Cardiff Bay Yacht Club Fined £40,000 and £14,400 costs!

penfold said:
Unfortunately the report does not clearly state it, although it is strongly implied; the report is pretty badly written generally, which is disappointing given MAIB reports are usually succinct and factual.
Click to expand...

A third girl, who had been sitting on the port buoyancy tube of the Tornado RIB close
to the steering console, was ejected backwards out of the boat. As she was thrown
overboard her legs probably struck the steering console and her head and shoulders
are believed to have made contact with the starboard buoyancy tube of the Ribcraft
RIB, causing her to lose consciousness for a brief period, before she fell into the
water between the two boats.​

I read that as saying they think she probably lost consciousness, but aren't sure.
 
Croak said:
It couldn't possibly be that the injuries were only noticed after the event, when someone mentioned compensation to them.

After a car crash I had a painful wrist. It was difficult to keep my insurers solicitor and the payed doctor, off my case for compensation.
Click to expand...

We seems to have two contrasting views:
One that the they should have gone straight to A&E due to the serious nature of the injury
and now a second that injuries have been noticed only by ambulance chasing lawyers.
Gotta love the Internet :)
 
JumbleDuck said:
Or have her checked by a GP and a consultant at the hostel?
Click to expand...

If the consultant was a neurologist, that might have been appropriate. Given that the casualty had been unconscious (according to the MAIB report), she should certainly have been checked by a neurologist. A GP or a consultant in another area of medicine would not be appropriate, and I am very surprised that they did not refer her to A&E. I speak as someone who has suffered severe concussion, and been through the mill, so to speak :-)
 
AntarcticPilot said:
If the consultant was a neurologist, that might have been appropriate. Given that the casualty had been unconscious (according to the MAIB report), she should certainly have been checked by a neurologist. A GP or a consultant in another area of medicine would not be appropriate, and I am very surprised that they did not refer her to A&E. I speak as someone who has suffered severe concussion, and been through the mill, so to speak :-)
Click to expand...

I have been to A&E following trauma induced unconsciousness and certainly was not seen by a neurologist. Got a long wait, a leaflet on what signs to look out for and released into the custody of my wife (who is not medically trained).
 
AntarcticPilot said:
If the consultant was a neurologist, that might have been appropriate. Given that the casualty had been unconscious (according to the MAIB report), she should certainly have been checked by a neurologist. A GP or a consultant in another area of medicine would not be appropriate, and I am very surprised that they did not refer her to A&E. I speak as someone who has suffered severe concussion, and been through the mill, so to speak :-)
Click to expand...

That is not really the advice from the NHS http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Concussion/Pages/Introduction.aspx

The MAIB report talks of a "....head and shoulders
are believed to have made contact with the starboard buoyancy tube of the Ribcraft
RIB, causing her to lose consciousness for a brief period..."

The NHS only recommends emergency treatment if the person: remains unconcious after the initial injury.

When to seek medical help
Most people with mild concussion do not require any treatment as they normally get better by themselves. However, if there are signs of a more serious injury, they may need emergency treatment.

Phone 999 for an ambulance immediately if the person:

•remains unconscious after the initial injury
•is having a seizure or fit
•is bleeding from one or both ears
•is having difficulty staying awake, speaking, or understanding what people are saying



Hard to believe that two well qualified doctors would not be able to make this judgement, and most certainly more accurately then a bunch of people on an Internet forum who were not even present.

As has been commented before the various reports available,and the reported court actions have not critised the aftercare, only the decisons and action leading to the accident.
 
Gaffer101 said:
Hard to believe that two well qualified doctors would not be able to make this judgement, and most certainly more accurately then a bunch of people on an Internet forum who were not even present.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forum of H&S armchair know-alls. The stronger the view is expressed in these pages the more it needs to be questioned.
I don't even believe A&E are a guarantee of a good diagnosis. My son was discharged after a CTI scan showed nothing special, next day he was taken back as he was obviously not right (walking into things) and spent weeks in hospital and rehab, off work for months. Monitoring by friends family or professionals is the key, don't leave the patient on their own. There you are, another unqualified judgement, but then I have watched this forum for years so it's inevitable I suppose.
 
Gaffer101 said:
Hard to believe that two well qualified doctors would not be able to make this judgement, and most certainly more accurately then a bunch of people on an Internet forum who were not even present.
Click to expand...

Perhaps worth remembering as well that one of the two qualified doctors had been on one of the RIBs in the collision.
 
johnphilip said:
Welcome to the forum of H&S armchair know-alls. The stronger the view is expressed in these pages the more it needs to be questioned.
I don't even believe A&E are a guarantee of a good diagnosis. My son was discharged after a CTI scan showed nothing special, next day he was taken back as he was obviously not right (walking into things) and spent weeks in hospital and rehab, off work for months. Monitoring by friends family or professionals is the key, don't leave the patient on their own. There you are, another unqualified judgement, but then I have watched this forum for years so it's inevitable I suppose.
Click to expand...

Indeed!
Modern medicine is a miracle but does not provide a guarantee even with CTI scans and the like - I hope you son has made a good recovery.

In this case the ongoing complications seems to be Post-concussion syndrome which I had never heard of before. Having googled (as is the way of armchair experts these days!) it seems: very poorly understood, controversial, can occur days or weeks after the initial incident, can have a long recovery period but prognosis in normally very good.

I dislike the jumping to 'obvious' conclusions: either the "must be medical negligence" or the "must be seeking compensation" expressed in this thread.

Seems to me that the there was a lack of judgement leading up to the accident but that the Rib drivers acted well post the accident to ensure that all the girls were recovered quickly without further incident, appropriate care was give, parents informed quickly. It could have been a lot worse. You only have to look at the Padstow rib incident to realise how much worse. Worth discussing so that lessons can learnt and taken on board by other clubs in similar circumstances.
 
caiman said:
In my place of work,if somebody is suspected of having had a head injury,we,as first aiders,are told to call an Ambuance/Helicopter,no exceptions.
Cheers
Click to expand...
That's my understanding of it too. But if both a GP and a consultant checked me over, as in this case, then I would be happy with that. If in this case, the girls had gone into A&E the odds are the medical staff would have done exactly the same tests and sent the girls home. They don't do scans without clinical evidence to indicate the need.
 
Rigger Mortice said:
That's my understanding of it too. But if both a GP and a consultant checked me over, as in this case, then I would be happy with that. If in this case, the girls had gone into A&E the odds are the medical staff would have done exactly the same tests and sent the girls home. They don't do scans without clinical evidence to indicate the need.
Click to expand...

Err, would not though an A&E facility be part of the NHS system, and follow up instigated, like letters / information to own GP etc. Can I ask if it is known if the two medics did instigate the / any follow up system for the casualties?
Would observe /suggest that in cases like this tis best for casualties to be admitted into a 'care' system, full stop.
RM post /comment does not seem to acknowledge this importance, for the casualties?
 
Capt Popeye said:
Err, would not though an A&E facility be part of the NHS system, and follow up instigated, like letters / information to own GP etc. Can I ask if it is known if the two medics did instigate the / any follow up system for the casualties?
Would observe /suggest that in cases like this tis best for casualties to be admitted into a 'care' system, full stop.
RM post /comment does not seem to acknowledge this importance, for the casualties?
Click to expand...

I have no idea.
We do know that after two or three days symptoms appeared and the girls were seen by the appropriate medics.
Whether or not letters were sent, or referrals made is completely irrelevant. Nothing would have happened before the time the girls were seen because the delayed symptoms resulted in them going back to the doctors, so I can't see the point in speculating about it.
 
caiman said:
In my place of work,if somebody is suspected of having had a head injury,we,as first aiders,are told to call an Ambuance/Helicopter,no exceptions.
Cheers
Click to expand...

Very sensible rules, if I might say so.

Patient /victim care is or should be Paramount consideration in any accidents /incidents and referrals upwards into A&E a must.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top