Rank: Guest
|
I have been reviewing our first aid needs assessment and cover.
Now this may seem a minor point but the guidance allows for the use of appointed persons. They do not need first aid training but 'should not attempt to carry out first aid training for which they have not been trained'. At the same time the guidance suggests first aid kits should include INDG 347 - basic first aid. which includes resucitation and treatment of eye injuries etc. Does anyone else think the two statements conflict?
Looking at remoteness of the site, we are 7-10 miles way from the nearest station but are a lab (60+ staff) handling hazardous chemicals (although we have never had any serious incident involving in at least 20 years and have a pretty good record). It feels remote at times but maybe not if put in context of say the middle of the Dales, Scotland etc, I guess it could take longer to get across a major town or city than to get to us? I have tried the ambulance authority but they can seem to advise the best person to talk to (bit worrying seen as how we have the worst response times in the country!). Advice would be appreciated as I am trying to get the right balance (I don't want to be OTT and start advising rescus equipment and automated defib etc only to be shot down in flames).
We have 3 FAW and 1 EFAW, aiming to maintain at least one of each on site at any one time. I also think this is a bit low but am struggling to convince otherwise. Views welcome.
Thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Think it's all down to carrying out a risk assessment these days and decide on the outcome as to what level of first aider and what equipment is suitable for your operations?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
quote=Jon B] handling hazardous chemicals .
Thanks in advance
A few very quick points - what sort of hazards are we talking? I have been on sites with large tonnage of cyanide and sulphur dioxide. Both of these require oxygen to be administered as first aid. this is beyond FAW!
Appointed person? - I would advise FAW - corrosive chemical contact with eyes etc requires rapid and correct treatment, you could make things worse!
I would assess by looking at chemical hazards, look at worse case exposure, and then look at first aid needs - eye wash, shower, oxygen, special treatments?
So as above it's down to risk assessment.
Also you say 'station' ambulances don't really live in these anymore they kind of roam around... You should get a response in ten mins unless you are very remote!
Also in any of your scenarios is there any risk to the ambulance service? I know of situations where contaminated clothing has affected paramedics in the 'enclosed space' of the ambulance.
Sorry it's rushed, there are lots of good people on here who will add some better info :)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Create your own emergency response procedures if your FA risk assessment indicates that U have a problem/may have a problem with the emergency services getting there in quick time
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Sorry Teh_Boy, the reference to appointed persons was just an observation because I felt the ACoP was at odds with itself. We don't use appointed persons (except on very rare occasions when we have a couple of people in on a weekend doing low risk activities).
Chemicals wise we are talking relatively small quantise (lab reagents) some can be 'nasty' but exposure is well controlled and we have the usual emergency showers / eye wash etc. We are looking at the 'special requirements' which may arise out of the various CoSHH assessments and wail arrange training additional to FAW as required.
I was really looking for an idea of what others classed as 'remote' and typical ratios of first aiders trained against the actual requirement, For example we have 4 to ensure 2 are always onsite but the policy for maintaining cover is weak (ie we have had 3 allowed holiday at once). The company does not want to make first aider arrange holidays around each other but I see no other way unless the ratio increases to avoid penalising them as this may act as a deterrent.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Dealing with it back to front - holiday arrangements can be easy to introduce if you explain to them your concerns, if you pay/reward your first aiders I think it reasonable to ask them to try their best to maintain a two-person cover.
It is rare, but first aiders are sometimes in need of first aid - so you are right to want to keep two people on site at any time, it's just good practice. In terms of dealing with CPR a second first aiders can be a blessing.
The ratio seems adequate but maybe you could look at some more EFAW's? Less training and yet useful assistants to first aider.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.