Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Joanne99
Does your place of work provide Hep B Vaccinations for your first aiders? I know all things being equal Hep B is probably a good idea, but we're having a few procedural problems with it and beginning to think about reviewing whether it is required. Any input would be greatly appreciated!
Cheers
Jo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By water67.
no we don't.. why would we? universal precautions = very very low risk
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adam Worth
We do.
Also I work as a first aider for St John - They also do.
I think it's still possible to blag a free set of jabs at some doctors if you say you are a first aider but this is getting rare.
As said above it's down to risk assessment. If you have a small workforce and only administer first aid occasionally with a safe system of work - i.e. Gloves, specs, long sleeves, bio clean up kits then the risk is very low.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ClaireL
Phil,
I think each situation warrants it's own assessment.
Hep B vaccination is not a legal requirement and an employer can never compel an employee to have a vaccination anyway.
My opinion would be that the first aider should not be exposed to the risk if adequate precautions are being taken in the first place. However, in high risk situations I may be inclined to re-evaluate that stance. So it's back to the evaluation of the individual circumstances.
Let's not have a blanket one size fits all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil Errup
Hi Claire,
Understand your point, my position is this... first aider, may have to treat new employees, visitors, etc etc... on the hop, no time to take the necessary precautions... whatever the book says you should do in an emergency. So I would say if the subject has been raised, then yes vaccinate. Personally I would not undertake the role without it.
After all it's only a few harmless injections that could ultimately prevent a nasty disease.
Saying that I am not saying anyone should insist on it. But I would definately recommend it is made available.
So I stand by my answer, but still ask why anyone would just say a flat "no" ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ClaireL
I agree.
Phil, no one should ever say that they didn't have time or forgot to take precautions. A&E staff have emergencies all the time but they (hopefully) always take precautions.
Imagine if someone said, oh I didn't have the time to use that guard on that machine as I was in too much of a rush. We wouldn't accept that as a valid reason. I cannot think of any situation where the few moments it would take to use precauions would cost someone's life.
That is what training is all about and Mg't should enforce the fact that safe procedures are to be followed at all times.
If someone has a Hep B vaccnation they may then feel it's ok not to take precuations. Well what about the other blood borne viruses etc that they can be exposed to? A vaccination is not a valid precaution as it does not prevent the exposure in the first instance.
For high risk groups it may be seen as an additional back up measure but those high risk groups are relatively few. For most first aiders just using precautions should be sufficient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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...G54MrQspQCFQEq1AodRTR5UABig 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil Errup
Apologies for stating "Your question", just realised it is Joannes question. But my point remains the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mitch
Just out of interest, and not wishing to have my head bitten off, I have never come across this question either in my own training or raised by the employees I have arranged training for, what areas are the respondents coming from?
Regards
Mitch
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Fornhelper
Phil
Are you suggesting that all first aiders should be innoculated or that innoculations should only be given based on the level of risk?
If it is the former then I fail to see how you can criticise Clare & 'water' for their responses, if it is the latter then I fear we are moving into 'bonkers conkers' territory.
Fair enough if you are a first aider working with St John, A & E, ambulance services, drug dependency units etc. but I would suggest that the majority of trained workplace first aid staff are generally tending minor cuts & abrasions when (if??) they get the opportunity to put their first aid skills to use and the level of risk of contracting a BBV in this type of scenario would be so small as to be classed as 'no significant risk'.
Sorry I don't have any detailed statistics to back this up but if we have had a raft of first aiders who have contracted a BBV as a result of applying first aid I am sure we would have heard about it from our 'scare story friendly' media.
Regards
FH
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ClaireL
Phil,
I'm not even going to bother defending myself against that tripe you have just written about me.
Attack is the only form of defence for a wounded animal after all, so I guess I should pity you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil Errup
Absolutely agree 100% Ron, as for the sacking of those spitting, I dont always believe in the sack them approach but for that I do.
Just a shame I wasn't in the position to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ClaireL
Phil,
Unless I have read it wrong, Ron is actually disagreeing with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By water67.
Lot of things being said re my view and position but NO evidence to support the risk being more than negligible. I think the old problem of perceived risk as opposed to real risk is the problem. I stand by no need for vaccine for first aiders. Good universal precautions are still my control measure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil Errup
Really Claire? I dont think I need to comment further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Fornhelper
Ron
You raise a very valid point. I did deal with the scenario where members of our staff were requesting a vaccination.
Following discussions with a GP with Occ Health experience he made exactly the point you have made..the risk of allergic reaction would, in his opinion, outweigh the risk of contracting a BBV if operatives were carrying out their duties in the normal way.
Aside from first aiders we have staff who work with high risk groups such as drug addicts and our approach is to provide them with as much information as possible and ask them to discuss it with their GP. If, on balance, the GP advises them to have an inoculation then we pay for it...I don't think on this type of issue a 'blanket approach' is feasible.
As has been mentioned this is more to do with an individual's risk perception than actual risk and, as I'm sure many will acknowledge, dealing with the perception of risk can be just as time consuming and resource draining as dealing with actual risk....just ask anyone trying to go through airport security !!!
Regards
FH
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martin J Morley Hi, I'm a bit late coming in to this, but there is formal advice provided by the Department of Health, 'The Green Book' which can be accessed at http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/...ion/Greenbook/DH_4097254 which explains many of the factors relating to Hepatitis. The previous document said "The incidence of infection is not apparently greater than in the population as a whole for members of the police, ambulance, fire and rescue services. Nevertheless, there may be individuals within these occupations who are at higher risk and who should be considered for immunisation. Such a selection has to be decided locally by the occupational health services or as a result of appropriate medical advice following the necessary risk assessment." Since the risks are described as generally low, very few immunisations are carried out, except to the medical profession etc. under COSHH. martin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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 ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.