An incident has occurred, where the IP is a person not at work. They sustained a cut which, due to the IP being on blood thinning medication bled heavily. They were taken to hospital, where the redressed the wound was redressed, and a consequential decision was taken by medical professionals to stop blood thinning meds being administered (they were also kept in for observation).

My question is, does the cessation of blood thinning medication, and / or the "redressing" of the wound constitute treatment received to the injury, at the hospital?

Thank you for your (kind?) thoughts :)

Thank you. As we usually do, we will likely report the incident as there's no harm in doing so. I did wonder though about the criteria being met, as the wound had been dressed when first aid was given (it was re-dressed at the hospital), and I suppose that the cessation of blood thinning mediciation was a direct consequence of the injury and therefore could be considered as treatment.

An interesting one..

Edited by user 29 May 2019 13:18:57(UTC)  | Reason: typo correction

I get that the person was "not at work", I get that the dressing was changed, I get that the medical staff adjusted medication for a pre-existing condition - what I can't quite get from the post is were they taken from a place of work (not their own), their own home or a public space?

In other words yes they were treated but as a result of...?

a little more context then - they were taken from a place of work (not their own), and the accident arose out of work being undertaken by others. IP was receiving personal care and while being moved forehead came into contact with an item which caused (fragile) skin to break. Bleeding was stopped and dry dressing applied, but taken to hospital as a precaution because it was known IP was on blood thinning medication.

Really?

We opened with it wasn't at work....

What is meant by ‘work-related’?

RIDDOR only requires you to report accidents if they happen ‘out of or in connection with work’. The fact that there is an accident at work premises does not, in itself, mean that the accident is work-related – the work activity itself must contribute to the accident. An accident is ‘work-related’ if any of the following played a significant role:

• the way the work was carried out
• any machinery, plant, substances or equipment used for the work or
• the condition of the site or premises where the accident happened

The OP states "a person not at work" and then followed up with "taken from a work premises" to a hospital so we aren't discussing a standard RIDDOR but that other great debate:

a member of the public taken to hospital receiving treatment

So the question as I am reading it "in changing an applied dressing AND altering the medication prescribed for a pre-existing condition is this treatment by a hospital on a member of the general public?"

Reading the second post whilst this may be a workplace for those moving the IP I get the feeling it is some form of care facility - day centre, rest home, hospice etc. - not an area I am familiar with

Reading between the lines, the IP sustained a cut during personal care to which first aid was applied and succesfully managed initially - this injury not requiring the IP to be taken dirctly to hospital from the scene, but then care staff as a precautionary measure chose to send the IP to A&E because of continued bleeding caused by the treatment of another health related issue by a health professional that the IP is / had been suffering from - therefore not reportable in my opinion, even though the injury was caused during a work related activity the secondary treatment at hospital does not meet the criteria of major injury or accident or the IP being directly taken to hospital from the scene as a result of their work related injury.