> -----Original Message-----
> From: Accident and Emergency Academic List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adrian Fogarty
> Sent: 20 November 2006 14:03
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: 48 y/o male 1st fit
>
>
> I completely agree Rowley, their rationale seems quite
> bizarre. Deciding
> there is no need for hospital assessment is one thing, but if
> they're going
> to decide hospital review is necessary then surely transport
> should be
> provided, particularly in this sort of case, for all the
> reasons you've
> outlined below.
>
The argument is - AMPDS , NHS Direct etc are arse coverage of the
first order and default to over cautious outcomes
Therefore send someone to make a face to face assessment and make a
decision to transport from that
In an urban area each not transported can double the 'availability' of
the ambulance it can more than double it in arural area with long
transport time
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.10/541 - Release Date:
20/11/2006
|