Posted By Alan T We have recently considered providing a Defibrillator for use by first aiders in our workplace, this has generated much discussion on liability, training, legal requirement, best practise etc etc. Has anyone out there also been through this if so what conclusions did you come to? Alan

Posted By Clairey O Hi Allan What things are you still undecieded on? I work as a community first responder and also a first aid/aquatic rescue trainer, so have seen both sides to the arguements. if one life can be saved then its a worthwhile investment. I strongly advocate people have defibrillators in the workplace, providing the first aiders have suffient support, training, and regular practice. Mail me if you need more info

Posted By Clairey O I don't sell defibs either........ if workplaces have defibs, there is a greater opportunity to have first responder groups, and the barrier to most groups getting going is raising the money to buy the equipment. I live somewhere it where it takes longer than 8 mins to get an ambulance, so having first responders in the community works well for us.

Posted By Frank Hallett I fully support Marks' view [though that could be the kiss of death to that idea - yes, I do recognise the pun but not everyone agrees with me all of the time]. Those who raise the topic of liability in particular seem to think that the US approach is the same as the UK - it's not - or actually sell a relevant insurance - waste of money 'cos Employers Liability & Public Liability and [if appropriate] Professional Indemnity Insurances should already cover it. Incidentally, the H&S [First Aid at Work] Regs actually require all employers to undertake a RISK ASSESSMENT to ensure that they provide the relevant level of meaningful First Aid facilities for their activities based upon a range of issues such as "What are the hazards to which this category of employee is exposed?" and "How long will it take to get professional medical assistance to the casualty?". Also, MHSW Reg 9 requires employers to ensure suitable contacts with external services for first-aid, emergency medical care & rescues although the ACoP to this deals with the consequences of responding to emergencies rather than assisting with practical application of the Regulation itself. So. whilst what could be described as the unforeseen [from the employers point of view] medical emergency that still requires the employers attention and response as being on the edge of the employers duties in many cases; the need to evaluate whether it is likely to be within the employers range of duties, and therefore control, still needs to be explicitly considered. For example - in a relatively well run office where the occupants contact with electricity is limited to plugging in to a circuit protected by a known "good" RCD it would be reasonable for an employer to say "De-fibrillators are not necessary"; however, for the IT staff or electricians it could be difficult for an employer to justify not providing a de-fibrillator given the balances that must be considered to demonstrate a defensible stance of "reasonably practicable". Frank Hallett

Posted By John Webster .............of which the paracetamol, neurofen and cheap antiseptic ointment should not even be there.

Posted By John Murgatroyd Yes, that's right. He did it off his own bat. He is also a trained ambulance technician. The company provides exactly what needs to, and no more. We know about the drugs, but since it costs nothing ! This is the same company that has a H&S policy (prepared by a pro concultancy) that states "no cable wires or hoses to be used in the workplace" (metal fabrication workshop !!) That policy has just cost the insurance company 49 thousand pounds in compensation and loss of wages. At least the SJA trained first aider doesn't try to diagnose injuries, unlike the appointed guy....

Posted By Nicky Just to put my oar in too, the resuscitation council has some guidelines on the legal status of those attempting resuscitation http://www.resus.org.uk/pages/legal.htm I have used defibrillators quite a few times and I have used one on someone who had suffered cardiac arrest under 50 years of age. This week locally one was used on a 45 year old. If you can get hold of a training AED (automatic external defibrillator)try local ambulance service First Responder coordinator, the training AED will show your bosses just how idiot proof these things are and that anyone with a small amount of training and CPR knowledge can use these. They are quite impressive. I am a First Responder and have also worked in industry. I can tell you that people who have seen a mate have a heart attack feel very bad indeed that something more could have been done!

Posted By Sean Fraser I tend to agree with Kevin to a certain extent, but I also appreciate the commentary that time is of the essence in anyone who has suffered combined cardiac and respiratory failure. Having done the risk assessment, you can determine the probability of an injury or sudden illness that will lead to arrest and the requirement for primary action i.e CPR. Based on your findings, you will decide for yourselves whether an Automated External Defibrillator (AED) is an acceptable cost TO ADD to the First Aider training. Remember, as far as is reasonably practicable. It is far more important that your First Aiders are well versed in the art of CPR regardless of whether you have an AED or not. But there is something being missed here. We believe that an AED will make a difference in every case, if only we can get to the casualty in time. Not so. The AED does not start a heart - it stops it. And only if it is in a certain state (yes, I know there are defibs that deal with more than VF - Ventricular fibrillation, but not the AEDs most companies will buy). Once stopped, there is a possiblity that the heart will restart normally but this is not guaranteed. In any case, you will have to continue with CPR in order to assist the patient until they either do a Lazarus (unlikely) or professional medical help arrives. They need to be prepared to make the effort until such times. I too am a qualified First Responder working in conjunction with the Scottish Ambulance Service and we are aware that the defib might save lives, not that it will save lives. I am not against defibs per se, but I am yet to be convinced that it would make a significant difference in the typical workplace. However, anywhere where there is a significant flow rate of people not in your employ (shopping centres) and / or physical exercise and exertion is the main activity (sports and leisure centres) I am fully behind it. Since there is the increased risk of arrest in these locations, the defibs are likely to get used sooner than later. And with an aging population and a tendancy to obesity at all ages, this risk increases annually. No harm in being prepared - but make those preparations proportionate to the probable risk, not the possible ones.

Posted By Len Newman With the use of a defib we save the life of a member of staffs and now after a short period away she is back to work!!! Len Newman

Posted By Mark Talbot Sean may have a good point, but oxygen therapy is not yet available to general first aiders, and has its own problems. Specialist training is required, and is not so readily available. AED training is. I am not oxygen trained, so maybe the next comment is wrong, but pure oxygen and sparks from an AED ... whoosh! Burns pack please? (probably not pure oxygen, is it?)