 |
|
|
|
Warning Over Ambulance Survival Rates
The further a seriously-ill patient has to travel by ambulance to reach a hospital's emergency ward the more likely they are to die, according to new research.
A study in the Emergency Medicine Journal found the risk of death for people who are unconscious, not breathing or have chest pain rose by 1% for every 10km (6.2 miles) travelled.
The researchers said the findings could affect plans for emergency care.
The Government is considering whether to reconfigure the system into a limited number of specialist centres - which could mean people having to travel further for treatment.
The study of 10,315 seriously ill patients taken to hospital between 1997 and 2001, found that overall 644 - 6% - died.
However, the numbers rose with the distance to hospital.
Just 5.8% of those who travelled up
to 10km died, while 7.7% of those
who were taken between 11km (6.8
miles) and 20km (12.4 miles) did not
survive. Among patients who
travelled 21km (13 miles) or more
the mortality figure rose to 8.8%.
The study was undertaken by researchers at the University of Sheffield.
Responding to the findings, shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley said: "This is exactly the kind of evidence we need to determine access to accident and emergency services. It undermines the Government's claim that closures are determined on a clinical basis, when in reality they are being driven by deficits and pressures from the European Working Time Directive."
Labour
Throws
in the
Towel
The week after a study report revealed that the survival of patients suffering breathing problems decreases with every mile travelled to a hospital, Hartlepool's own local labour group has decided to throw in the towel in the campaign to save the town's own University Hospital.
|
|
June 2003:
The Tees Review is
launched. Its brief is to determine the future of health services North of the Tees.
August 2003: The Mail reveals that one of the
proposals up for consideration is the closure of Hartlepool's hospital.
August 2003: The Save Our Hospital campaign is launched.
February 2004: Ken Jarrold, chief executive of the County
Durham and Tees Valley Strategic Health Authority, says Hartlepool's hospital will not exist in 10 years
time.
June 2004: Publication of the Tees Review is delayed. August
2004: Outgoing Hartlepool MP Peter Mandelson seeks urgent talks with the Department of Health after claiming
comments by Ken Jarrold in the Mail, about the loss of services in Hartlepool, had "undermined" his
confidence in the review.
August 2004: The Department of Health appoints Professor Ara
Darzi to review the progress of the Tees Review, asking him to see how the "fullest possible range of
services" could be maintained in Hartlepool. The move comes before a crucial by-election on September 30, in
which the fate of Hartlepool's hospital became the most contentious issue.
September 10, 2004: Tony Blair tells the Mail: "There
is no question of the hospital closing or services being rundown."
September 17, 2004: The then health Secretary John Reid told
the Mail: "Let me be clear that I not only want to assure you that I have no intention of approving
any proposal to downgrade hospital services for Hartlepool, but I make that same assurance for services in
Hartlepool."
September 2004: Save Our Hospital petition with 30,000 signatures handed into Tony Blair.
|
|
|
Professor Ara Darzi with a copy of his report |
February, 2006:
Darzi
recommendations approved. This means maternity and paediatrics to be specialised at Hartlepool and intensive
care unit to be developed at the University Hospital of North Tees.
September 1, 2006: Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt orders a
review of maternity and paediatric services in Teesside.
September 6, 2006: Iain Wright resigns from Government over
the health secretary's review.
October 9: Mail launches its Save Our Services
campaign.
January 19, 2007: SOS campaigners left furious after review
says North Tees is to be developed as specialist centre for paediatrics and maternity. The review also says
a new hospital is to be built north of the Tees at some point in the future.