Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think an ambulance should have been sent in this situation?

43 replies

ikeaismylocal · 06/09/2014 19:59

We had some friends over for dinner with their toddlers, all our children are nearly 2. My friend'a little boy was playing a game where he ran and jumped on a cushion but after a while he tripped and banged his head on the radiator, it's an old fashioned radiator with multiple separate bits which have fairly sharp edges (we had never thought to cover them despite covering the sharp corners SadBlush) my friends little boy was bleeding a huge amount and it wasn't seeming to stop, they have a family history of blood clotting disorders although the child hasn't been diagnosed with anything as of yet.

Another friend called the emergency number and requested an ambulance, they spoke to her for about 10 minutes my friend told the operator the child could possibly have a clotting disorder my friend assumed they had sent an ambulance but they then said there was no need to an ambulance.

It doesn't sound like it should do much damage tripping over and hitting a radiator but I have never seen so much blood. In the end the child was driven to the nearest hospital, he started to sleep on the way which is a worry, that hospital sent them to the main children's hospital where they will probably have to stay overnight.

I'm not in the uk, but it's s similarly developed country.

Aibu to think they should have sent an ambulance?

OP posts:
MsHighwater · 06/09/2014 20:01

I think that, if a car was available to take him to hospital, he should have been taken straight there rather than wasting time on a phone call, tbh.

KnackeredMuchly · 06/09/2014 20:03

In the uk I think if you say you insist on an ambulance they have to send one even if it is just a cut fingernail.

Difficult whether the person handling the call knew that "bleeding, think there's a clotting disorder" actually meant "There's blood everywhere help please"

Liara · 06/09/2014 20:04

I agree, you should have just got into a car and taken him to hospital. No need to hang around wasting time phoning or waiting for an ambulance.

HicDraconis · 06/09/2014 20:04

No - I think that someone should have applied pressure to the wounds immediately with a clean tea towel and then been driven with child to ED.

An ambulance would have possibly taken you there faster but you'd still be triaged on arrival and small children get seen soon.

There are very few ambulances and calling one out when you can take the child in yourself isn't necessary.

I do think the child needed to go to hospital, not disputing that. It's the mode of transport there that is the question.

KoalaDownUnder · 06/09/2014 20:05

I'm not sure from your OP, but would the have sent an ambulance if there had been no car to take him in? If not, YANBU, but if so, I can see why they'd ask you to drive him in instead.

DiaDuit · 06/09/2014 20:06

I wouldn't have called an ambulance in that situation, rather driven him to A&E straight away.

KoalaDownUnder · 06/09/2014 20:06

(Sorry - everyone cross-posting at once with the same thing!)

FamiliesShareGerms · 06/09/2014 20:07

Agree with the others. And apparently the advice for small children and head wounds is that it is ok for them to sleep (not that it was any comfort when DS split his head open)

Hope the boy was ok

Bulbasaur · 06/09/2014 20:10

Generally (in my opinion), ambulances are for if you need immediate medical treatment right then and there that can't wait for the drive to the hospital.

Heads bleed, there's a lot of blood vessels there. Had a friend growing up and she cut her head somehow and fill up two hand towels worth of blood. She had no clotting disorder.

I would have just stuck a towel to his head and drove him over. The medics could decide after looking at him how urgent his care was.

Here in the US if you request an ambulance they'll just send one (it won't guarantee you a quicker wait at the ER). But it's not always necessary.

Original poster
ikeaismylocal · 06/09/2014 20:12

Good point on taking him in the car right away, we are all pretty new parents and don't have much experience of these sorts of things. The hospital is 20-30 minute drive away, I think the concern was that he'd need medical help on the way but I'm not sure if there is much the ambulance crew could actually do.

In the past we have driven ds to hospital and then rushed into resus as he was blue/grey and not breathing properly, they said we really should have called an ambulance then, but I find it so hard to judge, blood looks so scary I think that's why we all thought ambulance.

OP posts:
ScrambledeggLDCcakeBOAK · 06/09/2014 20:12

Why assume there's a car though. That's a separate issue.

The question is in the event of a 999 call should an ambulance have been sent.

DiaDuit · 06/09/2014 20:15

scrambledegg OP said in her OP that the child was then driven to hospital. no-one assumed there was a car. we were told.

WipsGlitter · 06/09/2014 20:15

Interesting. A friends child broke their arm skateboarding and the called an ambulance. I would have just taken them in the car.

KoalaDownUnder · 06/09/2014 20:15

Scrambled, I don't think the emergency operators assumed anything; presumably they asked the caller if they could bring the child in.

It's not as simple as 'if you call an ambulance, they should send one'. Ambulances aren't unlimited; that's why 999 operators are trained to make an initial assessment over the phone.

MrsPatrickDempsey · 06/09/2014 20:17

"The question is in the event of a 999 call should an ambulance have been sent."

No, not routinely. There is not a never ending supply of ambulances: the calls should be triaged.

DanyStormborn · 06/09/2014 20:20

My little brother cut his head open when he was a toddler and I was a teenager. There was a lot of blood - I think skulls do tend to bleed a lot. My dad grabbed him, strapped him into the backseat of the car, handed me a tea towel and told me to get in and apply pressure to his head and keep him talking whilst he drove. We were seen as soon as we got to the hospital. I think if I felt confident supplying first aid and had a driver available I wouldn't call and ambulance for most things. I think the exception would be breathing difficulties or if the injury was so severe that I was afraid I could make it worse by moving the child.

ScrambledeggLDCcakeBOAK · 06/09/2014 20:26

Hi guys

No what I meant was if they called emergency number (wether they should have or not is another matter) an ambulance should have been sent, no?

There was no mention if during the call them having car was mentioned

They drove him only because an ambulance wasn't coming. Again wether they should have driven or called is a different question.

I'm not disagreeing with anyone about ambulances being an emergency service and that they should be reserved for such. I wholeheartedly agree with that!

WooWooOwl · 06/09/2014 20:28

Maybe they would have sent an ambulance if there was one available.

If the call lasted ten minutes, then the call handler probably took enough information to be able to make a decent judgement bearing in mind that there may have been other priorities at the time.

TheBogQueen · 06/09/2014 20:28

They might ask you to take him by car with the proviso that if he falls unconscious you stop immediately and call 999.

Or they may send an ambulance friending on their clinical decision.

ScrambledeggLDCcakeBOAK · 06/09/2014 20:28

I also think they should have driven him instead of calling for an ambulance fwiw but that wasn't the question

WooWooOwl · 06/09/2014 20:30

Scrambled, no. An ambulance should not automatically be sent just because the emergency number was called.

People call the emergency services for complete non issues all the time.

KoalaDownUnder · 06/09/2014 20:32

Agree with *WooWoo'.

Original poster
ikeaismylocal · 06/09/2014 20:34

They didn't ask about availability of a car, they took 10 minutes to tell us they wouldn't send an ambulance, I'm realising why it was unreasonable to call an ambulance though, when this sort of thing inevitably happens in the future we'll just drive, although car ownership is quite rare where we live, I don't think a taxi would be happy to take such a blood soaked person, but maybe they have to.

OP posts:
phantomnamechanger · 06/09/2014 20:41

also agree with woowoo, you cannot have a simple "999=ambulance is sent" rule - people ring for the most ridiculous reasons - same for the police, it ought to be a crime to waste time calling these life saving numbers to ask things like "how long do I boil an egg for" or "do you know where the nearest RBS bank is please"

Like many others I would just have put the child in the car and driven there.

ScrambledeggLDCcakeBOAK · 06/09/2014 20:42

I know woohoo which is ridiculous, I agree!

One of the stupidest calls I heard of was please send someone there's a spider in the bath, I mean come on. Ffs

The point I'm making is...

By going on this situation from the first post only, i.e. child bleeding profusely from the head with possible blood clotting issues with no mention of a car owned by caller (not mentioned if this was discussed during the call in first post)

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that in actual fact they should have just got in the car in the first place (as was qualified by the mention of the car but after the call)