Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The NHS is being cut each year. As demand grows (from population growth etc) the service has to meet that demand but using the same resources as the previous year.


... so you hear about NHS waste and the 'efficiencies' that could be generated by 'common sense rationalisation' ...


I'm sure there are better ways of running nhs but mistakes are going to happen along the way.

minder Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> She should have had

> total priority surely as a pregnant woman of 21

> and what had happened.

>



Why?


I mean, yes she should have been attended to quite quickly, but not sure why she should have had "total priority" on the strength of being pregnant and 21. Especially when we have no idea what other calls the service had received that afternoon.

Usually I'm afraid it's because there are more category 1 calls than there are ambulances. They have to ask questions to prioritise based on risk to life eg no breathing, poor breathing, weak heart beat etc. The questions are evidenced based, but not perfect. Every call is an emergency (except of course the hundreds that aren't, but there is no easy way to identify which is which, hence the questions).

Ambulances do also have to queue at hospital to handover patients, so sometimes many are out of action. More money & more resources are needed, and less time wasters clogging up the system (obviously not this case).

TreacleRabbit Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Usually I'm afraid it's because there are more

> category 1 calls than there are ambulances. They

> have to ask questions to prioritise based on risk

> to life eg no breathing, poor breathing, weak

> heart beat etc. The questions are evidenced based,

> but not perfect. Every call is an emergency

> (except of course the hundreds that aren't, but

> there is no easy way to identify which is which,

> hence the questions).

> Ambulances do also have to queue at hospital to

> handover patients, so sometimes many are out of

> action. More money & more resources are needed,

> and less time wasters clogging up the system

> (obviously not this case).



Some photos I saw recently (not London) of queues

of ambulances waiting to drop off patients at

hospital were frightening.


Isn't that Command & Control/Administration - you'd

think there would be a way around that.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I'd get rid of duty free shopping.  Nothing to do with tourist tax but something I hate.  All that glitz as you try to get through to Wetherspoons in the departure lounge.  No great savings over on line or even at times supermarkets, and the hypocrisy of selling cheap cancer sticks. Ok back to tourist tax  
    • If anyone is thinking of traveling a bit more and would like to supplement their trip by picking up a few family heirlooms from various ailing maiden aunts of mine, please drop me a private message. I'm particularly interested in anyone who is considering Colombia & Bolivia, The Golden Triangle region of South East Asia, Andalusia & North Africa or Rotterdam. And Liverpool.  
    • Wow I had no idea they give you 5% in perfume for your accommodation. You're right, I need to travel more. 
    • Do none of you go abroad.  Tourist taxes are really common in continental Europe and do vary a lot city by city. They are collected by the hotels/rental apartments. They are usually a  tiny part of your holiday costs.  In Narbonne recently we paid €1.30 per person per night.  The next town we went to charge 80 cents per person per night. By comparison Cologne is 5% of your accomodation.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...