Hello all,

I have a question in regards to lone working with a pacemaker.

I am a newly appointed Health & Safety Manger, I have just been informed by a centre manager that currently we have a staff member (receptionist) who has a pace maker fitted. Currently there is an existing control measure in place that this person can’t be left alone at work.

This person works in an office environment and is not expected to carry out any exhaustive task as part of their work, they our also not exposed to any magnetic fields. To that affect in my professional opinion I think this existing control measure is over the top.

What our your thought on this control measure?

Does the company escort them to and from work? If not, I can't understand how they can safely travel to work, but can't safely be at work.

Do they go to the toilet at work unsupervised? If so, they are left alone at work, no matter how briefly.

Is there a medical reason why the person cannot be left alone? If so, then the control is justified.

What do they do when they are not at work? Do they have a carer or do they spend periods of time unsupervised at home?

Do they drive? Do they go shopping?

Clearly there may be tasks that such a person can't undertake, but I am struggling to understand why they must be supervised 24/7.

My understanding is that a pacemaker corrects a defect to allow the person to live as normally as possible and they are probably at less risk than before they had the pacemaker fitted.

It does rather sound like a cover your backside knee jerk reaction to me.

If they're that paranoid about it, why not fit them with a lone worker device (devices like these come to mind), so that they're not in turn affecting / interrupting others' working day? Surely you'd up productivity while also ensuring the one with the condition is kept safe / feels comfortable? 

As for the case itself, I guess it's twofold. From a surface read, this *does* sound like an overreaction, but I guess it's better to be safe than sorry? If they're more liable to face a future attack / come into difficulty then I think it's probably worthwhile. But yeah, it sounds like there's better solutions out there - and ones that make sense for ensuring they're safe *at all times* than simply pointing to someone and going 'Hey, you, watch them!'

Will there be people in and around the office at all times or is the person the last one in the building (responsible for locking up etc?). If it's the former then I think they are being over the top if they expect the person to have someone with them 24/7 when they are in the workplace. If they are the only person in the building however then either a lone working alarm or some form of call in system (where they contact a colleague when they get home) would probably be sufficient rather than someone having to be there all the time. As others have said, how does the person get to work etc?

However - is there some other unknown reason why the person needs or wants someone else there (have they said they don't want to work alone in the building?). Reason I ask, I had a lady who refused to lock up the building at night (there was a team of 4 and while the others were fine about it she claimed it wasn't safe etc and had persuaded the other lady in the team not to do it either)...turned out she had been subject to an assault many years previously but didn't want her colleagues to know so had raised it as a major health and saety issue. I guessed from her answers there was more to it and she finally confided in me that was the reason she didn't want to be alone in the building. With that in mind, I'd speak to the individual involved to find out what they think and whether they believe it's over the top or something they had specifically asked for....