Drivers defended after three ambulance crashes in one week

An ambulance crashes through a garden fence on Longmeadow Road Creekmoor on Friday evening

An ambulance crashes through a garden fence on Longmeadow Road Creekmoor on Friday evening

First published in News by

HEALTH chiefs have defended their skilled drivers following three ambulance crashes during a week.

Two crashes involved South Western Ambulance Service NHS ambulances, while the third was from the NHS South Central Ambulance Service.

No one was injured in either of the South Western ambulance incidents, but a man in his early 20s sustained leg and pelvic injuries during the accident involving the South Central ambulance in the New Forest. However, no patients were on board at the time and neither of the paramedics were injured.

South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (SCAS) confirmed a car was in collision with an ambulance at 4.42pm, January 19, at Old Christchurch Road, Everton.

A SCAS spokesman said: “The ambulance was en route to an emergency call at the time of the incident.

“SCAS sent further resources to the incident to treat the casualties.

“One patient, a male in his 20s, was treated at the scene and taken to Southampton General Hospital.

“One patient sustained minor injuries and did not require any hospital treatment.

“An investigation is currently ongoing into the circumstances of the incident, so we cannot comment further.”

Meanwhile, a spokesman for South Western Ambulance Service said their skilled drivers had been dealing with the same icy conditions that have gripped the nation in recent weeks.

This spokesman added: “The Trust’s primary concern is the safety of both patients and staff.

Thankfully, no one was injured as a result of these two incidents and there were no adverse outcomes for patients.

“The recent adverse weather conditions have resulted in very challenging driving conditions across the south west for all road users.”

Last Friday evening an ambulance left the road in Longmeadow Lane, Creekmoor, Poole, and crashed into a garden fence. No one was injured.

One week earlier, an ambulance was in collision with a Renault Clio car near the Shah of Persia pub, Longfleet Road, Poole, close to Poole Hospital.

Once again, no one was injured.

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:02pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Aviewoneverything says...

The more overriding question should be 'were the "emergencies" these ambulances responding to actually emergencies.
Historically when a 999 call was received the call taker would ask the location the ambulance was needed and then ask what the principle reason for calling 999 was, i.e chest pains etc. Only after this information was received would the ambulance be dispatched on blue lights. If the call taker received a call that did not warrant blue lights, an ambulance was still sent at the same time but in non emergency conditions. This meant less risk to the crews and less risk to the public. However, a few years ago under the previous labour administration, in a bid to standardise reporting of targets across the UK's ambulance Trusts, a system called 'call connect' was implemented. Call Connect required the ambulance dispatchers to send the ambulance, as an emergency (blue lights), as soon as the address was received, regardless of the nature of the call. Only following minutes of questioning is the true nature of the call understood and the call downgraded to a non-emergency call where applicable. In densely populated areas this usually means the call is not fully assessed before an ambulance arrives on scene. This in turn puts the crews and the public at greater risk due to the increased number of calls being responded to on 'blue lights'.
The labour government believed that the time saved in immediately dispatching the ambulance compared with getting the basic details of the call first, would not only standardise target reporting across all the UK ambulance Trusts but would also give a better level of care for the patient. In the time frame of a 999 call cycle we are talking about a saving of approximately 30s, which in life threatening conditions is very important. However, the modern ambulance service deals with less and less life threatening conditions, and more common illness conditions such as diarrhea and vomiting bugs, social and mental health issues etc. All these calls are responded to, initially, as an emergency (blue lights) until the call is fully assessed.
This system is no fault of any individual staff group or Trust as a whole, but it is a poor government policy implemented with targets, not patients, in mind.
Health unions have been campaigning endlessly to have this issue addressed, but the requests fall on deaf ears at the DoH.
Until such time as the 'call connect' system is dropped, and call takers are allowed to judge the severity of the call before sending an ambulance out under emergency conditions, we will continue to see more and more flashy yellow vans whizzing about, and regrettably under the law of averages, there are likely to be further accidents.
The more overriding question should be 'were the "emergencies" these ambulances responding to actually emergencies. Historically when a 999 call was received the call taker would ask the location the ambulance was needed and then ask what the principle reason for calling 999 was, i.e chest pains etc. Only after this information was received would the ambulance be dispatched on blue lights. If the call taker received a call that did not warrant blue lights, an ambulance was still sent at the same time but in non emergency conditions. This meant less risk to the crews and less risk to the public. However, a few years ago under the previous labour administration, in a bid to standardise reporting of targets across the UK's ambulance Trusts, a system called 'call connect' was implemented. Call Connect required the ambulance dispatchers to send the ambulance, as an emergency (blue lights), as soon as the address was received, regardless of the nature of the call. Only following minutes of questioning is the true nature of the call understood and the call downgraded to a non-emergency call where applicable. In densely populated areas this usually means the call is not fully assessed before an ambulance arrives on scene. This in turn puts the crews and the public at greater risk due to the increased number of calls being responded to on 'blue lights'. The labour government believed that the time saved in immediately dispatching the ambulance compared with getting the basic details of the call first, would not only standardise target reporting across all the UK ambulance Trusts but would also give a better level of care for the patient. In the time frame of a 999 call cycle we are talking about a saving of approximately 30s, which in life threatening conditions is very important. However, the modern ambulance service deals with less and less life threatening conditions, and more common illness conditions such as diarrhea and vomiting bugs, social and mental health issues etc. All these calls are responded to, initially, as an emergency (blue lights) until the call is fully assessed. This system is no fault of any individual staff group or Trust as a whole, but it is a poor government policy implemented with targets, not patients, in mind. Health unions have been campaigning endlessly to have this issue addressed, but the requests fall on deaf ears at the DoH. Until such time as the 'call connect' system is dropped, and call takers are allowed to judge the severity of the call before sending an ambulance out under emergency conditions, we will continue to see more and more flashy yellow vans whizzing about, and regrettably under the law of averages, there are likely to be further accidents. Aviewoneverything
  • Score: 0

1:06pm Fri 1 Feb 13

woby_tide says...

Having seen the idiocy of some drivers when encountering emergency vehicles it's not really a surprise.

- If one is behind you and you are at a red traffic light, you still should move

- If all the other traffic pulls over to the side of the road, it isn't an opportunity for you to overtake, nor is it an offer to begin an overtaking manoeuvre, it's to let the ambulance past

- Slip streaming ambulances attending an emergency also isn't the done thing, grow up and realise your time isn't really that important
Having seen the idiocy of some drivers when encountering emergency vehicles it's not really a surprise. - If one is behind you and you are at a red traffic light, you still should move - If all the other traffic pulls over to the side of the road, it isn't an opportunity for you to overtake, nor is it an offer to begin an overtaking manoeuvre, it's to let the ambulance past - Slip streaming ambulances attending an emergency also isn't the done thing, grow up and realise your time isn't really that important woby_tide
  • Score: 0

1:20pm Fri 1 Feb 13

nobbjockie says...

Aviewoneverything wrote:
The more overriding question should be 'were the "emergencies" these ambulances responding to actually emergencies.
Historically when a 999 call was received the call taker would ask the location the ambulance was needed and then ask what the principle reason for calling 999 was, i.e chest pains etc. Only after this information was received would the ambulance be dispatched on blue lights. If the call taker received a call that did not warrant blue lights, an ambulance was still sent at the same time but in non emergency conditions. This meant less risk to the crews and less risk to the public. However, a few years ago under the previous labour administration, in a bid to standardise reporting of targets across the UK's ambulance Trusts, a system called 'call connect' was implemented. Call Connect required the ambulance dispatchers to send the ambulance, as an emergency (blue lights), as soon as the address was received, regardless of the nature of the call. Only following minutes of questioning is the true nature of the call understood and the call downgraded to a non-emergency call where applicable. In densely populated areas this usually means the call is not fully assessed before an ambulance arrives on scene. This in turn puts the crews and the public at greater risk due to the increased number of calls being responded to on 'blue lights'.
The labour government believed that the time saved in immediately dispatching the ambulance compared with getting the basic details of the call first, would not only standardise target reporting across all the UK ambulance Trusts but would also give a better level of care for the patient. In the time frame of a 999 call cycle we are talking about a saving of approximately 30s, which in life threatening conditions is very important. However, the modern ambulance service deals with less and less life threatening conditions, and more common illness conditions such as diarrhea and vomiting bugs, social and mental health issues etc. All these calls are responded to, initially, as an emergency (blue lights) until the call is fully assessed.
This system is no fault of any individual staff group or Trust as a whole, but it is a poor government policy implemented with targets, not patients, in mind.
Health unions have been campaigning endlessly to have this issue addressed, but the requests fall on deaf ears at the DoH.
Until such time as the 'call connect' system is dropped, and call takers are allowed to judge the severity of the call before sending an ambulance out under emergency conditions, we will continue to see more and more flashy yellow vans whizzing about, and regrettably under the law of averages, there are likely to be further accidents.
Whilst part of your story is factually correct, the element referring to the amount of time between determining the difference between a life risk emergency or not does not take minutes and therefore you are misleading the readers. If the dispatcher is getting a 'good' response to their questions then it takes seconds. The fact of the matter is it is better to go 'red' first and then downgrade the response. The standards of driving commanded by all emergency services nowadays is much higher than ever due to the volume and speed of traffic and of course the general driver behaviour which I am sure we can all agree has deteriorated over time for various reasons. Nobody other than those that were there or the investigators know what happened at any of these incidents so therefore it is remiss of this newspaper to scaremonger and the armchair detectives to get on their high horse. I have an immense regard for all of our emergency service personnel who are out there responding to us and our families in times of deep distress.
[quote][p][bold]Aviewoneverything[/bold] wrote: The more overriding question should be 'were the "emergencies" these ambulances responding to actually emergencies. Historically when a 999 call was received the call taker would ask the location the ambulance was needed and then ask what the principle reason for calling 999 was, i.e chest pains etc. Only after this information was received would the ambulance be dispatched on blue lights. If the call taker received a call that did not warrant blue lights, an ambulance was still sent at the same time but in non emergency conditions. This meant less risk to the crews and less risk to the public. However, a few years ago under the previous labour administration, in a bid to standardise reporting of targets across the UK's ambulance Trusts, a system called 'call connect' was implemented. Call Connect required the ambulance dispatchers to send the ambulance, as an emergency (blue lights), as soon as the address was received, regardless of the nature of the call. Only following minutes of questioning is the true nature of the call understood and the call downgraded to a non-emergency call where applicable. In densely populated areas this usually means the call is not fully assessed before an ambulance arrives on scene. This in turn puts the crews and the public at greater risk due to the increased number of calls being responded to on 'blue lights'. The labour government believed that the time saved in immediately dispatching the ambulance compared with getting the basic details of the call first, would not only standardise target reporting across all the UK ambulance Trusts but would also give a better level of care for the patient. In the time frame of a 999 call cycle we are talking about a saving of approximately 30s, which in life threatening conditions is very important. However, the modern ambulance service deals with less and less life threatening conditions, and more common illness conditions such as diarrhea and vomiting bugs, social and mental health issues etc. All these calls are responded to, initially, as an emergency (blue lights) until the call is fully assessed. This system is no fault of any individual staff group or Trust as a whole, but it is a poor government policy implemented with targets, not patients, in mind. Health unions have been campaigning endlessly to have this issue addressed, but the requests fall on deaf ears at the DoH. Until such time as the 'call connect' system is dropped, and call takers are allowed to judge the severity of the call before sending an ambulance out under emergency conditions, we will continue to see more and more flashy yellow vans whizzing about, and regrettably under the law of averages, there are likely to be further accidents.[/p][/quote]Whilst part of your story is factually correct, the element referring to the amount of time between determining the difference between a life risk emergency or not does not take minutes and therefore you are misleading the readers. If the dispatcher is getting a 'good' response to their questions then it takes seconds. The fact of the matter is it is better to go 'red' first and then downgrade the response. The standards of driving commanded by all emergency services nowadays is much higher than ever due to the volume and speed of traffic and of course the general driver behaviour which I am sure we can all agree has deteriorated over time for various reasons. Nobody other than those that were there or the investigators know what happened at any of these incidents so therefore it is remiss of this newspaper to scaremonger and the armchair detectives to get on their high horse. I have an immense regard for all of our emergency service personnel who are out there responding to us and our families in times of deep distress. nobbjockie
  • Score: 0

1:45pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Aviewoneverything says...

nobbjockie wrote:
Aviewoneverything wrote:
The more overriding question should be 'were the "emergencies" these ambulances responding to actually emergencies.
Historically when a 999 call was received the call taker would ask the location the ambulance was needed and then ask what the principle reason for calling 999 was, i.e chest pains etc. Only after this information was received would the ambulance be dispatched on blue lights. If the call taker received a call that did not warrant blue lights, an ambulance was still sent at the same time but in non emergency conditions. This meant less risk to the crews and less risk to the public. However, a few years ago under the previous labour administration, in a bid to standardise reporting of targets across the UK's ambulance Trusts, a system called 'call connect' was implemented. Call Connect required the ambulance dispatchers to send the ambulance, as an emergency (blue lights), as soon as the address was received, regardless of the nature of the call. Only following minutes of questioning is the true nature of the call understood and the call downgraded to a non-emergency call where applicable. In densely populated areas this usually means the call is not fully assessed before an ambulance arrives on scene. This in turn puts the crews and the public at greater risk due to the increased number of calls being responded to on 'blue lights'.
The labour government believed that the time saved in immediately dispatching the ambulance compared with getting the basic details of the call first, would not only standardise target reporting across all the UK ambulance Trusts but would also give a better level of care for the patient. In the time frame of a 999 call cycle we are talking about a saving of approximately 30s, which in life threatening conditions is very important. However, the modern ambulance service deals with less and less life threatening conditions, and more common illness conditions such as diarrhea and vomiting bugs, social and mental health issues etc. All these calls are responded to, initially, as an emergency (blue lights) until the call is fully assessed.
This system is no fault of any individual staff group or Trust as a whole, but it is a poor government policy implemented with targets, not patients, in mind.
Health unions have been campaigning endlessly to have this issue addressed, but the requests fall on deaf ears at the DoH.
Until such time as the 'call connect' system is dropped, and call takers are allowed to judge the severity of the call before sending an ambulance out under emergency conditions, we will continue to see more and more flashy yellow vans whizzing about, and regrettably under the law of averages, there are likely to be further accidents.
Whilst part of your story is factually correct, the element referring to the amount of time between determining the difference between a life risk emergency or not does not take minutes and therefore you are misleading the readers. If the dispatcher is getting a 'good' response to their questions then it takes seconds. The fact of the matter is it is better to go 'red' first and then downgrade the response. The standards of driving commanded by all emergency services nowadays is much higher than ever due to the volume and speed of traffic and of course the general driver behaviour which I am sure we can all agree has deteriorated over time for various reasons. Nobody other than those that were there or the investigators know what happened at any of these incidents so therefore it is remiss of this newspaper to scaremonger and the armchair detectives to get on their high horse. I have an immense regard for all of our emergency service personnel who are out there responding to us and our families in times of deep distress.
@nobbjockie - You say it is better to go 'red' first, and then be downgraded. I'd be interested to hear a legal professional's input on a situation where a member of the public was seriously injured/killed by an ambulance responding as an emergency which was subsequently determined to be non life threatening, such as the issues mentioned in my previous post.
Under the exemptions to the road traffic laws available to emergency vehicle drivers, it is ultimately the driver of the emergency vehicle that must justify and is therefore responsible for the use of such exemptions. Under this reasoning I would argue that responding on blue lights without knowing the true nature of the call leaves the emergency vehicle driver liable for any incident that occurs, not to mention emotionally burdened by the incident.
I too am in no way criticising the emergency staff or the Trusts they work for, this is a government policy that is deeply flawed and highly dangerous in my mind.
[quote][p][bold]nobbjockie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Aviewoneverything[/bold] wrote: The more overriding question should be 'were the "emergencies" these ambulances responding to actually emergencies. Historically when a 999 call was received the call taker would ask the location the ambulance was needed and then ask what the principle reason for calling 999 was, i.e chest pains etc. Only after this information was received would the ambulance be dispatched on blue lights. If the call taker received a call that did not warrant blue lights, an ambulance was still sent at the same time but in non emergency conditions. This meant less risk to the crews and less risk to the public. However, a few years ago under the previous labour administration, in a bid to standardise reporting of targets across the UK's ambulance Trusts, a system called 'call connect' was implemented. Call Connect required the ambulance dispatchers to send the ambulance, as an emergency (blue lights), as soon as the address was received, regardless of the nature of the call. Only following minutes of questioning is the true nature of the call understood and the call downgraded to a non-emergency call where applicable. In densely populated areas this usually means the call is not fully assessed before an ambulance arrives on scene. This in turn puts the crews and the public at greater risk due to the increased number of calls being responded to on 'blue lights'. The labour government believed that the time saved in immediately dispatching the ambulance compared with getting the basic details of the call first, would not only standardise target reporting across all the UK ambulance Trusts but would also give a better level of care for the patient. In the time frame of a 999 call cycle we are talking about a saving of approximately 30s, which in life threatening conditions is very important. However, the modern ambulance service deals with less and less life threatening conditions, and more common illness conditions such as diarrhea and vomiting bugs, social and mental health issues etc. All these calls are responded to, initially, as an emergency (blue lights) until the call is fully assessed. This system is no fault of any individual staff group or Trust as a whole, but it is a poor government policy implemented with targets, not patients, in mind. Health unions have been campaigning endlessly to have this issue addressed, but the requests fall on deaf ears at the DoH. Until such time as the 'call connect' system is dropped, and call takers are allowed to judge the severity of the call before sending an ambulance out under emergency conditions, we will continue to see more and more flashy yellow vans whizzing about, and regrettably under the law of averages, there are likely to be further accidents.[/p][/quote]Whilst part of your story is factually correct, the element referring to the amount of time between determining the difference between a life risk emergency or not does not take minutes and therefore you are misleading the readers. If the dispatcher is getting a 'good' response to their questions then it takes seconds. The fact of the matter is it is better to go 'red' first and then downgrade the response. The standards of driving commanded by all emergency services nowadays is much higher than ever due to the volume and speed of traffic and of course the general driver behaviour which I am sure we can all agree has deteriorated over time for various reasons. Nobody other than those that were there or the investigators know what happened at any of these incidents so therefore it is remiss of this newspaper to scaremonger and the armchair detectives to get on their high horse. I have an immense regard for all of our emergency service personnel who are out there responding to us and our families in times of deep distress.[/p][/quote]@nobbjockie - You say it is better to go 'red' first, and then be downgraded. I'd be interested to hear a legal professional's input on a situation where a member of the public was seriously injured/killed by an ambulance responding as an emergency which was subsequently determined to be non life threatening, such as the issues mentioned in my previous post. Under the exemptions to the road traffic laws available to emergency vehicle drivers, it is ultimately the driver of the emergency vehicle that must justify and is therefore responsible for the use of such exemptions. Under this reasoning I would argue that responding on blue lights without knowing the true nature of the call leaves the emergency vehicle driver liable for any incident that occurs, not to mention emotionally burdened by the incident. I too am in no way criticising the emergency staff or the Trusts they work for, this is a government policy that is deeply flawed and highly dangerous in my mind. Aviewoneverything
  • Score: 0

1:49pm Fri 1 Feb 13

gerbil112 says...

Aviewoneverything wrote:
The more overriding question should be 'were the "emergencies" these ambulances responding to actually emergencies.
Historically when a 999 call was received the call taker would ask the location the ambulance was needed and then ask what the principle reason for calling 999 was, i.e chest pains etc. Only after this information was received would the ambulance be dispatched on blue lights. If the call taker received a call that did not warrant blue lights, an ambulance was still sent at the same time but in non emergency conditions. This meant less risk to the crews and less risk to the public. However, a few years ago under the previous labour administration, in a bid to standardise reporting of targets across the UK's ambulance Trusts, a system called 'call connect' was implemented. Call Connect required the ambulance dispatchers to send the ambulance, as an emergency (blue lights), as soon as the address was received, regardless of the nature of the call. Only following minutes of questioning is the true nature of the call understood and the call downgraded to a non-emergency call where applicable. In densely populated areas this usually means the call is not fully assessed before an ambulance arrives on scene. This in turn puts the crews and the public at greater risk due to the increased number of calls being responded to on 'blue lights'.
The labour government believed that the time saved in immediately dispatching the ambulance compared with getting the basic details of the call first, would not only standardise target reporting across all the UK ambulance Trusts but would also give a better level of care for the patient. In the time frame of a 999 call cycle we are talking about a saving of approximately 30s, which in life threatening conditions is very important. However, the modern ambulance service deals with less and less life threatening conditions, and more common illness conditions such as diarrhea and vomiting bugs, social and mental health issues etc. All these calls are responded to, initially, as an emergency (blue lights) until the call is fully assessed.
This system is no fault of any individual staff group or Trust as a whole, but it is a poor government policy implemented with targets, not patients, in mind.
Health unions have been campaigning endlessly to have this issue addressed, but the requests fall on deaf ears at the DoH.
Until such time as the 'call connect' system is dropped, and call takers are allowed to judge the severity of the call before sending an ambulance out under emergency conditions, we will continue to see more and more flashy yellow vans whizzing about, and regrettably under the law of averages, there are likely to be further accidents.
Absolutely spot-on! Crews are subject to unnecessary stress and the risk of an accident is increased by treating all calls as live-threatening unless decided (by a computer) otherwise. When was the last time the Fire Service dispatched a fire engine immediately on receipt of a 999 call, "just in case"? From a public perspective, seeing almost every ambulance running round in blue lights, overtaking traffic, running at speed, and then shutting down does somewhat dilute the perception of "emergency". It used to be joked that the Police only use their blue lights when late for dinner. Don't let this thought enter the publics mind by letting people think that targets are being chased in order to hit the times on the occasional BIG ONE when we know that few emergency calls are life-threatening and warrant two highly skilled clinicians to risk their lives, and those of every vehicle the pass on route to the patient, "just in case".
[quote][p][bold]Aviewoneverything[/bold] wrote: The more overriding question should be 'were the "emergencies" these ambulances responding to actually emergencies. Historically when a 999 call was received the call taker would ask the location the ambulance was needed and then ask what the principle reason for calling 999 was, i.e chest pains etc. Only after this information was received would the ambulance be dispatched on blue lights. If the call taker received a call that did not warrant blue lights, an ambulance was still sent at the same time but in non emergency conditions. This meant less risk to the crews and less risk to the public. However, a few years ago under the previous labour administration, in a bid to standardise reporting of targets across the UK's ambulance Trusts, a system called 'call connect' was implemented. Call Connect required the ambulance dispatchers to send the ambulance, as an emergency (blue lights), as soon as the address was received, regardless of the nature of the call. Only following minutes of questioning is the true nature of the call understood and the call downgraded to a non-emergency call where applicable. In densely populated areas this usually means the call is not fully assessed before an ambulance arrives on scene. This in turn puts the crews and the public at greater risk due to the increased number of calls being responded to on 'blue lights'. The labour government believed that the time saved in immediately dispatching the ambulance compared with getting the basic details of the call first, would not only standardise target reporting across all the UK ambulance Trusts but would also give a better level of care for the patient. In the time frame of a 999 call cycle we are talking about a saving of approximately 30s, which in life threatening conditions is very important. However, the modern ambulance service deals with less and less life threatening conditions, and more common illness conditions such as diarrhea and vomiting bugs, social and mental health issues etc. All these calls are responded to, initially, as an emergency (blue lights) until the call is fully assessed. This system is no fault of any individual staff group or Trust as a whole, but it is a poor government policy implemented with targets, not patients, in mind. Health unions have been campaigning endlessly to have this issue addressed, but the requests fall on deaf ears at the DoH. Until such time as the 'call connect' system is dropped, and call takers are allowed to judge the severity of the call before sending an ambulance out under emergency conditions, we will continue to see more and more flashy yellow vans whizzing about, and regrettably under the law of averages, there are likely to be further accidents.[/p][/quote]Absolutely spot-on! Crews are subject to unnecessary stress and the risk of an accident is increased by treating all calls as live-threatening unless decided (by a computer) otherwise. When was the last time the Fire Service dispatched a fire engine immediately on receipt of a 999 call, "just in case"? From a public perspective, seeing almost every ambulance running round in blue lights, overtaking traffic, running at speed, and then shutting down does somewhat dilute the perception of "emergency". It used to be joked that the Police only use their blue lights when late for dinner. Don't let this thought enter the publics mind by letting people think that targets are being chased in order to hit the times on the occasional BIG ONE when we know that few emergency calls are life-threatening and warrant two highly skilled clinicians to risk their lives, and those of every vehicle the pass on route to the patient, "just in case". gerbil112
  • Score: 0

5:47pm Fri 1 Feb 13

hmm11m says...

Only part of the initial commenters comments are correct. Traditionally since the formation of the service ambulances were sent to EVERY call as an emergency, there was no form of call prioritisation and all emergencies (or not) were treated the same. In the mid / late 90s telephone triage and call categorisation was introduced. All ambulances were still supposed to respond to all calls as an emergency though. It was only circa 2005 that trusts began to respond to the lowest priority calls as non emergency calls however the ambulances were still allocated on address and a reason for calling before the call was fully triaged. Then the ambulance crew were informed and allowed to turn off the blue lights. There is a misconception that responding to all calls on red is a new thing. It really isn't! There is not likely to be a change in the way things are done so like it or not we are stuck with it. After all could you justify not sending an ambulance for 30 seconds to a baby not breathing? How would you feel if it were your child and you found out that the controller had held back sending an ambulance to your dying relative in case it was not a real emergency? Its not the procedures that need to change it is an education program for the general public so they only call when a lights and sirens response would be appropriate not just because they have a paper cut or snotty nose. You should not put the life threatening cases at risk because of the bad behaviour of other members of society.
Only part of the initial commenters comments are correct. Traditionally since the formation of the service ambulances were sent to EVERY call as an emergency, there was no form of call prioritisation and all emergencies (or not) were treated the same. In the mid / late 90s telephone triage and call categorisation was introduced. All ambulances were still supposed to respond to all calls as an emergency though. It was only circa 2005 that trusts began to respond to the lowest priority calls as non emergency calls however the ambulances were still allocated on address and a reason for calling before the call was fully triaged. Then the ambulance crew were informed and allowed to turn off the blue lights. There is a misconception that responding to all calls on red is a new thing. It really isn't! There is not likely to be a change in the way things are done so like it or not we are stuck with it. After all could you justify not sending an ambulance for 30 seconds to a baby not breathing? How would you feel if it were your child and you found out that the controller had held back sending an ambulance to your dying relative in case it was not a real emergency? Its not the procedures that need to change it is an education program for the general public so they only call when a lights and sirens response would be appropriate not just because they have a paper cut or snotty nose. You should not put the life threatening cases at risk because of the bad behaviour of other members of society. hmm11m
  • Score: 0

8:18pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Hessenford says...

Whatever the cause of these incidents the ambulance crews play a vital role in keeping us all alive and I applaud their determination to get to every emergency through traffic which is often filled with ignorant and obstructive drivers.
Rather than play armchair detectives why not wait and see that outcome of the investigations to these accidents to see who was and was not at fault.
Whatever the cause of these incidents the ambulance crews play a vital role in keeping us all alive and I applaud their determination to get to every emergency through traffic which is often filled with ignorant and obstructive drivers. Rather than play armchair detectives why not wait and see that outcome of the investigations to these accidents to see who was and was not at fault. Hessenford
  • Score: 0

7:16am Sat 2 Feb 13

EGHH says...

My job takes me to various repair facilities where I see ambulances in various states of damage. The cost to the NHS must be astronomical. There are many minor incidents where the wing mirrors are knocked off by drivers misjudging the width of the ambulance. I also see police vehicles with dents on them but never fire engines. Just a thought?
My job takes me to various repair facilities where I see ambulances in various states of damage. The cost to the NHS must be astronomical. There are many minor incidents where the wing mirrors are knocked off by drivers misjudging the width of the ambulance. I also see police vehicles with dents on them but never fire engines. Just a thought? EGHH
  • Score: 0

8:05pm Sat 2 Feb 13

hmm11m says...

EGHH wrote:
My job takes me to various repair facilities where I see ambulances in various states of damage. The cost to the NHS must be astronomical. There are many minor incidents where the wing mirrors are knocked off by drivers misjudging the width of the ambulance. I also see police vehicles with dents on them but never fire engines. Just a thought?
Its hard to dent something when it is parked in a garage all day.

Joking aside the number of miles done by thefire service is much less in comparison with Police and Ambulance as they have a lower number of emergency calls so therefore there is less chance of them being involved in an incident.
[quote][p][bold]EGHH[/bold] wrote: My job takes me to various repair facilities where I see ambulances in various states of damage. The cost to the NHS must be astronomical. There are many minor incidents where the wing mirrors are knocked off by drivers misjudging the width of the ambulance. I also see police vehicles with dents on them but never fire engines. Just a thought?[/p][/quote]Its hard to dent something when it is parked in a garage all day. Joking aside the number of miles done by thefire service is much less in comparison with Police and Ambulance as they have a lower number of emergency calls so therefore there is less chance of them being involved in an incident. hmm11m
  • Score: 0

7:41pm Sun 3 Feb 13

rayc says...

Hessenford wrote:
Whatever the cause of these incidents the ambulance crews play a vital role in keeping us all alive and I applaud their determination to get to every emergency through traffic which is often filled with ignorant and obstructive drivers.
Rather than play armchair detectives why not wait and see that outcome of the investigations to these accidents to see who was and was not at fault.
Just as I agree with you that ambulance crews play a vital role in keeping us all alive and I applaud their determination to get to every emergency through traffic.. I cannot agree that the traffic is filled with ignorant and obstructive drivers.
The vast majority of drivers want to assist the emergency drivers as much as possible but it has been emphasised by the authorities that they must not break any traffic laws whilst doing. The Police have emphasised that Emergency drivers are highly trained and it is their responsibility to move round obstructions and to switch of their sirens if they cannot make progress. The only person who can instruct you to pass a red signal is a Police Officer.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Whatever the cause of these incidents the ambulance crews play a vital role in keeping us all alive and I applaud their determination to get to every emergency through traffic which is often filled with ignorant and obstructive drivers. Rather than play armchair detectives why not wait and see that outcome of the investigations to these accidents to see who was and was not at fault.[/p][/quote]Just as I agree with you that ambulance crews play a vital role in keeping us all alive and I applaud their determination to get to every emergency through traffic.. I cannot agree that the traffic is filled with ignorant and obstructive drivers. The vast majority of drivers want to assist the emergency drivers as much as possible but it has been emphasised by the authorities that they must not break any traffic laws whilst doing. The Police have emphasised that Emergency drivers are highly trained and it is their responsibility to move round obstructions and to switch of their sirens if they cannot make progress. The only person who can instruct you to pass a red signal is a Police Officer. rayc
  • Score: 0

7:41pm Sun 3 Feb 13

rayc says...

Hessenford wrote:
Whatever the cause of these incidents the ambulance crews play a vital role in keeping us all alive and I applaud their determination to get to every emergency through traffic which is often filled with ignorant and obstructive drivers.
Rather than play armchair detectives why not wait and see that outcome of the investigations to these accidents to see who was and was not at fault.
Just as I agree with you that ambulance crews play a vital role in keeping us all alive and I applaud their determination to get to every emergency through traffic.. I cannot agree that the traffic is filled with ignorant and obstructive drivers.
The vast majority of drivers want to assist the emergency drivers as much as possible but it has been emphasised by the authorities that they must not break any traffic laws whilst doing. The Police have emphasised that Emergency drivers are highly trained and it is their responsibility to move round obstructions and to switch of their sirens if they cannot make progress. The only person who can instruct you to pass a red signal is a Police Officer.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: Whatever the cause of these incidents the ambulance crews play a vital role in keeping us all alive and I applaud their determination to get to every emergency through traffic which is often filled with ignorant and obstructive drivers. Rather than play armchair detectives why not wait and see that outcome of the investigations to these accidents to see who was and was not at fault.[/p][/quote]Just as I agree with you that ambulance crews play a vital role in keeping us all alive and I applaud their determination to get to every emergency through traffic.. I cannot agree that the traffic is filled with ignorant and obstructive drivers. The vast majority of drivers want to assist the emergency drivers as much as possible but it has been emphasised by the authorities that they must not break any traffic laws whilst doing. The Police have emphasised that Emergency drivers are highly trained and it is their responsibility to move round obstructions and to switch of their sirens if they cannot make progress. The only person who can instruct you to pass a red signal is a Police Officer. rayc
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree