by
menhir
@ 21 Jul. 2007 - 16:47:14
Yesterday, Friday July 20th 2007 I was part of and witness to the pass-the-parcel inhumanity of the British National Health Service. I have no doubt that basic human rights were breached and that a game that some doctors have successfully played over a period of time, was being enacted out in this instance. This time, they chose the wrong family.
For two weeks the local GP service has been trying to get the county hospital's attention for a very elderly person. Various investigative medical tests have been done in the community which has involved family in highly medical requests that cannot easily be provided to order, especially where there is short term memory loss involved. These tests took time to obtain.
Excuses Given for not admitting prospective patient:
a)There were no beds at the hospital.
b) The county hospital would not admit the person because of age and infirmity (!) but the tests including an ultrasound scan could be done on a day patient basis.
c)The scan couldn't be done for a month at the county hospital but the regional hospital could do it the next day (Friday 20th July 2007)if the patient arrived by 1pm.
Because of mobility and health problems an ambulance had to be used for the 240 miles return journey, if the patient was returning that day. Ambulance crew were short staffed and if they had to use a 2-person crew that would leave the county with an under-crewed ambulance. I accompanied the patient - I would have done so anyway.
A consultant introduced himself to us at the regional hospital; though pleasant, he was spitting mad. The truth behind the matter, he said, was that the person who does ultrasound scans in our locality is on holiday.
Can it be true that there is just one individual who performs ultrasound scans?
The outcome of this scan was good but the consultant was concerned about other medical issues and wanted the patient admitted to our local county hospital for further investigations, including an echo-cardiogram. The regional hospital consultant negotiated with a local hospital consultant who agreed to admit the patient. With different relative accompanying, the patient started the trek back in the ambulance.
En route, ambulance control sent a radio message to the driver that the patient was to be returned home; the scans had been reviewed, they were okay, therefore, the patient was discharged. Remember, the patient is about 60 miles away on the return journey in an ambulance and no one in the local hospital has ever met her.
Some phone calls to the GP practice let them know what we were feeling and needing to know. They left a message on our answering service at home as hubby's phone was switched off when he took the next step, returning to the regional hospital to speak to the consultant we'd seen earlier.
The consultant became puce when the ongoing events were related to him. He went off to make phone calls, returning half and hour later with a senior nurse, presumably as witness. The suggestion was there had been communication hiccups between the local hospital staff doctors (juniors) and the GP (same day) in discussions as to whether admission was needed. He fully understood how hubby felt, advising that avenues of complaint were open to him "we like to hear when we do well and also when we could do better."
Hubby called to the ambulance and was told that there's been a change of plan given by ambulance control and the vehicle and occupants were now expected in the Accident and Emergency department of the county hospital.
We started our return journey. The next call, though letting us know the patient had arrived at the A & E raised further concerns. A nurse suggested we'd only been speaking to the radiographer at the Regional hospital, that she'd been informed by the local doctors that, as the patient was not an emergency the patient was to be returned home. A vigorous discussion ocurred the upshot being that the patient was unwillingly admitted to a ward.
The local consultant did not seem to understand why the patient could not have been scanned locally, commented there had been a bit of a mix up but that everything would be alright now. An initial diagnosis was suggested for the visible problem. We all know that it would be useful to find out the cause but will the necessary standards of investigation and care be applied.
We wait with baited breath to see how long it will take the medical staff to decide their damage limitation exercise is over and discharge the patient home.