THE conviction of two paramedics for failing to provide “reasonable care” to a patient who later died has been heavily criticised by clinicians who warned it set a “dangerous precedent”.
John Sutherland and Tom Le Sauteur were found guilty by Jurats in the Royal Court of a health and safety breach in relation to their response to a 39-year-old man who had called an ambulance after taking a drug overdose.
He later died of cardiac and respiratory arrest while he was in the care of the paramedics.
The court heard that the man had become aggressive and said that he didn’t want their care. He then entered a cycle of being “violent and aggressive” and then calming down, the defence said. There had been various delays in care as the paramedics waited for police back-up to arrive and while both the police and medical team put on PPE.
Some members of the Ambulance Service who attended court to support their colleagues were left in tears after the guilty verdicts were handed down late on Wednesday, and several clinicians have subsequently strongly criticised the verdicts.
Delivering the verdict, Commissioner Sir John Saunders said both Jurats had found the case “difficult and sad”, and commended the “important” work done by the Island’s paramedics and technicians.
But he said that the Jurats felt the delays in delivering care were unreasonable.
“At the very least, the two defendants should have cleared the airways and ensured that, at no stage, was his hand obstructing the airway.
“Le Sauteur shouldn’t have needed to be prompted to clear the airways. He should have reacted more quickly to changes in colour and breathing, even if he could not see it.
“These changes were time critical and they demand an immediate response. They did not get it.”
Dr Chris Edmond, founder and director of Jersey-based occupational health provider WorkHealth (CI), wrote on X, formerly Twitter, that he had been left “speechless”.
“Speechless is really not enough,” he said. “If the same standards were applied in hospital, we would see a prosecution every week. It makes no sense.
“We talk in healthcare of developing a no-blame learning culture. This is the exact opposite.
“We have it easy in hospital in comparison to ambulance staff. We have good lighting, plenty of people around, all the equipment within easy reach.
“Caring for aggressive patients in the dark, on a balcony? Completely different, and mistakes will be made, of course.”
In a social-media post, Dr Kirstie Ross, who works in the Emergency Department at the General Hospital, described the verdict as “a gross case of injustice”.
Other clinicians contacted by the JEP were also concerned.
One former consultant said the verdict set “a worrying precedent”.
“[It’s a] very difficult case and without being there, it is difficult to comment,” he said. “If the patient was struggling to breathe and went blue, I guess paramedics should be more active, but really difficult if he had been aggressive. Difficult situation, difficult job and sad for everyone.”
One Jersey GP said: “It seems, yet again, that there’s been a lack of support for frontline staff placed in invidious situations.”
Staff at the Ambulance Service were “in shock”, according to one employee, who said: “It’s so sad and there are lots of questions that need answering about how we go forward.”
The JEP understands that clinicians at the Hospital may stage a show of solidarity with the paramedics.
“It’s a possibility; we are just regrouping at the moment,” one Hospital doctor told the JEP.
No date has been set for the two paramedics to be sentenced. A court spokesperson said a date would be fixed by the Bailiff’s judicial secretary once the availability of counsel and the court had been ascertained.
It is understood that the conclusion of the trial means an internal investigation into the incident will commence. Both Sutherland and Le Sauteur have been suspended from service since 23 March 2022, with this suspension due to continue while the investigation proceeds.
The JEP has approached the Unite trade union, which represents Ambulance Service employees, for comment.
