Quote:
Originally Posted by blazey
Which option saves more lives? If there are more casualties going to blackburn per year than burnley and only one can be efficiently funded then surely it is better to have one good service a bit further afield than two a&e's which might be nearer but would both face budget cuts and be less efficient.
I would imagine 2 badly equipped a&e's saves less lives than 1 well equipped service, but then I haven't seen the statistics. Blackburn has a helipad for very serious emergencies anyway, so distance shouldn't be too much of a problem should it if the ambulance isn't adequate. How long does it take an ambulance to get from burnley to blackburn at the top speed it is permitted allowing for traffic delays? Surely not that long? And paramedics are quite good at resuscitation too and things like that...
I don't feel the need to find problems with it before they have even occurred. It MIGHT put lives at risk, but there would have had to have been a risk assessment of some sort to see which option was the most risky.
|
Which option saves most lives, to me there shouldn't be an option, all lives should be saved, its to late when even one person loses their life because some pen pushing clown thinks its a good cost cutting idea to move all emergancy services to one hospital, it looks great in government statistics, but not very cleaver if your loved one loses their life because of it. One emergancy facility for around 300,000 people is not joined up thinking to me.