Posted By Jim-F Iv asked questions before on this subject, however I would like some guidance on the HSE's take on this. Should the contractor using the harness be responsible for rescue training and procedures or should the principle contractor take it on board under their duty of care but what should we be putting in place?

Posted By David.G.C Rescue must come rapidly to minimize the dangers of suspension trauma. The circumstances together with the lanyard attachment point will determine the possibilities of self-rescue. In situations where self-rescue is not likely to be possible, workers must be supervised at all times. Regardless of whether a worker can self-rescue or must rely upon others, time is of the essence because a worker may lose consciousness in only a few minutes. If a worker is suspended long enough to lose consciousness, rescue personnel must be careful in handling such a person or the rescued worker may die anyway. This post-rescue death is apparently caused by the heart’s inability to tolerate the abrupt increase in blood flow to the right heart after removal from the harness. Current recommended procedures are to take from 30 to 40 minutes to move the victim from kneeling to a sitting to a supine position. With regards to Duty of Care the PC should ensure that the contractor(s)using the personal suspension equipment have recieved adequate training before permitting work using the equipment.

Posted By Robert K Lewis It is always the employers responsibility to assess the risks and control them. Therefore the company using harnesses provides the emergency response and trains their personnel to use any kit required. The PC will be hit if he does not ensure that you have put the system into place. I always insist that sites list such things as this as an item on their emergency procedures and planning - this prompts them to check it is in place and hopefully the system is tested by exercise at some point, using a real, not living, dummy. Bob

Posted By Descarte Also make sure your first aiders are aware of the risks associated with treating a person recovering from an accident as it would not be the same in this case. I.e do not lie them down in recovery position etc unless absolutely necessary

Posted By Simon Walsh Grad IOSH I think the last point included an important aspect. The emergency services (i.e. the fire service) should not be referred automatically as the first control measure in any risk assessment if someone has got into difficulty at height. Depending on the specific circumstances the responsible person should have emergency procedures that deal with people stranded at height. There is a temptation to put on a risk assessment "Ring the fire service up" and slope responsibilty away from the employer.

Posted By Derek Holt Phil, Good point and would concur having likewise trained many a fire service. 999 isn't a cover all option unless of course you have spoke to your local Brigade and they have the capability to respond and act in time. Either way the first and foremost responsibility rests with the employer. Keith, Unlike Phil who is cautious enough to say he is offering free advice, your response may appear to be an advertisement for training services, especially with you sign off and link. I also note similar post by you on a number of threads within the last few days. I may be wrong but I believe that this may contravene the purpose of the chat forum. Moderators opinion?

Posted By Alison WR worth noting new American research [see NIOSH website] that the window for rescue may be as short as 15 minutes.

Posted By Ian Langston The climbing world has a wealth of knowledge in this area. Much depends on the equipment being worn and whether the subject experiences a text book fall. Trying to self rescue when pressed against a wall or manoeuvring oneself around an overhang can be very difficult and the problems associated with equipment in tension over sharp edges presents a whole new set of rules. I have investigated two or three of these events abroad, each was aggravated by one or even two of the above factors and in all cases the operative apparently had been ‘trained’. The importance of being able to select an appropriate training provider was definitely a causal factor. As to identifying the same I have to leave that to the industry.