Flying Safe - Medics Onboard Qantas

Status
Not open for further replies.
In a lighter-hearted vein:



The Qantas J cabin was recently interrupted by the FAs asking if there was an Anaesthetist on board.

An off-duty Anaesthetist duly stood up to volunteer his services

"If you'll just come this way" the FA said, moving towards the F cabin

"It's just there's a Surgeon in here who'd like his reading light adjusted"
 
Is one potentially good outcome of VA winning more corporate business (well, it claims to have anyway) that there may be an increased chance of a medico on board many of its mainline flights?
 
Is one potentially good outcome of VA winning more corporate business (well, it claims to have anyway) that there may be an increased chance of a medico on board many of its mainline flights?

I'd say based on nothing other than a hunch that the amount of doctors on Dom flights was QF>VA>>>JQ>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>TT
 
Great observation Princess Fiona although perhaps the gap between VA and JQ should have two or three more arrows. TT would have to be a distant last.
 
Thought I might just add a "data point".

I've responded to a number of requests (on QF and VA FWIW). At one stage I had a strike rate of about 1 in 6 flights for the "is there a doctor on board" page.

A couple stand out:

I spent most of one MEL-BNE with a woman with severe vertigo and subsequent nausea and vomiting, who was very sketchy on details of her medical history - I suspect she didn't want her connecting international flight to be cancelled. I was asked (via the cabin crew) if it would make a difference (to her condition) whether we diverted to SYD although it was only going to be a few minutes shorter than continuing to BNE so I suggested to proceed to destination. The captain was reportedly happy with that (I realise at the end of the day that isn't my call to make and he'd likely consulted with ground advice in addition). She happened to be sitting next to an off-duty FA and a spare seat so that made the whole situation more manageable. The flight was otherwise full. There certainly was plenty of "kit" available to use although I elected not to give her any drugs as the pax was a bit sketchy on details including allergies! Very grateful cabin crew and an ambulance crew waiting on arrival. I was clearly the only (by title identification on the manifest) doctor on the aircraft (the crew were lingering near my seat debating whether to announce or just ask me - I overheard the crew so just asked them if I could assist them in some way!). No-one else noted the situation and enquired / volunteered to assist so I assume I was genuinely the only medico on board.

Another MEL-BNE, I identified myself after a call for a doctor and proceeded to the front of the cabin - I followed up the aisle a (very young looking) doctor to the front (I considered she may be very junior and be grateful of assistance). When I enquired as to her qualifications (to assist a pax who was short of breath), she was starting as an intern in three weeks time! As I was a medical registrar at the time I felt that (presumably) "trumped" her ability and had started to speak to the unwell pax who was sitting on the crew seat, but fortunately following me up the aisle was a respiratory physician so I gratefully left it to him to handle shortness of breath! The pax subsequently returned to his seat and the remainder of the flight was uneventful.

Another one domestic flight was a man with severe liver disease having a hypoglycaemic attack. His travelling companion was clueless as to how to manage it and he was getting confused and drowsy. Easily solved although it was borderline getting some lemonade into him as he was getting very drowsy!

Internationally have been on flights with a couple of calls for assistance, identified myself and there were multiple doctors on board so they took my details (including area of specialty) and then would come back later to advise me that someone (based on sketchy details given to me - someone appropriately qualified) had dealt with it. In one case they ran through the scenario as my specialty has some overlap with the clinical situation but it had been handled by another sub-specialist appropriately.


<touch wood> never been on a flight requiring a medical diversion </touch wood>


Not once did I worry about indemnity at the time, but they have all been on Aus carriers. I'd still volunteer on a non-Aus carrier, but would be very cautious about any intervention (eg. drug administration etc).


My experience has largely been that most pax who become unwell have pre-existing conditions that cause the bulk of symptoms that they experience in flight, but they have little clue how to manage their situation themselves (where appropriate) (eg. the man having a hypo and he/his companion not recognising it - turns out they had traveled for ~14 hours without eating!). That may say a bit about the discussion/education given to them by treating practitioners than the patients themselves, including discussion of plans to travel with complex medical conditions, although there is certainly an "I'll be fine" factor and personal lack of preparation for basic contingency plan "in the event of". The true "totally unexpected" would seem to be a rarer commodity (and fortunately I've not had to assist in that sort of situation), although I am aware of colleagues who have attended pax with (unexpected) heart attacks and strokes in flight.


I have confirmation from my MDO where the good samaritan act (or equivalent) does not cover me sufficiently, they will provide cover provided I have practiced in a way that would be assessed as "reasonable" within Australia and in line with the good samaritan act (whether it applies in the country of travel or not).
 
Respectfully - no. They are not surgeons, they don't receive surgical training. There are some exceptional gynaes out there who are technically very gifted surgeons, and some gynae-oncs who are spectacular, but they are not surgeons. And never will be. Same with people who do cosmetic "surgery"...

Just because one has a job where cutting is involved, that does not make them a surgeon.

And they can sometimes be women too!

In the UK where most Obstetricians are (were?) dual-trained in Gynaecology, they seemed to be treated as surgeons including losing the Dr for Mr/Mrs/Miss.
Having said that, from my brief experiences in Theatre during O&G attachments, the theatre nurses would comment on the Gynaes who held FRCS and that there was a noticeable difference.
 
It will never pass peer-review if you insist on including Ob/Gyn in the surgical subgroup!

They don't do everything as per Coolkid101's definition: they have only three operations (cut the left ureter/cut the right ureter/cut both ureters). ;)

Yes Artemis all clinical trials have limitations which need to be duly considered in the discussion. However, if this study is successful, then the follow on study (II-PHAT, pronounced "too phat") will have gynaecology and other physicians included in the sample.

You are slightly incorrect that there are only 3 operations; I had the misfortune to be involved in a dome-otomy where the baby was delivered through a transverse incision over the superior bladder
 
Update on PHAT study.
A questionnaire was piloted to ensure that
1) data for the primary outcome would be successfully obtained;
2) clarity of question to ensure no ambiguity in responses; and
3) feasibility in administrating the questionnaire in a busy clinical environment

After several rounds of pilot, the following questions were incorporated into the final format:
"You happen to be the only health professional on an aeroplane when a request was announced to render assistance for an inflight medical emergency. Would you willingly volunteer your services if:"
1) it was a Qantas flight

2) would your response change if it was a middle eastern airline flying into Dubai

3) The passenger was well treated by you and arrive safely at your destination. Would you insist on, or be upset if, you had the following compensation for your actions:
i) No compensation offered apart from a thank you
ii) A food voucher or lounge pass
iii) F upgrade

4) (free range responses allowed)
The scenario is now that the passenger suffered a major complication before arriving at your destination. Can you describe any legal protections that exist in this situation?

A fifth question, "Would you trust a lawyer saying that you would be completely indemnified for your actions on board" was rejected due to the overwhelming negative response and thus lack of discriminatory power
 
I think that study fails the acronym test. Any self respecting researcher would be able to get "phat wallet" from that title.
 
Haha, the videos are good.

Never had the urge to post a DYKWIA comment, or have my bona fides confirmed by someone else. I note with bemusement no one asked me for my credentials, but you shouldn't have to: present your evidence, read up on the information (for example in the links I provided), and make up your own mind. Shrill comments get the hearing they deserve.

Since this thread is about medicos, and ultimately it is you (me) in the witness stand, not your legal representative. No self-respecting medico would ever take information at face value without verifying sources and strength of evidence. You would listen to the opinions of others, but at the end of the day you need to sleep at night with your decision.
 
The ego on this thread is as thick as a league player.......

<snip>

Since this thread is about medicos, and ultimately it is you (me) in the witness stand, not your legal representative. No self-respecting medico would ever take information at face value without verifying sources and strength of evidence. You would listen to the opinions of others, but at the end of the day you need to sleep at night with your decision.

Good grief. QED to Sprucegoose's comment!
 
PHAT results.
A total of 29 health professionals were surveyed, including nurses (n=10), anaesthetists (n=10), and surgeons (n=9). No one declined to participate. Results are expressed as percentages of their peer group, except for answers to Q4 where they are expressed as percentages of total sample size. Free comments elicited for Q4 are condensed into similar themes.

Q1. Would you assist in a QF in-flight medical emergency.
Nurses - 50%
Anaesthetists - 100%
Surgeons - 100%

Q2. Would you assist in a Middle Eastern carrier flight.
Nurses - 50%
Anaesthetists - 90%
Surgeons - 100%

Q3. What compensation level would you be comfortable at.
Nurses - 60% none, 10% lounge pass, 30% F upgrade
Anaesthetists - 70% none, 20% lounge pass, 10% F upgrade ("But I only fly F" - included as the single respondent)
Surgeons - 55.6% none, 22.2% lounge pass, 22.2% F upgrade ("F@#king rich companies, should compensate me properly" - orthopaedic surgeon)

Q4. Can you describe any legal protections if something goes wrong.
A Good Samaritan law will protect me in all cases- 31%
It depends on the country of the airline - 27.6%
I want the airline staff to tell me about my indemnity BEFORE I touch the passenger 10.3% (includes 1 respondent who was asked to sign an indemnity form after treatment - Air Canada)
I would be worried about being put into jail - 17.2% (includes 1 respondent who mentioned French law about not providing care)
I know one colleague who was sued - 3.4%
My regular medical indemnity insurance will cover me - 3.4%
There is a fracture. I have to fix it - 3.4%*

*orthopaedic surgeon, but may not have actually occured
 
Read our AFF credit card guides and start earning more points now.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

PHAT discussion
In this small study, the majority of health professionals would render assistance in an inflight medical emergency. The majority of health professionals would be comfortable with either no compensation or minimal compensation. There is diversity of responses to the legal protections in place for health professionals when rendering assistance, with the majority (48.3%) expressing worries about incarceration, risk of ligitation, and country-specific laws. 31% of health professionals believed there is no legal risk involved, citing Good Samaritan or similar legislation.
Secondary outcomes of medical versus nursing care effort was disproved, with 100% of medical (anaesthesia and surgical) professionals willing to assist, versus 50% of nurses.

There is a difference in opinion between responses elicited for Q4 that differ from those expressed in the AFF thread. The authors postulate that the difference may be due to the higher level of interest in aviation issues that attract forum members, versus non-AFF health professionals. We suggest further research is required into the cognitive set of health professionals who join or not join AFF, as a potential opening of a new domain of enquiry. This could lead to insights of psychopathological personality traits.

No gynaecologists were recruited in this study, as the researchers couldn't find them either in the operating room or the tea room.
No egos were crushed in this study.
 
No gynaecologists were recruited in this study, as the researchers couldn't find them either in the operating room or the tea room.
No egos were crushed in this study.

They couldn't be found because the sensible ones have ran off and started their own IVF clinics. :)


*Which is fair enough as I don't envy their sleeping patterns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top