Last year came accross an RTA on the M/Way whilst travelling to a duty,Triaged patients and one was crittical.A charity frontline ambulance pulled up as we thought to assist,My partner and I asked them to transport patient to hosp with one of us attending as they were only first aiders.We were told by them that they could not do this as thier duty did not start till 1800hrs,incident time was 1745hrs, NHS ambulance arrived on scene at 1810hrs and that crew were dissapointed with the reaction of the charity crews refusal of help,So does that mean in todays sue culture that if a charity ambulance attends an incident they will not help because their duty period has not started,Sorry to go on but it gets me angry that this particular patient got to hopital over one hour after initial injury.This was a true incident,ex paramedic.
2006-11-12 05:56:04 · 9 answers · asked by Francis7 4 in Health ➔ General Health Care ➔ First Aid
As Reka_poti said "why did they pull up".
Regardless of them not being on duty, surely they owe a duty of care, when they pulled over? As it could very well be deemed that they were seen to intervene by pulling over. If they did nothing, it could also be deemed that they were a hindrance to you.
Makes you wonder why they even pulled over. It is so sad that people must sue others for being kind enough to assist another person in need.
Surely America has a legislation that protects people from being sued if they render assistance to another person in need?
In Australia there is a legislation that protects people from being sued if they render assistance to any person in need. Regardless if on duty or not. See below statement from the legislation.
"Good Samaritans" and "Volunteers"
Rescuers need not fear litigation if the come to the aid of a fellow human in need. No Good Samaritan or volunteer in Australia, has ever been successfully being sued for consequences of rending assistance to a person in need. A Good Samaritan is defined in legislation as a person acting without expecting financial or other reward for providing assistance.
However there is no legal obligation to assist a person, but once you start to intervene then you have taken on the responsibility to duty of care, and must follow through with assistance, until a more qualified person arrives, e.g paramedic or doctor.
2006-11-12 11:09:36 · answer #1 · answered by Georgie 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it was kind of tacky of them; if they couldn't help, then they shouldn't have stopped in the first place. Surely, they could have called their supervisor and obtained permission to transport. If not, at least you would have known that they did their best to help.
It's possible that they may have been a ambulance that normally doesn't transport 911 patients; maybe they normally transport hospital transfers, etc. At my service, there's two types of ambulances and they look identical from the outside. But, if the basic ambulance stopped at a scene, they wouldn't know what to do except call for the ALS ambulance! I agree, over 1 hour is way too l ong to get a patient to the hospital; whatever happened to the "golden hour" or the "platinum 10 minutes"?
2006-11-13 23:53:20 · answer #2 · answered by rita_alabama 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not sure where your locale is (NHS so I suspect Britain?) but it could be that the charity ambulance was not authorized to transport except under HS directive or if they were it might be that they would not be "insured" to transport until the official shift start - I doubt it was the first aiders that wouldn't help but the problem was with the vehicle itself and everyone's liability - in North America that problem would likely have been solved but a quick call to the Medical Dispatch for a run number to authorize the ambulance to full status - like it was "adopted" by the NHS or whoever
2006-11-16 00:58:28 · answer #3 · answered by chickmedic 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In reading your account , it strikes me that the charity crew had been made very aware that they were not insured to do work outside of their designated hours. however, common decency and everyday cop-on should have been to the forefront here. Could you write to the director of the charity concerned and ask about it? There may be a valid reason; however that's not the same as a GOOD reason! you have every reson to ask that question, and good luck with it. I'd be interested to hear the answer!
2006-11-12 14:08:14 · answer #4 · answered by marie m 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have every right to be angry, it made me angry too. Why was the ambulance out if it wasn't able to assist. That is a disgrace. Its a good job you were there, I would be devastated to be involved in an accident and see first aiders refusing to help cos they weren't on duty. How would they like it...?
2006-11-15 14:14:15 · answer #5 · answered by Ali 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am glad you were there to assist, these people. I hope they are ok, and thanks to your assistance.
My question would have been why the hell did they (Charity frontline ambulance) pull up, did they just want to sticky beak?
Really if they could not assist due to time, then they should have kept going. Not hang around and obviously hinder your efforts.
2006-11-12 18:33:29 · answer #6 · answered by reka_poti 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sadly it's about insurance. You have to be working (on shift!) to be covered thus if they were sued or in their own RTA after helping the patient they couldn't have paid.
2006-11-12 13:59:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
its sad they could have atleast attended to the pt. until the responding ambulance arrived but why did it take 25 mins for that ambulance to respond.
2006-11-12 20:14:08 · answer #8 · answered by gousa1991 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
thats the way some people are now days. i know of a crash on a motorway were a car caught fire with the person still inside. a tesco lorry driver on the scene refused to use his fire extinguisher on the car because he said tesco would charge him for a new one. sad but true story. we dont seem to value life anymore! thats my answer!
2006-11-12 14:06:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋