Why AA units work.
I should declare my hand and say from the beginning that as the guy that designed and set up the first AA unit in 1987 the clinical aspects of our role were only 50% of our 'raison d'etre'.
The other 50% was a logistical issue - speed and distance = time.
The delivery of stabilising care was the driver when deciding crew composition. For us that was a game changer for at that time we only had 8 'extended trained ATs' for the whole county so we could, when it mattered put a 'paramedic' into the equation. At a stroke we improved the QUALITY of clinical care.
The other big change was in the performance of the Ambulance Service. Some parameters were measurable and recorded (response times etc) but other parameters were measurable but NOT recorded - the number of occasions that the AA was effectively the ONLY unit available to cover the whole of our area.
The use of a philosophy that limits the role of the AA are in my opinion counter productive. Yes you do hand the nay-sayers ammunition when you pick up an sprained ankle but the context needs to be understood. Picking up that patient on an isolated cliff-top meant that the job was done and dusted within the hour. It would otherwise have removed a vehicle and crew from the available resources for 4 hours. Maybe the vehicle would have been unavailable to deal with the coronary in the town centre where the AA would have had problems attending.
What I am saying is that a holistic approach is necessary when gathering and analysing data about AA activity. We all know that they are a benefit but don't forget to look carefully at WHERE and WHEN they are a benefit.
If you ask me if the nation would benefit from 'joined-up' AA system then the answer is obviously yes. The devil is in the detail. What model is appropriate for our country and how do we get from where we are now to where we need to be?
G.
Last edited by Geoffersincornwall; 14th Oct 2012 at 06:12.
Reason: added last para