Paramedics have been praised for their treatment of patients

Braintree and Witham Times: Paramedics have been praised for their treatment of patients Paramedics have been praised for their treatment of patients

Paramedics have been praised for how they treat patients.

98.3 per cent of people, who responded to a survery, were satisfied or very satisfied with the treatment they received from the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust.

The trust is still struggling with response times and has large numbers of vacancies but once they do arrive the medical experts are saving numberous lives across the six counties, including Essex, they serve.

The results show an improvement from previous survey.

Less than one in a hundred claim they were not treated with dignity or respect however almost one in ten were unhappy with how long it took to get medical care.

Chief Executive Dr Anthony Marsh said: “It's fantastic to see such great results and that patients are happy with the service we're providing.

“In some circumstances these patients were extremely ill, with one respondent telling us they owed their life to our staff.

"Patient surveys are an important reflection of the standards we strive for.

“Our staff should be very proud, as I am of them, and I want to thank patients for taking the time to respond as it helps us build the service they want."

Comments (2)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:30pm Sun 25 May 14

OMPITA [Intl] says...

Survery?

Numberous lives?

Good Grief!

(Journalists ought to bear in mind that correct spelling really is an important reflection of the standards they aspire to).
Survery? Numberous lives? Good Grief! (Journalists ought to bear in mind that correct spelling really is an important reflection of the standards they aspire to). OMPITA [Intl]
  • Score: 1

4:30pm Sun 25 May 14

/@|_|@\ says...

Your point, OMPITA, I think is moot: they obviously do not aspire to any readily interpretable journalistic standard with which we might be familiar.

And this blather is slanted, baloney. Although stated "The trust is still struggling with response times and has large numbers of vacancies", there is no correlation between the "factoids" presented, no basis or justification for any of the pom-pom waving, pert-bottom bouncing, self-contratulatory, self-satisfied patronage puked by Tony Marsh. Of the one in ten who were unhappy with responses, what were their perspectives? How many lives were lost in the ten percent of cases where people were dissatisfied? What are the actual response times? If people are used to the lousy service previously provided by the local "trust" then any improvement will generate a positive increase in satisfaction. But compared to a real, modern and efficient ambulance/EMT service, I suggest that they've a (helluva) long way to go. My experience with the local lot was one of utter amazement at the awful response time, the attitude of the responders and their reluctance if not initial complete refusal to transport an elderly person to the hospital when medically necessary: "You have a car in the driveway - can't you provide your own transportation?".

Marsh needs to see how other systems work and their attitudes. He is in the service industry and we have (collectively) paid for service. It is incumbent upon him to provide one commensurate with the high price paid for it. Much like the physicians that seem to think they are in an ivory tower and dare not be questioned: they, too, are nothing more than (albeit) highly trained service providers. If I don't like the service provided, I ought to be offered a choice to take my patronage to someone that earns it.

And I don't want to be fobbed off with florid bombast.
Your point, OMPITA, I think is moot: they obviously do not aspire to any readily interpretable journalistic standard with which we might be familiar. And this blather is slanted, baloney. Although stated "The trust is still struggling with response times and has large numbers of vacancies", there is no correlation between the "factoids" presented, no basis or justification for any of the pom-pom waving, pert-bottom bouncing, self-contratulatory, self-satisfied patronage puked by Tony Marsh. Of the one in ten who were unhappy with responses, what were their perspectives? How many lives were lost in the ten percent of cases where people were dissatisfied? What are the actual response times? If people are used to the lousy service previously provided by the local "trust" then any improvement will generate a positive increase in satisfaction. But compared to a real, modern and efficient ambulance/EMT service, I suggest that they've a (helluva) long way to go. My experience with the local lot was one of utter amazement at the awful response time, the attitude of the responders and their reluctance if not initial complete refusal to transport an elderly person to the hospital when medically necessary: "You have a car in the driveway - can't you provide your own transportation?". Marsh needs to see how other systems work and their attitudes. He is in the service industry and we have (collectively) paid for service. It is incumbent upon him to provide one commensurate with the high price paid for it. Much like the physicians that seem to think they are in an ivory tower and dare not be questioned: they, too, are nothing more than (albeit) highly trained service providers. If I don't like the service provided, I ought to be offered a choice to take my patronage to someone that earns it. And I don't want to be fobbed off with florid bombast. /@|_|@\
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree