📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
Los Angeles County Grand Jury
• 2014-2015
Automatic External Defibrillator Report
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 4 findings
F1
Page 47
Currently, the decision to institute a PAD program is within the discretion of individual county departments.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Page 47
Although no one interviewed disputed the usefulness of AEDs, on balance the costs to Los Angeles County in expanding installation of the devices, as well as the time needed for training government personnel on the use of AEDS, do not justify countywide installation of AEDs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2014–2015 CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Page 48
Educating the public on the purpose of AEDs, including training in the use of existing AEDs, is economically feasible and would help make better use of already installed AEDs.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Page 48
The city of Los Angeles PAD program is understaffed. Its existing devices are in need of maintenance and may currently be a liability.
No recommendations for this finding