Ambulance recommendation
October 3rd, 2007 by 
Alica
The Brandon Ambulance Quality Assurance Committee presented its findings to the City Council on Oct. 1. I was at the meeting. I have copies of the recommendation, the ambulance ordinance and the application form. (It is available on the city Web site, www.brandonsd.com.) I don’t have a copy of Med-Star’s application.
As I understand the committee’s recommendation, Med-Star either does or easily could comply with items A through H, and items J through M, of the application. That means Med-Star has provided background of the company, a detailed plan of how they would serve Brandon, a written plan for staffing, service rates and record keeping, a list of employees, and proof of insurance, state licensure and inspection. The company also either has or could easily get equipment and medications that would meet state standards.
The committee, according to the report, ran South Dakota background checks on the employees. They asked the Council for permission to run out-of-state background checks but were denied. The reasoning presented at Monday night’s council meeting was that it would be impossible to check every location for every employee – it would be too large of a net to try to cast.
The council also denied the committee’s request to do a credit check on Med-Star. That information is not required in the application, nor in Ordinance 404, the ambulance ordinance.
The committee found that Med-Star’s medical director, Dr. Kevin Vaska, is a cardiologist who was under the impression he would review only cardiology cases. The committee recommended that if Med-Star is licensed with the city, the company should have a medical director who can advise on a wide variety of medical problems.
The final item on the application, item N, is for the Council to set a fee for licensure.
The committee contacted Huron and Aberdeen, where Med-Star has provided services in the past. In both cases the committee was told that Med-Star was not in town very long and left town without warning. Jay Masur, owner of Med-Star, said that in both cases, he left town because he didn’t have enough calls to sustain his business. He said he notified the appropriate people in both towns before he left.
The committee contacted the Sioux Falls veterans hospital, which contracts for Med-Star for transport service. The committee was told that the hospital is pleased with the service provided.
The committee report included additional concerns and recommendations. Among them are these:
The list of staff doesn’t include the amount of emergency (911) experience the employees have. Mary Brooks, who presented the findings, said that while response times are important, experience and skill must be given priority.
There should be a probationary period after licensure to make sure the applicant maintains the standards the city sets.
The city should get periodic feedback from emergency rooms and patients and should spot check the service to make sure the company is maintaining the standards the city sets. The service also should cooperate with the Brandon Ambulance Quality Assurance Committee to make sure standards are maintained.
There isn’t any language in the recommendation that says in so many words that the committee is advising against Med-Star. But that’s how I interpret the findings. Mary Brooks said that the new ordinance, #404, looks like it was written to conform to a particular company. She said it would be better to write the ordinance and then look for a company that conforms to it. If not, “We’re setting up our first responders (Brandon police and fire) for a catastrophe,” she said.
City council members did not vote on Med-Star’s application Monday night. Alderman Harry Buck, for example, said he probably has more questions for the applicant right now than for the committee. Mayor Larry Beesley agreed. Alderman Don Hammond said he needs time to digest all the information presented. The Council didn’t set a date to do the vote, but the next regular City Council meeting is Oct. 15.
How comfortable do you feel with these findings? What else do you think the Council should find out or consider before making their vote?
Posted in Uncategorized | 
156 Comments »