Rank: Forum user 
|
Our employee's have just completed and returned their annual health surveillance forms.
My question is, how much of the information they have given can I share with first aiders?
I understand that the sharing of information is a minefield, Data Protection Act and all that, but the only info I would divulge is that which is relevant for first aid activities, and already documented by the employee on the health surveillance questionnaire anyway.
Surely if someone has say a contagious condition, then you are duty bound to inform the first aider of the potential risk anyway?
Should the first aider know about things like an employee's heart condition, or the fact we have a kidney transplant employee with us?
Forearmed is forewarned surely, I would hate to think someone didn't receive the correct first aid attention for the sake of a lack of information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
ctd
Your health surveillance forms are personal information and protected by the Data Protection Act. You can't share it without consent and it needs to be strictly controlled.
A better way is to introduce something like the meditag but again this is voluntary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Oh, and you should have a Data Protection statement on your Health Surveillance form.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
First aid[ers] should practice measures to protect themselves from cross-contamination, such as gloves, resus face shield etc...
As for giving them access to personal health information....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
By holding back data that could negatively affect a first aider and/or an-other in the workplace is a crime and data protection is secondary to human protection in all areas but 1 and that 1 area does not apply in any and all day to day employment situations in this country so the first aider should know what they need to know to keep them safe irrespective to other areas e.g. if an employee has 'Small Pox' then the first aider should be told that the employee has 'Small Pox'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I agree with John and Bob. They should protect themselves when giving treatment but the Co. also has a duty to ensure the Health of the Employee (First Aider) too. If that means advising them that Employee X has a Condition Y then I think they should be informed as such. Perhaps explain this to Employee X and get them to sign a consent form before any situations and possibly do this with other Employees with certain conditions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Health Surveillance records and information is under the scope of the data protection act.
It is my understanding that first aiders are trained in techniques that mitigates cross-infection etc. Where does one start or stop and what would be the practical means of provision and use of the information, assuming that consent has been given, by first-aider??
We have a voluntary system where any employee can provide information that is "sealed" in an envelope that is only opened if a first aider requires it, i.e when the casualty is unconscious and cannot provide the information directly. It is more to do with information that would help the first aider in aiding the casualty such as allergies, or chronic type of conditions such as diabetes, etc
We are fortunate that all our first aiders have radios and we have a central reception manned by security that is also a "control centre".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
bob youel wrote:By holding back data that could negatively affect a first aider and/or an-other in the workplace is a crime
Bob, do you have a reference to the legislation, wouldlove to look into it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sorry Bob I cannot agree with the primacy of either side - they are equal and concurrent duties owed to all human beings by another. Breaching one right to prevent a possible breach of somebody else's right is not a solution.
In general though
All such questionnaires MUST include a consent form to share with specified persons. But even then one must be very careful. The use of extreme examples such as smallpox, which is eradicated, does not point to good law or practice.
With the sensitivity of much of this health information I am also concerned about the ability of a company to keep such information confidential to all except nominated, consented persons. When undertaking such surveys one has to remember this fact. Serious professional advice ought to be taken before embarking on the process. Ask yourself just why you want this information.
F/aiders need to adopt precautionary measures at all times not simply for some "special" people as this could be interpreted as discrimination especially if it is a chronic condition. The patient always has the option of providing information at the time of treatment and if unconcious then there are other priorities. Do please remember paramedics do not have survey results to help them in an emergency.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I think Bob Lewis is probably right, certainly on the point about paramedics AND the fact first aiders need to adopt precautionary measures anyway.
I'll let it lie as it is i think, but great discussion guys, as always.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
No contact, separated by a barrier, so no contagion.
This site has already decided (at least some people have) that first-aiders are also medical diagnosticians, now they are the custodians of sensitive personal information.
So what are you going to do in the LIKELY event that permission to disclose is withheld ?
Make it part and parcel of the employees terms and conditions I expect. Morally, and likely legally, reprehensible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I wonder if you mean a medical enquiry form rather than health surveillance?
It’s not often that I agree with John M but his first comment at #4 is reasonable and sensible.
Let’s not forget that this is first aid. Paramedics etc are often (not always) faced with a casualty and have no knowledge of any underlying issues etc, hence they use various practices to prevent cross contamination etc.
I am hugely sceptical of the ‘claim’ at #5 about holding back medical information being a crime etc.
I think Bob ‘has it’ at #9.
Many people with a medical condition will willingly share this with colleagues and first aiders but there are some conditions that are, or they may consider to be so sensitive that they are unwilling to share this. Most people with diabetes, dicky tickers,epilepsy etc will generally freely offer this information. Those with HIV, Hep, or a nasty case of ‘Rockfords’ are unlikely to.
Right, where’s that tube of germaloids!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The other issue about providing medical information (the claim that it is illegal not to is rubbish) is that you need to keep on top of it. If your first aiders are acting on out of date information you may end up with far bigger problems.
As stated earlier first aid procedures will protect those administering first aid.
I recently introduced the meditag attached to helmets but not without a lot of thought including the possibility that people may swap helmets, not keep the data current etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Canopener
Sorry to hear of the Johnny Cash problem!!
I am as people may have gathered wary of such questionnaires/surveys etc as all they do is store up problems for the future. Worms are very hard to get back into cans I am afraid.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
First aiders should not be acting on any information.
They're not doctors and very few have ANY medical quals.
If the casualty is conscious, they'll be able to inform you.
If the casualty is not conscious, they go to hospital.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I do not believe you should give out any information from a person's health surveillance form.
You can encourage people to disclose to first aiders for their own benefit so that, for instance, those with epipens can get the help they need quickly. Thus first aiders could and should be acting on information in a few cases.
Not all unconscious casualties need to go to hospital. Those who have suffered a simple faint, and those with epilepsy in most cases will not need this, and this latter is another instance where the first aiders can act in the best interests of the casualty if they know about their condition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Health Surveillance records are confidential and should not be shared with anyone outside of your occupational health department. Access should be available to any physician, nurse, medic, medical secretary or medical clerk within Occ Health. No one else should have access including first aiders.
Medical details can only be revealed to other parties with the, preferably written, consent of the patient, with the following exceptions:
Where required by stature
Where ordered by a court of law
Where serious crime might be prevented by disclosure to the police
In the interests of national security
In the interests of public health
Medical information can be used for research and medical trend reports providing the reports do not identify an individual patient.
Your company should have some kind of Occ Health procedure that states pretty much the same thing. Make sure you stick to it or, even with the best intentions, you could find yourself in court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
John Murray post #15 is spot on.
I'm also slightly concerned about some of the conditions you're mentioning, and wonder if in fact you had the right to ask for that level of detail in the first place.
Do you yourself need to know and have valid reason (wrt DPA) to access the information in these forms?
If you don't you shouldn't be reading them either!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Also I doubt that employees have a legal obligation to complete medical questionnaires or surveys. Could be wrong though...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You can give no personnel information at all. The idea that a first aider is required to know a persons medical condition is ludicrous. What happens if you are working on a large complex with 1000 workers, so you give all the first aiders info about who has what, who would retain that amount of info without looking it up, oh can not see to you, even though your arms hanging by a thread and your bleeding to death, have to look up medical records first to find if your HIV or something, by the I am not a doctor just a first aider.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You can give no personnel information at all. The idea that a first aider is required to know a persons medical condition is ludicrous. What happens if you are working on a large complex with 1000 workers, so you give the first aiders info about who has what, who would retain that amount of info without looking it up, oh can not see to you, even thopugh your arms hanging off and your bleading to death, have to look up medical records first, make sure you have no nasty infections, by the I am not a doctor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ken Slack wrote:Also I doubt that employees have a legal obligation to complete medical questionnaires or surveys. Could be wrong though...
Ken, there are a number of cases where employees would be required to give this information. For example diabetics can now be restricted from firearms duty where they may be expected to wear respiritory protection for a while as they may be unable to manage their condition. Skin conditions are also currently considered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
"how much of the information they have given can I share with first aiders"
Have they epilepsy ?
Then someone should know, but that does not have to be a first-aid person.
Diabetic ?
Same.
Heart condition ?
Same.
But you will still find that people are loath to give anyone personal information, because many companies STILL think that anyone in management has a right to that information.
They do not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
John #23
As I thought, no one is legally obliged to give confidential medical information to non-medical persons, be they managers or otherwise.
Is it wise to let others know, well yes, if it's in the ilk of diabetes or cardiac problems, but is it an obligation... no..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I would suggest that all the info first aiders need is given to them during their training. Any supplementary information is strictly with the individuals consent. I do wonder why it is that you have access to health surveillance information - unless you are part of the occ health team that is? (or medically qualified)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Jane Blunt wrote:Not all unconscious casualties need to go to hospital. Those who have suffered a simple faint, and those with epilepsy in most cases will not need this, and this latter is another instance where the first aiders can act in the best interests of the casualty if they know about their condition.
Personally I disagree with Jane's statement that "not all unconscious persons need to go to hospital". Unless the casualty has told someone they are epileptic for example, a first aider has no knowledge of what caused their colapse. Same with a faint how do you know it was not caused by some underlying condition the casualty was unaware of.
IMO any person who is unconscious goes to hospital and let the doctors decide if it is a minor / serious event.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
ctd,
A simple solution is to speak to the individuals with the medical conditions, explain to them your dilemma and ask them if they have any objections to divulging the information to the first aiders. Preferably get the individuals to divulge directly to the first aiders. Data Protection issue resolved.
If the individuals refuse, refer to HR / Legal for further advice.
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
What is the point of having any sort of legislation preventing the willful, unknowing or illegal dissemination of personal information if companies, or their personnel, try any, or every, means possible to circumvent the legislation or its intent ?
I have known companies where personnel files are kept on a shelf, in an open office, freely available to anyone who wants to look. I bet I could go back there and find the same, or the electronic equivalent.
Now a person has a "confidential" chat with the highly qualified medical consultant, disguised as a first aider, to inform him/her/it that he/she/it has a medical condition that he/she/it may wish to chat about in the canteen (been there, listened to that).
Oh, then we'll get HR on the case to browbeat/threaten/blackmail the employee.
And people wonder where the non-existent compensation culture came from...
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.
Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744)
An Essay on Criticism
(A little knowledge is a dangerous thing)
(first aiders hymn: Should be)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
John, your absolutely right and it appears that many here do not understand the consequences of their actions should they disseminate this private information without consent or control. The fines are enormous.
I manage an occupational health team and would not expect to be privy to the information being requested on here, nor would I allow it to be provided to others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
This whole argument is a non starter. Any first aider be it FAAW or general first aid competence needs to know nothing about any particular medical condition. That could lead them into thinking they are medically qualified and that is dangerous. Any first aider deals with what they find at the time, there are some specific things they look for and based upon their training will take certain actions. The first is to call for competent medical help and then deal with the three main principles Breathing, bleeding and blood. Should someone be unconscious they must ensure they are breathing and place them into the recovery position unless there is something that prevents this such a facial injury. There was someone in the office I worked who needed to inject himself and I was made aware of this (although not a first aider) simply because I sat near to him and could assist him should he need it, this knowledge was with the consent of the person concerned and met the DPA requirements. Remember first aiders are not medical people and to elevate them toward that is very dangerous grounds indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
mike52 wrote:Jane Blunt wrote:Not all unconscious casualties need to go to hospital. Those who have suffered a simple faint, and those with epilepsy in most cases will not need this, and this latter is another instance where the first aiders can act in the best interests of the casualty if they know about their condition.
Personally I disagree with Jane's statement that "not all unconscious persons need to go to hospital". Unless the casualty has told someone they are epileptic for example, a first aider has no knowledge of what caused their colapse. Same with a faint how do you know it was not caused by some underlying condition the casualty was unaware of.
IMO any person who is unconscious goes to hospital and let the doctors decide if it is a minor / serious event.
Mike
I am working from my first aid training and the First Aid manual, and will continue to do so. There are criteria that determine when a casualty should go to hospital. As for the epileptic when they regain consciousness they can tell you. If they don't come round within a reasonable time or they have a seizure but are not epileptic then they go to hospital anyway.
I have no illusions that I am medically qualified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I have just started HS with the employees, and I have informed them that if they have any condition the site first aider will be notified, such as diabetes or epilepsy or colour blindness, reason being that i previously have had 3 instances whereby the operatives didnt inform me they had such;
1. An employee came to me saying his co-worker was taking a lot of pills during the day, brought him in fogr a chat, and he confirmed he had epilepsy, he was working on scaffold, so he was immediatly removed from that environment to either working inside the building or on ground level.
2. A machine driver fained in his cab, he was diabetic and sugars were low, thank god he had the arm of the machine down before he passed out, as it could have been a lot more nasty.
3. Another machine driver caused major problems digging in a restricted area as he couldnt see the paint on the ground owing to being colour blind. We spoke with him and from then on used a colour paint he could see.
Yes it is private information, but in some circumstances this needs to be expressed to the First Aiders on site so they at least know what to do in such instances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Lawlee45239 wrote:I have just started HS with the employees, and I have informed them that if they have any condition the site first aider will be notified, such as diabetes or epilepsy or colour blindness,
If you gave personal medical information about me to a first aider without my consent I would be taking legal action against you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I'm still trying to work out how knowing that a colleague is colour blind could be of the slightest use to a first aider.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
I can see how it's a good idea for people with certain conditions to let the FAW know - e.g. "I have angine, the pills I need to take if I have an attack are always in my right hand trouser pocket - if I am having an attack but am still conscious you may need to help me take them". First aiders are trained to look for that, but why waste time?
However...
Lawlee45239 wrote:I have just started HS with the employees, and I have informed them that if they have any condition the site first aider will be notified, such as diabetes or epilepsy or colour blindness, reason being that i previously have had 3 instances whereby the operatives didnt inform me they had such;
None of the reasons given for divulging the above info to first aiders would stand up - they should all have been divulged to management (those in management who need to know) because they impact the person's
ability to do their job safely. But an epileptic who falls from a 40 foot scaffolding isn't going to be helped by the first aider knowing he's epileptic, and telling the first aider that he is is NOT an effective management control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Paul Duell wrote:I can see how it's a good idea for people with certain conditions to let the FAW know - e.g. "I have angine, the pills I need to take if I have an attack are always in my right hand trouser pocket - if I am having an attack but am still conscious you may need to help me take them". First aiders are trained to look for that, but why waste time?
However...
Lawlee45239 wrote:I have just started HS with the employees, and I have informed them that if they have any condition the site first aider will be notified, such as diabetes or epilepsy or colour blindness, reason being that i previously have had 3 instances whereby the operatives didnt inform me they had such;
None of the reasons given for divulging the above info to first aiders would stand up - they should all have been divulged to management (those in management who need to know) because they impact the person's
ability to do their job safely. But an epileptic who falls from a 40 foot scaffolding isn't going to be helped by the first aider knowing he's epileptic, and telling the first aider that he is is NOT an effective management control.
Sorry I should have said in most instances its either myself or the Project Manager who are the First Aider(s) on site. The information is not given out to everyone openly. @ Clairel- the operatives are INFORMED BEFORE they complete the HS that the information shall be reviewed and where deemed necessary the First Aider shall be informed of certain conditions. They have the option to say no to this.
And yes I understand where ye are all coming from. The company I work for are small and therefore all areas of the H&S, HR, First Aid and management interlink. There is no discrimination, the First Aider needs to know such information so that should emergency services be required the fastest treatments can be administered if conditions are know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
For epilepsy, the only difference for the first aider is that if a known epileptic has a normal fit, the first aider doesn't ask for an ambulance. If someone has a fit for the first time, they do.
For a diabetic coma, the only difference for the first aider is that they will tell the emergency services that the person has diabetes.
Otherwise there is no difference at all in the treatment. The first aider can still give effective first aid without knowing about the history of epilepsy or diabetes. What they can do in either case is extremely limited anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.