Ambulance service fined £2.6 million for failing to meet response time targets

Ambulance service fined £2.6 million for failing to meet response time targets

Ambulance service fined £2.6 million for failing to meet response time targets

First published in News

THE ambulance service covering the West Midlands has been fined £2.6 million for failing to meet response time targets.

West Midlands Ambulance Service (WMAS) was fined by the region’s Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) after it missed the government-enforced target to answer at least 75 per cent of emergency calls in 2013-14 within eight minutes.

But the service said it had only missed the target by an average of 12 seconds.

A WMAS spokesman said it had agreed that £1.8 million of the fine will be re-invested into the service to be used to improve its performance while the remaining £800,000 will be paid to the various CCGs

“We welcome the input of Commissioners to work in partnership to find solutions to the challenges we face in regard to performance,” she said.

“The trust is currently exceeding all of its performance standards for 2014-15.”

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:30pm Wed 14 May 14

pinkfluff says...

What? I can not get my head around how this works. I don't to jump in with both feet without knowing all the facts, but I can't help but feel it all sounds a bit dodgy.
What? I can not get my head around how this works. I don't to jump in with both feet without knowing all the facts, but I can't help but feel it all sounds a bit dodgy. pinkfluff
  • Score: 5

6:44pm Wed 14 May 14

mrwrighty says...

So that money could have been used to improve the service. It just does not make sense, just like the PFI on the Worcester hospital where they are fined for running at 100% capacity. Who the hell agrees to these terms.

Why couldn't the money be forced into a ring fence for service improvement.
So that money could have been used to improve the service. It just does not make sense, just like the PFI on the Worcester hospital where they are fined for running at 100% capacity. Who the hell agrees to these terms. Why couldn't the money be forced into a ring fence for service improvement. mrwrighty
  • Score: 7

11:50pm Wed 14 May 14

paulchandbrush says...

What on earth is the point in a fine Ambulance pays fine we pay Ambulance service ,Who gets the fine we want a good service if it fails to meet targets fine the managers by cutting pay or if they are on a bonus cut that.
What on earth is the point in a fine Ambulance pays fine we pay Ambulance service ,Who gets the fine we want a good service if it fails to meet targets fine the managers by cutting pay or if they are on a bonus cut that. paulchandbrush
  • Score: 0

12:43am Thu 15 May 14

Jabbadad says...

Yep an aboslute nonsense since it just shuffles the taxpayers money around. So with the Ambulance service perhaps they can now sue the Hospitals for keeping them queing outside with their paptients just to save the Hospitals performance percentages. Targets are a bain to any public service, we need to let these public services get on with the jobs they are trained for without the interferances from politicians. who by the way don't get fined for the mess they create do they?
Yep an aboslute nonsense since it just shuffles the taxpayers money around. So with the Ambulance service perhaps they can now sue the Hospitals for keeping them queing outside with their paptients just to save the Hospitals performance percentages. Targets are a bain to any public service, we need to let these public services get on with the jobs they are trained for without the interferances from politicians. who by the way don't get fined for the mess they create do they? Jabbadad
  • Score: 3

12:55am Thu 15 May 14

Jabbadad says...

As to the PFI scheme with the Royal a contract was arranged with the Owners / Consortium who paid for and built the Hospital, and also agreed and charge a huge rent for 30 years which is also based upon the ammount of patients / operations etc that use the hospital each year. If this was exceeded then the Consortium just fine / charge the Hospital more money. PFI is very much like Lend Lease wherebye those who finance these deals cannot go wrong, that is why the Consortium are very much in the driving seat.
And the ammount of money / rent / lease the Royal will pay over 30 years would have built at least 2 Hospitals and probably 3,,. But as Mike Foster the then Worcester Labour MP said there is no money for a new hospital so It's PFI or NO HOSPITAL
And we have a new Hospital but at what cost?
As to the PFI scheme with the Royal a contract was arranged with the Owners / Consortium who paid for and built the Hospital, and also agreed and charge a huge rent for 30 years which is also based upon the ammount of patients / operations etc that use the hospital each year. If this was exceeded then the Consortium just fine / charge the Hospital more money. PFI is very much like Lend Lease wherebye those who finance these deals cannot go wrong, that is why the Consortium are very much in the driving seat. And the ammount of money / rent / lease the Royal will pay over 30 years would have built at least 2 Hospitals and probably 3,,. But as Mike Foster the then Worcester Labour MP said there is no money for a new hospital so It's PFI or NO HOSPITAL And we have a new Hospital but at what cost? Jabbadad
  • Score: 0

7:26am Thu 15 May 14

jb says...

I'm appalled to read about this! Pen pushers fining the Ambulance service for not meeting targets which THEY set. Only the other day we read about ambulances having stacking up at the hospital and not being able to admit their patients. How have the patients lost out with these targets being missed? Has it caused any lives to be lost? Those are the figures which make more sense to follow not these pathetic 'few seconds' below ones. It must do nothing for the moral of the fantastic people who work for the service, from the telephone operators to the paramedics who as far as I'm concerned deserve so much praise for keeping us safe. I saw two ambulances and an ambulance car on blue light runs yesterday,having to drive at high speed, safely through the city and coping with idiot drivers who don't see them and cause delays and then giving assistance to patients after that stress doesn't deserve the criticism given to them by these faceless administrators.
I'm appalled to read about this! Pen pushers fining the Ambulance service for not meeting targets which THEY set. Only the other day we read about ambulances having stacking up at the hospital and not being able to admit their patients. How have the patients lost out with these targets being missed? Has it caused any lives to be lost? Those are the figures which make more sense to follow not these pathetic 'few seconds' below ones. It must do nothing for the moral of the fantastic people who work for the service, from the telephone operators to the paramedics who as far as I'm concerned deserve so much praise for keeping us safe. I saw two ambulances and an ambulance car on blue light runs yesterday,having to drive at high speed, safely through the city and coping with idiot drivers who don't see them and cause delays and then giving assistance to patients after that stress doesn't deserve the criticism given to them by these faceless administrators. jb
  • Score: 3

7:56am Thu 15 May 14

MikeA says...

Jabbadad wrote:
As to the PFI scheme with the Royal a contract was arranged with the Owners / Consortium who paid for and built the Hospital, and also agreed and charge a huge rent for 30 years which is also based upon the ammount of patients / operations etc that use the hospital each year. If this was exceeded then the Consortium just fine / charge the Hospital more money. PFI is very much like Lend Lease wherebye those who finance these deals cannot go wrong, that is why the Consortium are very much in the driving seat.
And the ammount of money / rent / lease the Royal will pay over 30 years would have built at least 2 Hospitals and probably 3,,. But as Mike Foster the then Worcester Labour MP said there is no money for a new hospital so It's PFI or NO HOSPITAL
And we have a new Hospital but at what cost?
In a nutshell, Margaret Hodge, chair of the powerful Commons public accounts committee, summarised the situation:

"The irony is that we privatised the buildings but nationalised the debts. It's crazy."

Debts were being hidden off balance.

(The Guardian, 5 July 2012)
[quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: As to the PFI scheme with the Royal a contract was arranged with the Owners / Consortium who paid for and built the Hospital, and also agreed and charge a huge rent for 30 years which is also based upon the ammount of patients / operations etc that use the hospital each year. If this was exceeded then the Consortium just fine / charge the Hospital more money. PFI is very much like Lend Lease wherebye those who finance these deals cannot go wrong, that is why the Consortium are very much in the driving seat. And the ammount of money / rent / lease the Royal will pay over 30 years would have built at least 2 Hospitals and probably 3,,. But as Mike Foster the then Worcester Labour MP said there is no money for a new hospital so It's PFI or NO HOSPITAL And we have a new Hospital but at what cost?[/p][/quote]In a nutshell, Margaret Hodge, chair of the powerful Commons public accounts committee, summarised the situation: "The irony is that we privatised the buildings but nationalised the debts. It's crazy." Debts were being hidden off balance. (The Guardian, 5 July 2012) MikeA
  • Score: 1

8:09am Thu 15 May 14

Arthur Blenkinsop says...

Brilliant! So, the ambulance service is struggling to meet its demands because of a lack of funding and debts and they are fined for missing the target set by the government. That money, the report says, 'will be reinvested in the service'. So what on earth was the point in going through all that procedure and expense in the first place? Surely a 'helping hand' to improve performance etc. would have been far more beneficial.
Brilliant! So, the ambulance service is struggling to meet its demands because of a lack of funding and debts and they are fined for missing the target set by the government. That money, the report says, 'will be reinvested in the service'. So what on earth was the point in going through all that procedure and expense in the first place? Surely a 'helping hand' to improve performance etc. would have been far more beneficial. Arthur Blenkinsop
  • Score: 3

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree