Flying Safe - Medics Onboard Qantas

[medhead]

I do, but not to prove my credentials in the event of rendering assistance.

In the case of qantas with significant on ground medical background, probably worth mentioned that Ahpra details are available online. They know the pax info, probably not a stretch to think they don't need proof from the doctor because they've already checked.

 

[Anna]

I'd act and face the consequences afterwards.

Which would be zero, unless for some inexplicable reason you decided not to take reasonable care with what you were doing (and "reasonable" would be judged according to the circumstances of trying to provide medical assistance on a flight).

Honestly, some of the ludicrous comments in this thread about "liability" are beyond hilarious. (Not you PF).

 

[rlarosa]

Coming in to this late but you might find these links interesting. This is the company that most of the major airlines work with:

Health and travel safety services for passengers and crew of airlines business aviation and yachts

Medical Advisory Services- MedLink

 

[PaulST]

In the event of me not having it or it not being accepted I doubt I'd care if the situation was serious enough to warrant my intervention.
I'd act and face the consequences afterwards.

Agreed. I'd politely disagree with the flight attendant and let them know that they would be making themselves liable in the case of something going wrong. I wouldn't feel comfortable sitting down and watching a movie knowing I could be of assistance somewhere else in the plane.

In the case of qantas with significant on ground medical background, probably worth mentioned that Ahpra details are available online. They know the pax info, probably not a stretch to think they don't need proof from the doctor because they've already checked.

I think it would be a stretch to think that QF would screen every passenger who ticks Dr through Ahpra.

Which would be zero, unless for some inexplicable reason you decided not to take reasonable care with what you were doing (and "reasonable" would be judged according to the circumstances of trying to provide medical assistance on a flight).

Agreed. It's probably not the time to try and put a 16g in someone's IJV because you've always wanted to.

 

[drron]

Which would be zero, unless for some inexplicable reason you decided not to take reasonable care with what you were doing (and "reasonable" would be judged according to the circumstances of trying to provide medical assistance on a flight).

Honestly, some of the ludicrous comments in this thread about "liability" are beyond hilarious. (Not you PF).

I have never thought of liability issues when offering my help.Not just on planes but I have been asked to give a second opinion by a ship's doctor whilst on a cruise as well as being first on the scene of a car accident-I saw it happen.Fortunately I was on duty and had a full doctor's bag in the car.Very useful when faced with a tension pneumothorax.
My worry of legal action would be if I didn't help-this has happened in Australia.

 

[andye]

Agreed. It's probably not the time to try and put a 16g in someone's IJV because you've always wanted to.

The truly adventurous would go for the SCV

 

[PaulST]

The truly adventurous would go for the SCV

The Superior CavaVena?

 

[andye]

The Superior CavaVena?

SubClavian Vein. Higher risk of pneumothorax

 

[medhead]

I think it would be a stretch to think that QF would screen every passenger who ticks Dr through Ahpra.

No. That would be why I didn't make such a suggestion at all. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Edit: still having to explain basic concepts is to be expected, especially for doctors. When the FA/CSM radios back to the medical support and says pax in 16D has volunteered as a doctor. They can easily look up the passengers name/or get it from the FA, then run a search.

 

[legroom]

..... I'd act and face the consequences afterwards.

Meaning you would override the FAs' commands to "sit down, go away" and go ahead to intervene ?

That would be an interesting take as we are supposed to obey FAs' instructions at all times .... but when seeing "mis-management" , what would be the right thing to do ? [admittedly a hypothetical scenario].

 

[PaulST]

SubClavian Vein. Higher risk of pneumothorax

Ah that makes more sense. I though a SVC puncture was quite keen!

No. That would be why I didn't make such a suggestion at all. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Edit: still having to explain basic concepts is to be expected, especially for doctors. When the FA/CSM radios back to the medical support and says pax in 16D has volunteered as a doctor. They can easily look up the passengers name/or get it from the FA, then run a search.

Apologies. It's just that when you said the comments quoted below, it implies that you'd expect that they'd already checked (ie. before the flight).

In the case of qantas with significant on ground medical background, probably worth mentioned that Ahpra details are available online. They know the pax info, probably not a stretch to think they don't need proof from the doctor because they've already checked.

 

[medhead]

Ah that makes more sense. I though a SVC puncture was quite keen!

Apologies. It's just that when you said the comments quoted below, it implies that you'd expect that they'd already checked (ie. before the flight).

Yes it does read that way. My mistake. Sorry.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Meaning you would override the FAs' commands to "sit down, go away" and go ahead to intervene ?

That would be an interesting take as we are supposed to obey FAs' instructions at all times .... but when seeing "mis-management" , what would be the right thing to do ? [admittedly a hypothetical scenario].

I'd follow PaulST's approach of polite disagreement most likely. It would very much depend on the situation.

I honestly can't imagine such a scenario arising really though.
Much more likely to have medics disagreeing amongst themselves.

Mind you this didn't happen when I went to help with a passenger who had a syncopal episode. Upon my arrival I saw that there was already another Dr there wearing F PJ's. I quickly introduced myself and offered help to which he replied "Great, I'm a Gynaecologist" and politely took his leave after a brief handover to me

 

[puppysparkes]

OT for those bagging AHPRA, here is some interesting reading for you. http://www.oho.qld.gov.au/wp-conten...ompliance-with-conditions-of-registration.pdf

Qld is the only state that has the legislative authority to review AHPRA. Needless to say there was/is pushback.

 

[medhead]

Well if we're going to bag Ahpra.... Certainly some concerns in my area. They've duplicated an existing "registration" process that was mainly about people "safely" doing the work. The argument for this duplicate is that it's better because of CPD requirements mean people are going to be safer. But there is no requirement for "safety" related CPD.

 

[Sprucegoose]

I think some of the stories from doctors here include giving up their business (or god forbid, first) class seat to sit in economy and look after a patient with minimal response from Qantas. The Hippocratic oath would only take me so far!

Never an issue from my friends the medics. It's a lifestyle.

 

[puppysparkes]

Well if we're going to bag Ahpra.... Certainly some concerns in my area. They've duplicated an existing "registration" process that was mainly about people "safely" doing the work. The argument for this duplicate is that it's better because of CPD requirements mean people are going to be safer. But there is no requirement for "safety" related CPD.

Hopefully there are no additional fees. That would be an insult! Registrants should question how their fees are being used. My personal opinion, I'm yet to be convinced that AHPRA has been/is an efficient administration entity for registrants. They have been woefully resourced since the introduction of the Act in 2009. 7 years is more than adequate to refine processes, policies and procedures. All Commissioners and Ombudsman's in Australia and NZ are watching qld with interest. I won't bang on because well OT now.

 

[mooingchicken]

Something that hasnt been mentioned yet, and I know this is very open question, but in terms of liability and being covered.

Just from reading these forums I know most people who have commented will generally have a few bubbles in the lounge prior and then a few more while flying. Now obviously you arent going to be wasted drunk from a couple of glasses. But could this be likely to cause any issues? Obviously patient saftey is number one. But from a legal point of view cause this cause an issue? weither you were negligable or not?

If you were quiet visable intoxicated and the FA knew they had served you quiet a few drinks are they likely to reject your offer of assistance?

 

[legroom]

Something that hasnt been mentioned yet, and I know this is very open question, but in terms of liability and being covered.

Just from reading these forums I know most people who have commented will generally have a few bubbles in the lounge prior and then a few more while flying. Now obviously you arent going to be wasted drunk from a couple of glasses. But could this be likely to cause any issues? Obviously patient saftey is number one. But from a legal point of view cause this cause an issue? weither you were negligable or not?

If you were quiet visable intoxicated and the FA knew they had served you quiet a few drinks are they likely to reject your offer of assistance?

Interesting scenario

No self respecting medico would turn up for work while intoxicated / under the influence (remember the sex/drug-addicted Malaysian neurosurgeon case ?).

Even in first year, it has been drummed into us the key principle of 'First, do no harm' so I guess unless there is no one else, a drunk medico should not offer his/her services.

Hypothetically, were the medical skill required (say intubation) and there is no one else, a drunk medico (preferably with recent experience) would still be a better bet than an untrained sober FA unless you're already half comatose yourself from EtOH.

Liability wise, who knows the implications until it is tested in court.

The way I read it, you're covered as you're trying to help where there is no other alternative.

 

[coolkid101]

i think we're treading on thin ice with that example of a drunk (or even half-drunk) medico
whilst the law and good Samaritan acts in plenty of jurisdictions provide a huge degree of protection for healthcare professionals rendering aid in a community setting, i believe that is on a good faith basis - that the person rendering aid will be able to provide the best care that he is capable of, but first and most importantly do no harm (like you also said). should the fact that you are even slightly tipsy from a few drinks preclude you from providing help if there is simply no one else able to? - don't think that's ever been tested in a court of law. it's probably a "damned if you do and damned if you don't situation".

through my training in australia - a repeated medical ethics question we were always prepped to answer in exams and interview went something like this - "it's the middle of the night, you are on call at a surgical resident in a small country hospital 5 hours from the nearest major hospital. there's a major trauma patient who needs stabilisation. the on-call surgeon rocks up pissed(doesn't specify half drunk or wasted). what do you do? you have never done the required operation before and have only been in the job 1 week. the patient will likely die if you don't let the surgeon operate drunk - what do you do. medico-legally -the answer is not to let the surgeon go ahead - simply because "first do no harm".

i'm sure the other medicos here will have heard this question before - and there's definitely alot of dispute about the "correct" answer. would be keen to hear the thoughts of others.

Interesting scenario

No self respecting medico would turn up for work while intoxicated / under the influence (remember the sex/drug-addicted Malaysian neurosurgeon case ?).

Even in first year, it has been drummed into us the key principle of 'First, do no harm' so I guess unless there is no one else, a drunk medico should not offer his/her services.

Hypothetically, were the medical skill required (say intubation) and there is no one else, a drunk medico (preferably with recent experience) would still be a better bet than an untrained sober FA unless you're already half comatose yourself from EtOH.

Liability wise, who knows the implications until it is tested in court.

The way I read it, you're covered as you're trying to help where there is no other alternative.