111 call-outs waste our time, says medic

This Is Wiltshire: Paramedics are being sent to patients who do not need an ambulance, it has been claimed Paramedics are being sent to patients who do not need an ambulance, it has been claimed

PARAMEDICS in Wiltshire say they can spend their entire 12-hour shift attending inappropriate 111 calls.

The non-emergency 111 line is for the public to get advice about a medical problem.

A year on from its launch in Wiltshire, paramedics say they are being sent to patients who do not need an ambulance as they are suffering from ailments including rashes, sore throats, constipation and headaches.

Last month it was revealed that in Wiltshire, South Western Ambulance Service had failed to meet response time targets for life-threatening calls for nine consecutive months.

An experienced paramedic working in Wiltshire said before 111 was introduced a typical 12-hour shift would have about five jobs. Now, paramedics could be attending up to 15 jobs, with many being 111 calls.

The paramedic said: “During a shift all the calls that paramedics attend can be 111 calls, other times it can be 80 to 90 per cent. “Every day we are being sent to 111 calls classed as emergencies but are jobs that a doctor should be doing. The odd one is appropriate.

“It can take 40-50 minutes to do all the checks meaning we can’t respond to genuine 999 calls. “111 is a dreadful system. Morale is horrendous. Staff are leaving because they can’t cope. I fear that patients who need a 999 response could die because the crews are dealing with inappropriate calls.”

Ian Whittern, the chairman of Unison for Wiltshire, Avon and Gloucestershire, said: “We are concerned that 111 doesn’t necessarily have the staffing at weekends.”

In Wiltshire, 111 is operated by private firm Harmoni from a call centre in Bristol. Dr David Lee, the national Medical director for Harmoni, said: “Our ambulance dispatch rates are monitored by local commissioners and at a national level so there is a very strong structure in place to identify if ambulance dispatch rates become higher than expected.

“I cannot comment on the anecdotal and unsubstantiated views of individual paramedics. “We are in very regular contact with our commissioners, reviewing performance and making amendments to the service as and when necessary to remedy any unwelcome trends which may develop. “This ongoing communication is an essential part of ensuring the service performs efficiently and within national guidelines.

“Data shows us to compare favourably with other 111 providers in respect of ambulance dispatches. “During the past three months, our ambulance dispatch rates have averaged around 10 per cent, which is the national benchmark. “It should also be remembered that a fundamental element of the NHS 111 service is to be able to dispatch an ambulance without delay when deemed appropriate.”

Comments (31)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:34am Fri 28 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

This is a major problem when people perceive the NHS as 'free'.

Why not call them out for no real reason? After all, it won't cost you anything, you'll get a bit of attention and you'll have forgotten all about it the next day... despite it actually costing the taxpayer hundreds of pounds per call out.

Even a £5 surcharge for each ambulance call out would soon stop the time wasters. And anyone who was truly ill would either be more than happy to pay it or would claim it back if they're on benefits.

Has to happen at some point, far too much time and money is simply wasted otherwise.
This is a major problem when people perceive the NHS as 'free'. Why not call them out for no real reason? After all, it won't cost you anything, you'll get a bit of attention and you'll have forgotten all about it the next day... despite it actually costing the taxpayer hundreds of pounds per call out. Even a £5 surcharge for each ambulance call out would soon stop the time wasters. And anyone who was truly ill would either be more than happy to pay it or would claim it back if they're on benefits. Has to happen at some point, far too much time and money is simply wasted otherwise. ChannelX
  • Score: -23

9:36am Fri 28 Feb 14

Hmmmf says...

ChannelX wrote:
Why not call them out for no real reason? After all, it won't cost you anything, you'll get a bit of attention and you'll have forgotten all about it the next day...

The claim being made in the article isn't that punters are calling ambulances unnecessarily, but that the 111 health-line is sending ambulances to punters inappropriately. Seems hardly fair to charge someone a call-out fee when it's the 111 operator who made the decision to despatch.

Having said that, sounds to me as though a failure to meet response times has prompted this particular outburst. The poor paramedics who only had 'about five jobs' to do in 12 hours now complaining they 'could maybe possibly who knows' have to deal with maybe 15. A bit like A&E blaming people with 'colds' clogging up the system and causing their failure to meet waiting times, again with no hard evidence to back it up.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: Why not call them out for no real reason? After all, it won't cost you anything, you'll get a bit of attention and you'll have forgotten all about it the next day...[/quote] The claim being made in the article isn't that punters are calling ambulances unnecessarily, but that the 111 health-line is sending ambulances to punters inappropriately. Seems hardly fair to charge someone a call-out fee when it's the 111 operator who made the decision to despatch. Having said that, sounds to me as though a failure to meet response times has prompted this particular outburst. The poor paramedics who only had 'about five jobs' to do in 12 hours now complaining they 'could maybe possibly who knows' have to deal with maybe 15. A bit like A&E blaming people with 'colds' clogging up the system and causing their failure to meet waiting times, again with no hard evidence to back it up. Hmmmf
  • Score: 8

9:53am Fri 28 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

People are actually ringing up for ambulances when they have "rashes, sore throats, constipation and headaches".

The article doesn't state whether it's the responsibility of the call handlers to refuse to send an ambulance to a person who's demanding one.

I suspect the problem is that if somebody rings up and asks for one and the non-medically trained phone operative tells them they're not sending one and then that person actually IS ill, there'd be all kinds of potential law suits and payouts demanded.
People are actually ringing up for ambulances when they have "rashes, sore throats, constipation and headaches". The article doesn't state whether it's the responsibility of the call handlers to refuse to send an ambulance to a person who's demanding one. I suspect the problem is that if somebody rings up and asks for one and the non-medically trained phone operative tells them they're not sending one and then that person actually IS ill, there'd be all kinds of potential law suits and payouts demanded. ChannelX
  • Score: -17

9:58am Fri 28 Feb 14

BigBarry says...

ChannelX wrote:
People are actually ringing up for ambulances when they have "rashes, sore throats, constipation and headaches".

The article doesn't state whether it's the responsibility of the call handlers to refuse to send an ambulance to a person who's demanding one.

I suspect the problem is that if somebody rings up and asks for one and the non-medically trained phone operative tells them they're not sending one and then that person actually IS ill, there'd be all kinds of potential law suits and payouts demanded.
Get a job you waster
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: People are actually ringing up for ambulances when they have "rashes, sore throats, constipation and headaches". The article doesn't state whether it's the responsibility of the call handlers to refuse to send an ambulance to a person who's demanding one. I suspect the problem is that if somebody rings up and asks for one and the non-medically trained phone operative tells them they're not sending one and then that person actually IS ill, there'd be all kinds of potential law suits and payouts demanded.[/p][/quote]Get a job you waster BigBarry
  • Score: 21

11:28am Fri 28 Feb 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

ChannelX wrote:
People are actually ringing up for ambulances when they have "rashes, sore throats, constipation and headaches".

The article doesn't state whether it's the responsibility of the call handlers to refuse to send an ambulance to a person who's demanding one.

I suspect the problem is that if somebody rings up and asks for one and the non-medically trained phone operative tells them they're not sending one and then that person actually IS ill, there'd be all kinds of potential law suits and payouts demanded.
Rashes, sore throats, constipation and headaches are all potentially indicators of much more serious conditions and the patient is usually the least qualified person to decide if it's serious or not. Only a fool would dismiss them out of hand.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: People are actually ringing up for ambulances when they have "rashes, sore throats, constipation and headaches". The article doesn't state whether it's the responsibility of the call handlers to refuse to send an ambulance to a person who's demanding one. I suspect the problem is that if somebody rings up and asks for one and the non-medically trained phone operative tells them they're not sending one and then that person actually IS ill, there'd be all kinds of potential law suits and payouts demanded.[/p][/quote]Rashes, sore throats, constipation and headaches are all potentially indicators of much more serious conditions and the patient is usually the least qualified person to decide if it's serious or not. Only a fool would dismiss them out of hand. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 9

11:38am Fri 28 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
People are actually ringing up for ambulances when they have "rashes, sore throats, constipation and headaches".

The article doesn't state whether it's the responsibility of the call handlers to refuse to send an ambulance to a person who's demanding one.

I suspect the problem is that if somebody rings up and asks for one and the non-medically trained phone operative tells them they're not sending one and then that person actually IS ill, there'd be all kinds of potential law suits and payouts demanded.
Rashes, sore throats, constipation and headaches are all potentially indicators of much more serious conditions and the patient is usually the least qualified person to decide if it's serious or not. Only a fool would dismiss them out of hand.
Clearly you're just out for an argument.
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: People are actually ringing up for ambulances when they have "rashes, sore throats, constipation and headaches". The article doesn't state whether it's the responsibility of the call handlers to refuse to send an ambulance to a person who's demanding one. I suspect the problem is that if somebody rings up and asks for one and the non-medically trained phone operative tells them they're not sending one and then that person actually IS ill, there'd be all kinds of potential law suits and payouts demanded.[/p][/quote]Rashes, sore throats, constipation and headaches are all potentially indicators of much more serious conditions and the patient is usually the least qualified person to decide if it's serious or not. Only a fool would dismiss them out of hand.[/p][/quote]Clearly you're just out for an argument. ChannelX
  • Score: -28

12:07pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Hmmmf says...

ChannelX wrote:
People are actually ringing up for ambulances when they have 'rashes, sore throats, constipation and headaches'.

No they are not. They're ringing the non-emergency 111 line 'for the public to get advice about a medical problem'. It is 111 operators (Harmoni) who subsequently decide that the caller's symptoms require an ambulance. The callers are not dialling 999. The callers are not 'ringing up for ambulances.'

Read the article. The clue is in the headline and in the first paragraph which clearly states:

PARAMEDICS in Wiltshire say they can spend their entire 12-hour shift attending inappropriate 111 calls.

111 calls. Passed to them by Harmoni. Not 999 calls.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: People are actually ringing up for ambulances when they have 'rashes, sore throats, constipation and headaches'. [/quote] No they are not. They're ringing the non-emergency 111 line 'for the public to get advice about a medical problem'. It is 111 operators (Harmoni) who subsequently decide that the caller's symptoms require an ambulance. The callers are not dialling 999. The callers are not 'ringing up for ambulances.' Read the article. The clue is in the headline and in the first paragraph which clearly states: [quote][p][bold][/bold] PARAMEDICS in Wiltshire say they can spend their entire 12-hour shift attending inappropriate 111 calls.[/quote] 111 calls. Passed to them by Harmoni. Not 999 calls. Hmmmf
  • Score: 17

12:17pm Fri 28 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

And as I said above, unless we know the policy Harmoni have to follow, how do we know it's their fault?

Like everything with the NHS, the reason it doesn't work is because the onus is on the service to deal with absolutely anyone who turns up at the hospital or phones them up.

People are happy to ring up for any old reason, because there's no cost implication or any other potential downside. Harmoni probably err on the side of sending an ambulance out, 'just in case' (and, again, what do they care, there's no downside for them in doing so) and so we end up with the service attending where they don't need to and, oh, what a surprise, the taxpayer being the ones left covering the cost of it all.

As people like The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man will always say, just about *any* symptom *could* possibly mean the start of something more serious and so this problem will continue ad infinitum unless something changes.

But it won't, because people just expect the NHS to do everything and carry on regardless... not quite realising that it's that attitude which will eventually spell the death of the NHS as we know it (which is no bad thing).
And as I said above, unless we know the policy Harmoni have to follow, how do we know it's their fault? Like everything with the NHS, the reason it doesn't work is because the onus is on the service to deal with absolutely anyone who turns up at the hospital or phones them up. People are happy to ring up for any old reason, because there's no cost implication or any other potential downside. Harmoni probably err on the side of sending an ambulance out, 'just in case' (and, again, what do they care, there's no downside for them in doing so) and so we end up with the service attending where they don't need to and, oh, what a surprise, the taxpayer being the ones left covering the cost of it all. As people like The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man will always say, just about *any* symptom *could* possibly mean the start of something more serious and so this problem will continue ad infinitum unless something changes. But it won't, because people just expect the NHS to do everything and carry on regardless... not quite realising that it's that attitude which will eventually spell the death of the NHS as we know it (which is no bad thing). ChannelX
  • Score: -28

12:29pm Fri 28 Feb 14

BigBarry says...

ChannelX wrote:
And as I said above, unless we know the policy Harmoni have to follow, how do we know it's their fault?

Like everything with the NHS, the reason it doesn't work is because the onus is on the service to deal with absolutely anyone who turns up at the hospital or phones them up.

People are happy to ring up for any old reason, because there's no cost implication or any other potential downside. Harmoni probably err on the side of sending an ambulance out, 'just in case' (and, again, what do they care, there's no downside for them in doing so) and so we end up with the service attending where they don't need to and, oh, what a surprise, the taxpayer being the ones left covering the cost of it all.

As people like The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man will always say, just about *any* symptom *could* possibly mean the start of something more serious and so this problem will continue ad infinitum unless something changes.

But it won't, because people just expect the NHS to do everything and carry on regardless... not quite realising that it's that attitude which will eventually spell the death of the NHS as we know it (which is no bad thing).
An unemployed bum with a conviction for drugs who is sat at home hiding behind the internet slagging half the town off, what a hypocrite and a waste of space you are.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: And as I said above, unless we know the policy Harmoni have to follow, how do we know it's their fault? Like everything with the NHS, the reason it doesn't work is because the onus is on the service to deal with absolutely anyone who turns up at the hospital or phones them up. People are happy to ring up for any old reason, because there's no cost implication or any other potential downside. Harmoni probably err on the side of sending an ambulance out, 'just in case' (and, again, what do they care, there's no downside for them in doing so) and so we end up with the service attending where they don't need to and, oh, what a surprise, the taxpayer being the ones left covering the cost of it all. As people like The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man will always say, just about *any* symptom *could* possibly mean the start of something more serious and so this problem will continue ad infinitum unless something changes. But it won't, because people just expect the NHS to do everything and carry on regardless... not quite realising that it's that attitude which will eventually spell the death of the NHS as we know it (which is no bad thing).[/p][/quote]An unemployed bum with a conviction for drugs who is sat at home hiding behind the internet slagging half the town off, what a hypocrite and a waste of space you are. BigBarry
  • Score: 34

12:36pm Fri 28 Feb 14

BigBarry says...

Ask...
Ask... BigBarry
  • Score: 20

12:51pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Robh says...

It is not surprising when non medics speak to non medics anything can be an emergency just like with the old NHS Direct. If in doubt they call the ambulance out.
It is not surprising when non medics speak to non medics anything can be an emergency just like with the old NHS Direct. If in doubt they call the ambulance out. Robh
  • Score: 3

1:11pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

BigBarry wrote:
Ask...
Any links to suggest?
obviously nothing to do with your previous post but do you know of a local person convicted?
This may well of featured in the adver at some stage I would always be interested in stories relating to my town.
This is a little off topic I appreciate but would be nice to know.

Paramedics to an amazing job dealing with the horrific to the surreal but can surely only respond to what they are sent to?
The call goes from the 111 center to local ambulance base if you are incapacitated you need to call for help. I know other countries use quick response motorbikes to assess the situation just a though.
[quote][p][bold]BigBarry[/bold] wrote: Ask...[/p][/quote]Any links to suggest? obviously nothing to do with your previous post but do you know of a local person convicted? This may well of featured in the adver at some stage I would always be interested in stories relating to my town. This is a little off topic I appreciate but would be nice to know. Paramedics to an amazing job dealing with the horrific to the surreal but can surely only respond to what they are sent to? The call goes from the 111 center to local ambulance base if you are incapacitated you need to call for help. I know other countries use quick response motorbikes to assess the situation just a though. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -4

1:12pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Davey Gravey says...

Hmmmf wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Why not call them out for no real reason? After all, it won't cost you anything, you'll get a bit of attention and you'll have forgotten all about it the next day...

The claim being made in the article isn't that punters are calling ambulances unnecessarily, but that the 111 health-line is sending ambulances to punters inappropriately. Seems hardly fair to charge someone a call-out fee when it's the 111 operator who made the decision to despatch.

Having said that, sounds to me as though a failure to meet response times has prompted this particular outburst. The poor paramedics who only had 'about five jobs' to do in 12 hours now complaining they 'could maybe possibly who knows' have to deal with maybe 15. A bit like A&E blaming people with 'colds' clogging up the system and causing their failure to meet waiting times, again with no hard evidence to back it up.
5 jobs in 12 hours?
You really have no idea do you. The lowest paid of the emergency services and the hardest working
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: Why not call them out for no real reason? After all, it won't cost you anything, you'll get a bit of attention and you'll have forgotten all about it the next day...[/quote] The claim being made in the article isn't that punters are calling ambulances unnecessarily, but that the 111 health-line is sending ambulances to punters inappropriately. Seems hardly fair to charge someone a call-out fee when it's the 111 operator who made the decision to despatch. Having said that, sounds to me as though a failure to meet response times has prompted this particular outburst. The poor paramedics who only had 'about five jobs' to do in 12 hours now complaining they 'could maybe possibly who knows' have to deal with maybe 15. A bit like A&E blaming people with 'colds' clogging up the system and causing their failure to meet waiting times, again with no hard evidence to back it up.[/p][/quote]5 jobs in 12 hours? You really have no idea do you. The lowest paid of the emergency services and the hardest working Davey Gravey
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Fri 28 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Why not call them out for no real reason? After all, it won't cost you anything, you'll get a bit of attention and you'll have forgotten all about it the next day...

The claim being made in the article isn't that punters are calling ambulances unnecessarily, but that the 111 health-line is sending ambulances to punters inappropriately. Seems hardly fair to charge someone a call-out fee when it's the 111 operator who made the decision to despatch.

Having said that, sounds to me as though a failure to meet response times has prompted this particular outburst. The poor paramedics who only had 'about five jobs' to do in 12 hours now complaining they 'could maybe possibly who knows' have to deal with maybe 15. A bit like A&E blaming people with 'colds' clogging up the system and causing their failure to meet waiting times, again with no hard evidence to back it up.
5 jobs in 12 hours?
You really have no idea do you. The lowest paid of the emergency services and the hardest working
What evidence do you have to support that claim, which you appear to be suggesting is a fact./
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: Why not call them out for no real reason? After all, it won't cost you anything, you'll get a bit of attention and you'll have forgotten all about it the next day...[/quote] The claim being made in the article isn't that punters are calling ambulances unnecessarily, but that the 111 health-line is sending ambulances to punters inappropriately. Seems hardly fair to charge someone a call-out fee when it's the 111 operator who made the decision to despatch. Having said that, sounds to me as though a failure to meet response times has prompted this particular outburst. The poor paramedics who only had 'about five jobs' to do in 12 hours now complaining they 'could maybe possibly who knows' have to deal with maybe 15. A bit like A&E blaming people with 'colds' clogging up the system and causing their failure to meet waiting times, again with no hard evidence to back it up.[/p][/quote]5 jobs in 12 hours? You really have no idea do you. The lowest paid of the emergency services and the hardest working[/p][/quote]What evidence do you have to support that claim, which you appear to be suggesting is a fact./ ChannelX
  • Score: -3

3:13pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Davey Gravey says...

Ahh. The thumb fiddling continues. Have to laugh really. Whatever makes you think your opinion is the popular one I suppose even if it's done by yourself. Strange to the rest of us though.
Ahh. The thumb fiddling continues. Have to laugh really. Whatever makes you think your opinion is the popular one I suppose even if it's done by yourself. Strange to the rest of us though. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -1

3:14pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Hmmmf says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
5 jobs in 12 hours?
You really have no idea do you. The lowest paid of the emergency services and the hardest working

Yes, 'about 5 jobs in 12 hours.'
You really have no clue how to read an article and how to think before posting, do you.
Adver wrote:
An experienced paramedic working in Wiltshire said before 111 was introduced a typical 12-hour shift would have about five jobs. Now, paramedics could be attending up to 15 jobs, with many being 111 calls.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: 5 jobs in 12 hours? You really have no idea do you. The lowest paid of the emergency services and the hardest working[/quote] Yes, 'about 5 jobs in 12 hours.' You really have no clue how to read an article and how to think before posting, do you. [quote][p][bold]Adver[/bold] wrote: An experienced paramedic working in Wiltshire said before 111 was introduced a typical 12-hour shift would have about five jobs. Now, paramedics could be attending up to 15 jobs, with many being 111 calls. [/quote] Hmmmf
  • Score: 1

3:36pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Davey Gravey says...

Hmmmf wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
5 jobs in 12 hours?
You really have no idea do you. The lowest paid of the emergency services and the hardest working

Yes, 'about 5 jobs in 12 hours.'
You really have no clue how to read an article and how to think before posting, do you.
Adver wrote:
An experienced paramedic working in Wiltshire said before 111 was introduced a typical 12-hour shift would have about five jobs. Now, paramedics could be attending up to 15 jobs, with many being 111 calls.
5 jobs would all take different times as no 2 cases are the same. Saying they only had 5 jobs was unfair how you insinuated it.
They work very hard and are very busy, every day.
It's quite clear what you meant. Miles from the truth it is too
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: 5 jobs in 12 hours? You really have no idea do you. The lowest paid of the emergency services and the hardest working[/quote] Yes, 'about 5 jobs in 12 hours.' You really have no clue how to read an article and how to think before posting, do you. [quote][p][bold]Adver[/bold] wrote: An experienced paramedic working in Wiltshire said before 111 was introduced a typical 12-hour shift would have about five jobs. Now, paramedics could be attending up to 15 jobs, with many being 111 calls. [/quote][/p][/quote]5 jobs would all take different times as no 2 cases are the same. Saying they only had 5 jobs was unfair how you insinuated it. They work very hard and are very busy, every day. It's quite clear what you meant. Miles from the truth it is too Davey Gravey
  • Score: -1

4:18pm Fri 28 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

The Adver article VERY CLEARLY states that:


An experienced paramedic working in Wiltshire said before 111 was introduced a typical 12-hour shift would have about five jobs.


Hmmmf is entirely correct. You are not.

Unless you're suggesting that the average job takes over TWO HOURS then it's fairly clear they were not working to anything like capacity.
The Adver article VERY CLEARLY states that: [quote] An experienced paramedic working in Wiltshire said before 111 was introduced a typical 12-hour shift would have about five jobs. [/quote] Hmmmf is entirely correct. You are not. Unless you're suggesting that the average job takes over TWO HOURS then it's fairly clear they were not working to anything like capacity. ChannelX
  • Score: 0

4:20pm Fri 28 Feb 14

ChannelX says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Ahh. The thumb fiddling continues. Have to laugh really. Whatever makes you think your opinion is the popular one I suppose even if it's done by yourself. Strange to the rest of us though.
Er, yes, my posts have been massively down-voted while a post that says 'Ask...' has received 18 up-votes.

And you accuse ME of messing around with the voting? Jeez, get a clue will you.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Ahh. The thumb fiddling continues. Have to laugh really. Whatever makes you think your opinion is the popular one I suppose even if it's done by yourself. Strange to the rest of us though.[/p][/quote]Er, yes, my posts have been massively down-voted while a post that says 'Ask...' has received 18 up-votes. And you accuse ME of messing around with the voting? Jeez, get a clue will you. ChannelX
  • Score: -3

4:27pm Fri 28 Feb 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

ChannelX wrote:
The Adver article VERY CLEARLY states that:


An experienced paramedic working in Wiltshire said before 111 was introduced a typical 12-hour shift would have about five jobs.


Hmmmf is entirely correct. You are not.

Unless you're suggesting that the average job takes over TWO HOURS then it's fairly clear they were not working to anything like capacity.
I have no idea how long the average job takes, do you? 15 minutes to drive to the call, 30 minutes to assess the patient and prepare them if required to take them to the hospital, 15 minutes to get to the hospital. There's an hour gone already.

If it's an RTC and they have to wait for fire/police etc stabilise the patient and cut someone out they could quite easily burn a few hours I'd imagine.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: The Adver article VERY CLEARLY states that: [quote] An experienced paramedic working in Wiltshire said before 111 was introduced a typical 12-hour shift would have about five jobs. [/quote] Hmmmf is entirely correct. You are not. Unless you're suggesting that the average job takes over TWO HOURS then it's fairly clear they were not working to anything like capacity.[/p][/quote]I have no idea how long the average job takes, do you? 15 minutes to drive to the call, 30 minutes to assess the patient and prepare them if required to take them to the hospital, 15 minutes to get to the hospital. There's an hour gone already. If it's an RTC and they have to wait for fire/police etc stabilise the patient and cut someone out they could quite easily burn a few hours I'd imagine. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 1

5:13pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

ChannelX wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ahh. The thumb fiddling continues. Have to laugh really. Whatever makes you think your opinion is the popular one I suppose even if it's done by yourself. Strange to the rest of us though.
Er, yes, my posts have been massively down-voted while a post that says 'Ask...' has received 18 up-votes.

And you accuse ME of messing around with the voting? Jeez, get a clue will you.
Does anyone actually care about the thumbs?
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Ahh. The thumb fiddling continues. Have to laugh really. Whatever makes you think your opinion is the popular one I suppose even if it's done by yourself. Strange to the rest of us though.[/p][/quote]Er, yes, my posts have been massively down-voted while a post that says 'Ask...' has received 18 up-votes. And you accuse ME of messing around with the voting? Jeez, get a clue will you.[/p][/quote]Does anyone actually care about the thumbs? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 3

5:22pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

ChannelX wrote:
The Adver article VERY CLEARLY states that:


An experienced paramedic working in Wiltshire said before 111 was introduced a typical 12-hour shift would have about five jobs.


Hmmmf is entirely correct. You are not.

Unless you're suggesting that the average job takes over TWO HOURS then it's fairly clear they were not working to anything like capacity.
In your highly trained opinion?
"life experience"?
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: The Adver article VERY CLEARLY states that: [quote] An experienced paramedic working in Wiltshire said before 111 was introduced a typical 12-hour shift would have about five jobs. [/quote] Hmmmf is entirely correct. You are not. Unless you're suggesting that the average job takes over TWO HOURS then it's fairly clear they were not working to anything like capacity.[/p][/quote]In your highly trained opinion? "life experience"? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 3

5:49pm Fri 28 Feb 14

BigBarry says...

ChannelX wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ahh. The thumb fiddling continues. Have to laugh really. Whatever makes you think your opinion is the popular one I suppose even if it's done by yourself. Strange to the rest of us though.
Er, yes, my posts have been massively down-voted while a post that says 'Ask...' has received 18 up-votes.

And you accuse ME of messing around with the voting? Jeez, get a clue will you.
Jeez, get a job will you.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Ahh. The thumb fiddling continues. Have to laugh really. Whatever makes you think your opinion is the popular one I suppose even if it's done by yourself. Strange to the rest of us though.[/p][/quote]Er, yes, my posts have been massively down-voted while a post that says 'Ask...' has received 18 up-votes. And you accuse ME of messing around with the voting? Jeez, get a clue will you.[/p][/quote]Jeez, get a job will you. BigBarry
  • Score: 3

6:08pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Hmmmf says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
5 jobs in 12 hours?
You really have no idea do you. The lowest paid of the emergency services and the hardest working

Yes, 'about 5 jobs in 12 hours.'
You really have no clue how to read an article and how to think before posting, do you.
Adver wrote:
An experienced paramedic working in Wiltshire said before 111 was introduced a typical 12-hour shift would have about five jobs. Now, paramedics could be attending up to 15 jobs, with many being 111 calls.
5 jobs would all take different times as no 2 cases are the same. Saying they only had 5 jobs was unfair how you insinuated it.
They work very hard and are very busy, every day.
It's quite clear what you meant. Miles from the truth it is too
I insinuated nothing. I quoted the article, which quoted 'an experienced paramedic'. Frankly both are more reliable sources than anything you have to say on the subject, especially since you couldn't be bothered to read the piece before commenting.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: 5 jobs in 12 hours? You really have no idea do you. The lowest paid of the emergency services and the hardest working[/quote] Yes, 'about 5 jobs in 12 hours.' You really have no clue how to read an article and how to think before posting, do you. [quote][p][bold]Adver[/bold] wrote: An experienced paramedic working in Wiltshire said before 111 was introduced a typical 12-hour shift would have about five jobs. Now, paramedics could be attending up to 15 jobs, with many being 111 calls. [/quote][/p][/quote]5 jobs would all take different times as no 2 cases are the same. Saying they only had 5 jobs was unfair how you insinuated it. They work very hard and are very busy, every day. It's quite clear what you meant. Miles from the truth it is too[/p][/quote]I insinuated nothing. I quoted the article, which quoted 'an experienced paramedic'. Frankly both are more reliable sources than anything you have to say on the subject, especially since you couldn't be bothered to read the piece before commenting. Hmmmf
  • Score: 1

6:34pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Dickdock says...

Regardless of whether they work 10 minutes or 10 hours in a shift, if you need an ambulance because you are having a heart attack, and one is not available because they are treating people for ear aches and sore throats, I am sure you would feel hard done by,
What the Paramedic is pointing out is the 111 system is sending them on jobs that are not an emergency, and they are sending them on jobs which should have a doctor sent to,,the system is obviously not working properly and needs looking at.
Regardless of whether they work 10 minutes or 10 hours in a shift, if you need an ambulance because you are having a heart attack, and one is not available because they are treating people for ear aches and sore throats, I am sure you would feel hard done by, What the Paramedic is pointing out is the 111 system is sending them on jobs that are not an emergency, and they are sending them on jobs which should have a doctor sent to,,the system is obviously not working properly and needs looking at. Dickdock
  • Score: 5

7:17pm Fri 28 Feb 14

coops300 says...

The 111 system will use a flow chart to denote whether you need an ambulance sent to you, however if you use key words like "Chest Pain" or "Abdo pain", they will send the Ambulance regardless. eg, 111-"So you have a cough for about a week?"
caller-"yes......it hurts now everytime I cough in my chest"
111-"so you have chest pain?"
caller-"yes"
111-"ok I am sending you an ambulance"

The ambulance will be sent for nothing more than a muscular dis-comfort in your chest from coughing.
The 111 system will use a flow chart to denote whether you need an ambulance sent to you, however if you use key words like "Chest Pain" or "Abdo pain", they will send the Ambulance regardless. eg, 111-"So you have a cough for about a week?" caller-"yes......it hurts now everytime I cough in my chest" 111-"so you have chest pain?" caller-"yes" 111-"ok I am sending you an ambulance" The ambulance will be sent for nothing more than a muscular dis-comfort in your chest from coughing. coops300
  • Score: 5

7:25pm Fri 28 Feb 14

coops300 says...

Also the 111 calls will also take ambulances out of the Swindon area to deal the calls. ie, Gloucester & Avon areas. Thus no ambulance cover in the Swindon area.
Also the 111 calls will also take ambulances out of the Swindon area to deal the calls. ie, Gloucester & Avon areas. Thus no ambulance cover in the Swindon area. coops300
  • Score: 4

10:06pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Hmmmf says...

Dickdock wrote:
Regardless of whether they work 10 minutes or 10 hours in a shift, if you need an ambulance because you are having a heart attack, and one is not available because they are treating people for ear aches and sore throats, I am sure you would feel hard done by,
What the Paramedic is pointing out is the 111 system is sending them on jobs that are not an emergency, and they are sending them on jobs which should have a doctor sent to,,the system is obviously not working properly and needs looking at.
They worry that 'someone might die' because an ambulance is sent by 111 to what is claimed to be an undeserving case, but they can still send four ambulances and an air ambulance to a bloke knocked off his bike, and three ambulances and two air ambulances for the single occupant of an overturned car. The service hardly seems short of resources when calls come in.
[quote][p][bold]Dickdock[/bold] wrote: Regardless of whether they work 10 minutes or 10 hours in a shift, if you need an ambulance because you are having a heart attack, and one is not available because they are treating people for ear aches and sore throats, I am sure you would feel hard done by, What the Paramedic is pointing out is the 111 system is sending them on jobs that are not an emergency, and they are sending them on jobs which should have a doctor sent to,,the system is obviously not working properly and needs looking at.[/p][/quote]They worry that 'someone might die' because an ambulance is sent by 111 to what is claimed to be an undeserving case, but they can still send four ambulances and an air ambulance to a bloke knocked off his bike, and three ambulances and two air ambulances for the single occupant of an overturned car. The service hardly seems short of resources when calls come in. Hmmmf
  • Score: -3

7:42am Sat 1 Mar 14

ChannelX says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
The Adver article VERY CLEARLY states that:


An experienced paramedic working in Wiltshire said before 111 was introduced a typical 12-hour shift would have about five jobs.


Hmmmf is entirely correct. You are not.

Unless you're suggesting that the average job takes over TWO HOURS then it's fairly clear they were not working to anything like capacity.
I have no idea how long the average job takes, do you? 15 minutes to drive to the call, 30 minutes to assess the patient and prepare them if required to take them to the hospital, 15 minutes to get to the hospital. There's an hour gone already.

If it's an RTC and they have to wait for fire/police etc stabilise the patient and cut someone out they could quite easily burn a few hours I'd imagine.
So, an hour for many of them, then? Less in some cases.

Interesting how they're now able to do 11 calls outs when previously they could only do 5 in the same amount of time.

By the way, are you intent on simply arguing the opposite of *anything* I ever post (even if you argee with it)?
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: The Adver article VERY CLEARLY states that: [quote] An experienced paramedic working in Wiltshire said before 111 was introduced a typical 12-hour shift would have about five jobs. [/quote] Hmmmf is entirely correct. You are not. Unless you're suggesting that the average job takes over TWO HOURS then it's fairly clear they were not working to anything like capacity.[/p][/quote]I have no idea how long the average job takes, do you? 15 minutes to drive to the call, 30 minutes to assess the patient and prepare them if required to take them to the hospital, 15 minutes to get to the hospital. There's an hour gone already. If it's an RTC and they have to wait for fire/police etc stabilise the patient and cut someone out they could quite easily burn a few hours I'd imagine.[/p][/quote]So, an hour for many of them, then? Less in some cases. Interesting how they're now able to do 11 calls outs when previously they could only do 5 in the same amount of time. By the way, are you intent on simply arguing the opposite of *anything* I ever post (even if you argee with it)? ChannelX
  • Score: 1

7:51am Sat 1 Mar 14

ChаnnelX says...

I urge *anyone*, regardless of circumstances, if you have rashes, sore throats, constipation, headaches etc. DON'T CALL 111 as they may send an ambulance out and that costs money. It could be the early symptoms of meningitis or some other kind of sepsis but just ask yourself: "What would ChannelX do?" - and the answer is *always* think of the public purse, take a couple of paracetamols and have a lie down.
I urge *anyone*, regardless of circumstances, if you have rashes, sore throats, constipation, headaches etc. DON'T CALL 111 as they may send an ambulance out and that costs money. It could be the early symptoms of meningitis or some other kind of sepsis but just ask yourself: "What would ChannelX do?" - and the answer is *always* think of the public purse, take a couple of paracetamols and have a lie down. ChаnnelX
  • Score: 0

9:29am Sat 1 Mar 14

Dickdock says...

Hmmmf wrote:
Dickdock wrote:
Regardless of whether they work 10 minutes or 10 hours in a shift, if you need an ambulance because you are having a heart attack, and one is not available because they are treating people for ear aches and sore throats, I am sure you would feel hard done by,
What the Paramedic is pointing out is the 111 system is sending them on jobs that are not an emergency, and they are sending them on jobs which should have a doctor sent to,,the system is obviously not working properly and needs looking at.
They worry that 'someone might die' because an ambulance is sent by 111 to what is claimed to be an undeserving case, but they can still send four ambulances and an air ambulance to a bloke knocked off his bike, and three ambulances and two air ambulances for the single occupant of an overturned car. The service hardly seems short of resources when calls come in.
Hmmmf
As I said I hope you never need an ambulance urgently, and more to the point I hope I don't need an ambulance urgently, and not be able to get one, as it is treating you with an ear ache
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dickdock[/bold] wrote: Regardless of whether they work 10 minutes or 10 hours in a shift, if you need an ambulance because you are having a heart attack, and one is not available because they are treating people for ear aches and sore throats, I am sure you would feel hard done by, What the Paramedic is pointing out is the 111 system is sending them on jobs that are not an emergency, and they are sending them on jobs which should have a doctor sent to,,the system is obviously not working properly and needs looking at.[/p][/quote]They worry that 'someone might die' because an ambulance is sent by 111 to what is claimed to be an undeserving case, but they can still send four ambulances and an air ambulance to a bloke knocked off his bike, and three ambulances and two air ambulances for the single occupant of an overturned car. The service hardly seems short of resources when calls come in.[/p][/quote]Hmmmf As I said I hope you never need an ambulance urgently, and more to the point I hope I don't need an ambulance urgently, and not be able to get one, as it is treating you with an ear ache Dickdock
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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