Ambulance personnel receive a warning
In connection with the case involving ambulance personnel in Sofienberg Park on 6 August last year, the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision has concluded that the behaviour of the two ambulance personnel (emergency medical technicians) was not in accordance with sound professional practice, was not in accordance with the requirement to provide diligent care, and was therefore in breach of the legislation.
It was unsatisfactory that the emergency medical technicians did not transport the patient to a hospital or emergency unit, or in any other way ensure that the patient was transported to a doctor within reasonable time. This failure to provide care was also in breach of the requirement to provide emergency care. Several of the comments that the emergency medical technicians made about the patient and to the patient are also unacceptable, and in breach of the requirement to provide diligent health care.
That the emergency medical technicians did not transport the patient to a hospital or emergency unit, or in any other way ensure that the patient was transported to a doctor within reasonable time, gives grounds to issue them with a warning. The same applies to their comments about the patient, and their comments to the patient.
A warning is a serious administrative reaction, and health care personnel who do not take heed of a warning may loose their authorization.
The Norwegian Board of Health Supervision has also assessed whether Ullevål University Hospital Health Trust has organized its ambulance service and accident and emergency unit in such a way as to provide health care that is in accordance with statutory requirements. However, we have not concluded that the way in which the emergency medical technicians acted in this case was the result of inadequate organization of the services according to health legislation.
Ullevål University Hospital has carried out a comprehensive assessment of its ambulance service. The Norwegian Board of Health Supervision has studied the report from the hospital and noted that areas and procedures have been identified, that changes have been made, and that procedures have been altered to be more precise. For example, Oslo Accident and Emergency Unit has introduced measures to prevent deficiencies when ambulances are ordered in the future. Measures have also been introduced to improve emergency medical technicians’ knowledge about the professional challenges they encounter in the ambulance service.
The Norwegian Board of Health Supervision has concluded that the health care that the patient received at the Oslo Accident and Emergency Unit was adequate. Also, we assume that the treatment the patient received after being admitted to Ullevål University Hospital was in accordance with recognised treatment principles, and therefore in accordance with sound professional practice.