Well, duh, they need time to get approval from the corporate attorneys for calling 911. 
How in hell are they going to enforce the rule anyway, when 90% of the people carry at least 1 cell phone? I’d’ve been on mine in a New York minute, and doing a patient assessment while I talked to the operator. If the manager tried to interfere, he would have been in a world of hurt for interfering with the performance of my duties.
Now, why would you say that? Are you suggesting that the store is always liable for accidents that occur on its property whether it is at fault or not?
Well, I think that store policy would apply to the actions of its employees on duty, not bystanders. I don’t think they could actually enforce it with customers.
My ex’s step-dad slipped and fell on the ice. He had no signs at all of a concussion but we took him (kicking and screaming may I add) to a doctor who said: “Yes, that was the right thing to do.”
Roughly paraphrasing he said something like: with the elderly and a blow to the head, there can be delayed onset of symptoms of serious bad shit. It has something to do with age and your brain shrinking a little, so when you hit your head, blood can pool between the brain and cranium, but symptoms don’t show up until the pressure gets to be too much, at which point the person is in serious trouble.
So even though someone trained in first aid will see no sign of concussion at the time, in a few hours there can be serious consequences.
You totally did the right thing.
ETA: Oh! I found a cite! It was a PDF, but the relevent part is:
I don’t think they can (equitably) enforce it on the employees, either.
The correct response is to call it in, then go find Zippy the Wonder Clown
Well, I agree with you. I wasn’t defending the policy itself --which I think is pretty dumb, short-sighted, and dangerous-- but I’m not sure what you mean they can’t (equitably) enforce it on employees. Sure, they can. If the policy says “In case of an accident, call for a manager. Any calls to emergency services or law enforcement will require management approval.” At that point, the policy is enforced by taking corrective action against the employee who calls defies the policy.
Again, I’m not saying it’s right and presumably opens them up to further legal problems, but it can certainly be enforced.
ETA: Actually, I think the correct response would be to get immediate assistance that’s nearby, then call 911. Just for the simple fact that “Mr. Clown to Pharmacy” over the intercom doesn’t take too long and at least Clown can do something while you’re on the phone with 911.
That is a prime example of unequitable enforcement. No good deed goes unpunished…
How is that unequitable or even inequitable? You’re saying it’s not fair? Or not right? I agree with you that its not right, but it would be inequitable to make policies that aren’t enforced at all or are only sporadically enforced. Are you saying that its inequitable to not enforce your policy on customers, but enforce it on employees?
Just because it’s a bad policy, how is it’s enforcement inequitable? Please explain.
I think he’s saying that the natural impulse of any non-medically trained witness would be to call for help, whether they happened to be an employee or not. Therefore, punishing an employee for doing what an average person would consider to be the right thing is not fair, or wise.
Bingo. Said it better than I tried.
Well, yes and no. The thing is when you’re at work, you’re not in a vacuum and have co-workers that you can also call for assistance. As I pointed out, calling for help may first entail calling for local assistance (i.e., in the store) and *then *calling 911. I would think that some sort of assessment would be useful, if possible, it’s good to have a hand when answering 911’s questions.
Here’s a correlation: Many retailers have a policy against employees chasing shoplifters out of the store (juxtaposed, this is a good policy as it is focused on safety). The natural impulse when someone steals something is to chase them, we may even be socially conditioned to do so. If a customer goes chasing after a shoplifter, for whatever reason, they can’t really enforce the policy because customers aren’t subject to it, nor can they be held responsible if something happens to the customer as a result.
OTOH, if an employee does so and something happens to the employee, having the policy in place shields them from liability, but the policy also attempts to discourage the behavior. If you break your employer’s policies, you should expect some sort of corrective action on behalf of the employer. That’s not to say you shouldn’t try to do something about bad policies that do endanger the lives of customers and employees alike.
You did the right thing. She could have refused the ambulance when the medics showed up.
As for the store policy, it makes sense only if the managers have had some basic training on how to make the decision and all store employees have training in working as a team during emergencies. Since you have some basic medical training, you probably are a better person to assess the situation than someone with an MBA (actually, probably not even that; with an MBA, they’d be a district or regional manager). Now, if the manager is an EMT, RN, pharmacist, it’s a different story.
If anyone tries to give you shit about following the policy, there’s two tracks I’d take:
1.) You weren’t trained under this policy.
2.) This policy removes your ability to make a call as a medically trained person. I’d think that a situation where you want to make the call but a less-trained manager doesn’t would put everyone in a precarious situation.
Geek,
Paramedic
I agree the policy is probably enforceable, but also bad. Really bad. It’s something that deserves to be publicized to customers, so they can make a decision about shopping in such an environment.
Woman, in my case. And thank you.
They do cover this in training and orientation when an employee was first hired. Trouble is, I was hired 11 years ago, and this sort of thing doesn’t normally happen in day to day operations. From what I recall of the training, if you come across an injured person, you’re supposed to a)get a manager and b)not talk to them. The reasoning behind b), as I was told, was that you could slip up and say something to lead the customer to believe that the store was liable for their injury(therefore assuming it would be paid for by the store).
Not disagreeing with you, but I think in the case of my company it’s one of those rules that has some flexibility. It doesn’t actually have to be the actual store manager- any fully trained manager can be summoned to help with these types of things. In the case of a stroke or heart attack I don’t think a non-manager calling for help would be an issue. It’s not really been an issue in this case, so far- I haven’t been warned, disciplined, or even spoken to about the incident aside from the initial questioning about what I saw go down(terrible pun, sorry).
Thanks for the kind words.
Just to clarify, that is not exactly how it happened. She was in line at the service counter, as I mentioned, which is at the front of the store, 10 feet or so from the front registers, and in full view of where I happened to be standing in the pharmacy. In other words, a lot of people saw this happen, and a manager was immediately called- I heard them paging over the intercom, and people gathered around her almost at once trying to help. I was in a position where I could see exactly what happened and the aftermath, so I described to the 911 operator(and then the paramedic she put on the line) exactly what I saw happening as it happened. (“Ok, people are helping her up…They’ve got her sitting in a chair…No blood I can see…Yes, she’s awake and seems aware, she’s talking…” etc etc)
Sure it’s enforceable, as any policy or rule at the workplace is. The question of following it to the letter is a little trickier though.I mean there’s all sorts of bs rules that corporate come up with, but they’re not always enforced equally. I understand the reason for this rule, but I do think there’s a little wiggle room in a situation like this. I’m not especially worried about getting into trouble, I don’t think it’ll happen. I did get the impression the store manager was kind of annoyed with me, but that’s fine. He can be annoyed all he wants. I just hope the lady in question wasn’t too seriously injured.
Thanks to everyone for the replies, and thanks to the EMTs and MDs that weighed in with their input. It’s much appreciated. 
Not to beat a dead horse, but I think you need to be extra careful with the elderly. My uncle passed away from taking a fall like you describe, except on the icy sidewalk outside, and a fall can escalate into some serious issues. You did absolutely the right thing, and if she were my relative, I’d be thanking you with all my heart that you cared enough to get her timely help.
Of course you did the right thing and kudos for doing it so quickly! You had no way of knowing how severly she was injured and it could have been life and death had she really hit her head hard and bled. Good for you. She could have refused the medical intervention from EMS had she wanted to. Clearly they convinced her better to be safe than sorry as she might have had a small stroke or something more serious as a result. I’m older now and I like to err on the side of caution… Where other people are concerned… I won’t go to the Dr. if I’m DYING! 
While I don’t disagree with your general sentiments, this actually is not necessarily correct. Everyone over 65 usually has Medicare Part A, but Part B, which pays for ambulance transportation, is optional, and the woman may not have it.