Firefighting & Rescue Social / Professional Network
Sure way to reduce LODDs each year.........but what is the give and take?
I've been away from this site for a bit, so thought I'd come back with what potentially could be an interesting discussion. While on Firehouse, at the NFA, and even a recent "safety stand down" day at the dept, there is talk about the number of LODDs a year and they unfortunately tend to hold steady.
It is no doubt that this job is inherently dangerous, despite what safety measures, precautions and training we take. However, we hear the preaching from many about the number of LODDs each year and we keep losing about the same amount despite our "best" efforts. Not only fireground, but seatbelts, to heart attacks are contributors to many LODD. Thing of it is, there is an easy way to reduce the number of LODDs each year just by changing the definition and timeline of what constitutes a LODD.
The kicker is what is the give and take of changing such definitions, and even me personally am at odds with this.....so maybe this will spark a discussion.
Here is the issue, today a LODD is pretty much a firefighter dying within 24 hours of a shift or a call. While the call or shift may have contributed to the death, is it really fair to call the death a LODD just because it falls in a time frame? Recently a FF became a LODD after working a shift and was busy in their second job when they died. Was it because of the shift? Moreso we hear about LODD from the volly world where a FF died 24 hours after responding to a call or something. Point is, the person could be at a pump panel for a false alarm, goes home and chops firewood and dies from an MI, but because it falls within the definition of a LODD it is one. A paper mill worker may have worked a double shift, may have been busy, leaves work and dies from an MI. No denying the job could definately play a factor in the death, but it isn't considered a "loss time" accident.
Now the flip side here is that changing the definition can reduce the number of LODDs each year, but that would mean a reduction in benefits for the member's family. Is this something we would want to give up to lower the number of LODDs a year?
I'm really not trying to be callous here, but we know that lowering your B/P, cholesterol and so forth will help us live healthier and longer, but is a cardiac related event 24 hours after a shift or call really the result of the job, or are there other factors involved? I too would love to get our LODDs to ZERO, yet it makes me wonder how we can call some deaths LODD when most other occupations wouldn't.
It is no doubt that this job is inherently dangerous, despite what safety measures, precautions and training we take. However, we hear the preaching from many about the number of LODDs each year and we keep losing about the same amount despite our "best" efforts. Not only fireground, but seatbelts, to heart attacks are contributors to many LODD. Thing of it is, there is an easy way to reduce the number of LODDs each year just by changing the definition and timeline of what constitutes a LODD.
The kicker is what is the give and take of changing such definitions, and even me personally am at odds with this.....so maybe this will spark a discussion.
Here is the issue, today a LODD is pretty much a firefighter dying within 24 hours of a shift or a call. While the call or shift may have contributed to the death, is it really fair to call the death a LODD just because it falls in a time frame? Recently a FF became a LODD after working a shift and was busy in their second job when they died. Was it because of the shift? Moreso we hear about LODD from the volly world where a FF died 24 hours after responding to a call or something. Point is, the person could be at a pump panel for a false alarm, goes home and chops firewood and dies from an MI, but because it falls within the definition of a LODD it is one. A paper mill worker may have worked a double shift, may have been busy, leaves work and dies from an MI. No denying the job could definately play a factor in the death, but it isn't considered a "loss time" accident.
Now the flip side here is that changing the definition can reduce the number of LODDs each year, but that would mean a reduction in benefits for the member's family. Is this something we would want to give up to lower the number of LODDs a year?
I'm really not trying to be callous here, but we know that lowering your B/P, cholesterol and so forth will help us live healthier and longer, but is a cardiac related event 24 hours after a shift or call really the result of the job, or are there other factors involved? I too would love to get our LODDs to ZERO, yet it makes me wonder how we can call some deaths LODD when most other occupations wouldn't.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on -
Our concern should be the issue of the money running out and nobody getting any $ for a true LODD.
When they changed the PSOB definitions to add a certain time frame post emergency response, then of course the numbers are going to increase from before. How can it not??? Considering if you work a 2/2/4 and run every shift then there is about only one or two days a week that the brother is not considered a LODD?
-
Permalink Reply by Jim on -
Keep in mind that the PSOB rules also call for nonroutine strenuous activity to rule it a LODD. Being the operator at an activated alarm system call that turns out to be nothing may not meet the definition. Working interior at a large fire certainly would. The stress level on the heart after such activity could lead to problems that show up within 24 hours that claim a life.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on -
Keep in mind that the PSOB rules also call for nonroutine strenuous activity to rule it a LODD
Is it? Because if looking back there have been LODD where a person was found deceased at a station and the report usually goes after running some alarms. Well on the career side of things, that is your job, respond to calls and most are quite routine. Thing is the person could have responded to a few EMS calls where they physically never got out of the rig, but responded to a few and later died, it is still classified as a LODD regardless if there was strenuous activity or not.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim on
-
The difference in your example is that the firefighter is on duty. Also note that I said that being the operator MAY not meet the requirement. Stress on a firefighter's heart starts from the time the tones drop.
Requiring physicals at least every two years for all firefighters, career or volunteer, would be a great step towards reducing heart attack LODDs.
This is why it is important to always tell someone if you're not feeling well during/after a call. If you have it documented and then have a heart attack doing something else strenuous, at least there's proof that it started on the job.
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
I think the PSOB should require that the fire chief of the lost brother provide proof of "fit for duty" prior to the firefighter who died in the line of duty. Proof within a certain time frame like within 1 or 2 years not 20 years ago and the requirement should be NFPA 1582 physical and not the average personal MD providing a note saying the firefighter should be fit for duty, otherwise no proof - deny the family death benefits all together.
That would reduce the numbers, because I would bet more than half of the cardiac and stroke related deaths today were undiagnoised or the fire department (Paid or VFD) have absolutely NO annual medical screening program. Defintion wise, years ago these were not considered LODD's.
Two fold, it would cap the working age and we would see less 80 year old LODD's, when the brother would have been forced to retire years ago. Airline pilots, truck drivers, all have medical standards that eventually they are told time to hang up the uniform due to the physical condition or age of the employee...
Nobody would feel comfortable with an airline pilot being rolled via wheel chair into the cockpit because he is so old, but currently if the fire chief says he still comes down and is an active member, then he is considered an LODD is the pager goes beep-beep-beep
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Two fold, it would cap the working age and we would see less 80 year old LODD's, when the brother would have been forced to retire years ago.
There in leads to another quandry here.....at what point is too old to be a firefighter or even on the fireground?
As it is, you see many people of retirement age who are capable of contributing to a dept in some way, albeit usually not as a line FF, but still can contribute, so at what point do you tell someone they can't be on a dept? Is there really a magic age? No, there isn't. Thing is that 70 or so Chief or what have you could be on the fireground either assisting a command role, doing rehab, accountability, or any other non-strenuous job and can still die from a cardiac event hours later and still be considered an LODD.
-
Permalink Reply by Oldman on -
Medical screenings were not done years ago. Heart attacks and strokes were not considered LODD a few years ago. Health and driving programs were unheard of years ago.
However, the numbers of deaths haven't really changed that much. Just placed in different categories and defined differently from years ago, but the total stays stagnant.
The ONLY sure thing in life, IS death.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
but the total stays stagnant.
Absolutely, and also part of the issue at hand. In years past we didn't have the PPE we have today, apparatus was not to the standards of today, training was not where you see it as today, but yes the numbers stay stagnant. The issue is because the LODD definitions are they way they are, lets say you make it that the person has to die as a direct result of injuries or event suffered on the scene, going to or back from the call to be considered a LODD and the numbers would drop dramatically. Make the defitions to be within 12 hours after a confirmed busy shift and the numbers would drop and so forth. Problem is you sacrifice benefits to family. Problem is the person may have been fine at the scene of the incident, but died because of a cardiac event induced from cleanup of the scene 12 plus hours later, so again where does it get classed... see the issue?
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Tomlinson on -
Boy, I'll tell ya what I'm on the fence about this.
In the one instance, was it the busy day on "the job" that killed him or the second job? Could it have been health? Who really knows? But again, if you remove these types of deaths from the definition of LODD, then families miss out on possibly much needed money.
And to argue the point a bit further, let's say you have someone working a 24-hour shift and the entire day did not respond to a single call. He lays down that night to sleep and never wakes up. Is that an LODD? Yes, he was at the fire station, I'm just saying it's not like the LODD's that make headline news stories.
Sounds like if the definition is changed, it's going to involve politics and who has the strongest voice in lobbying the issue. It will be interesting to watch I think.
~Chris
F.D. Web Design
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Sounds like if the definition is changed, it's going to involve politics and who has the strongest voice in lobbying the issue. It will be interesting to watch I think.
You have the same train of thought as me, it really is difficult to make the call one way or the other, really what do we give up? Thing is, we really don't need politics involved here, but in a way we do too. In fact is was because of the number of LODDs from the past that we could push for requirements and financing to be budgeted to protect FF's with new gear, apparatus, standards and so forth, otherwise we know how the shady politicians would deem priority.
On the flip, the problem is some of the same people telling us in the fire service we need to reduce the number of LODDs are the same ones going to the elected officials saying we lose over 100 guys a year in this field. You don't see the cops playing the same game to get funding, but we see it in our ranks. Then again do police have the same definitions for a LODD, not really, but there is the issue and the biggest issue I have here. The same fire service leaders telling us we need to reduce LODD are the same ones willing to change and tweak the definitions and then go before elected leaders and say we are still losing over 100 FFs a year.
Tough to say where to stand, if it was me, I want to know my family is taken care of, was it the call or was it the other job or underlying issue? Is this what we need to do to get the politicians to actually listen?
-
Permalink Reply by Jim on
-
Billy Goldfeder had a good point on all of this years ago. He said that maybe we need to have two categories - LODD and on-duty. LODDs would be real-killed in a collapse, apparatus MVC, and on-duty would be everything else, such as heart attacks in the station, etc. Maybe we need to think about it.
-
Permalink Reply by Capt 723 on -
Changing the definition of a LODD really won't reduce deaths and improve the overall ability of the service to meet the needs of the public. Changing the definition of what constitutes a LODD only changes the economics and the statistics. It doesn't change the facts: 1.Firefighting is strenuous, stressful and inherently dangerous and these factors have a tendency to accumulate and result in cardiac and/or other illnesses, 2. Many persons involved in this profession, both career and volunteer, haven't, or won't take the necessary steps to further their overall well being.
Maybe the change that needs to be made is defining what constitutes being "fit for active duty".
One caveat here...People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...my house isn't glass but it does have a BIG window:))
Sign in
Latest Nation Member Activity
People who drive and operate these giants we call firetrucks.
Stupid...just plain stupin...I know let's have another friggin table-top
My department has a few different tankers throughout the districts but we have a county wide semi that is a 10.00 gallon fuel type trailer with six 2 1/2 discharges
FFN eMail Alerts
© 2009 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief, an Elsevier Public Safety & Go Forward Media, LLC Product - Partners: JEMS Connect - FireRescue - JEMS
• Contact Us: Report an Issue, Inquire About Advertising & Partnerships
This site is intended for use by current and former fire, rescue & EMS professionals. Non emergency service personnel may be subject to review and removal. Using this site inappropriately to spam/advertise or solicit members in any way will result in account termination. Commercial companies may have profiles, but blogs, forums, videos and photos may not be used for self-promotion.
Badges | Contact Firefighter Nation | Privacy | Terms of Service
