A surgery which was told that a patient had chest and arm pains should have called an ambulance or provided for attendance by a doctor, the High Court has been told. Dr Philip O'Connell yesterday said it would represent a failure on the part of the practice if a surgery did not call an ambulance or provide for the attendance of a doctor in response to a call informing them of a patient with chest and arm pains.
Dr O'Connell, a GP with a practice at James's Street, Dublin, said if the call to the surgery did not specify arm and chest pains, there would be no problem with a substitute doctor being sent since there was no emergency attached to the call.
If a second call was made to the surgery informing the receptionist that the patient was suffering from chest and arm pains, then the receptionist should have telephoned for an ambulance if the doctor was not available, he said.
If the doctor was available, the receptionist should have communicated with the doctor. Dr O'Connell said he would have expected the doctor to either make a call or have an ambulance sent for.
He was giving evidence on the fourth day of an action in which Mrs Margaret Eite of Bolbrook Vilas, Tallaght, Dublin, is suing Dr Andrew Jordan of Heatherview Avenue, Aylesbury, Tallaght. Mrs Eite claims Dr Jordan negligently and in breach of contract failed to respond to a series of telephone calls made on behalf of her late husband, Mr Noel Eite, to his surgery on November 7th, 1988. The court had heard Mr Eite died that same day.
Dr Jordan denies the claim.
Yesterday, Dr O'Connell said if Dr Jordan was not contactable during lunch hour on the day Mr Eite died, and his surgery was being informed that a patient was suffering from chest and arm pains, then the surgery should have contacted an ambulance.
Cross-examined by Mr John Fitzgerald SC, for the defendant, Dr O'Connell said he personally had about 1,950 GMS patients on his list. He did not know that Dr Jordan's practice in Tallaght, which he shared with another doctor, involved nearly 7,000 patients, public and private.
A patient simply having a chest pain would not, in his view, cause emergency procedures or protocol to "click" in. But if the word "emergency" was used, he would expect the protocol to "click" in, although he would expect the surgery to clarify what precisely constituted an emergency.
If the patient was said to be suffering chest and arm pains, then he would expect the protocol to prevail. The receptionist would then be required to contact an ambulance or ask the family to do so. The hearing continues today.