Talk:Advanced Medical Priority Dispatch System

Including DELTA, ECHO, and OMEGA

Unresolved

 – Article not reflective of new priority system, and no responses given after citations indicated

This page is outdated, the AMPDS/MPDS uses 5 determinint levels from A to E now (as per PriorityDispatch.com), with ECHO being resp/cardiac arrest/death and ALPHA being minor... There is also an OMEGA level which is for expected death.

Medic48 12:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Not come across that variation - there is nothing about this on the website you've given (a courier company), and certainly the current revision on here is still used in a few places. Do you have a citation? Owain.davies 18:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are is sources from the ProQA website itself

http://www.prioritydispatch.net/support/pdf/ProQA_3.4.2_Response_Configuration_Changes.pdf this includes the Echo & Omega response in the configuration files.

http://www.prioritydispatch.net/support/pdf/ProQA_User_Guide.pdf Also shows clear referenc to the ECHO and OMEGA response determinents. Medic48 03:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.prioritydispatch.net/index.php?a=products&b=advemdfrg_more shows an example of the field guide, where DELTA and ECHO classifications can be inferred. dafydd (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Clawson codes (merge)

It seems that Clawson codes really should be part of the overall information in Advanced Medical Priority Dispatch System. -- Whpq 21:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the spelling of "Clawson." However, that page is a redirect back to this one. If you have an outside link to Clawson codes, that would be best. dafydd (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OMEGA == SOINS HUMANITAIRES

from my understanding the OMEGA level is to be used for "bogus calls", eg: patient needs help getting back in to bed, no injuries, no emergencies, aka a soins humanitaires... doing a good deed for the patient. purpleidea (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright takedown request

Please do not revert when Wikimedia Foundation staff edit the article to remove material from a copyright takedown request. Instead come to the talk page and discuss or contact the member of the staff. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Would have been more clear if the removal had also noted "office action" in the edit summary. I reimposed the deletion once, then stopped doing so when another administrator reinserted it. I didn't think to check Cary's user page to see if he was a WMF employee. Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned DMCA takedown notice in the edit summary. While I will link to this page m:DMCA takedown notice in the future, in the summary, I expect any editor to take reasonable steps to understand *why* another editor removed it rather than blindly replacing it. I specifically said "DMCA takedown notice". If you did not understand what that was you could have taken the time to look and maybe that would have helped you understand what was being done instead of simply putting it back. I expect people to be that thoughtful regardless of whether an edit is done be me, an admin or another editor.Bastique (Cary Bass's personal account) ^demandez 19:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I followed up on this with Cary Bass. Unless someone files a DMCA counter notice, the removal of the copyrighted material needs to stand. The company made a legitimate DMCA notice which the Foundation and us need to honor. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Link to follow up explanation left by Cary Bass on Owain.davies's talk page.

OK, now i've not seen one of these before, but some quick research shows that you can issue a counter notice. I'm not entirely sure how to do this, but the advice seems to be that you need to see the original DMCA notice issued - anyone got any ideas how to get hold of it? OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 18:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't know anything more.

Is it really that important to the article? The company says that they own copyright, and went to the trouble of making a request to take it down. Are you sure enough of your position on the right to use the material and the need for it in the article that you want to spend time on this effort.

I know that you put in loads of work into the article and the table (and I appreciate your work), but to be perfectly frank, when I looked at the article today, I did not like the presentation of the table anyway. The full table overwhelms the article and is not understandable. So, I don't see it as a big lose to remove it. That is my personal observation, but I might not be the only one that see a problems with including the table. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

POV Original research

I've removed the following paragraph, as it is neither sourced nor neutral in its point of view:

The software is used widely but its validity is constantly questioned by first reponders in the pre hospital care environment. It is often accused of responding emergency vehicles under fast lights and siren situations for no good reason. The cause of this falling on questions asked to callers that are deliberately kept simple to avoid confusion. For example, call takers ask callers if the "patient is breathing normally" rather than is "the patient is having difficulty breathing" which is considered too technical. Consequently, a patient who is nauseated and vomiting may be considered to be having difficulty breathing as the caller notices that the patient is breathing differently from normal when vomiting. Breathing whilst vomiting does often appear different from normal breathing. This does not mean the patient is having difficulty breathing. The result is an ambulance dispatched under emergency driving conditions that creates an increased risk of accident and potential harm to responding paramedics and the community alike regardless of the care taken whilst driving. An experienced paramedic taking a call would be able to differentiate between the breathing differences of someone vomiting and someone who truly is having trouble breathing. For cost effectivness AMPDS does not generally use medically qualified and experienced call takers. It uses call takers trained to use the software rather than those experienced in the pre hospital care environment. This is a major and on going criticism of the AMPDS software.

~dom Kaos~ (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)