4. Mr S tells us his partner, Miss G, suffered a catastrophic asthma attack on 5 September 2022.
5. Mr S complains that he called the Trust, but an ambulance did not arrive until 11 minutes later. He says the ambulance took too long to arrive and this caused Miss G’s death.
6. Mr S says he is devastated to lose his partner. He says further upset and distress has been caused by the belief Miss G’s death was avoidable. He wants the Trust to pay him a financial remedy.
7. Mr S made a 999 call at 3.17am on 5 September 2022. Mr S explained to the call handler that Miss G was conscious and breathing but was struggling. The call was prioritised as a category one call (CAT1), which is the highest possible priority.
8. The call handler remained on the line with Mr S while he waited for the ambulance. During this time Miss G stopped breathing and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) instructions were given to Mr S by the call handler.
9. At 3.26am an ambulance and a clinical supervisor car arrived at Mr S’s address. An additional car crewed by a critical care paramedic arrived two minutes later at 3.28am.
10. At this time Miss G was not breathing and did not have a pulse. The clinical team started advanced life support protocols to stabilise her.
11. The clinical team achieved spontaneous circulation (the resumption of heart rhythm following cardiac arrest) and took Miss G to the hospital at 4.02am. They arrived six minutes later at 4.08am and handed her over to its resuscitation team.
12. Sadly, we understand hospital staff were unable to save Miss G, and she later died.
16. Mr S tells us after calling 999, it took 11 minutes for emergency services to arrive. He says he lives seven minutes from the hospital and called 999 early in the morning when the roads were clear. He believes an ambulance should have arrived sooner.
17. He says his partner was left without oxygen for 11 minutes due to a delay in an ambulance arriving and this caused her death.
18. The Trust recognised Mr S had been through a very traumatic experience. It explained, however, that its ambulance and clinical supervisor arrived on scene nine minutes after Mr S called 999, which is within national targets.
19. Ambulance Response guidance sets out how long it should take emergency responders to attend an incident depending on the severity of the call. This is national guidance, so applies to all NHS trusts in England.
20. It says CAT1 calls have an ‘average response target’ of seven minutes and a ‘90th percentile response target’ of 15 minutes. This essentially means that while it is desirable for an ambulance to attend in seven minutes, it allows for a timeframe of up to 15 minutes to attend.
21. A review of the records confirm Mr S called 999 at 3.17am. Upon answering, the emergency call handler immediately categorised it as CAT1. CAT1 is the correct priority for this call as Mr S reported his partner was struggling to breath and needed emergency treatment as soon as possible.
22. Within seconds of the call being answered and categorised, the Trust’s computer aided dispatch system (CAD) automatically filtered out which ambulances were not suitable and notified the closest available ambulance to attend Mr S’s home at 3.18am.
23. We can find no evidence to indicate there was a delay in handling Mr S’s emergency call or in allocating a suitable ambulance to attend.
24. As set out earlier in this statement, the ambulance (and a clinical supervisor car) attended Mr S’s home at 3.26am, which was nine minutes after his 999 call.
25. Based on the evidence we have seen, the Trust’s call handling and time taken for its ambulance to attend Mr S’s home both appear to be in line with Ambulance Response guidance.
26. We have therefore decided to take no further action in Mr S’s complaint.
27. We also understand Mr S says he lives seven minutes from the hospital, so cannot understand why it took longer for the ambulance to arrive.
28. It is important to set out that ambulances will most often be tasked with an emergency call when they are already out on the road. This appears to have happened in Mr S’s case. The ambulance was in the nearby community rather than at the hospital when it was notified of the emergency at 3.18am on 5 September 2022.
29. We understand Mr S has been through a great deal and can only imagine the distress and pain he has experienced following the tragic events in September 2022. We hope our statement can provide him with some reassurance that the Trust’s emergency response was handled correctly in line with applicable guidance.
1. We have carefully considered Mr S’s complaint about the Trust. We recognise how upset he is about the care his partner, Miss G, received on 5 September 2022.
2. We know our primary investigation cannot change what happened or take away his pain. We sincerely hope our decision statement addresses his concerns and provides some reassurance around the care his partner received.
3. We have seen no indication something went wrong with the care Miss G received and have decided to take no further action in Mr S’s complaint. We have set out our reasoning in this decision statement.