A couple of questions re Occupational First Aid at work.

Archeron

Hi all,
Apologies if this is the wrong forum, but I thought it was the most suitable one in which I could look for advice.

I recently completed a very good occupational first aid course recently, and have a quick question regarding getting an injured person to a hospital or doctor.
Our own company procedures here say that a person should travel to hospital or doctor via either an ambulance, or in less serious cases, by taxi, or in a company car. However, the girl who done our course with us made a specific point that in the event of an accident or injury, the ONLY vehicle insured to carry the patient is an ambulance. Does this mean that we would be in the wrong by carrying a patient to a medical facility in a company car or taxi? Would this mean that in the event of an accident on the way to the medical facility, the patient is uninsured, and that this could lead to court based nastiness later on?

Also, we went through the legal requirements as to what sort of medical equipment/first aid etc should be available in our premises, and I feel that what facilities we have would not be enough to cope with the potential accidents that could happen here. Our company is involved in heavy manufacturing, using sharp raw materials, power tools, forklifts etc, and there is quite a possibility of injuries by cutting, crushing, chemical poisoning among others. We have safety procedures, and accidents are a rarity, but I think its best to be prepared so if it’s a case that we should indeed have a dedicated room, I'd like to suggest to management that we put that in place.

I feel that the company should realistically have a first aid room where aid can be administered, but I believe to double check this, I need to see the companys building safety statement. However, this document doesn’t seem to be readily available, and no one that works here has recalled ever seeing it. While we do have a full risk assesment done with all the information we need relating to materials used on site, potential hazards, poisons etc, the document I think I need is not included.
The building itself is quite old, about 50 years I’d say and has seen many uses over the years. I really have no idea where to obtain that statement to check if we DO need a first aid room.

If anyone has advice on handling this, I’d be grateful.
Cheers

boomer_ie

Archeron wrote: »

Hi all,
Apologies if this is the wrong forum, but I thought it was the most suitable one in which I could look for advice.

I recently completed a very good occupational first aid course recently, and have a quick question regarding getting an injured person to a hospital or doctor.
Our own company procedures here say that a person should travel to hospital or doctor via either an ambulance, or in less serious cases, by taxi, or in a company car. However, the girl who done our course with us made a specific point that in the event of an accident or injury, the ONLY vehicle insured to carry the patient is an ambulance. Does this mean that we would be in the wrong by carrying a patient to a medical facility in a company car or taxi? Would this mean that in the event of an accident on the way to the medical facility, the patient is uninsured, and that this could lead to court based nastiness later on?

Not everyone needs to go to hospital by Ambulance, use some common sense based on what you learned on your course and ask yourself "Are they likely to get worse on the journey?" if the answer is no then an Ambulance is definately not needed. Would you transport by an Ambulance someone who requires a few stitches for a cut to their finger?

Having said that if your in any doubt RING 999 and seek the advise of the Ambulance Service, noone can give out to you for holding up your hand and saying Ive done this course but this is outside the level of my training.

Archeron wrote: »

Also, we went through the legal requirements as to what sort of medical equipment/first aid etc should be available in our premises, and I feel that what facilities we have would not be enough to cope with the potential accidents that could happen here. Our company is involved in heavy manufacturing, using sharp raw materials, power tools, forklifts etc, and there is quite a possibility of injuries by cutting, crushing, chemical poisoning among others. We have safety procedures, and accidents are a rarity, but I think its best to be prepared so if it’s a case that we should indeed have a dedicated room, I'd like to suggest to management that we put that in place.

It all depends on what has been identified in the Safety Statment

Archeron wrote: »

I feel that the company should realistically have a first aid room where aid can be administered, but I believe to double check this, I need to see the companys building safety statement. However, this document doesn’t seem to be readily available, and no one that works here has recalled ever seeing it. While we do have a full risk assesment done with all the information we need relating to materials used on site, potential hazards, poisons etc, the document I think I need is not included.
The building itself is quite old, about 50 years I’d say and has seen many uses over the years. I really have no idea where to obtain that statement to check if we DO need a first aid room.

If anyone has advice on handling this, I’d be grateful.
Cheers

It is a legal requirement that all employees have access to a copy of the safety statment for the company they are working for, ask your employers for a copy. If they dont have one or dont provide it to you then they are guilty of an offence under the Health and Safety at Work Act (or whatever its called now).

muppet01

Hi,
A dedicated first aid room is not the answer.As a trained first responder your aim is to act as a bridge until qualified personnel take over.In the case of a serious injury the casualty should not go through the trauma of being moved until adequate treatment has been administered.

maglite

Is a trained first responder a realistic expectation for a business?

Mrs OBumble

Archeron wrote: »

Our own company procedures here say that a person should travel to hospital or doctor via either an ambulance, or in less serious cases, by taxi, or in a company car. However, the girl who done our course with us made a specific point that in the event of an accident or injury, the ONLY vehicle insured to carry the patient is an ambulance. Does this mean that we would be in the wrong by carrying a patient to a medical facility in a company car or taxi? Would this mean that in the event of an accident on the way to the medical facility, the patient is uninsured, and that this could lead to court based nastiness later on?

My company has a policy that both company and private cars are never to be used to transport ill or injured employees.

I can see this makes sense for someone who needs an ambulance. And it sounds so daft that it must have insurance rules or somesuch behind it.

I am wondering exactly where it leaves an employee with a smaller (ie not requiring an ambulance) injury or illness. Do they really have to be carrying enough money for a taxi (it's an industrial estate the other side of town from the hospital)? Or perhaps we expect them to walk the fifteen minutes to the bus stop? Hmm ... I wonder if the ban on private cars extends to the person's own car?

On a more serious note, can anyone explain your colleagues comment to me? If an ambulance is the only vehicle insured to take a sick person to the hospital, where does this leave someone who drives a sick family member in their own car? In fact, where does it leave a taxi driver? And how can the insurance company differentiate between a trip that drops someone off 2 metres down the street vs at the hospital.