Tag: Ambulance service

18 Dirge 1: for when you think you will be well again

Posted on
The dispatcher noted on the call log that the patient wanted to die,
but this particular piece of information was not conveyed.
The information which the crew were given was:
Psychiatric/Abnormal behaviour/
Suicide attempt;
trying to slit wrists; Armed with a weapon –
glass.
Therefore
the crew were given adequate information
of the patient’s intent.
She was due to attend the Jobcentre on the fourth
to make her declaration of unemployment
in order to remain eligible for her benefit payment.
However, she contacted the centre that day
to say she was sick.
She subsequently attended on the seventh
where she explained that she had not come in on the fourth
because she was ill.
She was asked to complete a form
to formally declare her sickness.
She completed and returned the form,
then immediately left.
This meant that the Work Coach
was unable to discuss
the details of the statement she had made:
‘I was busy trying to kill myself,
drinking non-stop.’
There is a space on the form
for the date when you started being unwell
(she put the fourth)
and another
for when you think you will be well again
(she put the seventh).
The coach discussed his concerns with his line manager, and
recorded the incident
in accordance with Department procedures.
Policies state
that employees are empowered
to take any reasonable steps,
including contacting the emergency services,
if they feel the customer
faces clear and significant risks to their welfare
or safety. In this case,
based on the information he had,
the Work Coach made a judgement
that there was no immediate risk to the customer’s safety.
She died later that same day.
On the morning of the sixth,
she reported that a man had attempted to rape her in her home.
One of the first-responding officers,
on encountering her outside her address,
noticed blood on her clothing, and,
quite properly,
attempted to persuade her
to allow police to seize the clothing
for forensic examination,
and to dissuade her from immediately returning to her home,
the apparent crime scene.
A third party witness
expressed surprise at the intrusiveness of the questioning,
conducted by a male officer
in a public area;
a less than ideal situation.
The witness added that,
although the officers’ questions were not in any way inappropriate,
and they had explained why they needed to ask them,
she would herself have felt
uncomfortable
answering such questions
in such a way.
The second attending officer sought advice
from the Team Detective Sergeant
regarding how best to proceed with the agitated woman
who informed the officers that she had been
drinking throughout the preceding night. In line with best practice
a female Sexual Offences Investigation Trained (SOIT) officer
was tasked to attend.
Despite difficulties,
officers obtained
sufficient detail
to circulate a description of the suspect,
who was promptly arrested nearby.
(He was later released.)
It was clear that there was some tension
between the desire on the part of the initial attending officers
to achieve best evidence
and the manner and location of the communication
between the woman and those officers,
necessitated by the character of contact
between the parties.
She walked off towards her flat;
an officer followed
trying to prevent her from entering.
Once outside the address he and another officer
tried to explain to her
why the scene needed to be preserved
but she continued to be obstructive.
She continued to demand that she be allowed to enter her flat
and threatened
to kick her own door down. Eventually
she used her keys to enter the address
and closed the door.
Research indicated she was capable
of being volatile and violent
when intoxicated.
Reports for example
indicated she had assaulted police in her home
five months earlier
when they attended there
to check on her welfare.
The Detective Sergeant
decided that
in her present state of mind
she was no longer suitable
for an immediate SOIT officer deployment,
and instead arranged for an officer
to re-attend the address
with a colleague
the following day,
which was the seventh.
On arrival
the front door was closed.
The officer knocked several times
before a female voice from within said ‘Who
is it?’
It’s the police. Can you open the door please?
The voice
replied ‘Everything
is fine. There is
no crime here.’
Can you open the door?
I don’t want to force it open.
We just need to speak to you
that’s all.
The door was opened.
She said
‘I don’t need
you lot. You can
fuck off.’
The officer explained
they were asked to attend
on behalf of the ambulance service
as they had been contacted
by someone threatening
to harm themselves
with a piece of broken glass.
‘Well it’s not me. I don’t need
you lot here. I
never asked you
to come so can
you please fuck
off.’
Have you hurt yourself with some glass?
She replied
‘No.’
What’s your name?
‘You don’t need
to know my
name it’s all
on your systems.’
The officer stated he saw a letter
and a bank card
on the sofa
which confirmed her name.
He said
Have you called for an ambulance?
She replied
‘No. I don’t need
an ambulance and I don’t know
why
you are here.’
Could anybody else
have called an ambulance for you?
Have you phoned a friend or
anybody to say
you were going to hurt yourself
with some glass?
She replied
‘No. Look
I never
called
you lot
please
fuck
off.’
The ambulance crew arrived,
and took over the lead in continuing attempts
to rapport-build,
only to experience
similar difficulties.
It was during this period that the SOIT officer and a colleague arrived
having postponed their initial visit
from the previous day, the sixth.
No officer present briefed the ambulance crew
regarding the alleged sexual assault.
On this occasion too, having been briefed by the first officer
on the woman’s state of mind
and volatility,
and by the ambulance crew
regarding her
nevertheless
evident mental capacity
and lack of immediate welfare concerns,
all parties decided
once again
to leave.
About forty minutes later, she left her home.
She is seen on CCTV entering the station.
The train was not driver-operated.
It was travelling at only 15 miles per hour.
It happened so quickly, commuters
continued reading their papers.
They had no idea
what she was doing.
The proximate cause of death was injuries sustained
when she stepped in front of the train.

[Responses from the Metropolitan Police (17/03/2016), London Ambulance Service (11/03/2016) and the DWP (undated) to the Prevention of Future Deaths report made by Coroner ME Hassell, 20/1/2016; added details from The Guardian, 06/02/2016, Faiza Ahmed: how one woman’s cries for help were missed by every authority]

35 a large amount of medication

Posted on
His housemate found him in bed
a large amount of medication
on his bedside table.
The housemate last saw him
two days before
(he had spent the day in bed himself
due to illness)
but decided to check on him when
he stopped hearing noises
coming from his room.
He did not move the body.
He called the aumbulance service,
who recorded the time of death – 3.33 –
and also called police to the scene.
The post-mortem and toxicology tests
found he had lethal levels
of four different medicines
in his system.
A note was left on his unlocked phone.
It said:
Can you thank the people
who work at the Department?

[Derby Telegraph, 12/04/2019, Tragic tenant left suicide note sarcastically ‘thanking’ Universal Credit bosses]

40 a decision was taken

Posted on
His daughter received a text
and immediately knew something was wrong.
The decision was taken
despite being told by his doctor
he was too sick to return to his job.
(He had been a painter and decorator.)
He had suffered from anxiety and depression
for six years. He also had
breathing problems
caused by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
The Department had written to him
a year earlier
requesting a consultation in July.
Four days before the medical
he attended his doctor’s surgery
in a state of panic.
He was declared fit to work.
Following the decision
he lodged an appeal
but it was rejected.
His support was stopped in November.
December. His daughter had been planning
to help him take his case to a tribunal,
but she had had to leave him
to go Christmas shopping
and to pick up her children,
when she received the text.
‘I love you.’
She found him
and performed CPR
before calling an ambulance.
Three days later
a decision was taken
to turn off his life support.

[Inews, 06/06/2019, Chronically ill father died by suicide after DWP declared him fit to work and cut his benefits]

57 how all seemed normal

Posted on
In a statement read by the Coroner’s Officer,
her husband of 36 years
told how all seemed normal
when he went to work,
but when he returned home
the following morning
with their son
his wife was in the back room, lying half
on the bed.
They phoned 999.
The operator talked them through CPR
until the parademics arrived.
She had been unable to work for about ten years
due to a dengerative back disease.
She had depression for about five years.
She had started suffering from stomach pains
and had also been extremely upset
due to a tribunal regarding her incapacity benefit
which had taken from her.
The pathologist who carried out the post-mortem
said she had eight times the lethal dose
of dothiepin, a prescribed anti-depressant,
and four times the dose of propanolol,
a beta-blocker
which stabilises the heart,
in her system.
He also found codeine and paracetamol
in her body.
The coroner said
‘Her husband had gone
to work,
she was alone.
Things must have just
swept over her,
suddenly
she found her life
intolerable.’

[Blackpool Gazette, 09/12/2008, Back problems led to fatal dose; via Web Archive at 19/04/2016]