somebody had a heart attack and sued, and some layer of management decided to implement the system, resulting in the training program. However, the lawyers or the insurance guys stepped in and said, "wait a minute, suppose somebody gets defibbed and dies anyways. Now you're liable. Are you a medical professional? No? Because that's what their lawyers are going to ask when they sue you. Biennial training won't CYA on that. Or worse, say somebody fries a stroke victim because he thinks it's a heart attack. Joe Cashier can't diagnose that. Just having these systems creates a huge liability for you." Only OSHA still mandates the training, or the managerial policy makers haven't caught on yet.
At the risk of being flamed, I would like to draw attention to some aspects of the OIG report that I think have been misinterpreted by the media and use it in a helpful Pathfinderish sort of way. ^_^
I will refer to the OIG report directly: http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2013/OIG_13-06_Nov12.pdf
The OIG sampled 479 people out of 123,000 field users.
The sample base is 0.38%.
The OIG sampled 382 radios. If 123,000 field users are issued a radio, it stands to reason that there are 123,000 radios in service.
The sample base is 0.31%.
The question is not "using radios" in general, but rather meeting all of the "defined interoperability settings" recommended (but not adopted) by the DHS components involved in radio operations.
The OIG wanted to make a point that nobody was following its recommendations -- they make it clear in the introduction section.
This is telling:
"DHS created working groups, committees, and offices to explore Department-wide communication issues, including interoperability. However, none had the authority to implement and enforce their recommendations."
In other words, every agency knew how to talk to their people -- but collectively, they didn't feel the need to talk to each other.
After reading the OIG report, it is not my reading that DHS doesn't know how to use radios. It's that there was no single body or working group empowered to establish a cross-agency standard or given incentive to ensure that this standard was met and consistently supported.
In terms of Pathfinder?
If we all don't communicate and share ideas and work constructively and collaboratively, we wind up building "work arounds" and house rules that "fork" Pathfinder in the same was as software systems.
Let the DHS issues with radios be a lesson in working together, communicating, and sharing ideas in our little Pathfinder community so that we're all still able to talk to each other and keep improving. ^_^
RD,
The sample group does seem small, but rest assured that all DHS employees are not issued these radios. There are valid operational reasons for many DHS employees not to have access to radios in general and these radios in particular.
That said, the folks who need access to these systems (Incident Command Personnel and other responders) frequently don't have access to the hardware and tech support and training to use system correctly. Some DHS personnel who have experience with this system from the military are frustrated that they had to basically retrain themselves. DHS inter agency coordination tends to be a problem because so few people in various agencies are trained. They are also concerned that the system will be very limited in its usefulness coordinating with state and local first responders because they aren't getting training either.
There has been some good feedback regarding Army National Guard units using this system to coordinate with some DHS assets in actual responses, I'm told.
Aeds can be misused all too easily but I think your company is going too far in their caution. Either someone isn't telling took sometime else or a mid level manager is being really cheap.
Im curious as to how they can be misused. They seem pretty fool-proof, not advising shock unless V-fib is detected and so on. But I'll admit that I really dont know, as we dont have one. Despite having two cardiac deaths in the past 15 years.
I'm not a lawyer, but I was also under the impression that Good Samaritan laws would protect the user, but I suppose that depends on the jurisdiction.
I would guess that the relevant regulation requires some level of First Aid or CPR training and the course they use has AED training as part of it, but the company isn't required to supply AEDs, so they don't.
Yeah, Good Samaritan laws protect the user, as long as they dont exceed their training. (No emergency tracheotomies, for instance.)
You have to use the included razor to shave hairy chests to prevent people from catching fire.
Which is both drawn and written on every AED Ive ever seen.
|
You have to use the included razor to shave hairy chests to prevent people from catching fire.Which is both drawn and written on every AED Ive ever seen.
Very true, but fool-proof doesn't reach the point where the scale of fools tops out. There are certainly ways in which they could be misused. However, I agree that they are simple enough to be standard first-aid equipment.
I would more say that people panic than they are inherently foolish. Life and death situations can be like that.
"Doing it on the cheap."According to the article 123,000 employees and $430 million would mean ~ $3,495 for hardware, training and support per employee if every employee had hardware. It's safe to assume that not every employee has one of these radios.
What do you think DHS and TSA are more efficient than?
Again, these agencies aren't just going to Radio Shack and buying stuff off the shelf. There is a contract to be given to a large corporate entity to provide that equipment, maintenance, programming, and training. Many of those companies are only being tasked with one part of this equation. Of course, training can't start until EVERYONE is equipped because our contract is a one-time only, train-everyone-at-once contract. Programming can't start until everyone has a radio. Etc, etc ad nauseum...
It would be terribly against the free market and capitalism to make these private contractors eat it for cost overruns, failure to complete contract requirements, or any other reason they have for accepting a contract they can't fullfil. It is the government's duty to hand over more money to that same contractor or a new one who may or may not do the same thing. It shows trust in the free market.
"Doing it on the cheap."According to the article 123,000 employees and $430 million would mean ~ $3,495 for hardware, training and support per employee if every employee had hardware. It's safe to assume that not every employee has one of these radios.
What do you think DHS and TSA are more efficient than?
Again, these agencies aren't just going to Radio Shack and buying stuff off the shelf. There is a contract to be given to a large corporate entity to provide that equipment, maintenance, programming, and training. Many of those companies are only being tasked with one part of this equation. Of course, training can't start until EVERYONE is equipped because our contract is a one-time only, train-everyone-at-once contract. Programming can't start until everyone has a radio. Etc, etc ad nauseum...
It would be terribly against the free market and capitalism to make these private contractors eat it for cost overruns, failure to complete contract requirements, or any other reason they have for accepting a contract they can't fullfil. It is the government's duty to hand over more money to that same contractor or a new one who may or may not do the same thing. It shows trust in the free market.
There is some validity to your first paragraph, but the second is entirely off base. It's so off base that I can't tell if you meant it as sarcasm or not.
Obviously in a nation of laws and and market competition the parties abide by the terms of the contract unless it's modified by mutual consent. In the real world of private and government contracting there are very real consequences for failing to meet contract obligations. I have personally seen companies driven out of business by these failures which is exactly how it should be.
A huge problem with defense and municipal contracts is crony-ism. Well connected contractors often get rewarded for failure to meet contract obligations with favorable contract modifications and undeserved bonuses. Contractors who are not as well connected are put at a tremendous competitive disadvantage even though they may be better contractors. Obviously this has a horrible influence on how government works or fails to work. This is made even worse by issues like no bid awards and contracts that are specifically written with the intention of favoring certain contractors. The system is corrupt to the point of being broken.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Of course, training can't start until EVERYONE is equipped because our contract is a one-time only, train-everyone-at-once contract. Programming can't start until everyone has a radio. Etc, etc ad nauseum...
[...]
...A huge problem with defense and municipal contracts is crony-ism. Well connected contractors often get rewarded for failure to meet contract obligations with favorable contract modifications and undeserved...
I've also found that even in the complete absence of fraud, waste, abuse, or malfeasance that you have an inherent problem in having contract specialists and procurement specialists (who do a wonderful job of buying "x widget" and "y sprocket" at the best possible terms) buy exactly what they're told to buy in a purchase order, not realizing that this item requires other things (like training, spare parts kits, secure storage) because they don't need to, and no review of the finalized procurement contract by the end-users.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Of course, training can't start until EVERYONE is equipped because our contract is a one-time only, train-everyone-at-once contract. Programming can't start until everyone has a radio. Etc, etc ad nauseum...[...]
I've also found that even in the complete absence of fraud, waste, abuse, or malfeasance that you have an inherent problem in having contract specialists and procurement specialists (who do a wonderful job of buying "x widget" and "y sprocket" at the best possible terms) buy exactly what they're told to buy in a purchase order, not realizing that this item requires other things (like training, spare parts kits, secure storage) because they don't need to, and no review of the finalized procurement contract by the end-users.
...A huge problem with defense and municipal contracts is crony-ism. Well connected contractors often get rewarded for failure to meet contract obligations with favorable contract modifications and undeserved...
This is consistent with my experience as well. IME it's much worse in the public sector, but I have seen some dreadfully wasteful examples in manufacturing as well.
"Cool the company bought a shiny new half million dollar production tool!"
"What do mean it doesn't work? The software is a different contract so we have a half million dollar paper weight taking up space on the production floor!?!"
"WTF do mean we're not getting raises again this year!?!"