The former president of INEM Miguel Soares de Oliveira repudiated this Thursday, January 26, the conclusions of the General Health Inspectorate on the deaths during the 2024 strike at the institute, considering that patients cannot be separated according to their probability of survival.
“He drew a line that we must repudiate, which is to separate patients into those who can be saved and those who cannot be saved according to their chances of survival” said Miguel Oliveira, adding that the General Inspection of Health Activities (IGAS) should not have excused INEM from responsibilities because certain patients had little chance of survival.
The person responsible was heard this Thursday at INEM’s Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (CPI) as coordinator of the Patient Transport Regulation Office, a position he has held since October 2024 and from which he was removed by the institute’s current board of directors, after resigning from the training department.
Samu’s CPI intends to investigate political, technical and financial responsibilities relating to Samu’s current situation and the focus includes the institute’s actions during the strikes at the end of October and beginning of November 2024, which affected the provision of aid by the institute. During this period in which several strikes coincided,
During the strikes of pre-hospital emergency technicians, 12 deaths were recorded. In at least two cases, the General Inspection of Health Activities (IGAS) associated the outcome with delays in assistance.
In other cases, IGAS says that it was not possible to establish a causal link between the delay and the fatal outcome, claiming that the chances of survival would be quite limited given the user’s clinical condition.
In statements to deputies, Miguel Soares de Oliveira repudiates this position, highlighting: “INEM cannot act taking into account who is more or less likely to survive.”
Regarding the management of the INEM strikes at the end of October and beginning of November 2024, which affected the provision of aid by the institute, the person responsible said that, until then, “there was no contingency plan” to respond to cases like what happened that year.
“Today the Portuguese can rest easy because the contingency plan that was designed at that time and then optimized has not been exhausted. (…) It remains ready and prepared to be activated if necessary”he stated, explaining that he helped the INEM management at the time to design the plan that helped respond to the lack of resources due to the strike.
He pointed the finger at INEM’s human resources department at the time of the strike, speaking of a “complete ignorance about the legal mechanisms that the public administration has to reduce the impact of the strike without limiting the right to strike.”
“Even during the overtime strike, minimum services should have been decreed”he said, adding: “Not acting reduced the ability to mitigate the effects of the strike, particularly with measures such as minimum services, which could reduce the impact of the strike.”
Miguel Soares de Oliveira, who presided over INEM between 2010 and 2013, said he still did not agree with part of the Independent Technical Commission’s report for the refounding of the institute and criticized the fact that the document was being used “in an instrumental way”.
“When it is useful to adopt measures, he is the scapegoat, but when it is not useful, he is ignored”he stated, giving as an example the cases of training and skills of Pre-Hospital Emergency Technicians, which the commission considered should be reinforced.
“This Board of Directors is diminishing [ao retirar a formação dos TEPH das escolas médicas]however, touts the CTI report as a major driver of change”he exemplified.
Leave a Reply