Source · Scotland · Fatal Accident Inquiry
Fraser John O'Donnell
Scotland · FAI
Reference: B389-11
Published: 7 Mar 2012
Sheriff: Sheriff N. Douglas
Sheriffdom: North Strathclyde
View PDF
Court recommendations
Identified
Responses identified
0
8-week deadline
2 May 2012
Section 28 status
Response pending
Recommendations
It is for those reasons that any comments I have made in connection with matters of connectivity, communication and accountability are in the form of observations which I hope those charged with the management of the services will look at in light of the circumstances of Fraser’s death.
For the avoidance of doubt the terms of the protocol, should be revisited to eliminate any ambiguity. Connectivity and communication Victoria Infirmary The strength of the protocol of a department is only as sound as those who operate them. There would have been a better chance of their not being a verbal handover, if both the Scottish Ambulance Service and the Victoria Infirmary accident and emergency management had agreed upon identical protocols reinforced by regular training of both services about them requiring there to be a physical handover in all attempt suicide cases. Dr. Gordon spoke of there being regular management meetings to tighten up procedures. That would appear to be inadequate, if workers operating the system do something different in practice. On the evidence, the ambulance personnel did what they were allowed to do, where the hospital personnel did not. Accountability Once again in this case, the person who made the decision to place Fraser in the general waiting area is not identified, did not give evidence, and therefore gave no account for his or her decision. Dr. Gordon said that he felt personally that he had let Fraser down. He told the inquiry that steps have been taken, but that what happened could happen again. That is not very reassuring. I accept that there is an interaction between the Scottish Ambulance Service and the Victoria Infirmary in the handover of patients and that therefore there has to be a negotiation and agreement as to how to proceed. I accept too that being an emergency service there can be occasions where all presenting may have life threatening conditions. I accept, too, that the physical treatment of Fraser was unlikely to be in that category. That does not prevent the Victoria Infirmary accident and emergency department from taking steps where possible to look at the matter again. I do consider that if, as the inquiry was told, placing an attempt suicide in the general waiting area is very rare occurrence, then it may not be seen as being unduly burdensome for the protocol to be amended to require a staff member taking the decision to place an attempt suicide patient in the general waiting area to require that person to sign the PDF to that effect, although no one suggested that in evidence.
For the avoidance of doubt the terms of the protocol, should be revisited to eliminate any ambiguity. Connectivity and communication Victoria Infirmary The strength of the protocol of a department is only as sound as those who operate them. There would have been a better chance of their not being a verbal handover, if both the Scottish Ambulance Service and the Victoria Infirmary accident and emergency management had agreed upon identical protocols reinforced by regular training of both services about them requiring there to be a physical handover in all attempt suicide cases. Dr. Gordon spoke of there being regular management meetings to tighten up procedures. That would appear to be inadequate, if workers operating the system do something different in practice. On the evidence, the ambulance personnel did what they were allowed to do, where the hospital personnel did not. Accountability Once again in this case, the person who made the decision to place Fraser in the general waiting area is not identified, did not give evidence, and therefore gave no account for his or her decision. Dr. Gordon said that he felt personally that he had let Fraser down. He told the inquiry that steps have been taken, but that what happened could happen again. That is not very reassuring. I accept that there is an interaction between the Scottish Ambulance Service and the Victoria Infirmary in the handover of patients and that therefore there has to be a negotiation and agreement as to how to proceed. I accept too that being an emergency service there can be occasions where all presenting may have life threatening conditions. I accept, too, that the physical treatment of Fraser was unlikely to be in that category. That does not prevent the Victoria Infirmary accident and emergency department from taking steps where possible to look at the matter again. I do consider that if, as the inquiry was told, placing an attempt suicide in the general waiting area is very rare occurrence, then it may not be seen as being unduly burdensome for the protocol to be amended to require a staff member taking the decision to place an attempt suicide patient in the general waiting area to require that person to sign the PDF to that effect, although no one suggested that in evidence.
Under section 28 of the 2016 Act, each recipient of a recommendation must respond within 8 weeks.
The window from publication ran to 2 May 2012.
See how we track responses.
Section 28 responses
Response pendingNo response has been identified on the case landing page yet. The 8-week window has closed without a published response or non-response notice.
Determination details
- Reference
- B389-11
- Published
- 7 March 2012
- Sheriff
- Sheriff N. Douglas
- Sheriffdom
- North Strathclyde
Navigation
About FAIs
Fatal Accident Inquiries are held under the
2016 Act
before a sheriff. They are mandatory for deaths in custody and at work.
The sheriff may make recommendations under s.26(1)(b); recipients must respond within 8 weeks under
s.28. See the methodology page for detail.