Posted By Robert Woods What level of First Aid provision should there be on construction sites. The HSE leaflet [INDG 214] says construction is high risk in general and that high risk activities require a qualified first aider for over five workers. HSG150 [Health and Safety in Construction] says that there should should be at least an appointed person and that an assessment should be made as to the risk of injury and ill health. Shouldn't the very fact that the HSE class construction as high risk which it undoubtably is [62 deaths in the first six months of y2k]mean that a fully qualified first aider on site would be a minimum requirement. Robert Woods

Posted By R.Woods Sorry for not being specific enough. I am thinking of the actual building process and conversion work, not the touching finishes. My personal feelings are that when operatives are using sthil saws and nail guns there should be more than an appointed person present. Robert Woods

Posted By Robert K Lewis Linda is right to emphasise the need for cpr and I add the other two - Bleeding and conciousness. In most site situations the victim is often remote from the f/aider often 10 min is encountered in locating people and their actual presence at the scene. In an ideal world all personnel would have these basic life preservation skills. Carpet fitters have been known to cut open a thigh and if help is not immediate then little can be done. Some years ago a glazier benefitted from this when he walked past some glass near a tenants back door. It cut his ankle just above the shoe-cutting an artery. His mate saved his life with immediate action. The number of first aiders listed is good on paper but assess the realities of the individual site. Bob

Posted By Mike Charleston This posting is in response to Richard's comments. Yes, if that really is the line you take with small contractors, I think it is too hard. I do agree that First Aid provision on construction sites is the responsibility of individual employers but cannot agree that a small contractor who cannot keep a full time first aider on the site is necessarily less than competent. I also agree that it is not the legal responsibility of the Principal Contractor to supply First Aid cover for other employers staff and operatives, but want to emphasise the recognition you gave to a moral argument for the Principal Contractor to supply sufficient First Aid cover for everybody on site (but this is because of the practical aspects of lots of small contractors each having cover, rather than what you say about many small contractors not complying with the law). I believe that a harsh approach to small contractors is often the way of this world but that does not make it morally right. The PC should consider the practicalities of each case and if a contractor has 20+ people on the site, by all means push First Aid responsibility where it lies. Coversely, don't over-egg the situation by bringing competence into the same thought process and do place more moral emphasis on the need to have PC-provided First Aiders whenever a mix of small contractors are the only people on the site. I will assume that the PC has people onsite whenever subbies are working - in which case, the ideal answer is for those PC-people to be the First Aiders. If managed in this way, other First Aid provsion from the subbies is simply a welcome enhancement of the baseline cover. Mike

Posted By Robert K Lewis I think the switch mentally between the 1 day Emergency Aid type provision and the 4 Day provision is eveident from both of the above replies. I really would like to see as many people as possible on site with EA training and the PC would provide some sort of facility on top where the site numbers justify, 150-200 being the likely figure. The 4 day first aider seems to be the norm but what is the reality of the risk assessment? Bob