Rank: Forum user 
|
We have recently sent our lecturers on a Specialist course for first aid in the forestry industry. Whilst students are up a tree they may suffer serious injuries including deep lacerations and even amputation. One the first aid course, staff were taught how to administer an isreali bandage anx tourniquet. Now... in my mind it would be ok to pass this knowledge onto the student as part of their learning, to enable them to administer an isreali bandage. This could be required as it could take a staff member upto 10 minutes (worst case) to reach the IP and administer first aid, whilst if we taught our students how to stem the bleeding with this bandage it could save thier life. After speaking to the 'insurers' they have deemed that we would be liable as our lecturers are not 'first aid trainers'
Would be interesting to hear other HS Professionals thoughts here.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
No sorry. It is far better to allow a student to bleed to death rather than giving them some basic self-first aid. Of course if that was to happen then the college would get sued and the insurers would pay out and then
they could adjust the premium to a more profitable (sorry appropriate) level.
It’s too early in the week to be that cynical, isn’t it.
|
 1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Applying an israeli bandage is widely available on the web and one would argue the kind of additional education a good college should proactivley provide given the potential circumstances that may arise.
Rather then exposing any new liablity (you are already on the hook with an injured student up the tree their injury unlikely to be bandage related) such action is actually the kind of risk mitigation insurers crave. Ask the insurer what premium reduction you will get for not training students in life saving skills.
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Applying an israeli bandage is widely available on the web and one would argue the kind of additional education a good college should proactivley provide given the potential circumstances that may arise.
Rather then exposing any new liablity (you are already on the hook with an injured student up the tree their injury unlikely to be bandage related) such action is actually the kind of risk mitigation insurers crave. Ask the insurer what premium reduction you will get for not training students in life saving skills.
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Would you not be better putting the students through a proper first aid course run by an appropriately competant person? This would also benifit their learning and in the longer term make them more employable and I'm sure wouldn't be that expensive or could be subsidised by the studetns. When I was at college, one of the first things we did was a first aid course which meant that when we were out doing things without direct lecturer input we would be able to sort ourselves out. (outdoor education course so we were doing expeditions etc with low levels of lecturer input.) It also helped may of us as it was a pre-requisit for future courses in the industry. Nick
|
1 user thanked ncann88 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Originally Posted by: jamesangus47  After speaking to the 'insurers' they have deemed that we would be liable as our lecturers are not 'first aid trainers'
If your lecturers were found to have been negligent then of course you would " be liable" regardless of whether they are trained first aid trainers or not. The real question that needs answering is whether the students should be provided with potentially life saving knowledge and there can only be one answer to that.
|
1 user thanked David Bannister for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thank you all for your responses! I agree with all of you, however I want to challenge this with our insurers and legal team, however am not sure how to approach it!
Maybe all you lovely people have some ideas!
I am tempted to go down the negligence route, as we would be acting negligently where the hazard/risks are well known and have not provided any input for individuals to manage/mitigate this!
Edited by user 24 January 2017 13:08:35(UTC)
| Reason: Additional information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Add it as a line in the Risk Assessment e.g. Activity - use of chain saw at height Consequence of injury - deep laceration / amputation Likelihood - possible / could happen Existing controls - cut resistant clothing / delayed rescue at height by others Additional control - educate students in personal trauma management Then sit back as they debate the written Risk Assessment
|
4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Add it as a line in the Risk Assessment e.g. Activity - use of chain saw at height Consequence of injury - deep laceration / amputation Likelihood - possible / could happen Existing controls - cut resistant clothing / delayed rescue at height by others Additional control - educate students in personal trauma management Then sit back as they debate the written Risk Assessment
|
4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
I agree with Roundtuit, present them with your Risk Assessment and let them dwell on it and see what happens. To me you are already liable anyway so you should be able to reduce the risks or put systems inplace in order to save a life without this being questioned. Good luck!!
BC
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I too agree with roundtuit's approach. I dislike insurance companies dictating what h&s practitioners should do, we are the professionals - not them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.