An ambulance crew put the life of an unborn baby at risk after refusing to take the birthing mother to hospital because they were on a break, a tribunal was told.

Paramedic Ian Radford and an unnamed female ambulance technician told stunned midwives that they had to wait for a second ‘back-up’ ambulance for the emergency transfer because they had already been on duty for seven hours, the Health Professions Council heard.

The mother, who had been having a home birth at her house in Weymouth, was experiencing difficulties and needed an emergency caesarean section.

Controllers at the South Western Ambulance Service had graded the call as a life-threatening ‘category A’ incident, the panel heard.

The second ambulance arrived 11 minutes later and rushed the woman to the nearby Dorchester County Hospital. Both mother and child survived.

Senior midwife Shirley Pike said there had been ‘complete inaction’ by the crew upon arrival at the address at around 1.50pm on May 5 last year.

“They didn’t even enter the house,” she said.

“I was outside when the ambulance arrived, and a female colleague approached the house and advised me they wouldn’t be transferring my lady in because they had worked for seven-and-a-half hours without a break.

“It really alarmed me because I have never had that situation arise before at a home birth. I asked her if she was coming into the house and she did nothing.

“I said to her, ‘We have got foetal distress – what if the baby died?’ and she just shrugged her shoulders.

“From my perspective, this baby was not going to deliver naturally and we needed assistance from medical people, whether by instrumental delivery or caesarean section.

“They didn't acknowledge the patients – nobody came in to say ‘hello’ to her, to ask if she had enough pain relief or to apologise to her.

“They did nothing – absolutely nothing.”

Radford is accused of declining to assess the patient or provide practical assistance, delaying the provision of patient care and misleading other professions about his readiness upon arrival. He denied the charges at the council hearing, which is continuing.

The charges

1. On May 5, 2009, you were tasked to attend an incident at an address in Weymouth, which you were informed was an emergency necessitating a transfer to hospital and you accepted the job and on arrival

a. You sent a junior colleague to tell the clinicians already at the site that you were on a break and/or

b. You declined to assess the patient yourself and/or

c. You declined to provide any practical assistance other than equipment from your van and/or

d. Your actions resulted in a delay in the provision of patient care of 11 minutes

2. You deliberately mislead other professionals and members of the public concerning your readiness status on arrival at the incident

3. The matters set out under 1 a, b, c and/or d and/or 2 constitute misconduct

4. By reason of that misconduct your fitness to practise is impaired