Bedders Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 I have no answer to any of that as i just don't know what you're trying to say:confused: That makes two of us because I've absolutely no idea what you are trying to say!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratter71 Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 That makes two of us because I've absolutely no idea what you are trying to say!!! Put as simply as possible, not every patient for whom an emergency ambulance is called needs to attend A&E. The article is sensationalism. Generally it costs the ambulance service more to leave somebody at home than take them to A&E. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 Perhaps a holding centre where triage decisions could be made? A sort of "are they really ill" detention centre where malingerers and ne'er do wells can be deposited until they prove they are ill to the Department of Health's satisfaction. A bit like Chesterfield. That would get them to shape up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedders Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 I have no answer to any of that as i just don't know what you're trying to say:confused: What I'm trying to say is that the ambulance service do a cracking job, but the governement & the local authority are doing their best to undermine the great work they do. All we hear from the government is the response time.....utter rubbish! This is only part of the whole package of care that a patient receives. The local council won't resurface the roads which lead to knock on effect in responding to further jobs. Ask yourself this is it better to turn up in 9 mins & save a life or in 7 mins & they be dead. (You may ask yourself well if they go there in 7 & they were dead they would be dead in 9 mins but not always). The governement would see the 7 min option as being great but the 9 min as not been good enough. The bigger picture is that it requires the call taker to extract as much info as possible from the person requesting the ambulance. This allows the person attending, to get the right kit off the vehicle asap & to the scene asap. This time from stopping the clock on scene & actaully starting to deal with the patient is not under scrutiny. What happens if they get there in seven but the details are all wrong from the call taker & they have to go back & forth to the ambulance a couple more times for the extra gear?????? Response times are only a snap-shot of the bigger picture of patient care but seem to be the focus of how good a job that they do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedders Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 Put as simply as possible, not every patient for whom an emergency ambulance is called needs to attend A&E. The article is sensationalism. Generally it costs the ambulance service more to leave somebody at home than take them to A&E. Back to my original point! The governement will not offer REAL CLARITY in anything! Burglar breaks in- reasonable force Only phone 999 in an emergency- but what is an emergency????? No clarity leads to CONFUSION!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratter71 Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 Back to my original point! The governement will not offer REAL CLARITY in anything! Burglar breaks in- reasonable force Only phone 999 in an emergency- but what is an emergency????? No clarity leads to CONFUSION!!!! That is irrelevant, the ambulance service is not just a taxi service to hospital anymore, the focus has moved. The Bradley Report focused on taking healthcare to the patient, measures are in place to implement this. If you genuinly believe you need an ambulance phone 999, this does not mean a trip to hospital is inevitable, as pointed out there are various pathways that can be utilised once te situation is assessed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedders Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 That is irrelevant, the ambulance service is not just a taxi service to hospital anymore, the focus has moved. The Bradley Report focused on taking healthcare to the patient, measures are in place to implement this. If you genuinly believe you need an ambulance phone 999, this does not mean a trip to hospital is inevitable, as pointed out there are various pathways that can be utilised once te situation is assessed It's not irrelevant at all. That's rather condescending & supercillious attitude in thinking that everyone should have a CLEAR UNDERSTANDING of what constitutes an emergency. The general pubic need guidance in clear terms & they (the government & authorities )cannot complain if they won't stick their neck on the line & tell us (the general public). It's tough luck if they are inundated with calls if they confuse the matter...... end of!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedders Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 That is irrelevant, the ambulance service is not just a taxi service to hospital anymore, the focus has moved. The Bradley Report focused on taking healthcare to the patient, measures are in place to implement this. If you genuinly believe you need an ambulance phone 999, this does not mean a trip to hospital is inevitable, as pointed out there are various pathways that can be utilised once te situation is assessed Notice you had a comment on post no 15 but what about no 14?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratter71 Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 It's not irrelevant at all. That's rather condescending & supercillious attitude in thinking that everyone should have a CLEAR UNDERSTANDING of what constitutes an emergency. The general pubic need guidance in clear terms & they (the government & authorities )cannot complain if they won't stick their neck on the line & tell us (the general public). It's tough luck if they are inundated with calls if they confuse the matter...... end of!! This is not about what constitues an emergency tho is it? Its about a piece of sensational journalism that doesn't look at the reasoning behind non-transport pathways. And it has nothing to do with the number of calls to the ambulance service, leaving people at home often puts greater demand on the service than transporting them. Notice you had a comment on post no 15 but what about no 14?? TBH i'd missed that post, but again response times are a separate issue. Calltakers should and do get as much information as possible, but unless for example a cardiac arrest is passed as a broken toe the extra information or lack of should not cause on scene delay feetching equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted March 29, 2010 Share Posted March 29, 2010 We could get a good racket going here. Keep ringing for an ambulance, offer to split the £38 60/40 for not taking you in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.