One In Three Still Don’t Know When Ambulance Is Not Needed



Most people know when an ambulance is needed, but fewer than one in three understand when emergency services are not required, finds research published online in Emergency Medicine Journal. And, worryingly, one in four people don’t realise that an ambulance is required for a suspected stroke, the study shows.



The authors base their findings on the responses of 150 people to vignettes of 12 common medical scenarios, seven of which would not require an ambulance to be called. 



Respondents were asked whether they would or would not dial 999 for an ambulance, and if not, what other options they would take, such as seeking medical advice from elsewhere, self medication, or doing nothing.



The scenarios included a range of conditions from chronic back pain and being drunk, to going into labour and a suspected stroke.



Two thirds (68) of participants had undertaken some first aid training; 37 had medical training; and 45 had neither. Just under three quarters were aged between 18 and 44.



Almost all participants correctly identified when an ambulance was needed in three out of five scenarios in which such assistance would have been required.



These were: a middle aged man with sudden severe pains in his chest and arm (heart attack); a paracetamol overdose; an older person slurring his words after not having drunk any alcohol (stroke); a road traffic accident victim; a 4 year old with a high temperature and a stiff neck (meningitis).



Nevertheless, one in four did not recognise the need to call an ambulance for a suspected stroke, prompting the authors to comment that the finding is “concerning,” and to question whether the government’s recent stroke awareness campaign (FAST), which was launched in 1999, is working.

The understanding of when an ambulance was not needed was not particularly good.



Most participants correctly identified when an ambulance was not needed in only two out of the seven scenarios, and between 5% and 48% would have dialled 999.



The scenarios in which an ambulance was not required were: a woman going into labour; a man with chronic back pain who has run out of painkillers; a drunk man being sick; a 3 year old with piece of Lego stuck in his nose; a single episode of blood in the urine; a toddler with a bruise on his head; and a knife cut on the palm of a hand that is not bleeding heavily.



The Authors said: “All of these scenarios may require medical advice or help, ranging from first aid at home to an urgent emergency department visit, but none requires ambulance attendance.



“It is highly likely that there is confusion between the need for medical treatment and the need for an ambulance.”

They conclude that more widespread first aid training and education on when and how to access emergency care might be useful and could help cut costs from unnecessary ambulance call-outs and ensure that those who do need emergency assistance are responded to promptly.

(BMcN/GK)