IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Defibrillators covered under Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations
Rank: Forum user 
|
I have just read that if I provide an automated external defibrillator (AED) at work, it comes under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations. Does this mean that failing to maintain it and failing to train people who use it would breach requirements?
I have tried to search this particular topic on this forum to no avail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi,
If you are going to incur a considerable expense buying a defibrillator, why wouldn't you train someone and have it maintained? (and IMHO it would be covered by the PUWER regulations since it is equipment and provided in connection with work).
PH2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Yes as it is work equipment but I think that the regulations are designed to protect the users of the work equipment not anybody it is being used on- eg a member of the public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Yes is the answer...however, I wound't use the potential non-compliance with PUWER as justification for not having one... It needs to be based on the risks on the site, the population age and response times etc...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Under PUWER yes.
The Resus Council have stated that not being trained shouldn't prevent someone from using one. However PUWER wont take this into account.
if you buy one, contact your local Heartstart scheme, and they will train you for free. My scheme has done lots of this.
They may also be able to help with part funding of the AED if you fit the criteria.
PM me if you need help.
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks guys, I actually have 20 first aiders trained in its use and it gets checked on a weekly basis so everything is fine. I'm just having a bit of difficulty understanding how this can be a work related piece of kit. It isn't used in any of our work processes, it is provided just in case it is needed for a medical emergency and not just for the employees but for visitors as well.
Graham
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I agree with gt - I have difficulty in calling it work equipment, especially as they can be used by the public. We have 2 units and a further 2 on order. These are in publicly accessible areas (located inside and outside buildings). How can these units be referred to as work equipment?
Another example of health and safety gone mad!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Had a guy from the local hospital come in and train my lead first aider. She now delivers this training to all other first aiders (we have over 60 covering 400+ staff across 5 sites.
He also comes in and inspects and maintains the defib. I think he charges £50.
Point is approach your local hospital for help.
Rich
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I can't understand why anyone would not consider it covered by PUWER, to be honest.
Its at work and its equipment.
Using it on the public is another red herring too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Can I be devil’s advocate... again! What difference does it make in the normal run of things if it is covered by PUWER or not. You still have to select appropriate equipment, train people to use it, assess any risks and maintain it, so why does it matter if it’s covered by PUWER or not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I agree with post 11 > If you go to the trouble to have defibulators on site why would you not want to ensure that it is fully functional (moral) and the chance that if someone had to use it surely it would be better if they had training, even though most of the automatic one actually talk you through the process.
Post 10 > why is using it on public a red herring? surley again if you have the equipment, you have someone who has been trained and you have someone in front of you whos heart has stopped, why would you not use it???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A Kurdziel wrote:Can I be devil’s advocate... again! What difference does it make in the normal run of things if it is covered by PUWER or not. You still have to select appropriate equipment, train people to use it, assess any risks and maintain it, so why does it matter if it’s covered by PUWER or not? Because every supplier of defibs states that you do not need to train people in their use, as they are automated and take you through the process and are designed for use by members of the public (who clearly wouldn't have been trained). If covered by PUWER then the requirement for training would go above what the suppliers state. Why is this even a concern? When provided in a work situation if you go down the training route you'd want 100% coverage at all times across all shifts, therefore 1 defib that costs say £1000 may require say 15 people to be training to ensure coverage. Training provide by red cross et al cost about £100 per person for the initial training and refresher annually at about £70. Doing the maths a £1000 defib may incurr training costs (based on 15 people) of £1050 per year, so not a drop in the ocean compared to the initial outlay. We have this problem currently as we've had them installed where we don't need them (against my advise) and now the organisation don't want to foot the training bill. I battle on! I'm certainly going to look into heartstart training, local hospitals etc. to see if we can procure some free training. The way I see defib training is that if in an emergency would I feel comfortable in using a defib on someone (I'm not a first aider). The honest answer is no I wouldn't, even though they are meant to be for non-trained persons. If I were to go on a course I'm sure I would then feel able to use a defib.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I think that PH2 at #2 has hit the nail on the head. Regardless of whether a defib would fall under PUWER or not, why wouldn’t you want to maintain it?
I am guessing that in a ‘clinical’ situation such equipment would fall under PUWER but in other situations it might well not.
I am not sure if I would be worrying about PUWER. It strikes me that if it needs maintaining; maintain it. If people need training to use it; train them.
I don’t see the problem.
I am not sure of the red herring either, could someone explain?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
A Kurdziel wrote:Can I be devil’s advocate... again! What difference does it make in the normal run of things if it is covered by PUWER or not. You still have to select appropriate equipment, train people to use it, assess any risks and maintain it, so why does it matter if it’s covered by PUWER or not? Regarding training........ Modern defib units are designed to be used by non-trained personnel. Our defib units are semi-automatic with clear verbal prompts providing guidance at all stages of use. The fact that the British Heart Foundation and other similar organisations are actively campaigning to have these units placed in public areas also recognises that training is not necessarily required to use these devices - albeit, training is benefitial for ensuring other aspects of cardiac arrest treatment is delivered successfull, CPR being an obvious example. This model is following the examples set by other countries. In several states in the USA, defib units are placed all over the public places, in open areas so that they can be accessed by the public at any time. Its more important to have these units usable by all than to impose the idea that users 'must be trained' - this will only scare people into not using them. In fact, having introduced these units on my site we have a real problem with 'untrained' staff who fear to use them for fear that they may be prosecuted if they use them incorrectly. That notion is simply wrong - these units provide a vital lifeline to the most critically ill - to be overly critical about legilsative control is both morally wrong and dangerous! Yes - units must be maintained, that is a given, as must first aid equipment. Are first aid boxes also covered by PUWER?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Do they need maintaining, do you need training? I thought they were idiot proof and located often in places where there would be no thought of PUWER.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
As Defib Instructor there was never any mention of PUWER when I was being trained. It was to be regarded as a item of First Aid equipment and checked on a weekly basis, to make sure no one had tampered with them though there are stored in secure cabinets that if opened an alarm would sound and the seal would be broken. Its true that you don't need to be trained to use a defib as they talk you through the process of using one should the need arise. We have all First Aiders trained in the use of them and have some staff who wanted to be trained in their use even though they are not First Aid qualified.
Its recommened a refresher course every 12 months but this need not be more than an one hour session or can be included as part of other Department Training.
Defib's are there to save lifes and work whether a person is trained or not regardless of PUWER or First Aid requirements of a workplace. I have two customers who still are customers thanks to Defibs. Children have been known to operate them without issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ah... things that don’t need training just the application of common sense... I have heard of that somewhere before. Yes defibrillators are easy to use; you don’t need to be a doctor or trained paramedic to use them but to use one for the first time on someone who is distressed takes some confidence. You need to be reassured that the machine will not activate if the person’s heart rhythms are normal and that you cannot make a person worse by using them.
So yes you need some training. Ideally this should be given to everybody based near the machines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
A Kurdziel wrote:Ah... things that don’t need training just the application of common sense... I have heard of that somewhere before. Yes defibrillators are easy to use; you don’t need to be a doctor or trained paramedic to use them but to use one for the first time on someone who is distressed takes some confidence. You need to be reassured that the machine will not activate if the person’s heart rhythms are normal and that you cannot make a person worse by using them.
So yes you need some training. Ideally this should be given to everybody based near the machines.
Im quite sure if my loved one was dying on the floor I would be happy to know that all attempts were made to save their life. It would be very disappointing and extremely upsetting to learn that defibs werent used because those who were with my loved one were wary of using them because they had not been officially trained. The crux of this is - do we really want to create the impression that this equipment is to be used by trained personnel ONLY when this is just simply not the case!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Yes they do need maintenance. A visual check that they are OK and periodic replacement of batteries and pads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Although training may not be required, it is beneficial. You don't want to be standing there with the thing trying to work out in a panic how to turn it on. Or to be under the misconception that if you have a debrillator, you don't need to do CPR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Kate wrote:Although training may not be required, it is beneficial. You don't want to be standing there with the thing trying to work out in a panic how to turn it on. Or to be under the misconception that if you have a debrillator, you don't need to do CPR. Yes, training is helpful, but at the same time you dont want to be put off using it due to the 'fear' of causing more damage. I would rather know that someone tried their very best, than not tried at all. Most new units are either semi-automatic or automatic - in fact, the BHF are pushing for these types of units to be installed in businesses and public places as these intelligent units detect heart rate/rythym and only provide a shock when required/worthwhile. (no point in shocking a heart that has no rythm at all). BTW - I'm not a trained first aider.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hutchison43088 wrote:As Defib Instructor there was never any mention of PUWER when I was being trained. It was to be regarded as a item of First Aid equipment and checked on a weekly basis, to make sure no one had tampered with them though there are stored in secure cabinets that if opened an alarm would sound and the seal would be broken. Its true that you don't need to be trained to use a defib as they talk you through the process of using one should the need arise. We have all First Aiders trained in the use of them and have some staff who wanted to be trained in their use even though they are not First Aid qualified.
Its recommened a refresher course every 12 months but this need not be more than an one hour session or can be included as part of other Department Training.
Defib's are there to save lifes and work whether a person is trained or not regardless of PUWER or First Aid requirements of a workplace. I have two customers who still are customers thanks to Defibs. Children have been known to operate them without issue. I totally agree
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Kate wrote:Although training may not be required, it is beneficial. You don't want to be standing there with the thing trying to work out in a panic how to turn it on. Or to be under the misconception that if you have a debrillator, you don't need to do CPR. Our defibrillator turns itself on when you pull the handle. It talks you through CPR. It really does not leave a lot to chance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
23 posts but in actual fact everyone saying the same thing:
An organisation owns a bit of kit (what they use it for or on, is irrellevant)
Its sensible to keep it maintained & used by suitably trained persons
I'm saying PUWER (& H&SWA & Civil law) agrees and places a duty on the "not sensible".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
An AED is covered by PUWER, I agree.
But then again, so are coffee mugs, chairs, and post-it-notes, and I don't see anyone going into a flat spin about the need to train staff in their use...
You're going to maintain it (otherwise why buy it), and the training required to use it safely is ... "pick it up, do what it tells you". Job done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
PUWER requires "adequate training for purposes of health and safety."
HSE give some guidance in the ACoP on what "adequate" might mean:
"train the employee to make up any shortfall between their competence and that required to carry out the work with due regard to health and safety."
If none is required in this case because the defib tells you what to do then there is no requirement to train under PUWER.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Heather Collins wrote:PUWER requires "adequate training for purposes of health and safety."
HSE give some guidance in the ACoP on what "adequate" might mean:
"train the employee to make up any shortfall between their competence and that required to carry out the work with due regard to health and safety."
If none is required in this case because the defib tells you what to do then there is no requirement to train under PUWER.
Spot on! But, I can't hear the thing telling me what to do so I do need a tad more training Also, a little bit of practice makes us all better & confident at any task so its worth doing (and most of us have impliented this) And, the "maintainer" will need some additional training
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Just a little bit more info, most modern defib machines don't only have written instruction on them, but they have a voice recording, telling you what to do - so anybody can use them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Kim Hedges wrote:Just a little bit more info, most modern defib machines don't only have written instruction on them, but they have a voice recording, telling you what to do - so anybody can use them. ...............well not quite "anybody".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
If as a Heartstart group the training we are offering is free, why would you not?
They will also train your staff in basic life support, again for free.
The Companies and Lay people we have trained so far all saw it as a no brainer!
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Phil
For me, your 2 posts are the only useful Information to come out of this thread
I shall be contacting Heartstart
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Arguing about PUWER seems mute to me. Ask what would happen if a person reached for the AED during an emergency and the batteries were dead, or the pads no longer stuck to the patient because the gell had dried up (both failures due to time and lack of maintenance).
Would anyone really be able to say the provider did not have a clear duty to maintain?
Training (I am qualified) does not just cover how to apply pads and whcih button to press - it shows people how to recognise when to grab the AED and all of the support activities too. Most people would not even look for an AED until you bring it to their attention, and some people still think it is the reserve of highly trained people. Even 10-minute video presentations can help debunk these issues.
Maintenance is hardly a burden, and almost all machines have audible alarms associated with self tests (mine scared me to death when it started talking to me from my car boot late one night, asking for a new battery).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
quote=walker]Phil
For me, your 2 posts are the only useful Information to come out of this thread
I shall be contacting Heartstart
thanks Well that's told ALL of the rest of us that our posts were 'useless' - thanks! Looking back at mine I thought I provided a sensible, proportionate, lucid response. Clearly not!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
tabs wrote:
Training (I am qualified) does not just cover how to apply pads and whcih button to press - it shows people how to recognise when to grab the AED and all of the support activities too. Most people would not even look for an AED until you bring it to their attention, and some people still think it is the reserve of highly trained people. Even 10-minute video presentations can help debunk these issues.
quote]
I totally agree with everything you say - however, there is a danger that we lose vital time having to wait for fully trained individuals to arrive at the incident scene. Dont get me wrong - Training is important and helpful - but in this instant its not crucial............if the persons is left to die on the pavement while the AED sits in the office waiting for the trained user to collect it then we have already lost our way, not only have we missed a valuable opportunity to save a life.
3 minutes is all you have before the brain suffers irrepairable damage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
canopener wrote:quote=walker]Phil
For me, your 2 posts are the only useful Information to come out of this thread
I shall be contacting Heartstart
thanks Well that's told ALL of the rest of us that our posts were 'useless' - thanks! Looking back at mine I thought I provided a sensible, proportionate, lucid response. Clearly not! Sorry Can, didn't mean it like that. Your response chimed with what I was saying/thinking ( as were all the others) Phil's gave me some new info so it was the most use
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
A Kurdziel wrote:Yes as it is work equipment but I think that the regulations are designed to protect the users of the work equipment not anybody it is being used on- eg a member of the public. I would want them trained so that at least they know what they are doing. Could you imagine giving someone a blow torch and say - You dont need training just do it!. The De-fib is a machine that can act as as an agent of life or death. I wouldnt be confident of any success if the person using it hasnt been trained how to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks to all. I am going to get more people trained in its use so that if one day I need it there is a greater chance of someone helping who has the knowledge.
PUWER or not, the machine will be maintained and available.
Graham
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Steveeckersley wrote:Could you imagine giving someone a blow torch and say - You dont need training just do it!. If it was a blow torch expressly designed to be safe to use by untrained people, and there was official multi-agency advice that it can be used by untrained people, and advice that it should be used by untrained people rather than not used at all, and it was a situation in which the chances of death were greatly increased if the person did not use it, then yes, I can imagine that. Can't you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Defibrillators covered under Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations
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.