Posted By water67. no we don't.. why would we? universal precautions = very very low risk

Posted By Phil Errup Yes we do. Hep B is more popular in this country now and you have no idea who is carrying it. Water, can you justify saying no just so that I can understand your stance. i.e. what training you have had etc. I only say this because if a professional has asked a professional question, that has serious consequences depending on the decision made, I think it important to know where the advice from fellow posters comes from. I say that because I am qualified to answer and I deal with the potential threat of Hep B most days so am surprised you are saying no. Regards

Posted By Sharon There is a thread on this subject here: http://www.iosh.co.uk/in...iew&forum=1&thread=34302

Posted By water67. Hi flat no is based on assessment and evidence re contamination to first aiders from carries of Hep B. i can't find one case. similar for care workers giving personnel care to range of clients no evidence of contamination that i can find. What about Hep c the largest growth area in this type of virus also HIV aids. universal precautions are the answer not vaccination. to say " the FA may not have time" to take proper precautions is nonsense. you can not make any assumptions re whom may be a carrier thus I rest comfortably with my view re first aiders or indeed most workers who are not involved in high level of care and contamination risk..e.g. medical staff who may come into contact with larger blood spillage etc. Cheers.

Posted By Phil Errup OK, I was offering my opinion so don't really need to reply, but I will anyway. Clare, most people do not work in an A&E department, so I'm not sure of your point there? I'm not sure why you are saying what you are, but responding to an injury or first aid situation is not the same as making a conscious decision to ignore a site rule. Your question is about first aid and vaccination. and you have asked for opinions. I work in a sector that faces this issue every day and am giving you mine. If you want to go along the train of thought suggested by waters, and not listen to constructive comments, then why bother posting at all? Your point on training... please be real. We train all our staff. things can still go wrong, that is human nature. No amount of training is 100% effective or are you saying yours is? And your last post... why are you saying that? Are you trying to justify in your own mind why you do not want to offer the vaccination? As for high risk group? http://www.hepatitisinfo...G54MrQspQCFQEq1AodRTR5UA Big group isn't it? Water, you say that my opinion is nonsense. Very constructive. You must face this risk everyday then and always been prepared? I do, and neither myself nor my colleagues are always prepared. You must be very special. Or do you walk around in a big plastic suit all day? ;-) Regards

Posted By ClaireL As you said I didn't ask for comments!!! So that invalidates half the abuse you have just thrown at me. I am giving my opinion to the original poster, as is water. we bot think you are wrong. Our opinion.

Posted By Phil Errup sorry if I have offended you Claire, that was not the intention. However your posts do not help the person asking the question, as I was highlighting in my response. Safety isn't about what you have read in a book, or what information there is on the internet...(I refer to your post on the "Leptospirosis (Weil’s Disease) Inoculation" thread. Sometimes it is about experience. And information from those that actually specialise in the industry itself. I am trying to highlight the importance of actually knowing what you are talking about when you post here, otherwise all you succeed in doing is, to coin your phrase, muddying the water for the individual who needs the help or guidance. You both think I am wrong? then I thank my lucky stars I do not have to rely on your guidance when I need professional help. Narrow mindedness like that makes me grateful you are not the decision maker in any place I have ever worked. How can anyone possibly just say no without knowing the background to the situation? I have just given valid reasons for it, and you still disagree with the possibility of not being prepared. Have just read your contributions to other threads...can I recommend Stranks... very good author...

Posted By Phil Errup Nope, not suggesting anything. If it has been raised, then I am assuming that is for a reason. In that case, what is the harm? It is not expensive, and to me not a problem. My point is, no-one can say no because the threat is out there, and in this particular case, we do not know the background for the issue. I used to work in a place where it was common for employees to spit on the floor where others worked. Lets say one of those employees had Hep B. Is the site high risk or is it still low risk? What other habits could he or one of the others who use a floor as a spittoon have? Like I said, it's an objective position, a train of thought, something to think about. Would I have demanded the vaccination against a rapidly increasing disease like Hep B before accepting the role of first aider there? Yes, without a doubt. With regards to the post, if management is insisting because they know that it is a high risk area, then I cannot understand why anyone in their right or experienced mind would say no. If there is little or no risk ???? then the dabate has to be had on site, you cannot answer that outright in a forum. Regards

Posted By Ron Hunter I am puzzled by some of the responses here. Even those who conclude via a Risk Assessment that the risk is actually very low are still innoculating (or at least offering this)! I wonder if that same risk assessment considers & quantifies the risk of allergic reaction to the innoculation? (rare, but nonetheless possible). Generally, it is becoming more and more difficult to attract First Aiders in the workplace. Scaring them away with overblown perceptions of risk of Hep B won't help. Apparently it's "all down to Risk Assessment". Would someone care to add some meaning and substance to that statement? p.s. If my employees persisted in spitting on the floor then they would be dismissed. I wouldn't be writing a Risk Assessment around their behaviour!

Posted By ClaireL Phil, Unless I have read it wrong, Ron is actually disagreeing with you.

Posted By Phil Errup Really Claire? I dont think I need to comment further.

Posted By Joanne99 Thanks for the more constructive comments & discussion in this thread before the inevitable descent into verbally handbagging each other. Isn't human nature a wonderful thing? :-) Cheers Guys - it WAS useful Jo

Posted By John Richards I'm surprised [not] by the lack of reference to the [approx] 30% of vaccinated individuals who DO NOT gain immunisation to HepB EVEN after the 3-course injections. Maybe you should evaluate the risk a bit more. If you are treating high-risk accident victims then you have more to worry about than HepB, HepC springs to mind, for which there is no program of immunisation. Immunisation should not come before a rigid policy of protection. It's interesting to note that [for instance] a haemo lab worker who does not gain immunity to HepB does not get dismissed or moved.... So, large amounts of employers seem to think that a HepB jab (well, several...) means that it is ok to delve about in pools of blood in complete safety ? Apparently, that IS the case ?