Morning:
9°c
Exclusive poll: Boris Johnson has clawed his way back to a two-point lead in the closest mayoral race yet despite Ken Livingstone's hugely popular pledge to cut fares
More...
Man dies as ambulance crews take a break
Last updated at 10:22am on 05.01.07Two ambulance crews failed to reach a dying man because they were on breaks ordered by European rules.
A paramedic arrived quickly by car after the 73-year-old collapsed on New Year's Eve afternoon — but was forced to wait 30 minutes for an ambulance to take the man to hospital.
Two crews were on a break at Edmonton station five minutes away and could not be disturbed, the Mail's sister paper, the Evening Standard has learned.
If one had been sent, the man would have been at hospital in minutes. Ambulance sources say it might not have saved his life but would have meant he died in hospital rather than on the floor of the betting shop where he suffered the heart attack.
Instead, an ambulance had to be sent from Enfield but by the time it arrived, the man had suffered a heart attack and died.
London Ambulance Service has launched a full investigation. New European rules mean ambulance staff must be given a “protected rest break” during their shift when they cannot be sent on 999 calls.
Witnesses in Edmonton Green said the lone paramedic desperately called for help on his mobile phone while trying to save the man.
An LAS spokesman said: “We dispatched a rapid-response car, which arrived at the shopping centre within eight minutes at 1.30pm, the member of staff being able to start treatment immediately. An ambulance was sent at 1.32pm after it became available from attending another incident and, according to our records, arrived at the shopping centre at 1.41pm and at the patient a few minutes later.
“The man stopped breathing shortly afterwards and efforts were made to resuscitate him both at the scene and on the way to North Middlesex Hospital, where he arrived at approximately 2.10pm.
“We can confirm that two crews were on a rest break at Edmonton Ambulance Station at the time of the 999 call.
“Our sympathies are with the patient's family and we are now looking into the full circumstances of what happened.”
Eyewitness Sheldon Trevatt, 45, from Edmonton, said: “It is disgusting. The man worked all his life paying his national insurance. If that ambulance had been there earlier I think his life would have been saved.”
A source said: “Rest breaks are a good thing but the way they are being implemented is putting patients' lives at risk.”
Reader views (13)
This is a national problem, Ambulance staff a unpaid during the rest period (unlike other emergency services), subsequently the 999 calls are not routed through to them during the meal break, so they are not necessarily given the option to save a life. It is an embarassment to many of us state registered health care professionals.
I hope it becomes more widely publicised, so the operation ambulance crews do not get the blame!
- Michael, East Midlands, 15/01/2009 03:13
Report abuse
Paramedics and EMTs all over London feel disgusted and outraged by this. Their hands are tied. They are not told when calls are waiting to be attended to UNLESS their control tells them, which they are not allowed to do either. It's red tape gone mad. Yes, ambulance crews have wanted breaks within their 12 hour shifts for years, but had we been given the ultimatum of break, or life, of course we would have chose to help people. After all that's why we do this job. Yes we would love to have breaks and indeed need them, but not at the cost of human lives. We WANT to be interupted when a call of this nature comes in but the decision has been made for us. Morale is at its lowest at the moment, and people are walking. We are fighting as much as we can for this, so please help us, the more public support we have the better. Thank you.
- R, London, En, 10/01/2007 11:25
Report abuse
Sympathy to the family of the man who died, and to the poor souls who had to watch him die or try their hardest to no avail.
Crews cannot choose when they go on a break. They are told when to by control, who do not then ring them until the end of their break. If they had been called, I'm sure none of them would have been as inhumane as to refuse.
Response cars simply have no room for patients, and it's impossible to drive fast and treat a seriously ill patient at the same time. If anyone thinks different, try it youself?
- Andro', London, 08/01/2007 16:26
Report abuse
It's seems the problem is not so much with the EU law or the ambulance crews, but with the management of the ambulance crews who allowed breaks to be scheduled so that there was a total lapse in coverage. That's an utter failure of the management.
However the crews, seeing the management failure, should have responded as it was an emergency and dealt with the management isssues later.
- Larry, Harvard, ma, 06/01/2007 15:11
Report abuse
To Suzanne,
Solo paramedics in cars are not allowed to transport patients to hospital, because there is no room for a stretcher in a car and he cannot care for the patient and drive at the same time.
Rebecca Smith, Health Editor, Evening Standard.
- Rebecca Smith, London, 05/01/2007 14:40
Report abuse
Like several other people, I'm shocked that two crews took simultaneous breaks. But I'd also like to know why the attending paramedic didn't take the patient to hospital in his car? Maybe he didn't feel he had all the equipment he needed, but surely it's better to move the man than to sit around hoping an ambulance turns up?
- Suzanne, London, 05/01/2007 13:42
Report abuse
So say they were not given their breaks and crashed the ambulance killing someone as well as not getting the patient to hospital in time. Someone would blame the EU for that too. The EU only gets involved because the UK fails to protect it's own citizens sufficiently to start with.
- Jennifer, Netherlands, ex-UK, 05/01/2007 13:14
Report abuse
Why do we let the EU decide anything for us - from health and safety to economics. I can think of very few examples where one size fits all and most countries end up worse.
As for the NHS and ambulance drivers, they are understaffed and over worked. So the only solution is to recruit more staff - but that cost money that MP's sequestered into their pay rises and pensions (not to mention all the quangos).
- Graham, Reading, England, 05/01/2007 12:31
Report abuse
As the husband of a permanently frazzled NHS worker, I completely sympathise with the need for breaks - but why were TWO crews having a break at the same time?
- Michael, London, 05/01/2007 11:43
Report abuse
Tricky one, ambulance crews need to have enforced breaks as often without one they wouldn't get a break at all. I think this just shows that we need more paramedics and money in general being spent on the NHS.
- Nicky, Hertfordshire, UK, 05/01/2007 11:12
Report abuse
Absolute madness! Not just one but two crews sitting 5 minutes away from a dying man and they weren't to be disturbed! A serious rethink is needed here I think. Obviously these people are worked very hard but I think even they would appreciate that saving a mans life would be more important than a tea break.
- Tanya, Harrow, 05/01/2007 11:01
Report abuse
We signed up to a free trade area and customs union(ie a Single Market). How come we let the faceless cretins in Brussels decide life and death matters like this?
- Holly, Ruislip, 05/01/2007 10:46
Report abuse
Why don't they stagger the rest breaks, or would that involve too much commonsense?
- Tara, London, UK, 05/01/2007 10:45
Report abuse
