Aran Bradbury

1. 1. non-clinically trained call handlers using MPDS triage system

   “During the course of the hearing I heard evidence from the East of England Ambulance Service Emergency Operations Centre. The evidence covered, amongst other things, how 999 calls to the Emergency Operations Centre are triaged. The evidence was that the triage process consists of the caller being asked a series of scripted questions based on the patient's presenting condition and symptoms.”

2. 2. delayed ambulance response due to triage coding

   “2. In the case of Mr [name redacted], a 999 call was made by a member of staff at the local Drug and Alcohol Service. Amongst other things, the caller informed the call handler that that Mr [name redacted] was not eating, not drinking, was dehydrated and that was using words which suggested he was catatonic. The caller confirmed that he was suffering from a number mental health conditions (including anxiety, depression, borderline personality disorder, autism, PTSD and ADHD). The caller also expressed concern that”

3. 3. inflexible coding rules preventing appropriate prioritisation

   “The evidence I heard was that although Mr [name redacted] had ingested substances which might have resulted in a 25-C-2 coding (and therefore at Category 2 prioritisation for an ambulance), given that he also had a history of mental illness he was coded as 25-C-1 (and therefore a Category 3 priority) because the the system does not allow for consideration of Codes 25-C-2, 25-C-3 etc if it had determined a 25-C-1 code based on the information provided.”

Linked reports