Sorry Can't Help, I'm on Break - EMT Admits Incompetence

[spenac]

I'm speechless.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,500364,00.html

EMT Admits Incompetence After Refusing to Help Patient During His Break

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

A paramedic in Britain who refused to drive a patient with a broken back to the hospital because he had just started a 30-minute lunch break appeared at a conduct and competence hearing of the Health Professions Council Thursday, the Daily Mail reported.

Robert Chambers, the paramedic who was refueling his ambulance when a friend of the patient asked for assistance, allegedly told the man that he would have to wait for another ambulance before getting back into his vehicle and driving off, the Daily Mail reported.

A transcript of a conversation between Chambers and the control center was read out during the hearing, according to the Daily Mail.

"I know you're off the road at the moment but it looks like you're there -- I thought I would let you know in case you were approached," the operator said.

According to the transcript the EMT responded: "I believe it's a gentleman who has hurt his back -- I explained there's probably an ambulance on its way."

A second ambulance did arrive at the scene some time later but did not have the proper equipment necessary to treat a suspected back injury, nor the space to transport the man to the hospital, the Daily Mail reported. It took another 40 minutes for a third ambulance to arrive on the scene.

Chambers admitted to lack of competence for refusing to help the patient, but denied misconduct.

[Chief1C]

Must be the cars with "Ambulance" written on it, that carry people/equipment.. and thus wouldn't have had the space to transport or any large immobilization equipment.

However, the title should be changed.. PARAMEDIC Admits Incompetence.

On break? Too fricken bad.

[scott33]

Here we go again... although I am a little more impartial with this one.

A couple of the non-reported thoughts though.

Call was already categorised as Cat C call - non-life threatening, NO lights and sirens to the scene, and an ambulance was already on its way.

Pt injured himself while "following a Fox Hunt"... from his Land-rover.

Hearing has already been heard and the actual transcript is here. They found that his fitness to practice is not impaired, and he agrees he made an error of judgement.

http://www.hpc-uk.org/complaints/hearings/...8&showAll=1

[mobey]

Here we go again... although I am a little more impartial with this one.

A couple of the non-reported thoughts though.

Call was already categorised as Cat C call - non-life threatening, NO lights and sirens to the scene, and an ambulance was already on its way.

Pt injured himself while "following a Fox Hunt"... from his Land-rover.

Hearing has already been heard and the actual transcript is here. They found that his fitness to practice is not impaired, and he agrees he made an error of judgement.

http://www.hpc-uk.org/complaints/hearings/...8&showAll=1

A second ambulance did arrive at the scene some time later but did not have the proper equipment necessary to treat a suspected back injury, nor the space to transport the man to the hospital, the Daily Mail reported. It took another 40 minutes for a third ambulance to arrive on the scene.

Can you explain the above quote??\

What kind of ambulance was it a frickin AMC Gremlin?

[scott33]

Can you explain the above quote??\

What kind of ambulance was it a frickin AMC Gremlin?

Probably a responder vehicle / RRV. Nearest resource available, and BOOKED ON.

I agree with the Paramedic's sentiments that he made an error of judgement. Although he was not obligated to do anything, the rules of arse-coverage should have told him to at least have a look.

I am sure if it were an immediately life-threatening situation, it would have been different.

[spenac]

Hey breaks a break. Tonight when I get to to sleep if I get toned out I'm going to say nope sorry I'm asleep call back in the morning.

Sorry Just think he should have checked or even stayed with patient if not transported rather than wait for 3rd ambulance.

Common sense has to come into play at some point. Regardless of what the dispatcher rated the call at until seen they could be wrong so hey take care of them then restart your break.

Sad to hear his tea and crumpets were interrupted.

[Richard B the EMT]

Sounds a bit like the story of "Two One 'Deli'".

Back between 1985 and 1990, the crew of NYC EMS ambulance "21 David" was on a meal break, at it's assigned street corner in the Bronx. They had just gotten back into the ambulance, and had just unwrapped their sandwiches, when several people ran up to the team, requesting assistance for a victim who had collapsed in the street, with CPR being administered to the victim. The crew actually was able to see this from the ambulance.

The crew responded, "We're on meal, call 9-1-1".

The crew then declined to help the person, and in the delay for another ambulance to arrive, the patient died.

When the newspapers picked up on the story, they printed the "shop number" on the side of the ambulance.

The crew was placed on patient contact restriction, meaning they could not work in the streets, or get any overtime, even if they wanted any. They actually were assigned to a small EMS "collectibles" store in the back of EMS headquarters, and the other 2 crews as well as the team's partner who was scheduled off, placed into a different vehicle, and given a different street corner to wait at between calls.

The ambulance actually was kept at EMS headquarters in the Maspeth section of Queens, for a month, in fear that any crew seen in that vehicle would be believed to be the involved crew, and possibly have an attempt of some form of "Street Justice" done to them.

Don't hold me to this, as my memory might be faulty on this, but, after a Departmental trial, they were fired, and the New York State Department of Health canceled their certifications.

The reason for the title "21 Deli" is a different phonetic for the "D" letter designation.

[reaper]

Sounds a bit like the story of "Two One 'Deli'".

Back between 1985 and 1990, the crew of NYC EMS ambulance "21 David" was on a meal break, at it's assigned street corner in the Bronx. They had just gotten back into the ambulance, and had just unwrapped their sandwiches, when several people ran up to the team, requesting assistance for a victim who had collapsed in the street, with CPR being administered to the victim. The crew actually was able to see this from the ambulance.

The crew responded, "We're on meal, call 9-1-1".

The crew then declined to help the person, and in the delay for another ambulance to arrive, the patient died.

When the newspapers picked up on the story, they printed the "shop number" on the side of the ambulance.

The crew was placed on patient contact restriction, meaning they could not work in the streets, or get any overtime, even if they wanted any. They actually were assigned to a small EMS "collectibles" store in the back of EMS headquarters, and the other 2 crews as well as the team's partner who was scheduled off, placed into a different vehicle, and given a different street corner to wait at between calls.

The ambulance actually was kept at EMS headquarters in the Maspeth section of Queens, for a month, in fear that any crew seen in that vehicle would be believed to be the involved crew, and possibly have an attempt of some form of "Street Justice" done to them.

Don't hold me to this, as my memory might be faulty on this, but, after a Departmental trial, they were fired, and the New York State Department of Health canceled their certifications.

The reason for the title "21 Deli" is a different phonetic for the "D" letter designation.

I just think it is great that they get meal breaks! Think of all the money I could save, by not having to leave before my food is ready!

[wrmedic82]

This seems more of gross negligence than incompetency. Incompetency would be telling the patient to walk it off or moving the patient in a way to cause further harm to the patient. In the article it never stated that the paramedic made patient contact. If anything its a breach of duty to act when he was advised that a emergency was going on, and he failed to respond to the scene. The article is not clear as to why the other vehicle did not carry the necessary equipment to treat the patient. But what is clear is that it was a vehicle used to transport patients. That which makes the crew or EMS provider in a sense liable for not having the right equipment on the truck, or sending the unit to first respond with a ambulance with the capabilities needed to treat the patient appropriately. So the bigger picture so it seems stems further than just a negligent paramedic whom decides not to respond when approached about a emergent case. I think he is wrong for what he did. But I think also he is being a patsy so to speak for an entire ems systems incompetence.

Another thing I would also like to know that is not specified in the article is whether or not he was on or off the clock during his 30 min break. If he was off the clock then the paramedic only had a ethical duty to act. If he was on the clock, then again that only goes towards gross negligence.

[BushyFromOz]

This seems more of gross negligence than incompetency. Incompetency would be telling the patient to walk it off or moving the patient in a way to cause further harm to the patient. In the article it never stated that the paramedic made patient contact. If anything its a breach of duty to act when he was advised that a emergency was going on, and he failed to respond to the scene. The article is not clear as to why the other vehicle did not carry the necessary equipment to treat the patient. But what is clear is that it was a vehicle used to transport patients. That which makes the crew or EMS provider in a sense liable for not having the right equipment on the truck, or sending the unit to first respond with a ambulance with the capabilities needed to treat the patient appropriately. So the bigger picture so it seems stems further than just a negligent paramedic whom decides not to respond when approached about a emergent case. I think he is wrong for what he did. But I think also he is being a patsy so to speak for an entire ems systems incompetence.

Wow, LOT of ASSumptions in this statement