• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Refused an ambulance on a 999 call

Status
Not open for further replies.
I fully respect GraceK's opinion regarding the NHS.

Devious measures I am afraid will work especially if you mention the person is a drunk.

My reason for saying this is because I spoke to someone in a high position in London regarding 999 communication calls a few days ago.
During the discussion I said that there would be no problem for a ambulance if it were a drunk on the pavement. She replied,

" I think by law a ambulance must attend a suspected drunk person that is laid on the pavement. "

To me it shows if they don't know the rules, how can a 999 operator do their work properly.

Roy.
 
izzzi said:
" I think by law a ambulance must attend a suspected drunk person that is laid on the pavement. "

Oh dear.... and a diabetic in need of emergency medical care is apparently not in their laws - only ours ey!
Click to expand...
 
" I think by law a ambulance must attend a suspected drunk person that is laid on the pavement. "
Click to expand...
You sure that's an actual law rather than just NHS procedure?

Regardless, think about it for a minute before you start getting outraged - obstructed airway (quite plausible when you get "drunk guy lying on pavement) is much more immediately deadly than DKA. That's the point of triage - heart attacks, people not breathing or acutely bleeding to death get priority.
 
I have just read your post and would like to relate what happened to me.A few months after having pancreatitis I had a night when I got up 16 times in the night to wee. The next day I felt terrible and my sight was very blurred. I knew something was wrong so I phoned my neighbour she immediately phoned for an ambulance but they said I was not an emergency even though by this time I was almost semi-concious. She then phoned my GP who came out to the house. He took one look at me and phoned for an ambulance himself. When I got to the hospital my blood sugar was 61 !!!! and my kidneys were already being damaged. I was in hospital for 10 days while they stabilised me. I was diagnosed with being Type 3 diabetic (managed as a Type 1) and I`m pleased to say that I`m now feeling quite healthy although I have to inject 4 times a day. All this was very frightening as it all happened very suddenly.
 
Mary colman I have just read about type 3 diabetes on the web site I am so sorry it's bad enough type 1 and the ignorance that we see regarding our condition but having a relatively new for will be very difficult for you. I don't think that the operators on the phone should decide who should have an ambulance or not I can understand so people abuse them but if a patient is physically unable to get to hospital due to the medical complaint then the ambulance should be sent any thing could happen to the patient if you are sick and you are trying to get to hospital. I have heard of diabetics been refused access to taxis as the driver assumed they were drunk an ambulance is the only way.
 
For info: type 3c diabetes diseases of and trauma to the pancreas. (eg pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer , pancreatectomy)
See: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=15283
(it 's confusing as T3 sometimes get's used for Alzheimer's in the press and on part of the main site and I don't think that is what Mary meant)
 
No I was just meaning the fact that with type 3 you suffer from high sugars and the insensitivity to insulin as well just what you have said there is confusion regarding the definition of the disease
 
Yes, I have been told that Type 3 diabetes is caused by trauma to the pancreas (in my case pancreatitis). People who have had their pancreas damaged in other ways (car accidents etc) can also be diagnosed with Type 3.
 
You were right to be refused an ambulance, contry what other have said in this topic healthcare is your (or your wifes) responsiblity NOT the NHS.

1. If your nurse thought you required at ambulance she could have requested one (on a card 35 HCP referal, which can't be refused)

2. The fact you wife has other medical conditions isn't relivant as she is able to take a taxi (as you said, the reason she didn't take a taxi was financial not clinical)

3. The fact you haven't the money isn't the NHS's fault, I find it odd you feel able to afford to bring a child into the world but can't afford transport to A&E.

4. You didn't have a clinical need for an ambulance, the reason you hear of all these ambulance delays is because ambulance are wasted transporting people stuff as your wife.

5. There is only on average 1 ambulance for 50-60,000 people

6. 999 is for immediate life threatening emergencies, which you wife wasn't, yes it can be fatal but it is not immediatily life threatening, self transporting to A&E will be quicker and lead to BETTER clinical outcomes to your wife and will not waste very limited resources that could be needed for real emergencies.

Just think, if your child gets hit by a car, how would you feel if they had to wait for an ambulance because all the ambulances as tided up with people with NO CLINICAL NEED for an emergency ambulance because they can't afford there own transport.

999 is only for immediatily life threatening emergencies

PS. I hope she is better now
 
GraceK said:
:roll:
Click to expand...
And :crazy:

My finger keeps hovering over the "report post" button but can't quite make up my mind whether to press or not.

What a way to introduce yourself on your first post :***:
 

The poster is only giving an opinion Indy why would you want to censor someone for having an opinion?

I actually thought Milkyway made quite a good point here:

Milkyway said:
Just think, if your child gets hit by a car, how would you feel if they had to wait for an ambulance because all the ambulances as tided up with people with NO CLINICAL NEED for an emergency ambulance because they can't afford there own transport.
Click to expand...

If that scenario happened to me I would be absolutely furious, having been in a position where an ambulance has needed to be called on more than one occasion I can only say that had it have been delayed because it was being used as a free taxi service I may well have died.

Now it may be that the op's need was indeed great enough to warrant an ambulance, which is why I have not posted on this matter before but we will never know for sure as we only have one side of the story, but Milkyways post was just a list of facts as far as I could see. Too often the emergency services are being abused, that is fact.
 

I think the whole point here was the fact that the lady in question who needed the ambulance ... was actually pregnant ... so an unborn child's survival was actually what her and her husband's concern was about. Also, I think the comments about how the person could afford to have another child but couldn't afford a taxi to A & E were totally uncalled for and quite a dangerous criteria on which to base the decision on who gets an ambulance and who doesn't.

And you're right, the emergency services are often abused ... but rarely by pregnant women who don't even warrant an ambulance now when they're in labor.

Sorry Sid, but we've lost the plot as far as I'm concerned when we send ambulances on a Friday and Saturday night when the clubs chuck all the young alcoholics out onto the streets having taken all their money from them. They then get caught up in fights, falls, road accidents and alcoholic poisoning and require ambulances and police services. And then of course the drink drivers who crash their cars and kill themselves and other people into the bargain. No-one would refuse them an ambulance would they? Yet a pregnant diabetic woman can't get one?
 
Hi All.

An old work friend of mine, always wanted to be a paramedic.
Now has completed and passed the training and exams needed to be one.

She has explained to me it is colour triaged now.
Red - orange - green .

Red is full go , ambulance and "all first aid treatment" to be used as per serious needs.
[Classed as a priority 1 and straight through to the A & E team once arrival at hospital]
Orange/Amber is again ambulance and first aid assistance as per needs after assessment.
[once reach hospital will be triaged again - especially if A & E dept is busy]
Green is patient can make own way to hospital and will be triaged again there,
has to go through the NHS system once reach hospital.

This colour code triage of seriousness rating, will eventually make its way through the ambulance services of the UK.

A code red patient dosent have to wait . [hence the priority 1 and patient is fast tracked straight to the A & E staff upon arrival ]
A code amber/orange is given up to 3-4hrs waiting time once triaged again at hospital arrival.
A code green has to after triage again, sit things out within the NHS system after making their own way to the hospital.

We can all grumble over the varities of who - what warrants a code red/amber/green response etc...
But it does appear to be a system set up to grade the seriousness of response , treatment needed/given, waiting time allowance
after triage , are being graded as to the urgency of the patient needs with their health and safety issues being assessed at triage.

I myself was triaged last winter and was fast tracked to a ward to be seen within 3hours , was triaged as 'amber' .
Thought the system was fair and efficient as per my own needs and experience of this.

Anna.
 
I think the problem here is twofold.

1) As the OP's medical adviser thought that the situation warranted an ambulance, they should have ordered one right away. So that was the fault of the HCP's.

2) if an ambulance was not actually contacted by the HCP on a 999 call situation, then the ambulance team were correct to deny an ambulance.

As I read this specific situation, the problem was the money to get a taxi to the hospital - which is a whole other subject, but again, not the fault of the 999 team.

So it seems the OP was caught between being told one thing by their HCP, and another by the 999 team, and no adequate means of communication between the two conflicting pieces of advice But the ambulance team acted correctly according to their protocols.

and according to the OP's first post:

we spoke to her DSN this morning who said she needs to be hospitalized and put on a drip immediately.
Click to expand...

the HCP did not say the DSN had arranged for an ambulance to come. So again it was either miscommunication, or ignorance on the part of the DSN as to any problem with paying for a taxi (not her fault). Either way, the 999 team acted correctly.

Its a horrible situation for all concerned.
 
GraceK said:
Sorry Sid, but we've lost the plot as far as I'm concerned
Click to expand...

If there were any serious risks to a pregnant lady or her unborn baby then a nurse would call for an ambulance immediately, of that I have no doubt.

Anyone not presenting as a serious risk should not expect the ambulance service to act as a taxi service, sorry if that offends you Grace but thats what I believe, I wont say that I think you are mad or have lost the plot because you disagree with me as that would be rude and uncalled for wouldnt it?
 
Hi to you all.
I'll quickly introduce myself.. I am a State Registered IHCD qualified front line Paramedic for over 22 years.
I've worked for the bulk of that time in London and done a bit in rural areas. I now work in the private sector.

I've dealt with (probably) most diabetic things from Hypos and Hypers to fitting to diabetic comas and everything in between. I dont proclaim to be a professor of Diabetes, but I know enough to deal with most 999 diabetic situations.

I only managed to get through the first few pages of this topic, befor ethe holier than thou attitude bored me... let me put a few things straight...

The first post is NOT a 999 call, in no way shape or form.
Sending am ambulance to anything is the last option your Trust has. There's several thing they can do before sending one.
Included are speaking to a paramedic or nurse on the phone for advice. If appropriate they may send an Emergency Care Practitioner round to assess you (if your Trust has them).
They may send a Paramedic round in a car to assess (it's rare but does happen)

The patient is conscious and breathing, can mobilse ok and isnt in a life threatening condition. No you dont get a 999 ambulance straight away.

First the 999 call taker triages.

life threatening = you get one in (alleged) 8 minutes
No so immediate = you'll get one in (alleged)

The DSN advice could be regarded as wrong... re-hydrating is the answer. "going on a drip" is over used by everyone.

The excuse of "I dont have any money for transport is poor" It's not the NHS fault you have no money for transport.

>>keytones not being dangerous
**lol, no they are not!!

>>I believe this would warrant a 999 call for a ambulance, Probably most of the ambulance staff were on their annual sick leave
**that's offensive, no one goes on "annual sick leave"

>>A complain letter to your MP may help
**nope

>>Sorry if I'm being blunt, but couldn't you have got her there yourself or get a taxi. 999 calls are for people who really really are in trouble.
**HOOORAAYYY...

>>If your wife was able to mobilise and talk then they would not class her as a priority over those people having heart attacks and cardiac arrests, so therefore it would have been quicker for you to take her in yourself anyway.
**HOORRAYYYYY

>>and as an update to show just how good the NHS is my wife was not offered a drink of water in A&E (while in the cubical) and was not checked on.
**Did you help yourself?? every single A&E has public drinking facilities, did you even ask???

>>if her DNS had not called the A&E department she would have been in a coma about now as she was starting to lapse in to unconsciousness when they went in to talk to her.
**unlikely

>>Well, no. The person dialling 999 is, by and large, not qualified to tell if a situation requires an ambulance or not.
**Yes they are, 999 call takers have extensive training and in some Trusts they use Paramedics and nurses as call takers.

>>and 90% of the time neither is the operator on the other end of the phone.
**Above

>>I can't believe they wouldn't send an ambulance, although, we had our own little experience last Christmas with my mum, she rang up with tightness in her chest and pain down her arm
you sure she answered the call takers questions correctly?? They can ONLY go on the information supplied. If mum never said **CHEST PAINS then it doesnt trigger the chest pain algorithm.

>>It is quite bad that they decide off a script, you'd think they would receive some basic training before being allowed to go on the phones, maybe I'm being daft I don't know, just my opinion
**ABOVE

>>pre eclampsia/Eclampsia comes to mind and that is serious.
**OMG where did that come from...you're just making this up now.

>>you should have taken your wife to the nearest town centre, plonked a bottle of alcohol in her hands and told her to lie down on the pavement, vomit and hurl abuse at passers by. The police would have arrived in no time followed by an ambulance and she'd have been treated with the utmost care when she reached A & E ...
**Offensive, it's never ever been like that.

>>Sorry for the sarcasm but this sort of thing incenses me when we have TV programmes openly showing us how many police and ambulance staff are required on a Friday and Saturday night just to sort out the binge drinkers and ensure they don't hurt themselves and yet a pregnant woman on the verge of unconsciousness is refused an ambulance.
**IT'S TV !!!

>> yet a pregnant woman on the verge of unconsciousness is refused an ambulance.
**Was she ?????

>she needed medical assistance quickly and that was stated by her nurse so I feel you were absolutely RIGHT to call an ambulance and to expect one to arrive.
**Explained above


Lightwolfe... so how did you get to hospital
how long did you wait in triage
how long before a nurse assessed your wife
how long before the dr came to see her
how did you get home from the hospital

There's a lot of very ill informed rubbish posts on here. NO ONE has the RIGHT to an ambulance, neither is it a privilege to have an ambulance.
You DO have a right to one if you need one. not because "I aint got a car or money and I cant get to hospital the neighbors are out and no one can look after the kids"
 

OK that may be your opinion however I may just add that my condition WAS life threatening, not only to myself but to my baby, I was lucky I got to the hospital when I did as my blood results indicated I should have been in a coma or at least very close to. As it happens my baby is now suffering the consequences of the delay in my treatment which is costing the nhs a lot more than it would have done should I have received treatment when I should have done.
 

I'm not at all offended by your opinion Sid, I just don't agree with it or any other opinion that lacks compassion and common sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…