After Jean Rottner, Christophe Lannelongue and the prefect of the Grand Est this week, it is the turn of François Braun, to be heard Wednesday, July 15 at 11:30 a.m. by the senatorial commission of inquiry into the Covid-19. The doctor will swap his hat of head of the emergency department of the CHR of Metz-Thionville, for that of president of SAMU and Urgences de France.
How do you approach this audition?
With seriousness and serenity. We take an oath, so we have to be precise. However, I want to take a step back from the local and regional level where we have operated. I will be accompanied by two vice-presidents of SAMU and emergencies of France, Pierre Carli boss of SAMU in Paris and Jean-Emmanuel de La Coussaye, head of department of SAMU du Gard and president of the CME of the CHU of Nîmes, where Transfers of patients from the Grand Est have also been carried out.
In this health crisis, the regulation of emergency services was paramount, why?
It was necessary to avoid the saturation of emergency services, in collaboration with “city” doctors. We estimate the number of additional calls at the time of the peak at 80,000 per day in France. What if these 80,000 patients, for lack of medical regulation, had joined the emergency services?
The policy of patient transfers may have been controversial, what is your analysis?
On the contrary, it made it possible to avoid overflowing resuscitation capacities to help them continue to take care of the patients who needed it. These transfers freed up 644 resuscitation beds, including 308 in the Grand Est!
What are the lessons you are drawing from the crisis?
We must remember the kinetics of the crisis. The decisions taken at the time were made with the information that was available. We must not only analyze what happened, but improve our capacity to manage the future crisis. It won’t look like this. Clearly, looking for solutions rather than responsibilities.
Finally, why is this health crisis so unprecedented?
Despite extraordinary media coverage and having nothing to do with the omerta around the Hong Kong flu in 67-68, which killed 30,000 people, it has remained virtual for many of our fellow citizens. You had to be in contact with serious patients in intensive care, to understand the magnitude of what was happening.
We speak in medical circles of contradictory framing. That is to say ?
It is a disease both serious and benign, neither a “flu”, nor Ebola. This duality has imposed a coordinated management of patients, and it is here that medical regulation has played a preponderant role as conductor. Knowing that we could go very quickly, for the same patient, from not serious at home to very serious in intensive care.
–
