Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Adam Jackson
Interesting situation. Risk assessment has shown that a first aider is not required for a site and the company has decided to have an 'appointed person'. They wanted to give the appointed person at least some basic training on a one-day first aid course, which seems sensible.
However, they bizzarely have offered to pay for full first aider qualification for any 'appointed person' who wants it.
If someone accepts this offer, as the company (in the guise of our ever useful HR department) have agreed to pay for the training, are we then implying that a first aider is required as it is our employee, doing the training in work-time, paid for by us? And consequently, if they are then a 'first aider' rather than 'appointed person', I guess the requirement for us to ensure first aid cover is maintained for "planned absences" takes effect which will mean training at least one other person to cover weekend shifts, holidays, etc.
Or are they just a well-qualified appointed person??
Would see a grey area to me - any comments welcomed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Fornhelper
Hi Adam,
I suppose a first aider isn't a first aider when they get there second !!!
Seriously though...I would imagine that your last statement 'a well qualified appointed person' hits the nail on the head. The need for a fully qualified first aider should be based on the assessment of first aid needs.....not on the 'terms & conditions'your HR department so generously offer.
As long as your assessment makes it clear that the work activity only requires an 'appointed person' then I don't think that you should be concerned about the 'full payment' being offered.
Cheers
FH
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adam Jackson
Thanks FH :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
there is a potential problem if this highly qualified appointed person applies this training and "gets it wrong". I think the position (appointment/extent of duty) needs to be made very clear (in writing) in order to be fair to the individual. Of course my initial advice is that the individual attends suitable 'appointed person' courses (available at much less cost) with refresher training at suitable intervals!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mark Talbot
That seems a little odd, train a person to a lesser standard, or restrict their response in writing, just in case they get it wrong?
What is taught on a four day course is difficult to get wrong to the point that they would endanger someone. Realistically, it would be a sad day to withold help 'just in case'.
When was the last time a first aider got it wrong to the degree that made you want to withold first aid?
Train to the highest standard you can afford, it will not oblige you to change your assessment of needs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken C
The risks of getting the treatment wrong for an injured person are relatively quite low. However, you are right to question the liability issue.
Most of the first aid training organisations are very good at advising anyone they train in how to avoid the liability issue and obtain consent. The one that immediately springs to mind is where you state that you are a first aider and that you CAN help (notice not WILL help). If they don't try and stop you then they have consented! Yes, even if they are unconscious.
We have not yet reached the stage where someone will get immediately sued for trying to help.
As for being over qualified, outside of work I am a Fist Aid Instructor via a well known SCUBA diving agency. In work I am an appointed person. I have yet to find a problem with this.
Regards
Ken C
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
perhaps what I didn't express properly was my concern that this training would perhaps be funded the first time as a 'one off', but with no thought to any future refresher training requirements.Those First Aiders out there will know that best practice techniques do change over time!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken C
Ron
The company only paying for the initial training is, as I'm sure you would agree, a short sighted view. And I would agree with you that all First Aid provision and best practice does change over time. However, remember that a First Aid qualification runs out after three to five years (depending on training provider). Once run out you are no longer qualified, even to fulfill the role of Appointed Person!
After all, we do not accept out of date certification for anything else, do we?
Regards
Ken C
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Graham Baskeyfield
As I understood it (& without looking it up), certification by an authorised training body is not required for appointed persons? - correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.