2scents
thank you for your reply they seem to have gone up in some funny order since you first respond then say you wont then ask a question
“Most patients, probably no difference in outcome, mainly because the majority of patients are not that sick that outcome is even a factor.
From the very sick patients, Yes some have a better outcome due to the resources of hatzolah.
Again, this is my personal opinion, not sure why you would want my opinion.”
Thank you. I know this is your personal opinion, I want it because you seem knowledgeable, and as I mentioned (and you did too) real data isnt available.
“I do not want to get caught up with this back and forth, seems like you were trying to score some points. not sure what the agenda is”
No need for any back and forth, I’m not sure what you mean by “score some points” There is no agenda. Its something I wondered about, I asked, you answered thats it. Thank you, now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
your last post confused me a bit “Maybe due to the fact….So no, not simply because they came in with Hatzolah.” Doesnt “because they came in with Hatzolah.” include those facts?
that is my question if given the fact that : they had a quicker on scene response, and the fact that they had resources and able to deploy them rapidly. and therefore, went the distance and were not simply doing their job ” given those facts, do those facts transplate to better patient outcomes. (not just survival, if the fellow who was in the cathlab walked out with better heart function than the guy brought in by FDNY that too is a better outcome although both lived.
(note not the and the fact to the fact that they went to a different facility that was not the nearest, which had better resources that contributed to the favorable outcome.” since that seems harder to gauge though it is a critical point)
Earlier you said “Most patients, probably no difference in outcome, ”
Are you now saying there is a difference in outcome?