If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Do you need an ambulance?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Apologies for the rag that this is linked to, but it's where the story was drawn to my attention.
Story
As members of the public, rather than biased like me, do you think that this man should have been sent an ambulance?
Story
From article wrote:“Surely losing a limb is an obvious emergency?”
As members of the public, rather than biased like me, do you think that this man should have been sent an ambulance?
0
Comments
I suppose it depends on the circumstances. If they had ambulances sitting spare, possibly yes (though against them being able to do some medical care on the way and being able to drive faster and safer needs to be balanced against them having to get out there).
If there's more urgent things (heart attacks, people being knocked down and fear of spinal injuries etc) then probably not.
I'm guessing its the latter case...
Exactly, it's why I quoted that comment. Talk about over playing something...
Whilst they may have one sitting free at that specific moment, the next call might be an emergency. This would be a "Category C" call, basically they have to be really quiet before they will go out to one of those. The others you mention are Category A, they must have vehicle on site within eight minutes and once you pick someone up you cannot drop them off while you rush to a more urgent call.
In this case I think that the bloke is taking the piss and it's a non story IMHO The interesting part is that an ambulance was provided once he had got to the first A&E Dept. problem there is that the hospital is now responsible for him and would have to do this even though it still wasn't really warranted...
if not, then send an ambulance. Losing an inch of your finger is quite a lot.
Yes, if you are on your own when something like this happens then an ambulance would be correct - just not immediately.
Not in a clinical sense.
Oh and he has a book out too (which I mentioned in the Book Club thread in Entertainment) - a fascinating insight into what the Ambulance staff face on a daily basis.
What an utterly stupid story. As much as anything it would be quicker to make your own way there.
I dislocated my knee about... ooh... an hour from the hospital and got sent an ambulance.
The only reason I needed to GO to Hospital was to wait about 6 fucking hours for X Rays to make sure my knee was OK. Joy.
After all shock is a killer and they would be painted in an even worse light he'd been affected worse by shock. It would have also increased the probability of him going to the best hospital in the first instance and thus saving his finger.
How does the Sun know they nurses were 'horrified'? I'm guessing they dealt with things nastier on that one shift.
And as I say, Bedlington is about five minutes drive from Wansbeck General Hospital in Ashington. An injured hand, if its free from machinery, does not justify sending an ambulance, and especially not where a small number of ambulances have to serve a county in excess of 400 square miles in size.
My step-brother had a very similar problem when he put his hand into a turbo at work and it chopped a large part of his finger off. I don't know how he got to hospital though.
But also my friend went to UCH in an ambulance and my other friend couldn't travel in the ambulance with her so they walked there and arrived before the ambulance even though they'd both left the building at the same time :shocking:
So it's a disability. People in wheelchair can make their own way to hospital, as can the blind, deaf and elderly. This man's life was not in danger and he was with someone who had a car.
As for the car, they are fast response and actually there for much more seroius things than fingers. These are the people who will get to you fastest (they are straetically placed around an area - which is why you will see them parked on the side of the road "doing nothing") and so they are used for heart attacks and the like.
The important word there is "if" and that tends not to happen with a loss of a finger.
Are you saying that having called an ambulance, they didn't actually use it?
but i was then told i should have got you an ambulance...
An effective system would have got him an appropriate ambulance, possibly prevented a future disability (which was the point I was trying to make about disability) by treating the injury sooner and taking him to the best hospital for his condition.
Maybe the current system can't manage this, it seems to have the cars on rapid response hanging round the roads, when they can't actually move a critical patient, and the vans that could actually get them to a hospital safely tucked away in an ambulance station. And evidently the ambulance service isn't capable of meeting the needs of the community it serves.
:thumb:
The appropriate form of transport was already there. His mates car.
The NHS is a treatment service, not a taxi service.
Becuase they take the person who can give the treatment to the patient fast - it's how they get to 98% of Cat A calls in eight minutes (god knows where that target came from) whereas the vans don't all carry such specialists.
Important word there is "needs", when what you seem to be suggesting is "wants"...
Some could see it as treatment as identifying the injury and an appropriate place to treat it sooner and possibly preventing the loss of the part of the finger. Yeah fair play he had transport, but no competant person with him.
Last time I heard, they carried the guy with the defib, which isn't a particularly specialist skill (or doesn't need to be). Maybe a reallocation of what is where with whom would be sensible (although I accept will never happen).
Depends what you see as needs:
I see it as "needs" being a service that does the best by it's community and minimises permanent injury and death. I want one that will give me tea and biscuits, but that's a different matter.
So should the NHS provide an ambulance every time someone hurts/needs medical attention themself?
If not, where do you draw the line?
The cars do more than that, are better trained etc.
In what way did they fail in this story?
Where time will make a significant difference, where there is a high risk of infection (which there would have been in this case and probably contributed to the failure in reattaching the finger), and where there is a reasonable risk of someone going into shock.
Oh yeah? They can't do that much, as they tend to get stuck waiting for a van to turn up after they've done the defib. Yeah, they rock for statistics.....
He went somewhere that couldn't really help him, and by the time in got to the more suitable place he lost the part of the finger. I don't really see that as a storming success.
I realise I'm looking for an ideal, but looking towards it is a far better way than accepting mediocrity.
But WHY even waste time taking me to the hospital? I could have gone in for X Rays anytime that week - even to my local department (until it shuts, soon too!).
They could have gone to the next call out. Instead, I enjoyed sitting in A&E for 6 hours, not allowed to eat or drink.
1. We don't know why the finger couldn't be reattached, there is nothing in the story to explain that part. Something I find a little sus because the story is only told from the blokes pov. Could be (just as likely) that it was too damaged.
2. The protocols that the Ambulance Control people use take all that into consideration and they would not have said to him, it's just the top off your finger don't worry. They would have asked a lot more before they came to the conclusion that no ambulance was needed at that time. Remember the risk of a lawsuit is in their minds
They do more than defib - they just can't transport. Tell me which would yo urather have - a five minute wait for the person who could save your life, or an eight minute wait for the person who could possibly save your life and then take you in. Remember that brain death for those three minutes is crucial to your chances of survival.
Then take a look at the cost. We can employ 30 people, have ten vehicles on the road at any time in a car (which is cheaper to buy and run) and who could treat you, or we can employ 60 people, have ten vehicles on the road at a time who could treat you?
Again, we don't know why he lost the finger but I'm sure his lawyer will tell you that it was because of the ambluance service - although I note that such a stance wasn't mentioned in the article. Funnily enough sometimes you can get there in three minutes and not be able to do anything.
Yes he went somewhere that couldn't help him that instant, there is nothing to suggest that he would have been taken anywhere else by the ambulance either.
Mediocity is 90(ish)% of emergencies are attended within eight minutes - I forget the actual figure. Compare that with a few years ago and you would have to admit a huge improvement. I am not saying that things are perfect but perhaps if the public took some responsibilty themselves when calling for an ambulance this would improve further. This isn't just a one way relationship.
So the question is would ask is, if you could have done that at any time, why go to A&E in the ambulance at all? As you say, "They could have gone to the next call out."
Yeah.
It seems Ambulance aren't good at prioritising. I heard of someone who's son a had to wait 6 hours with a broken arm. Poor fucking kid.