Para­medic loses his job over records

Huddersfield Daily Examiner - - FRONT PAGE -


They said the pa­tients con­cerned had not dis­played any of the symp­toms as­so­ci­ated with the level of dose.

Some of Hig­gins’ pa­per­work con­tra­dicted what fel­low am­bu­lance crews had recorded when trans­port­ing the pa­tient to hos­pi­tal.

When ques­tioned, Hig­gins ad­mit­ted he of­ten com­pleted pa­per­work “ret­ro­spec­tively” adding: “I have mas­sive gaps in my mem­ory and be­lieve that I was work­ing on au­topi­lot most of the time.”

In one case Hig­gins claimed to have ad­min­is­tered mor­phine to a pa­tient when a col­league in an am­bu­lance in­sisted it was they who had done it at a later time.

An­other in­ci­dent saw him claim to have ad­min­is­tered it twice in two min­utes when a break of at least 20 min­utes is re­quired be­tween doses.

The rel­a­tive of one pa­tient gave ev­i­dence that Hig­gins did not ad­min­is­ter mor­phine to her fa­ther when he had recorded that he had.

Nu­mer­ous other in­con­sis­ten­cies fea­tur­ing el­derly pa­tients were given in ev­i­dence to the HCPTS.

The panel found that although there was no ev­i­dence of ac­tual harm to pa­tients, there was the po­ten­tial for harm be­cause the record of the med­i­ca­tion ad­min­is­tered was in­cor­rect.

Mem­bers of the panel found the ma­jor­ity of al­le­ga­tions to be proven and struck him off the reg­is­ter.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.