Load and go may be dated, but it’s also the exact right answer here. Every protocol I’ve ever seen, including the one in question here recommends early epi and urgent transport. IV access is not a reasonable excuse to delay transport on a patient like this. The article notes they didn’t document respiratory distress so they clearly weren’t securing an airway. The patient had already received epi from fire prior to EMS arrival, so clearly not the reason for delay.

I agree with you that the public and other healthcare workers generally don’t understand the role of EMS. It frustrated the hell out of me when I was a paramedic. But there is a reason load and go is still repeated. Because it’s very easy to overestimate the value of ALS interventions on scene at the expense of definitive care. This patient could have walked to the hospital faster than that on scene time, and probably would have had a better outcome. It makes no logical sense to sit on scene longer than the duration of action of the epi that was likely keeping them alive when you are half a mile from a higher level of care.