skip navigation
student.bmj.com

Future of London Ambulance Service under debate


Three Court of Appeal judges ruled this month that ambulance services can be liable to pay compensation for injuries resulting from failure to respond to 999 calls within a reasonable time. This test case ruling could leave ambulance services open to a huge increase in costly litigation. Tracey Kent, a 35 year old asthma sufferer, was awarded more than £360 000 when she claimed that she had suffered brain damage because an ambulance had not responded quickly enough when she suffered an acute asthma attack in February 1991. Mrs Kent, who was 12 weeks pregnant at the time of the attack, claimed that she suffered respiratory arrest and loss of her baby as a direct result of waiting 34 minutes for an ambulance to arrive.


 
Ambulance
MIKE DEVLIN/SPL

The latest appeal hearing against the ruling was held last month, after a previous appeal was overturned in 1998. James Munby, QC for the service, argued that in fact the service had not created the danger, had no "special relationship" with Mrs Kent, and had no duty to turn up at all.

Lord Woolf, the Master of the Rolls, said that the acceptance of the call established a duty of care, and that the findings of the judge concluded that it was the delay that caused the further injuries. Mrs Kent had claimed that the brain injuries she sustained led to an acute memory loss, so that she no longer remembered she was married and had a 3 year old daughter. Having made it clear that damages and legal costs awarded to Mrs Kent should not be affected, the judges have gave leave for an appeal to the House of Lords, on the grounds that the ruling raised issues of public importance and significance to ambulance services.

The London Ambulance Service is currently holding talks with its chief executive, Michael Honey, over future management. Control room staff say, however, that underfunding is primarily responsible for the poor staffing, high workload, and constant anxiety within the service.

Jason Neale-Roach, GKT, London


studentBMJ 2000;08:45-88 March ISSN 0966-6494



Previous article    Return to top    Next article
Printer friendly page    Download article PDF    Email this article to a friend