H&S gone mad

[Graham Davis]

 

2 hours ago, KevMc said:

Again.. we don't know the situation. It is possible that the driver has a need to put wheelchairs in his vehicle and as such has appropriate anchoring points.

Anchorage points for wheel chairs are not suitable for and not designed for stretchers.

2 minutes ago, Keith M said:

Yes they were aware of the rules but by waiting for an ambulance it was going to around two to three hours

Which is quite normal for a non-life threatening incident, due to an over-stretched, under-funded situation most Ambulance trusts are now in.

[WotEver]

4 hours ago, Heartland said:

It is also common for paramedics to attend such issues, did one attend and if so what advice was given?

It’s a shame you didn’t bother to read the article.

 

(Not only was a paramedic in attendance but he accompanied the stretchered patient to the hospital.)

[Iain_S]

On 07/07/2019 at 19:07, Graham Davis said:

Well I'm going to go against the perceived forum "wisdom" here and say that I agree with their bosses. 
As far as can be read from a known sensationalist paper the "casualty" did not have a life threatening injury and therefore a 2 hour wait for an overstretch Ambulance service vehicle is not uncommon. Plus neither of these people would have been insured if anything had gone wrong, both personally and for their vehicle. 
If they were that concerned they should have contacted the Ambulance Service again and stated EXACTLY why there were further concerns and should have waited with the casualty until help did arrive.

From the BBC report:

The former coastguard said on Sunday 23 June at 01:00 BST his team was called to help an 18-year-old man who had drunk too much and was unconscious, cold and wet in the sand dunes

 

So. drunk, probable hypothermia, (which would be increased by alcohol level) and requiring use of a stretcher. A wait of two hours for an ambulance would not improve the casualty's prognosis....

 

What would have been the story had they waited for an ambulance, and the casualty expired?

 

[Machpoint005]

"Man dies of alcohol poisoning"

[Graham Davis]

1 hour ago, Iain_S said:

 

What would have been the story had they waited for an ambulance, and the casualty expired?

 

Considering that there were 2 trained First Aiders AND a Paramedic with him, he was being well attended. I am sure that if the Paramedic had been concerned then he would have increased the "risk response" to something higher.

[Slim]

On 07/07/2019 at 19:07, Graham Davis said:

Well I'm going to go against the perceived forum "wisdom" here and say that I agree with their bosses. 
As far as can be read from a known sensationalist paper the "casualty" did not have a life threatening injury and therefore a 2 hour wait for an overstretch Ambulance service vehicle is not uncommon. Plus neither of these people would have been insured if anything had gone wrong, both personally and for their vehicle. 
If they were that concerned they should have contacted the Ambulance Service again and stated EXACTLY why there were further concerns and should have waited with the casualty until help did arrive.

Your faith in the Ambulance Service is touching  but a little misguided.

A few months ago a friends 80 year old partner got  aphone call from her GP at 10 am to the effect that following the results of blood tests she had a serious medical problem that required IMMEDIATE hospitalisation and that an ambulance would arrive to take her to nhospital within an hour. Under no circumstances should my friend take her to hospital by car. Dispite any nùmber of phone calls (including 999) no ambulance responded. In the end , at around 7pm my 77 year old friend  took his partner to hospital by car where they spent an hour plus waiting to be seen after which she was admitted. To put this into context this all took place in Hertfordshire within the M25 boundary and about ONE mile from Watford General hospital.

Edited July 8, 2019 by Slim

[Jerra]

16 hours ago, furnessvale said:

Without lookin things up, it seems entirely unreasonable that motor vehicle insurance is rendered void by using the said vehicle to transport someone to hospital in a medical emergency.

 

If it is indeed the case there are many such instances annually where people are transported in uninsured vehicles.

 

George

Certainly it is the case with a teacher taking a child to hospital unless they are insured for business.  A slightly different situation I know as the kids are the teachers business.

[cuthound]

3 hours ago, Jerra said:

Certainly it is the case with a teacher taking a child to hospital unless they are insured for business.  A slightly different situation I know as the kids are the teachers business.

 

During my career I sometimes opted for a car allowance rather than a company car.

 

When I did I also required "class 1 business insurance". There was never any additional premium to pay, so why don't coastguards, teachers etc who could conceivably be required to take people to hospital include business insurance in their private car insurance?

[Jerra]

33 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

During my career I sometimes opted for a car allowance rather than a company car.

 

When I did I also required "class 1 business insurance". There was never any additional premium to pay, so why don't coastguards, teachers etc who could conceivably be required to take people to hospital include business insurance in their private car insurance?

Some do some don't it depends on the personal circumstances with regard to the schoo.  For example the 15-1600+ secondary I was in had a "matron" who dealt with health problems.   The local village school doesn't at 50 -60 kids.  I assume at least somebody on the staff has been appointed First Aider and while that (I am told) is technically only for the staff in a village school they probably deal with the kids as well.