Ambulance Arrives Too Quickly
Thanks to Reynolds for this link. Well, no thanks really, because it has made me angry and flabbergasted very early in the morning.
The article is about a 77-year-old man who had a fall in a pub. He fractured his skull and sadly died. His family are thinking of suing the ambulance service, because, wait for it, they arrived TOO QUICKLY and therefore did not see all the information given in the 999 call. Have you ever heard anything like it? Perhaps they should have parked on the opposite side of the road and refused to leave the cab until the call was complete? No doubt then someone would be suing because the ambulance took too long to arrive!
A few points:
- The ambulance took four minutes to arrive. On average, 999 calls take 2-3 minutes. So perhaps someone should sue those helpful bystanders for taking too long on the phone! Or maybe the call taker was talking too slowly. Sue him too!
- Even if they didn’t see the full details of the call before they arrived, they would have been available to them when they got back in the cab.
- And why didn’t the bystanders who gave all this helpful information to the call taker stick around to give it to the ambulance crew too?
- The news report states the patient refused to let the ambulance crew touch him or get in the ambulance. Ambulance crews can’t treat anyone who refuses treatment (unless they are under a section of the Mental Health Act). It is against the law, and guess what, can get them sued! The patient has the last say as to whether they are taken to hospital. Maybe the crew would have pushed the issue a bit more if they’d known the patient had been unconscious, but it still would have been up to him. (On occasions, people in life threatening conditions have refused hospital and while the crew do not take leaving them lightly, once they are convinced they are of sound mind and understand what they are doing, they have no option but to leave them.)
- Crews are neither doctors nor psychics. Their job is not to diagnose but to monitor the vital signs and symptoms and keep the patient alive until they reach hospital. If the patient refuses treatment, they can’t do any of that.
- This crew didn’t “just leave the patient to die”. They left him with the police, who would monitor the patient and send for the FME (police doctor) if they had any concerns. It sounds to me like this is exactly what happened.
- The report mentions that one member of the crew was scared of being assaulted, seeming to imply this is a bad thing, and that crews should put the patient’s health above their own safety. Nonsense. Crews are people too and they have every right to put themselves first. Why should they get hurt just doing their job? It’s not just self-preservation either. If a crew is assaulted, they’ll be off the road for the rest of the night, and think how many people will suffer because of that. If they are seriously injured in the assault, they could be off for months. Why risk it?
This has turned into a bit of a rant and I hope it does not come across as unsympathetic to the family who of course are in shock at the loss of their relative and probably not thinking straight and looking for someone to blame. On the other hand, I can’t help feeling sad and angry when someone turns on the very people who were trying to help in this way. Sometimes, people die and it is a tragic accident but it is not anyone’s fault. All that needs to be said to the ambulance crew is “thank you, I know you did all you could.”
Also, grammar pedant’s note… did anyone notice that this report has my worst ever pet hate in it? It’s not LAYING ON THE GROUND, it’s LYING!!! What was he laying? An egg? Urgh!
on January 31st, 2008 at 11:33 am
Frankly I think it’s a sad state of affairs when someone dies and the first thoughts of the family are “how can we get some money out of this”? Unfortunately typical in today’s society.
on January 31st, 2008 at 12:08 pm
In a pub! Why aren’t they sueing the landlord, brewery, darts league champion ……….
on January 31st, 2008 at 12:09 pm
You know what, I think you are right to be angry about this. Its truly disgusting.
Well, I hope she does sue, just so that she will be humiliated in court, and one can only hope to have it splashed across the newspapers, and it would be nice if she game a public apology. Its really bad form suing someone who is doing their job well, but not only that, they are there specifically to save peoples lives. This is just yet another pile of BS that the Emergency Services have to deal with, and its unfair.
The audacity of it all. And I think Iain is right, it is just the money. People are so greedy and ‘Americanised’ for want of a better word.
People have lost their respect for the emergency services, and that annoys me.
on January 31st, 2008 at 12:34 pm
“I hope it does not come across as unsympathetic to the family”
Sod that - they’re clearly arseholes. Nobody who isn’t, no matter how upset they are, would consider doing this.
on January 31st, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Hmm, I dunno. Bereavement can drive you a bit loopy and you really aren’t thinking straight, and it is common to look for the nearest person to blame. I assumed this was more of a factor than the money. But perhaps I am being naive…
on January 31st, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Bereavement is a factor, but so is Yarmouth.
on January 31st, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Not really related but something I’ve been wondering, when someone makes a 999 call like they do on tv shows (ie just shouts “come quickly, we’re in X location, hurry” and then hang up what do you do? Send a vehice and ring them back, ring them back before dispatching anyone, what happens if they dont answer when you ring back?
on January 31st, 2008 at 10:08 pm
I agree totally with what you are saying about this. I think they’d be foolish to try and sue anyone!
I think they are overlooking a major factor in this - her dad was an alcoholic who drank himself stupid and hit his, it was his fault he hit his head! If he hadn’t drank then he wouldn’t have fallen & hit his head, therefore wouldn’t have sued….
Ah ha! new scapegoat! Sue the bar he drank at!!
on January 31st, 2008 at 10:30 pm
studentdoctoruk: It all depends on how much information they’ve given us before they hang up. The call taker will write down exactly what happened before the line went down, and the dispatch desk will make a decision based on that. (eg. “distressed f screamed something about baby then put phone down” will get dispatch moving more than “angry f shouting ‘I’m f-ing sick then slammed phone down”). The call taker will then call it back until he/she is satisfied they’ve got all the information they are going to get (whether or not a vehicle has been sent). If we know where they are, we have to send a vehicle at some point, but if they won’t tell us what’s going on, we get the police to go in ahead. The calls tend to get treated as a low priority so it is unlikely anyone will be dispatched before the call taker has given up trying to call them back. In general, the calls are treated as a lower priority than those where we actually know what is going on, but it varies from call to call.
on January 31st, 2008 at 11:43 pm
So a pisshead with violent tendencies has died? I’m tempted to simply say “good”…I hope his estate has been charged with the cost of the callout…
on February 1st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
As a paramedic working in West London, I go to a large number of people whose problems are caused or exacerbated by alcohol. There are the younger members of the public who get absolutely rat-arsed on Friday night after work, and end up either falling over, getting hit by a vehicle of having a fight.
Then there are the chronic alcoholics, who already have pancreatitis, liver failure, heart failure and the like. They continue to drink in excess against all expert and family advice, and expect us to provide a miracle cure - we can’t.
I should like to think that - one fine day - the great unwashed, half-witted, idiotic, selfish, self-centred, “It’s everybody elses fault” chavvy, scummy, British public will take responsibility for their own lives and mistakes, but I shall not be holding my breath.
on February 1st, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Firstly, Mary! you sod! Wine coming down one’s nose isn’t nice!
Secondly, I think a lot of people lash out when a loved one dies unexpectedly. Unfortunately, in this case, it’s the ambo crew who get it. I remember not so long back a story about a boy (aged about 12 IRC) who’d swallowed a pen top and died as a result. The parents wanted to sue the backsides off the pen manufacturers, rather than chalk it up to “silly Johnny, old enough to know better than to put a pen top in his mouth”
I don’t know - part of me is angry too, but I don’t think it’s always a case of “w00t! money!” Plus, there’s the added thing of media making ambo crews look like all the bad buggers under the sun as usual… (don’t forget, the BBC News website is getting more Daily Mail by the day..)
on February 1st, 2008 at 8:56 pm
BTW - for the pedant in you, I found a blog recently of rogue apostrophes - http://www.apostropheabuse.com/
I started twitching, then I needed a lie down…
on February 2nd, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Firstly, I tend to agree there was nothing else the crew could have done, after all if the man says he doesn’t want to be treated, you have to respect that decision unless it is obvious he is delusional (the pixies told me I’d be ok).
The family? Well as part of my work I meet bereaved families every week, and to be honest not a one of them has ever blamed the doctors or medical staff. Normally they are full of praise for them, having done everything they could.
As for suing the pub, this is probably a better bet. As an ex pub landlord before i went to the church, part of my licensing training was that I was liable for the welfare of patrons in my pub, even if they left and staggered under a taxi it would be my fault for letting him get that drunk.
Hey ho, only the lawyers will do well out of this.
on February 3rd, 2008 at 10:17 am
It is a disgusting turn of events, but the lawyers are to blame.
Anger and needing to blame are all part of the grief process, we all go through it and our own pace. However the vultures that swoop in when people are vulnerable and make everything better with promises of money…..they are the problem!
I have to agree with a previous post. If this does go to court I would hop it goes…
We want to claim damages against the NHS!
Why?
The Ambulance was too efficient and so he died!
No, he died through years of alcohol abuse and a head wound. Exacerbated by the fact he refused medical help during his years and at the time of the accident!
You are now fined, thousands of pounds for wasting Court time, wasting police time, wasting Ambulance time (that’s a law in my world), and being a waste of time.
…
Hello, I’m a lawyer, would you like to sue the last lawyer for giving bad advice?
on February 4th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Hi Mark
I think you have every right to be angry.
What an eye opening post this was. I agree with Dullahan 999 and hope this gets the quick dispatch (no pun intended) out of court as is it deserves.
I had to make a decision a few years to transport a child to hospital from an event againt his parents wishes. He was Asthmatic, suffered from hay fever and was alergic to horses. His parents took him to a horse show, on the hottest day of the year and without his inhalers. The consultant at A&E told us 10 minutes more and the child would have died. The look on the parents face was something I will never forget. They didn’t sue and sadly they didn’t thank me either. The big plus was though, the child survived.
Would I do it again. Yes you bet.
Regards TM
on February 5th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I am still as angry about this whole turn of events as when i first heard about what the family had planned.
Really this chap sounds like a candidate for the Darwin Awards.
Alcoholism is horrendous, no doubt, but people still have a choice.
It’s about time we moved away from this blame culture and took more responsibility for our own actions.
on February 6th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Just one point, no where in the article does it say that this man was an alcoholic. It does say he’d been drinking heavily - but then when I go out for a few drinks with my mates, then sink quite a few too - that doesn’t make me an alcoholic. Just wanted to make that point.
Having said that, as ambulance staff, we just can’t win. NHS Trusts have a bit of a habit of giving the complainers some money to shut them up - I hope EEAT fights rather than just paying out if the family sue.
on February 7th, 2008 at 6:39 am
I agree - there’s nothing to suggest he was an alcoholic, or had violent tendencies (the head injury could have caused that). Just like it wasn’t the ambulance crew’s fault, it wasn’t the patient’s fault either. It was just a tragic accident.
on February 8th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
The article said he was aggressive…the linked article dated 24th January said “Ambulance staff told jurors at Great Yarmouth coroners’ court he was violent and they called police to arrest him.” - so yes he was violent…and clearly being that drunk he was a pisshead (I didn’t suggest alcoholic)…Case proven I believe…
on February 8th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
But a head injury can cause someone who is not normally aggressive to lash out. This doesn’t mean he has violent tendencies!
on February 9th, 2008 at 4:45 am
According to the coppers who took him into custody, the man had dried blood on his head, and both they and the ambulance crew could see he had banged his head (even if they denied they knew he’d been unconscious)…
Let’s be perfectly clear on this…you as a calltaker are saying that you’ve been trained to know that a head injury can make a non-aggressive, non-violent man behave violently and lash out, and that this doesn’t mean he is intrinsically violent…so why didn’t the presumably better-trained crew know this?…why did they withold treatment and pass him over to the police?
I started out on the premise that a violent pisshead got what he deserved…the more YOU protested, the more the weaknesses in the EMT crews statements have emerged…I’m sorry but you cannot have it both ways…
on February 9th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Not having been there, I can’t be certain what happened. But having dealt with many similar incidents (this one, for example), my guess would be this:
Crew arrive. Patient has head injury. Crew try to treat patient. Patient refuses to be treated. Patient lashes out to crew. Crew do not want to get injured, and call for police for their own protection. (NOT to “punish” the patient for being violent towards them). Police arrive and restrain patient. Crew still want him to go to hospital. Patient still refuses. Ambulance crew do not have the right to take someone to hospital without their permission, however, police can take anyone they like to the police station. Ambulance crew leave patient with police. Police are aware patient has head injury and agree to monitor patient and call for the police doctor if he deteriorates. Patient deteriorates. Police doctor is called for. Patient, who is no longer refusing treatment, goes to hospital.
It’s important to note that the crew did *not* withhold treatment from the patient. They tried to treat him and he refused, so their hands were tied. There does seem to be a belief that if someone is seriously injured/unwell, an ambulance crew (or doctor, nurse, etc) can thrust treatment on them without their consent. This isn’t true. The only time a patient can be treated without their consent is if they are sectioned under the mental health act or completely unable to communicate.
on February 10th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Spot on Mark.
cogidubnus, to also be perfectly clear, as an EMT, I am fully aware that head injuries can cause aggression - we call it combative.
However, even if I know a patient needs treatment, if he stands there and tells me he doesn’t want me to touch him, then I can’t.
To touch him without consent could end up in a common assault charge.
I will try to persuade them to go to let me at least assess them, if not take them to hospital, but some flatly refuse, and regardless of what’s wrong with them, with the exception of mental illness as Mark mentioned above, I cannot force them to go.
I’m very careful about this with the current climate of accusation and complaint - I will not touch a patient to even take their pulse without asking them if I can first.
With the case above, if the police said they were going to arrest him, I’d have asked them to make sure the FME (police doctor) has a look at him.
on February 26th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Hey, im an EMT in the Essex locality, Ive had similar jobs to this one , and i agree entirely with mark and steve , you see it so often on the front line. People need to understand our hands are tied!! Wether someone has indeed broke their skull , traumatically amputated an arm, having a massive MI , Taking their last breath if they tell us to Foxtrot Oscar we can do sod all about it!!
I went to an Arrest where the family would not let me or my colleague anywhere near their relative … i couldnt tell you if it was a viable arrest or not ! but we got bad press for not doing anything , well what can we do !? We effectively got told ‘ touch my mum and il kill you ‘
Enough said !!!! …. Keep up the blogs guys
on February 26th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
additional to my last -
for all the skeptics out there or all the people who feel the needs to get their pennys worth in …
it does not matter wether your a trainee , a tech , a para , an ecp , a nurse , doctor , consultant , jo public
you can know every sign & symptom of every medical condition , trauma injury in the entire world …
you can know the meaning of being whatever …
this does NOT alter the fact that if a patient tells you to f-off your not touching me …. we can do nothing about it !!
i would say with this head injury case , you can slag off the crew that went until your blue in the face , end of the day you were not there , you do not know what happend you cannot judge them
chances are the crew knew exactly that a head injury can cause a non-violent person to become aggressive …
again we cannot forcibly remove anyone (unless under section for mental health act) … thats the bread and butter of it , so i suggest if you wanna bad mouth the crew you should at least have a vague idea of what your talking aout !!!!
Another example i will add is a guy who choked to death … the nearest vehicle was about 3 minutes away but were on a break , the ambulance service got slammed in the papers , but what you out there dont realise when were on a break ( on our TWELVE HOUR SHIFT ) We do not hear the jobs going out .. we have no idea if someone arrests outside the front door , we do not get informed of this! this is no fault of our own and it has been known for people to moan about us insisting on having breaks , how many of you 9-5 desk jockeys would work 8 hours without your hour lunch and 2 1/4 hour coffee breaks !! Ambulance staff are human we need a break to you know !!!!!!! so think a little outside the box before you slate us! thanks!
on April 5th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
too fast. too slow. the public is never satisfied, and our best is never enough. enjoy our most recent debacles in louisville, kentucky.
http://www.wlky.com/news/15797078/detail.html?rss=lou&psp=news
and
http://www.wlky.com/news/15796068/detail.html?rss=lou&psp=news