One of the dangers of judging us by the outcomes of our jobs is already being demonstrated in other parts of the NHS. Labour came up with a 'deaths' league table to show the public which hospitals are the 'best'. All that happened was that some hospitals refused to operate on the more seriously ill patients, to keep their mortality rate down. The hospitals who helped everyone were punished because of their poor positon in the death league. If you start judging AA units on their outcomes, then please don't send us to jobs where someone might die....... doh, you mean our daily routine!
By the nature of what we do, we tend to get the worst jobs. We get help to injured parties quickly. Those who state that patients who go by AA are at scene longer should talk to the clinical managers (or watch helicopter heroes). It is often preferred to take specialist care to the patient and do MORE at scene, rather than transport ASAP and delay elements of critical care until in A&E. You CAN NOT judge police and AA effectiveness by the same standards as the production line in a factory. Statistics are absolute tosh in this type of work. I have only been doing this for 9 months and have already done many jobs where the patient would simply not have survived. The beancounters on this thread will say 'yes, but at what cost per job?'. The public who donate don't care, as long as we save some of them!! What cost a life? I'm sure the beancounters would think differently if one of their relatives was saved.............