A paramedic has been struck off after putting a toddler "at risk of serious harm" by failing to maintain a supply of oxygen when transferring the patient from the back of the ambulance to hospital staff. Jason E. Edwards was responding to a 999 call in the Dartford area with an emergency care support worker when the incident happened.

Edwards was accused of letting his colleague, who was an emergency support worker, act "outside of his scope of practice" while he, the more senior paramedic, was driving the ambulance vehicle to Darent Valley Emergency Department on December 6, 2021. This meant his colleague was caring on their own for the child in the back of the ambulance.

The patient was quite unwell and was presenting with cyanosis, a health and care professions tribunal service report reads. It says: "[This] meant he was quite blue. The CCP (Critical care paramedic) had made a first review assessment prior to their arrival and confirmed, after listening to Patient 1's chest, that he was hypoxic with low oxygen saturation in the patient's blood.

'The patient was critically unwell'

The CCP handed the patient to them after measuring the child's blood oxygen saturation levels. The report says Edward's colleague described the condition of the patient as being "critically unwell" and that he had never seen "a paediatric patient who was alive, looking as unwell as patient 1"

It reads: "He thought that Patient 1 looked so unwell that he had thought the result could have been fatal. Colleague A described Patient 1 as being blue, limp, lifeless and he thought Patient 1 was near cardiac arrest. Colleague A said that it was quite common that where the deterioration of a patient was highly likely, that the paramedic should be in the back of the ambulance with them."

The emergency care support worker said by being in the back of the ambulance with the patient, he had felt Edwards had asked him to "step outside his scope of practice". "The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant [Edwards] made the wrong decision and allowed Colleague A, a non-clinician, to travel in the back of the ambulance with a critically ill child, which was outside Colleague A's scope of practice," the report reads.

This was then followed by Edwards' failure to maintain a supply of oxygen to the patient when transferring them from the ambulance van to hospital staff upon arrival, the panel said. "The Panel is satisfied that the Registrant failed to maintain such a supply in not taking the time to ensure that the tubing was connected to a portable cylinder before taking Patient 1 into the Hospital," it reads.

The report also reveals Edwards contacted his colleague on December 24, 2021, asking him to lie for him and suggesting he should state it was him who was driving the ambulance at the time of the incident and not Edwards.

The report reads: "The Panel has concluded that it is more likely than not the Registrant acted as it has found he did in Particulars 2 (in calling Colleague A when told not to), and in Particular 3 (in asking Colleague A to lie about who was in the back of the ambulance), because he knew at that time (24 December 2021), that he was still subject to the final written warning dated 4 February 2021 and he was aware that if the complaint led to an investigation and a disciplinary hearing, he would very likely be dismissed."

'Failure to return controlled drugs'

It was further alleged that on December 23, 2021, Edwards failed to return controlled drugs, and left work attending a public house with them. A colleague, VB, who noticed the controlled drugs were missing called the Registrant and went to meet him to collect the controlled drugs.

On January 21, 2022, following a suspension risk assessment meeting, SECAMB decided to suspend the Registrant whilst an internal investigation into the concerns was conducted. "The panel has decided that it is more likely than not that when the registrant attended the public house he was in possession of controlled drugs.

"He is not legally permitted to have them in his possession when not on duty. The Panel considers that the Registrant was in possession of controlled drugs, taking them into the public house to await VB's arrival, to be a serious departure from the standards expected of a Paramedic and amounts to misconduct."

The Panel considered the following to be aggravating factors: the risk of significant harm to Patient 1; the Registrant's lack of insight into his misconduct and its impact on Patient 1, Colleague A, his profession and the wider public interest; his failure to express any remorse; the Registrant's failure to take any steps towards remedying his misconduct; the pattern of concerns regarding the Registrant's failure to work in partnership with colleagues, namely his inappropriate delegation to ECSWs which in turn led to his failing to properly assess and treat those patients appropriately; the level of dishonesty which is at the higher end of the scale.

'Actions fell far below the professional standards'

The report says the Panel has seen no evidence to suggest that the Registrant is capable of remedying his misconduct. Therefore, it has concluded that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction is "an order striking the Registrant off the Register"

It reads: "In this case, the Panel has found the Registrant's dishonesty to have been at the higher end of seriousness. It was a deliberate act by the Registrant in an attempt to avoid almost certain dismissal.

"The Panel is satisfied that in order to maintain public confidence in the Paramedic profession and in its regulatory process, and to uphold proper standards of conduct in the profession, it is appropriate and proportionate to order that the Registrant's name be struck off the register, in light of his lack of insight and his lack of engagement with these proceedings, and because of the nature and gravity of the misconduct, involving as it does dishonesty and failure to work in partnership with colleagues."

A South East Coast Ambulance Service (SECAmb) spokesperson: "Our thoughts are with all those affected by this case. We took these concerns extremely seriously at the time and carried out a full investigation into this former member of staff. His actions fell far below the professional standards we expect and he was dismissed in May 2022."

Get more news from KentLive straight to your inbox for free HERE.