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 Truckinainteasy on -
We should start with the things we can fix today. STOP at red signals and STOP signs. Wear seat belts. Enforce POV safe operations.
Train officers continuously in size up and risk management. Actively manage incidents and use the right manpower for structural fires.
I don't agree with a fitness assessment to collect PSOB funds. While some of the LODD claims astound me and I think really serve to skew our actually LODD numbers, I wouldn't support screwing a brothers family because his department wouldn't provide a screening.
-
Permalink Reply by Bill Carey on -
I agree with you and will add that the intentions, starting with what we can fix today, will always only be intentions. At a conference two years ago that involved FH mag, FE.com, Close Calls and others, the point was made that our intentions are just lip service unless there is some reward and punishment involved. That's why I include in my reasoning that unless efforts to reduce LODDs also involve the financial part of the PSOB Survivors Act, then very little will change.
The odds are, very likely looking at the past, that before this year is over another firefighter will die in an apparatus accident most likely involving not having worn a seatbelt or having apparatus driven carelessly. The only interventions currently available are proactive in reinforcing good habits, but we have nothing in the form of a punishment, that also reinforces good habits. The only thing that will happen will be the rally to sign the seatbelt petition and more discussions on slowing down when responding.
I'm also not advocating hurting the survivors of the fallen, but you create another discussion, that of personal responsibility. If a member choses not to take care of his or her health, and still engage in firefighting operations and activities, does the leadership of the department now step in? Do they make a start by taking responsibility, in an effort to reduce the number of line of duty deaths, by requiring fitness and wellness? Read some of the past reports and we see that by being proactive towards good health departments can intervene and reduce the number of deaths. In D.C. a department physical found a large blockage in one member's cardiovascular system that had the potential to kill him. He was immediatley sent into surgery and had the blockage removed. A annual department physical revealed what could have killed him. In some of the past reports, there are departments, career and volunteer, that have no initial medical screenings; some do not even have regular fit-testing and SCBA medical screenings.
I agree members' families should not be penalized for a department's failures and shortcomings, but if we find that a majority of medically related deaths involve a lack of personal responsibility, then where do departments fit in when trying to lower that number?
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Owens on
-
I thnk stretching the definition is somewhat of a political ploy by certain organizations. There are those who take pride in the high number of deaths but no one will ever admit that and many won't believe it could happen. Is the death of an 87 year old member who is setting up for bingo when the alarm comes in and is logged as responding, really a LODD? It happens. I think it's not fair to look back over the last 20 or 30 years and calculate these figures because the definition has changed dramatically. We should actually look at causes directly related to firefighting and fire ground operations and establish a related category of LODD related deaths
© 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
