Derek Burt

Overall, I accept this was an unusual set of circumstances in that the call to emergency services was made by a careline operator who was relaying information from the patient’s wife who was herself the careline user. She was bedbound so not in a position to assist her husband who was bleeding heavily and non-responsive, nor could she get to a phone to answer the numerous calls made by the EMA and ambulance clinical safety navigator (CSN).

1) I heard evidence from the call centre manager of Appello Careline and the first careline operator that their system had the capability to speak directly to Mrs Burt without her pressing her wrist alarm button as this could have been done via the digital base unit that was in her bedroom. The system can also set up a 3 way conversation or conference call to include any of the emergency services. Indeed the operator told me she has done this in the past if asked to do so by the emergency services or she has suggested it but she did not do so in this case as she took her lead from the EMA.

Conversely, I heard from a CSN with South East Coast Ambulance Service (SECAMB) that she did not know careline companies could set up 3 way conference calls for a CSN to speak to the patient or helper directly. She knew that Police and Fire Services used 3 way conference calls using careline systems but not Ambulance Trusts. This case had moved from the dispatch to the clinical stack and from the timeline of calls supplied it seems 15 calls were made between 22:52 and 23:23 to the landline and mobile numbers supplied but of course, it was impossible for Mrs Burt to answer them.

No one thought to go back through the digital base unit to offer the basic clinical advice that was needed. I am concerned that both Ambulance Trusts generally as well as Careline companies may not be aware of the potential to save lives using available technology.

2) I also heard from the careline centre manager that Appello does not have any specific documentation, training material or guidance that considers calls for assistance made by the service user for people other than themselves. It was good to learn that both careline operators did respond positively to the cry for help from Mrs Burt.  I remained concerned, however, that there is no policy or guidance available for operators to cover this type of emergency or life threatening situation and no training has yet been devised to learn from the unusual circumstances that occurred here.

3) I also remain concerned that the first careline operator did not pass on a key piece of information to the EMA, namely that the caller did not have access to a phone. Nor did she ask if the blood was spurting or dribbling. Although, it was relayed that Mrs Burt was bedbound, the EMA would not have realised that Mrs Burt couldn’t get to the phone as it was in another room.

In addition, the first careline operator did not call the EMA back when she learned Mr Burt was non responsive and had developed breathing problems. The CSN confirmed to me that if a second call had been made at that point then the call would have been upgraded to category 1. This would have been at approx 22:50. In other words around the same time the EMA was trying to call Mrs Burt back. The clinical review was allocated at 22:55 and the second 999 call was logged at 23:15 so approximately 20-25 mins had elapsed.

4) Likewise I heard from the SECAMB CSN that she had carried out an audit of the EMA notes added to their system when speaking to the first careline operator. She did so from a clinical perspective and she discovered missing information that was given but not recorded at all namely: that there had already been 20 minutes of bleeding at the time of the first call (approx. 22:43); Mr Burt was not responding normally/groaning; and Mrs Burt was bedbound therefore could not assist Mr Burt.  None of this information was therefore available to the CSN who carried out the clinical review.

In addition I heard that the end to end review carried out by SECAMB and focused on the dispatch difficulties that existed on 14 May 2025. I appreciate that the dispatch and clinical review systems were different at that time and have now been changed but I remain concerned that the quality of note taking has not been properly checked and action taken to rectify then make improvements with any individual concerned as well as capturing learning points for others. Here vital information was missing and was needed to ensure an effective clinical review could take place and thereby ensure that the category of call response is accurate.

I was told this call had been audited and was found to be 95% compliant.

This also calls into question the quality of the call auditing system

5) I heard that an EMA can hold a call and speak to a CSN to get basic first aid advice or join the CSN into the call. Given the volume of blood that had already been lost in this case, I am concerned that this opportunity to give clinical advice was lost especially as the call had come in via a careline operator.

6) I was told that SECAMB is taking part in a pilot called Tortoise looking at using AI to improve the accuracy of note taking. It was unclear whether a similar scheme is being explored by careline companies or if there is effective liaison between careline companies and ambulance trusts.