The ambulance declined to respond to the scene twice when called by both the family and nurses from the Health Center. Consequently, the patient, who had undergone heart surgery, was transported to the Clinical Center of Montenegro by a private ambulance, where she required emergency surgery due to her critical condition.

The patient’s husband has lodged a criminal complaint against the Emergency Medical Service and its director, seeking detailed information from the authorities about who denied medical assistance and under what circumstances, despite being informed twice about the patient’s medical history and current ailments.

“I am determined to pursue all avenues for moral and other forms of restitution, as ultimately, if I hadn’t been able to afford an ambulance or found a free vehicle promptly, my wife would not be alive today, leaving our minor children without a mother,” he wrote in documents shared with ‘Vijesti.’

About ten days ago, the Podgorica Basic State Prosecutor’s Office filed charges against Dr. SS with the Basic Court in Podgorica. The report states that there is reasonable suspicion that the doctor committed a criminal offense by failing to provide medical assistance, as she improperly refused to help AV, who was in immediate danger of death.

The Emergency Medical Service did not respond to inquiries from Vijesti regarding this case and other complaints from patients who claim that doctors frequently instruct them to come to the Emergency Room independently, citing age or other factors. They were also questioned about any changes to their internal triage protocols.

A colleague’s call wasn’t sufficient.

In his letters to the authorities, as well as in the criminal complaint against the Emergency Medical Assistance Institute of Montenegro and its director, Vuk Niković, the patient’s husband emphasized that AV had cardiac surgery in September. Less than a month later, he detailed, during the early morning hours, she experienced severe vomiting, which happened five times. AV, he reported, lost consciousness three times.

“At 06:18, I called the ambulance. At that moment, my wife was utterly exhausted and could not even sit up… I explained the situation to the operator, who responded that we needed to transport her ourselves. I conveyed that my wife had undergone chest surgery and should not move without assistance, even when she wasn’t in pain… Unfortunately, I was told how we should carry her. I expressed my gratitude as it became clear that the ambulance would not provide the medical aid my wife was entitled to,” he noted in his correspondence with the authorities.

He recounts that following that conversation, his wife lost consciousness again, and while he and neighbors attempted to arrange transport in a chair, AV lost consciousness once more. They abandoned that effort and sought a private medical ambulance to the Emergency Center, which was unsuccessful due to all available rides being pre-scheduled for the next two and a half hours.

During this time, a visiting nurse from the Health Center, who had been providing daily therapy, arrived. He asserts that she also called the ambulance around 8 a.m., introduced herself, and expressed her professional belief that the patient required urgent care.

The patient’s husband states that the same or a different operator told them they couldn’t dispatch an ambulance and inquired about the patient’s age. With the nurse’s assistance, they eventually secured a private ambulance, which arrived at the scene roughly 45 minutes later.

“At the Emergency Center, they diagnosed her with likely pericardial tamponade and urgently proceeded to cardiac surgery, successfully taking her to the operating room within five to ten minutes to save her life, noting she arrived at the last possible moment,” he emphasized.

The family was referred for inspection.

In their response to the patient’s husband, the Ombudsman for Emergency Patients, Said Čekić, and director Vuk Niković informed him that the doctor/dispatcher is responsible for taking a medical history and conducting an informative interview about the main complaints, determining urgency, examining the patient, deciding on treatment, and directing life-threatening cases to the nearest emergency center.

Moreover, they elaborated that the doctor/dispatcher assesses urgency based on the conversation, and depending on their assessment and team availability, issues orders for either a home visit or provides guidelines for further treatment. The notice also mentioned that a patient has the right to refuse proposed medical treatment, and in such cases, the doctor cannot carry out procedures or actions dictated by modern medical principles.

The response included the patient’s husband’s complaint and the doctor’s statement claiming she did not refuse medical assistance. Instead, she explained that, based on her triage assessment, the patient should be brought to the Emergency Room and provided instructions for organizing transport to the clinic for appropriate care.

“Given that the symptoms were non-specific, I assessed that the patient was not in a life-threatening condition and should therefore be brought to the clinic privately for initial diagnostics and treatment. The interlocutor was not interested in collaboration, insisting on proceeding at his discretion until the call ended,” the doctor is quoted as saying.

The Ombudsman for Patients’ Rights advised the family that if they were dissatisfied with the findings of the complaint, they could reach out to the health inspectorate in accordance with the Law on Patients’ Rights.

AV’s husband mentions in the criminal complaint that “unfortunately, the evidence regarding my wife’s health that day indicates that I was correct in ‘insisting on acting at my discretion’ in our first conversation, not to mention the second call when the medical worker who conducted a routine check-up was disregarded.”

“Whether it was simply the arrogance of the dispatcher, ignorance, incompetence, negligence regarding patient conditions, or malicious intent—perhaps a business protocol by the Institute for Emergency Medical Services of Montenegro that discourages field visits unless a fatality is confirmed—I trust the investigation will clarify, under the belief that there is sufficient grounds to initiate criminal proceedings,” he underscored.

The Medical Chamber promised support within its jurisdiction.

AV’s husband engaged with the Ministry of Health, the Human Rights Ombudsman, and the Medical Chamber. The Ministry forwarded him the Institute’s statement, asserting that the matter had been addressed with the Patient Rights Protector and providing explanations previously sent to the patient’s spouse.

The Medical Chamber assured that, within its authority, it would strive to identify the person who communicated with the patient’s husband during this critical time and take appropriate legal measures against that individual.

“Your experience indicates that the system must adopt preventive measures, such as recording calls made to the Emergency Medical Service by citizens, to prevent similar life-threatening situations from occurring in the future,” wrote the president of the Medical Chamber, Žanka Cerović.

News