To be perfectly honest if you train every person in appointed person you will be guilty of using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. You say the work is sometimes low-risk by this do you mean all of it is low risk? You should provide a first aid kit to each person either at thier place of work or in thier vehicle there is no need to train them as appointed persons or even first aider at work people. You could give them basic first aid if your employer is willing to pay for it, but that would be almost as expensive and rather over the top. Imagine the number of people who work alone in the many industries and working environments who actually work alone many in such isolated places as you suggest and ask your self how many are first aid trained at all. You must provide first aid kits but there is no need to train them.

Thanks for the posts so far - Two differing approaches, both useful. In reply to the second mainly around RA: We try to risk assess most situations, particularly around working on and near water, but as with so many lone working and isolated activities it is often difficult to determine exactly what levels of risk we face. Certainly for working (as against bankside surveying) freshwater habitats lone working requires a site specific RA agreed with line managers and all staff are trained in basic rescue and using life preservers, throw ropes etc. I don't like to use the word 'dynamic' around RA but part of what we aim to achieve is equipping our staff and volunteers with the knowledge and material support to make sensible judgements in the field and to be able to deal with unforeseen problems. Personally I think a one day first aid training course helps people recognise what can happen. Anyway - I'll look out for more views when the hols are over. Cheers

I do arboricultural survey work which involves lone working as well as teamworking. I have a team FA in vehicle and a personal one I carry sometimes depending on the site but I often don't bother for various reasons. Given that any field work accident is most likely due to be tripping or slipping I rely on my eyes as (dynamic?) risk assessment tools, the best I have as (like Tompkin) I don't always know where I'm going to end up. If site/survey area is inaccessible then abort. I'd focus on the lone working protocols and elementary first aid as tool-box talks to provide training as 'assessments' aren't necessary. Regular reminders are probably useful as they keep the information fresh and accessible in one's mind. Regards, Andy P

Clairel I often take note of many of your postings and consider them to be reasonable advice, however on this one I cannot believe how wrong you are. Are you suggesting that everyone be EFAW trained. That would make elf&safety a real thing in everyones view. The cost would be absolutely astronomic and it would be an ongoing cost every three years to keep it live. If you want to provide true evidence that such an OTT approach is really needed show us the figures to back up your view. I think that the as far as is reasonably practicable is something you obviously disagree with or have simply forgotten.

Claire As a trained first aider I fully appreciate an individual can administer first aid to oneself (you don't need to be qualified to do this) and I did not dismiss first aid training altogether. However CPR could be a bit tricky. :)P

Me again - thanks for your views on this to-date, I think Clairel is more in sympathy with our situation than most. The question of expense seems a bit weak to me, surely you can get decent EFAW training for under £100. In a commercial setting you can write it off against tax and in the charitable sector (as I am) it's a matter of making sure costs are factored in. Mixing first aid and lone working is an issue, for instance; if one of our surveyors is lone working they might not need EFAW but if the have a couple of university placements with them the lone working issue is gone but they need EFAW in case one of the placements hurt themselves? I'm with Clairel, I simply can't see why everybody dosn't have some level of training.

As I've already eluded to, if you do the Heartstart course, they will come to you FREE, so can't see the issue really. I know that harnesses and lifejackets are often issued without training, and that really upsets me, but to dish out first aid kits without free training would be inexcusable really. I can't see what the issue is, when we insist on CSCS, manual handling training, environmental training etc etc, but something as basic as first aid, particularly in isolated areas, we try and swerve. If you do the risk assessment, how can you not have first aid facilities in a remote location? Phil

We often use risks assessment as the philosopher's stone, they do not always provide the answer you are seeking. Indeed, I would say that a formal RA in the circumstances we are discussing is not really very helpful. It really is about striking the right balance, is FA training necessary, are there other more useful means of controlling potential risks, have we discussed this with the guys out in the field? Lets not get bogged down with RAs and FA - we may be missing the big picture.

This is an interesting discussion. One argument seems to be if you provide a FA kit, it is almost essential to 'train' in EFAW. The views seem to be either EFAW (or more) training or nothing. Let's look at how this works out of work, as a comparison: Going mountain biking / hiking / camping etc? Advice is always to take a FA kit - usually giving list of items which should be relevant (lots of plasters / blister kit if hiking, maybe anti-stick large dressings for cycling). The advice is also - 'and know how to use it'. So - horses for courses. Sounds like risk assessment . . So back to work . . . If you have lone workers, and the FA kit is for them, including a resuciade for example is obviously wasted. Most of EFAW training is life-saving, not putting on plasters, so that too is OTT. So why can't the worker receive specific 'information' on how to self-aid with a (specific) kit, covering the likely scenarios (grazes, bruises, cuts, insect bite) rather than standard EFAW training? A briefing, leaflet and occasional TBT seems reasonable. Isn't this what reasonably practicable, and proportional means? After all if there is a significant risk of serious injury, lone work would not be acceptable surely *. I would put more emphasis on the ability to call for help, and rescuers being able to find people in trouble. Which is going to be rare and exceptional. (* Farmers not low risk).

Interesting to read this debate and the various opinions. Out of interest how many people have driven in France? You are required to stop at an accident if first on the scene and offer assistance and you are required to carry a first aid kit in your vehicle along with hi-viz warning triangle etc. No mention of training though! Clairel is to be agreed with that every body should have some form of emergency first aid training either as part of the school curriculum or as part of their work induction, basic first aid can be covered in a few hours and may even save someone's life. sounds like a good practical and cost effective health and safety issue if ever I saw one.

Steve I couldn't agree more. But it seems that people are suggesting we provide NO training at all. Im well aware that Heartstart doesn't indemnify you for EFAW or FAW. Im just stating that the cost implication shouldn't be an issue as to why you wouldn't train your staff in BASIC life support. I suggested at the start of the thread that it comes down to as always risk assessment. Phil