Rank: Forum user 
|
Good Afternoon All,
I have started in a new workplace and it has been identified due to a recent assessment that we would benefit from having a defib on site as we have a proportion across the site that are deemed a higher risk. The main building comprises of a large production area, and the surrounding area with multiple offices on two levels. I also then have separate goods in building with approx 15 staff. There are approx 250 staff in total. Radios are used on the floor and we also have a tannoy system and phones for communication. Would one defib be sufficient? The main volume of personnel are on the production floor but the entire site covers an area of XXXX I dont want to go overboard but also need to be realistic.
Any thoughts/suggestions would be most welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Its a matter of time really. The first 10 minutes in Cardiac Arrest are critical. The brain cells begin to die after deprivation of oxygen- 4 minutes. If you can be sure that the AED can be got and brought to the person within the ten minute window then one will probably be enough.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Kevin,
Thank yo for your comments, I didnt mention in my previous post that the size of the site is 18,000 feet. I will conduct some time trials to see what results I get initially before making a final decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
We have a de-feb at the site I work at, we have a large warehouse and a big 2 storey office space, so we have our first aid room and de-fib slap bang in the middle of the two, and first aiders have a grab bag as well. we have first aid and de- fib trained staff in the offices and warehouse and we have around 500 staff here, not including agency, but all staff are made aware in case the first aider cannot leave the patient for other reasons.
Jodie
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Almost right 6 minstrel then 60% chance of survival if defibrillator is used drops 10% for every minute after that. The risk assessment I have done in the past covered current researched population risk reponse time for local ambulance service and the workforce age profile. It isn't perfect but gives a more quantifiable overall risk rather than just the moral case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I hate predicted text. Meant minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I believe the survival rate is around 38% with use of an AED.
And around 9% with no AED, but bystander CPR.
The return-to-work rate is lower.
With considerable A&E closures under way, you can expect the long-term survival rate to decrease.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Steve
I will also find out local response times as well, the first aid room is fairly central but I do like the idea of grab bags as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
JohnMurray wrote:
With considerable A&E closures under way, you can expect the long-term survival rate to decrease.
There's always one isn't there - why quote this political tripe which has no vestige in truth. Annoyed for ruining an otherwise sensible debate. Rich
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
This isn't intended as a critisism - only a genuine enquiery
Could the OP outline what makes a proportion of a production and office area high risk in the context that it requires defibs?
I understand the first aid risk assessment based on activities, frequency and type of injuries etc would indicate levels of cover, training requirements etc, but what would indicate an increased the risk of staff or visitors' hearts stopping?
Thanks FHS
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Apolitical.
Resuscitated people do not just get up and walk away.
They go to hospital.
The longer the interval between resus and expert care, the lower the rate of recovery.
With my local A&E highly likely to be closed, it increases the time between event and care.
Don't even bother to go to a one-year interval for survival figures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
JohnMurray wrote:I believe the survival rate is around 38% with use of an AED.
And around 9% with no AED, but bystander CPR.
The return-to-work rate is lower.
With considerable A&E closures under way, you can expect the long-term survival rate to decrease. Your figures and information are from where? I think they are biased somewhat against good bystander CPR as I have know that produce ROSC without the use of AED. There are a number of factors and illnesses that affect the mortality rate of an individual...that is why I focus on occupational health and wellbeing of staff not just safety. The guidance figure I have used is taught to serving ambulance staff and volunteers...the heart needs to be stopped using a defib as soon as possible...the chances of survival decrease 10% for every minute. The portion of office staff to production staff in my experience is irrelevant as sedentary works can be at a greater risk..... vcollier - it is really just down to your assessment of risk assessment. There are lots of moral arguments for AED but you have to look at it objectively. Use the chain of survival - early access, early cpr, early defib, early advanced care...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
All very good, and mainly true. However...the survival rate is still not good. London: http://www.londonambulan...est_suriva.aspx?lang=en-"The Utstein cardiac arrest survival rate in London in 2011/12 is 31.7 per cent (171 survivors out of 540 cardiac arrest patients), up from 22.8 per cent the previous year. This is the highest level it has ever been in London" And it is by no means likely that the patient who survives the initial arrest will survive in hospital. DNACPR rules:OK. The one-year rate is the best indicator. Several problems present themselves, or are presented. The main one is the unwillingness of the public to attempt CPR. Maybe they need to see a video:
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.