Posted By Sen Sar

Hi

Maybe this will be of help:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg214.pdf

Sar

Posted By Bob Shillabeer
The main point is you will need first aiders to attend as quickly as possible to the injured person. So you will need them quite close to hand. This is best achieved by having at least two trained first aiders on each floor. This should cover for things like sicknes absence, holidays or any other event that means that one or more will be out of the office when they are needed. Our office is over five floors witrh at least two first aiders on each floor but not limited to that floor as they are able to attend an incident on all five floors within a few minutes. Suggest you look to get more tahn one (say 2) on each floor to cover any emergency. Count the total number of employees in the building, do not split it into floor by floor situation, that restricts you far to much.

Posted By Neil R
I think people may have missed the point of this post.

The issue is that there is a system in place where 'appointed persons' are on each floor.

Remember an appointed person does not (and usally isn't) a fully trained first aider. Their duty is to co-ordinate emergency services when required and ensure first aid boxes are stocked.

In answer to the post, my personal belief is the 'appointed person' is a bit of a cop-out and the first aid regs try to explain it as a measure for companies employing small numbers (not very well).

In your situation i would be looking for a designated fully trained first aider on every floor (mobile so they can cover other floors if need be) and one 'appointed person' to co-ordinate it all.

Posted By Clare Hazlewood
If your main issue is with the level of training (appointed person vs full First Aid at Work(FAW)), remember that the HSE approved qualifications will be changing in Oct 2009.

There will be a new 1-day Emergency First Aid at Work (EFAW) qualification (effectively formalising the appointed persons training), FAW will shrink from 4 to 3 days and both qualifications will require annual 3-hour refreshers as well as 3-yearly requalification.

Depending on activity risks, shift patterns etc, a first aid needs assessment might find that it is more effective to train several people to EFAW standard than a few to FAW standard.

Posted By Saz G
Well said Graeme! At last, some common sense! And I concur with Clare's statement also. Our company are reviewing our FA requirements when the new qualification format is introduced due to shift times and cover etc. Based on historical accident data, we are going to train more personnel to the EFAW standard and reduce the number of FAW. That way, there will be more prompt and effective treatment of the minor injuries that we have as with all serious incidents, the emergency services are called.

Posted By Saz G
I don't think anyone said 'no first aiders', neither do I think that a sensible risk assessment would produce a high probability of heart attacks, asthma attacks and electrical shocks, all of which Appt Persons/EFAW are more than capable of dealing with. In any of the incidents you mention, the emergency services would be called. A FIRST Aider (and yes, I am a fully trained First Aider) is there to do exactly what is says on the tin (badge), preservation of life before the professionals take over.

Posted By Saz G
Maybe I should have said First Aid Requirement/needs Assessment...

Based on the amount of people in the building, their roles, age and medical condition etc, coupled with historical accident data and the hazards that they are exposed to, then you would have a very low probability of serious incident. That is all I am saying.

I am taking it that the APs are 'trained' to AP/EFAW standard, in which case, I stand by my argument that a suitable number of them, in addition to maybe 1 or 2 FAWs would be more than sufficient. The cost of training, allowing time off, making an annual payment etc for a low risk environment does not make it reasonably practicable to have an excess of fully qualified first aiders.

I know factory/warehouse/coldstore environments that wouldn't have that amount of cover (rightly or wrongly) and am just suggesting that we are sensible about things that may put unnecessary financial pressure on SMEs in the current climate and again, make H&S seem a burden to business.

Posted By Fornhelper
Graeme

You state:

"appointed persons are fine, what are your injuries going to be in an office, main = electric shock, minor = cuts, what would a qualified first aider be able to do to someone who had an electric shock that an appointed person could not cope with, nothing but make them comfy and call an ambulance.Even if you had a broken arm it would be the same"

As Neil rightly states add to this slips, trips and falls, equipment (sharp edges), sickness, asthma attack, heart attack, fainting etc...

So what do we have?... the same type of injuries / conditions that may arise in any workplace.

What is the difference between someone suffering these type of injuries in an office and requiring first aid to someone on a construction site?

If we follow your argument then there isn't any point to having first aiders in any workplace if you think that the role of a first aider is to make someone with a broken arm 'comfy' until the emergency services arrive. What about an office with 1000 people - still OK with an appointed person?

The guidance is there for what it is - guidance - and I'm sure that the 'trigger figures' for first aid provision weren't plucked out of the air but based on a wealth of information, data and experience by the 'legislators'.

OK, so first aid isn't a day to day issue in an office (or hopefully any workplace), but I have seen trained first aiders save lives in relatively 'low risk' environments (classrooms, shopping centres) and given the numbers in this situation I would suggest there is a fairly high probability of it being applied in earnest at some point.

Regards
FH

Posted By graeme12345
I did not think we were talking about injury types, but the requirement to provide aid when considering the amounts of injuries and the severity

If you think they are the same on a building site as an office then you need to ascertain which is correct.

Tabs with your great experience "in office" environments I thank you for wishing me good luck

Posted By Saz G
;-) @ Graeme12345

Posted By Adam Worth
Sally If only everyone was as caring as you :)

If they are on your work place / affected by your work activities, you have a duty of care... if they are outside?? OK I'd still go but legally not sure.


HSE bulletin today :)

http://www.hse.gov.uk/fi...=hsegen/01-dec-2008&cr=7

Posted By graeme12345
Adam not much in your post except incorrect information

you stated

"To operate you would need to be FAW trained as CPR and first aid is still required. Remember they only stop your heart, not start it!!!! "

i suggest you just make a google search for defibs so that you are better informed about these products

taken from a web site for defibs,

Defibrillation is now a recognised extension of First Aid and Basic Life Support and many of our defibrillators are designed to be used by lay people with little or no first aid training.


So your info IS TOTALLY INCORRECT

Posted By Sen Sar

Just to be pedantic.

If the heart is in fibrillation it has not stopped beating.So the use of a defib by anyone trained or nor would be good.
They are these days pretty foolproof.

CPR (Cardiopulmonary resuscitation) is when the heart has stopped at this point trained or untrained as long as someone was trying I would be happy!

Posted By Tabs
CPR is not just for when the heart has stopped - it is for when circulation has ceased - a heart in a few different conditions will not circulate blood effectively, CPR is the accepted way of doing so for a first aider.

Some heart malfunctions are not treatable by a defibrillator, but CPR can sustain life until medical help arrives (sadly not very effectively though).

All of the defibrillator machines I have used and have trained on have a prompt for the user to start - or continue - to provide CPR in some circumstances. A layman will not provide that effectively (even trained people tend to lose that skill quickly, hence the revamp of training guidance).

Given the choice, if I was lying there in trouble myself, I would want someone to try a defib machine regardless of training or not - but that is not to say that it is the best way to plan your first aid at work provisions.