I'm having a discussion with management about first aid cover. 

We have lost a couple of staff in our workplace and have replaced them with apprentices. These staff members were first aiders. We were on the edge of sufficient cover before we lost the 2 staff. Management want to train the apprentices to take on that role. I'm cautious about this as they're very young and inexperienced. My argument is that apprentices should be supernumery and that level of responsibility is outside of their role. We are a school and the apprentices are only a couple of years older than some of the kids. I can't help feel that all things considered, they aren't best suited to this responsibility at this point in their training ( week 2 )

Am I overreacting?

Most public events have First Aid cover provided by St John Ambulance, British Red Cross etc. where the cadets / young members can often have considerably more skill and practice than some of their adult contemporaries at the same event - age (read "experience") is not a genuine consideration.

The real consideration is do your apprentices want to have FAAW training and if they do where maturity will have an impact comes if they are asked to treat a casualty who is not of the same gender.

Even if they have different college days it still makes for a gap in provision.

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky

In theory most 1st aid training has competency testing during the course, meaning that if their young age is a factor it should stop them from passing the testing process. However, I feel that this "testing" is just ticking boxes and not a true test of competence. (I have yet to know anyone that has failed a 1st aid course)

The Equality Act, however, does mean that age should not be the only factor in deciding whether someone is competent or not, unless you can objectively justify it. The experience is a the only factor to consider, and what experience would you consider acceptable?

Have the apprentices shown any sign of actually wanting this training?

But as has been said, you must want to learn, not feel embarrassed, and take it seriously, or you are then in the situation that you didn't want to be the first aider, didn't take in the training, and worse, have taken the place of someone who would be of some use in an emergency situation. To be of any benefit to the person needing help, you must want to help. So many people are forced into the position of doing first aid as part of their 'new job spec' but would never have volunteered otherwise. It doesn't make good first aiders, it replaces good first aiders.

Edited by user 05 March 2019 06:28:52(UTC)  | Reason: tryping error

Just to distill it down a wee bit...are you saying because they are young they don't have the experience to be first aiders?  If you don't train them they will never have the experience...we have trained individuals as young as 8 years old to give CPR or assist...in my experience (Para/Remote Med)...the less experienced they are the more they stick to the rules...that of course depends on the quality of the training they receive in the beginning...

I work as a full time as a trainer training, amongst other things, first aid.

I have trained all ages, from 16 to 60+ and i can say that age is fairly irrelevant. In fact, i would go so far as saying that the younger delegates we get often perform better as they are still at that age where they are soaking up informtion and skills like a sponge.

I've had fully grown men who have barely scraped through the course whilst i've had 16 year olds who have sat, listened, made notes and blitzed it.

Getting to day 3 and still struggling with the concept of DRABC and how to hook up an AED is not something i've ever had with the younger delegates, it's always been the older ones. Whilst this of course does not indicate how the delegate would react in a real life-or-death scenario, i'd still rather have one of the younger ones by my side than one of the confused "older persons" who'd probably be trying to stick defib pads to the casualty's forehead.

Age, therefore, is not a factor. Nor is experience, if you are simple taling about "life expereince". If however you are talking actual first aid experience then yes, of course, that's a HUGE factor. Long story short, assess each person on their individual skills and merits (maturity, attitude, intelligence...). There are teeneagers out there running multi-million pound companies whilst there are fully grown adults who can't hold down a job. That should tell you everything you need to know!

I agree Helen, but I can see the OP's point. 

Pkirbyesquire, what do the apprentices think? I think they should make the decision, is now the right time or do they want to leave it till they feel more at ease in their roles?

If they want to do it, they will, as someone said, soak it up and approach it fearlessly. If they don't it will be a pointless exercise.

I will add, if they have only been there two weeks, you don't know if they are going to stick at it yet, might be a waste of training and money? On the plus side, it does usually teach young people responsibility and risk awareness, two excellent transferrable skills in a young apprentice. But I stick to my guns and say They must want to do it.