Call for Government to finance air ambulance network

By MATHEW DEARNALEY


Submissions on a review of air ambulances have come out in favour of a fully Government-funded service rather than part-reliance on sponsors and community donations.

Getting the Government to pick up the whole tab was advocated by 60 per cent of 62 organisations which responded to an Accident Compensation Corporation discussion paper on the fate of the country's critical air ambulance network.

Relying on gambling proceeds and community fundraising was not seen as appropriate for what 74 per cent of submitters regarded as a core health service.

But many of the organisations - which included air service providers, health boards and clinical departments, and local and regional councils - seemed guarded about trading off the existing range of aircraft for bigger and better but costlier models.

One industry source also indicated scepticism last night about the Government's willingness to part with the large sums to buy and maintain these, and believed community support would always be vital for the survival of air ambulance services.

The corporation launched the review after registering concern that there were too many aircraft here compared with countries such as Australia, where the state of Victoria has just three air ambulances covering a similar population and land area to New Zealand.

This compares with 50 fixed-wing planes and helicopters providing rescue services in 18 regions in this country, of which 38 are dedicated to that task.

Although 43 per cent of submitters wanted fewer but higher-quality aircraft, and 15 per cent wanted numbers "culled" regardless, 63 per cent favoured the current range of fixed-wing planes and helicopters over larger models.

A corporation feedback analysis document - due to be posted today on its website at www.acc.co.nz - notes that many overseas air ambulance services rely on larger, safer and faster helicopters.

But it acknowledged submissions indicating this country's unique need for a service based on its geography, population spread, distribution of health serves and lifestyle.

Advocates of larger aircraft said single-engine Squirrel helicopters were unsuitable and unacceptable, and argued for enough room for two clinicians with adequate in-flight access to patients. Opponents said cases of emergency landings for treatment purposes were rare.

There was a push for a better co-ordination of services, including a call for one national control centre rather than three already proposed.

New Zealand now has eight ambulance communication centres.

But submitters also called for tertiary hospitals, and possibly some secondary centres, to have a flight service including a co-ordinator and clinical teams responsible for retrieving or transferring patients.

Opponents of a national service feared this would increase costs and not necessarily reflect local needs.

Submitters were split over where helicopters should be located, and whether response times or the quality of in-flight care were of greatest importance, but there was recognition of a need to get patients to hospital within a "golden hour".

Some suggested helicopters stationed in the centre of 45-minute flight-time orbits without significant areas of overlap could result in reduced aircraft numbers.

ACC claims many aircraft now respond to as little as one call-out a month, but Air Rescue NZ is urging decision-makers to be sensitive to this country's rugged terrain, extreme weather patterns and large bodies of water.