DAN Responds

[Brodydog]

For those who haven’t seen the video of Woody from Dive Talk regarding his point of view on the events.

 

[Baker_Dive]

The occurrence revealed (from how I read the statement) issues in how DAN and the affiliates they have partnered with carried out their assumed/expected roles and responsibilities and also identified weaknesses in their system; in-depth resource familiarity. The second is an ever changing scenario.

What I feel I mostly read was the "call center"/resource DAN partnered with (appears to be external) did not hold up their end of what they were expected to do from DAN as well as the user. It seems from the DAN statement that there is a new partner (possibly internal now) to be the facilitator.

The DAN response is certainly not worthy of "dancing in the streets", but identifying the issue certainly helps resolve it for future occurrences.

I still feel the dive team was significantly irresponsible in their emergency action plan for the activity and location as well as their implementation.

It appears FAN is attempting to improve, how about the Dive Team?

Please stay on topic. This isn’t a discussion about the dive team. This is about the response DAN made and the changes they will implement to ensure this does not happen in the future.

 

[rhwestfall]

Double edged sword...

 

[Seaweed Doc]

Interesting response. It's easy to see why the patient was unhappy, but it's also easy to see where failures made by multiple parties exacerbated the response.

1. The treating physician declined advice from DAN. (Not that they went against such advice, they declined to talk to DAN. And they themselves were not a dive medicine specialist.) DAN's response seems appropriate: Have the DAN medic strongly encourage the doc to talk to the DAN doc. That the local physician didn't suggest an evacuation service is telling. You'd think they'd know.

2. The contracted evacuation service didn't do their job. I see some frank conversations between DAN and their contractor happening behind the scenes. It looks like the contractor was on the way out anyway (by the end of the year) and DAN has decided to accelerate their departure and handle the work in-house.

3. While it might not give the patient confidence, it's completely legitimate to ask people on scene if they know of a good evacuation services, something it sounds like DAN will implement. For remote places I dive frequently, I either know or know who to ask to find at least a low-level flight to a chamber. I suppose as potential patients it helps to think this through ahead of time.

 

[Etmutt]

Wow. My reaction is the exact opposite of the sentiment that I'm getting from the replies above.

DAN acknowledges *several* 'deviations from SOP' in this case, or requirements that clearly worked against the victim either by them or their selected transportation provider (for which they bear the ultimate responsibility):

* Failing to find a transport, when the local staff *were* able to.

* Insisting on unnecessary paperwork during an emergency while suffering from a DCI!

* Paying for everything out of pocket. Reimbursing is *not* nearly enough, because most people couldn't come out of pocket immediately with $50,000 on a credit card -- and DAN acknowledges that.

Those are just the items that DAN states that they will change in the future.

I haven't seen any of the original claims, and I don't really need to. I'm just going by DAN's own statement. And I find those admissions unsettling to say the least.

If this had happened to me, there's a very good chance I would have been seriously injured or even dead because of those obstacles, not least because I wouldn't have the resources to overcome the obstacles.

DAN has stated that they will make changes to improve this. But some of those changes are not actually changes, but expectations that they actually do what their SOP says they should do. If they couldn't follow the old SOP, why would we be confident that they will follow their improved SOP in the future?


I really do hope DAN uses this opportunity to improve to actually improve -- and that it sticks for longer than the attention of a YouTube video brought to it. Because my life may depend on it.

But that's also a reminder about the nature of any insurance. As a victim, you sit *across* the table from the insurance company. They do not have an incentive to be generous. That doesn't mean that they *will* be evil: I've been in three car accidents with significant or total loss to my vehicle, and my car insurance company was both easy to work with and more generous than I had expected in the moment. But you can't necessarily expect an insurance company for example to fight hard to find a more expensive solution that they don't already know about. Unfortunately, in the end, no one cares about your life more than you do: sometimes you have to advocate for yourself even when someone else might be expected to on your behalf.

Unfortunately, the biggest question I have is: what is the alternative? I don't know of another service that offers the protection that DAN (nominally) offers. So even though I may not be as confident that they will do the right thing, it's still better than the alternative of not having *any* protection. And I'm sure there are a number of people for whom their experience with DAN was only beneficial. Even so, I will be looking for such alternatives myself. Does anyone have any suggestions?


ETA: Just to be clear, I don't think there's anything better DAN can do right now but to put out that statement. And I *applaud* them for doing so. They have outlined a number of clear improvements that they want to make. And if they do make them, there is little doubt that the service they offer will be more valuable. I *really* want them to do this because it's better for all of us! But the statement is just the beginning. In a situation where multiple life-threatening obstacles were put in place, it is clear that there is a serious need for improvement. I'm not ready to just assume that because they've admitted to the weaknesses and state a desire to improve that they actually *will* improve. But again, where else can we go?

Could niy have said it better.

The fact is that other similar cases have been highlighted in the video comments and that it seems it isn't an isolated incident.

Somewhere in the past few years DAN Lost their commitment to quality and they are now paying for it. I do not think that I will ever trust them the way I use to.

 

[Rick Brant]

This reads like DAN will soon be asking for another level of coverage for "DAN Assistance Services", with an added fee. Of course most of us already considered DAN an assistance service. Honestly if they don't arrange the transportation it is a bit of a mystery what they actually do.

 

[NW Dive Dawg]

I think DAN has recognized their mistakes on this specific event and are making adjustments to make sure to improve. I'd personally like to see Woody and group do the same.

 

[johndiver999]

Wow it sounds like Woody et.al. were telling the truth. DAN really dropped the ball when time mattered.

It is interesting that DAN was forthcoming with providing some information on their SOP, protocols etc. and will be changing things. I think that sort of response was necessary and useful.

 

[chrisjur]

I’m glad that DAN was forthcoming with the acknowledgment of their bungled response. But it doesn’t give me a lot of confidence. This borders on being a systematic failure and, if this was a private enterprise, there’s a high likelihood that leadership would be terminated.

This falls under the “You had one job!” category, and DAN failed it miserably.

Should I have high confidence that a new, never-before-used, in-house “DAN Assistance Services” team will provide better service on day one? My hope is that the DAN Board of Directors insists on external validation and ongoing oversight of the existing processes and future changes. Because if the people who allowed this mess to happen are also the ones who are going to try and fix it, my confidence is low.

 

[Zef]

Wow. My reaction is the exact opposite of the sentiment that I'm getting from the replies above.

DAN acknowledges *several* 'deviations from SOP' in this case, or requirements that clearly worked against the victim either by them or their selected transportation provider (for which they bear the ultimate responsibility):

* Failing to find a transport, when the local staff *were* able to.

* Insisting on unnecessary paperwork during an emergency while suffering from a DCI!

* Paying for everything out of pocket. Reimbursing is *not* nearly enough, because most people couldn't come out of pocket immediately with $50,000 on a credit card -- and DAN acknowledges that.

Those are just the items that DAN states that they will change in the future.

I haven't seen any of the original claims, and I don't really need to. I'm just going by DAN's own statement. And I find those admissions unsettling to say the least.

If this had happened to me, there's a very good chance I would have been seriously injured or even dead because of those obstacles, not least because I wouldn't have the resources to overcome the obstacles.

DAN has stated that they will make changes to improve this. But some of those changes are not actually changes, but expectations that they actually do what their SOP says they should do. If they couldn't follow the old SOP, why would we be confident that they will follow their improved SOP in the future?


I really do hope DAN uses this opportunity to improve to actually improve -- and that it sticks for longer than the attention of a YouTube video brought to it. Because my life may depend on it.

But that's also a reminder about the nature of any insurance. As a victim, you sit *across* the table from the insurance company. They do not have an incentive to be generous. That doesn't mean that they *will* be evil: I've been in three car accidents with significant or total loss to my vehicle, and my car insurance company was both easy to work with and more generous than I had expected in the moment. But you can't necessarily expect an insurance company for example to fight hard to find a more expensive solution that they don't already know about. Unfortunately, in the end, no one cares about your life more than you do: sometimes you have to advocate for yourself even when someone else might be expected to on your behalf.

Unfortunately, the biggest question I have is: what is the alternative? I don't know of another service that offers the protection that DAN (nominally) offers. So even though I may not be as confident that they will do the right thing, it's still better than the alternative of not having *any* protection. And I'm sure there are a number of people for whom their experience with DAN was only beneficial. Even so, I will be looking for such alternatives myself. Does anyone have any suggestions?


ETA: Just to be clear, I don't think there's anything better DAN can do right now but to put out that statement. And I *applaud* them for doing so. They have outlined a number of clear improvements that they want to make. And if they do make them, there is little doubt that the service they offer will be more valuable. I *really* want them to do this because it's better for all of us! But the statement is just the beginning. In a situation where multiple life-threatening obstacles were put in place, it is clear that there is a serious need for improvement. I'm not ready to just assume that because they've admitted to the weaknesses and state a desire to improve that they actually *will* improve. But again, where else can we go?

There is a saying in the military that goes "the best laid plans nevery survive first contact...", and I understand why we/folks invest in insurance.

BUT

Diving, as a past time, is superfluous, tech diving, cave diving, where the risk is non-linear is even more so. Things go wrong, whether underwater with a dive or above the water with insurance or something else. If one is not in a possition to deal with those things that might go wrong when they do, then perhaps they should not be diving....particularly in 3rd world countries where resources are limited and additional constraints may be realized while the sh!t is hitting the fan.

You can point the finger at DAN all you want, but if one does not have the means to cover the bill for medical treatment when things go wrong until insurance can be sorted, kick in, and provide coverage and/or reimbursement, then perhaps one cannot afford to be diving.

Perhaps there are too many people in the world diving, perhaps there are too many people in the world conducting dives to depths and times, and in environments that they cannot really afford to do....perhaps "afford" is defined as something beyond being able to pay for training, equipment, and vacation expenses.

The sentiment about what DAN did/did not do compared to how things should have unfolded reminds me about bicycles vs motor vehicles.....a cyclist can demand "right of way" but the law of greater mass always wins, and while the cyclist may be "right" they may also be dead. As a diver, your sentiment may be "right", but if you have DCI and no money/credit onhand to buy your way into a chamber while insurance and paperwork are getting sorted, you may be "dead right" or "crippled right"....and even if, in the end that results in a huge lawsuit with a major payout, you will still be either crippled or dead.

-Z