Please contact our media team for information relating to incidents

October 2014 - case study 2

Date: 30 September 2014

  • Details:

    An ambulance was called to a patient when she had a fall. The crew wanted the key-safe number and read through the patient’s private care plan. They also made comments about possible entry routes to the patient’s house. The complainant was upset and felt that the attitude of the crew was wrong.

  • Findings:

    The investigating manager has spoken to the crew who attended and has reviewed the patient care record. The crew who attended to the patient are very experienced and one member had recently worked with the AGIS team who work very closely with Consultants and Occupational Therapists to where possible provide patients with extra care and support they may need to enable them to stay in their own home. On this occasion the patient was referred to this team for further assessment. The ambulance service will always ask to look at the patient’s care plan as this has very useful information to pass onto other health care professionals and ensures continuity of care. This is a practice agreed by health care professionals, and our patient care records are usually left with the care plan to enable the carers or nurses attending at a future date to see the care provided by the ambulance service and any further recommendations. The key safe was given to our staff from our control center; again it is common practice to ask for this number to ensure there is no delay in the clinicians attending to the patient.

  • Lesson learnt / action taken:

    The care from the crew seemed appropriate that day and the referral to the AGIS team was appropriate. As health care professionals, the staff are aware of their obligations under the Data Protection Act and the Caldicott principles so the complainant was assured that the patient’s details would only be used and passed on appropriately and as necessary to aid in her care. An apology was given if the attitude of the crew did not meet the complainant’s expectations on that day and that an explanation was not given for their actions.

  • Date:
    29 September 2014