Medical Emergencies

[Chrisgr31]

This morning somewhere between Norwood Junction and New Cross came the announcement "Will the Conductor contact the guard" which can mean trouble is brewing. When we got to London Bridge ambulance staff boarded the train to tend to an individual. I hope the gentleman concerned was not ill and recovered.

However it was clear with discussions on the train home this evening that people do not understand the procedures. Some seem to think the communication cord should have been pulled and the train halted, but of course that would have been no help as no way to get help to the train in the middle of nowhere.

We were however surprised there was no call for medical staff to go to the carriage, instead passengers had to unsuccessfully look for someone in the carriage.

So what happens in a case like this. Someone obviously notified the driver, and I assume he notified the conductor who was probably in the wrong part of the train. But presumably one of them would have then called control and asked for an ambulance to meet the train, but who determines whether we should in this case carry on to London Bridge or stop at New Cross although other lines would have other choices. Is there some form of time theory or is it agreed with the ambulance service?

I also assume signallers cannot really do anything to get the train an open rum, but would they also be notified to try and limit any red lights it might face?

 

[A-driver]

Depending on stock, 377s have a passcomm override so if a passenger pulled it they would be able to talk to the driver but the train wouldn't stop. On a 455 the train would just stop.

Either the guard would call the ambulance or the driver would get the signaller to do it.

Which station to stop at depends on the specifics. Depends if the train has braking distance for the next platform. Also, it may be a lot faster to carry into London Bridge and be met by an ambulance waiting there than to stop at new cross and have to wait for an ambulance to battle through traffic to get to the now stationary train. Also depends how urgent/severe the ambulances need is. It's still a working railway and they won't take the decision lightly to stop the train blocking the line in the rush hour. That said, of course where life is at risk they will stop the train but for a fit/seizure etc they may continue to somewhere out the way.

 

[455driver]

Pulling the passcomm is the last thing you want to do because that just delays the train (and casualty) getting to the ambulance.

Try explaining that to Joe Public though!

 

[Bald Rick]

Presumably you mean 'conductor contact the driver'.

Based on your previous posts, I'm guessing you were in an Uckfield service, which would also have a passcom override. So it's very likely that the passcom was pulled (or pressed!), someone spoke to the driver, and he (or she) decided to carry on.

In my experience, where there is a passcom override this decision appears to be up to the driver. I've been on several trains with sick passengers, probably half have carried on to the next suitable location, and half have stopped between stations. I would have thought that carrying on to the next station would always be preferable, especially on trains where the crowding is such that it will be difficult for staff on board to actually get to the passenger concerned unless at a platform. Nevertheless, it appears a few drivers will still stop immediately (on trains with a passcom override).

 

[A-driver]

Presumably you mean 'conductor contact the driver'.

Based on your previous posts, I'm guessing you were in an Uckfield service, which would also have a passcom override. So it's very likely that the passcom was pulled (or pressed!), someone spoke to the driver, and he (or she) decided to carry on.

In my experience, where there is a passcom override this decision appears to be up to the driver. I've been on several trains with sick passengers, probably half have carried on to the next suitable location, and half have stopped between stations. I would have thought that carrying on to the next station would always be preferable, especially on trains where the crowding is such that it will be difficult for staff on board to actually get to the passenger concerned unless at a platform. Nevertheless, it appears a few drivers will still stop immediately (on trains with a passcom override).

A number of drivers will stop before dealing with any out of course event. Some will even stop to phone the signaller. Nothing wrong with it. Have a SPAD or overrun etc because you were distracted dealing with a medical emergancy on the passcomm and not only would it further delay getting medical assistance but management would simply state you should have stopped and not allowed your driving to be distracted.

 

[Chrisgr31]

I am in no way criticising the decision to go on, indeed it makes perfect sense to stop at a station where help can be more easily given, and yes it was an Uckfield service and as its more than one unit the conductor can be in the wrong part.

It does rather beg the question as to why all trains don't have the ability to override the passcom, or do nwer trains have the feature. There cant be many occasions where its important for the train to stop immediately but also if a passenger is taken well important to let the driver know so he can stop somewhere sensible.

So yes the question was more who makes the decision where to stop. In this case the train could have stopped at New Cross but then would we have had to wait for the ambulance? Also New Cross station is potentially not as near to an A an E unit as London Bridge. However London Bridge was further, thers always the chance of getting held up on the run in, but more certainty of meeting the ambulance of finding medical staff on the station, nearer A and E etc

 

[trainophile]

Somewhat off topic, but do any trains carry a defibrillator? They seem to be everywhere nowadays, and are apparently fairly easy to use should the need arise.

 

[Clip]

Stopping at New Cross gate would be a bad idea the station layout is a mess and theres not a hospital for quite a while with A&E facilities from memory, plus the roads outside are hectic. The Bridge is always the best option

 

[tsr]

Presumably you mean 'conductor contact the driver'.

Based on your previous posts, I'm guessing you were in an Uckfield service, which would also have a passcom override. So it's very likely that the passcom was pulled (or pressed!), someone spoke to the driver, and he (or she) decided to carry on.

In my experience, where there is a passcom override this decision appears to be up to the driver. I've been on several trains with sick passengers, probably half have carried on to the next suitable location, and half have stopped between stations. I would have thought that carrying on to the next station would always be preferable, especially on trains where the crowding is such that it will be difficult for staff on board to actually get to the passenger concerned unless at a platform. Nevertheless, it appears a few drivers will still stop immediately (on trains with a passcom override).

I am in no way criticising the decision to go on, indeed it makes perfect sense to stop at a station where help can be more easily given, and yes it was an Uckfield service and as its more than one unit the conductor can be in the wrong part.

It does rather beg the question as to why all trains don't have the ability to override the passcom, or do nwer trains have the feature. There cant be many occasions where its important for the train to stop immediately but also if a passenger is taken well important to let the driver know so he can stop somewhere sensible.

So yes the question was more who makes the decision where to stop. In this case the train could have stopped at New Cross but then would we have had to wait for the ambulance? Also New Cross station is potentially not as near to an A an E unit as London Bridge. However London Bridge was further, thers always the chance of getting held up on the run in, but more certainty of meeting the ambulance of finding medical staff on the station, nearer A and E etc

On a 171, the passcom activation is signalled by a loud tone in the cab which also corresponds exactly to the buzzer communication sound which the driver & guard usually use to control train movements. Therefore it is a tough call for a couple of moments whether the driver should override and continue, or whether they should treat the sound (which also comes as a big shock as it's so loud) as a "1" signal from the conductor on the buzzer to stop the train. The driver can talk to the person by the passcom but it may be hard to hear them due to said buzzer, which is only disarmed if the alarm is reset or the driver's key is taken out. The buzzer will sound in all cabs if the driver has their key on.

I am not aware of the full facts of this morning's incident, but it would be likely that the driver quickly saw that it was a passcom activation by using the dashboard warning lights, and continued onwards - possibly getting the conductor to reset the alarm, too, to avoid the distraction of the constant buzzing noise in the cab. It may well be that the conductor found the ill passenger, reset the alarm and ensured medical assistance was gained. Conductors are currently trained to stop at the most practical station for medical assistance wherever possible, not just any which happen to have a platform at which you can stop. London Bridge was probably deemed to have the best combination of support and passenger handling options.

Personally I would always prefer it if the signaller contacted emergency services to initially request attendance. Mobile signal is very poor over much of the Southern network and GSM-R is usually a better option to get things like this processed.

As for other stock, older traction like 442s/455s will have most of (if not all of) their alarms connected directly to the breaking system, which does provide a failsafe stopping system, but also means the alarm will stop the train. They will also often have no diagnostics to find the alarm, so somebody has to search for the activated alarm ASAP.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

If a passcom is pulled, the orange door light will illuminate in the relevant carriage

 

[tsr]

If a passcom is pulled, the orange door light will illuminate in the relevant carriage

It will, but naturally that is not always very helpful (eg. if you are going along at 85, you don't necessarily want to be sticking your head out of the window). However, it is of course the only way to tell where the problem is whilst moving.

(And the BIL light being illuminated can also mean other things, such as a track circuit actuator fault. This is where it can become fun if there is a problem with the passcom warning light panel not working, which happens!)

 

[the sniper]

On a 171, the passcom activation is signalled by a loud tone in the cab which also corresponds exactly to the buzzer communication sound which the driver & guard usually use to control train movements. Therefore it is a tough call for a couple of moments whether the driver should override and continue, or whether they should treat the sound (which also comes as a big shock as it's so loud) as a "1" signal from the conductor on the buzzer to stop the train. The driver can talk to the person by the passcom but it may be hard to hear them due to said buzzer, which is only disarmed if the alarm is reset or the driver's key is taken out. The buzzer will sound in all cabs if the driver has their key on.

It comes as a nasty shock if you've got your feet up in the back cab on a quiet night!

Just reading what you've said, forgive me if this isn't applicable to 171s or you're already aware, but on 170s you can override the buzzer in any cab (non driving at least) by pushing the yellow button under the drivers desk. While your foot is on it, it won't sound. Normally obviously it doesn't matter as you just go and reset the passcom, but if the passcom is in the other unit (non-gangwayed) it's great, as you don't have to sit there getting deafened and can actually talk to and hear the driver on the cab to cab phone.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

So yes the question was more who makes the decision where to stop. In this case the train could have stopped at New Cross but then would we have had to wait for the ambulance? Also New Cross station is potentially not as near to an A an E unit as London Bridge. However London Bridge was further, thers always the chance of getting held up on the run in, but more certainty of meeting the ambulance of finding medical staff on the station, nearer A and E etc

You're over-thinking it. As long as the train stops at a station, it doesn't really matter which station (especially in London, and especially the difference between New Cross and London Bridge). Proximity to an A&E unit is irrelevant really, as the ambulance crew may either not be conveying the patient, or may not be taking them to the closest A&E for a variety of reasons.

Somewhat off topic, but do any trains carry a defibrillator? They seem to be everywhere nowadays, and are apparently fairly easy to use should the need arise.

As far as I know they don't. The majority of stations should have them though.

 

[hwl]

1. There are London Ambulance staff stationed at London Bridge

2. The nearest A&Es to New Cross are at Kings (Denmark Hill), St Thomas' (Waterloo) or Lewisham (Ladywell) i.e. in the middle of a big gap

3. I've twice seen passengers have to prevent others from pulling the passcom on the approaches to LBG which would have delayed the person getting medical attention if it had been pulled. On the metro services there is very good chance (several per car) of there being Guy's Hospital staff on the train at certain times of day.

 

[rdwarr]

We had a similar occurrence on a Stevenage-London DOO 317 on Monday. A lady came into our carriage asking if anybody had medical experience as somebody had collapsed.
I was worried that somebody might pull the cord in the middle of nowhere (this was around Hornsey) but fortunately the train arrived unhindered at King's Cross where paramedics were on hand.
Pleased to say that the passenger was sitting up and chatting to staff on arrival so hopefully all ended well.

 

[Bald Rick]

A number of drivers will stop before dealing with any out of course event. Some will even stop to phone the signaller. Nothing wrong with it. Have a SPAD or overrun etc because you were distracted dealing with a medical emergancy on the passcomm and not only would it further delay getting medical assistance but management would simply state you should have stopped and not allowed your driving to be distracted.

I agree there are some circumstances where stopping immediately is the best course of action. However it is not the best course of action in every circumstance.

Take one example., that I happened to witness. On a crush loaded morning peak train up the MML at 100mph. Passenger collapses in coach 7 of 8. Passcom pulled. Train stops on full emergency brakes, roughly halfway between Radlett and Elstree. Driver announces sick passenger (so has evidently spoken to the passcom puller) and going back to see what's happening. Driver takes 10 mins to make his way down the train. Then another 10 minutes to get back. No announcements in this 20 minutes, obviously.

Surely the better option is to reduce speed and go to the next platform (in this case Elstree) where a) the driver can investigate more quickly, b) medical assistance can be more easily provided, and c) in the event of it being serious, passengers can detrain for other services. This is lower risk all round for the sick passenger, all other passengers, and the driver.

It would be a very unfair driver manager who castigates a driver for an operational incident caused by the driver doing something that is demonstrably the a lower risk for those involved.

 

[A-driver]

I agree there are some circumstances where stopping immediately is the best course of action. However it is not the best course of action in every circumstance.

Take one example., that I happened to witness. On a crush loaded morning peak train up the MML at 100mph. Passenger collapses in coach 7 of 8. Passcom pulled. Train stops on full emergency brakes, roughly halfway between Radlett and Elstree. Driver announces sick passenger (so has evidently spoken to the passcom puller) and going back to see what's happening. Driver takes 10 mins to make his way down the train. Then another 10 minutes to get back. No announcements in this 20 minutes, obviously.

Surely the better option is to reduce speed and go to the next platform (in this case Elstree) where a) the driver can investigate more quickly, b) medical assistance can be more easily provided, and c) in the event of it being serious, passengers can detrain for other services. This is lower risk all round for the sick passenger, all other passengers, and the driver.

It would be a very unfair driver manager who castigates a driver for an operational incident caused by the driver doing something that is demonstrably the a lower risk for those involved.

It's not down to a driver manager to castigate a driver for an incident-it's a standard that they WILL be investigated for it and have it for their record. A DM can't simply say 'we will ignore that TPWS because you were dealing with a sick person at the time'. To be blunt, the drivers job is to safely drive the train. Not to deal with passengers. All the driver has to do is find out why the chord is pulled and then report it to the signaller who will take the lead in sorting out any required assistance.

 

[TDK]

I agree there are some circumstances where stopping immediately is the best course of action. However it is not the best course of action in every circumstance.

Take one example., that I happened to witness. On a crush loaded morning peak train up the MML at 100mph. Passenger collapses in coach 7 of 8. Passcom pulled. Train stops on full emergency brakes, roughly halfway between Radlett and Elstree. Driver announces sick passenger (so has evidently spoken to the passcom puller) and going back to see what's happening. Driver takes 10 mins to make his way down the train. Then another 10 minutes to get back. No announcements in this 20 minutes, obviously.

Surely the better option is to reduce speed and go to the next platform (in this case Elstree) where a) the driver can investigate more quickly, b) medical assistance can be more easily provided, and c) in the event of it being serious, passengers can detrain for other services. This is lower risk all round for the sick passenger, all other passengers, and the driver.

It would be a very unfair driver manager who castigates a driver for an operational incident caused by the driver doing something that is demonstrably the a lower risk for those involved.

There is only one scenario where a driver "MUST" stop if a pass comm is activated and that is leaving a station. Any other time it is drivers discretion when and where to stop. I have only one medical emergency on a train I have worked and it was guy having a heart attack. I didn't know of the problem until the Pass comm was pulled in a station and someone shouted through the door that someone was ill. I requested that if there were any first aiders or medical passengers on board to make their way to the leading coach as a matter of urgency. a doctor, 2 nurses and 3 members of the public who were first aiders promptly made themselves available and the mans life was saved. If that pass comm (an old type that would have stopped the train) had been pulled between stations maybe he would have lived, maybe not. FYI the person who pulled the pass comm was a train enthusiast and insisted that it should not be pulled anywhere apart from the station. Quick thinking, intelligence and a little knowledge greatly helped.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not down to a driver manager to castigate a driver for an incident-it's a standard that they WILL be investigated for it and have it for their record. A DM can't simply say 'we will ignore that TPWS because you were dealing with a sick person at the time'. To be blunt, the drivers job is to safely drive the train. Not to deal with passengers. All the driver has to do is find out why the chord is pulled and then report it to the signaller who will take the lead in sorting out any required assistance.

I think Drivers and Guards should have basic First Aid training - because an incident can occur in the middle of nowhere this would save lives.

Personally, I strongly believe all customer facing staff in all industries should have the kind of basic, one day per 3 years, course that is required of many volunteers such as Scout leaders. I'd be happy for it to be funded via the NHS from general taxation. The more people know first aid, the better, it is not possible to over-do it.

Yes, their primary responsibility is to drive the train, but once it has been safely stopped in a suitable location (which could well be the next station for ambulance access) assistance could and should be provided.

 

[A-driver]

I think Drivers and Guards should have basic First Aid training - because an incident can occur in the middle of nowhere this would save lives.

Personally, I strongly believe all customer facing staff in all industries should have the kind of basic, one day per 3 years, course that is required of many volunteers such as Scout leaders. I'd be happy for it to be funded via the NHS from general taxation. The more people know first aid, the better, it is not possible to over-do it.

Yes, their primary responsibility is to drive the train, but once it has been safely stopped in a suitable location (which could well be the next station for ambulance access) assistance could and should be provided.

I sort of agree that we should have official first aid training but companies have always refused. Our union has asked if they could make first aid courses available, even on a voluntary basis, but it's always come back as an absolute no way.

I do understand and to a point agree with the reasoning though. They are running a railway and what they don't want is a driver blocking the line whilst doing first aid for 20mins. They'd prefer, if safe and possible, for the passenger to be removed from the train to keep things moving. As much as it sounds uncaring, a 20min delay in the rush hour will stop the service running in a huge way. Obviously there are times when they can't remove the person from the train. They also don't want the responsibility of a driver using their first aid training and doing something wrong which could land the company in hot water over the training provided.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I do understand and to a point agree with the reasoning though. They are running a railway and what they don't want is a driver blocking the line whilst doing first aid for 20mins. They'd prefer, if safe and possible, for the passenger to be removed from the train to keep things moving. As much as it sounds uncaring, a 20min delay in the rush hour will stop the service running in a huge way.

Absolutely. Clapham Junction a couple of years ago in the rush hour isn't something either the railway or the emergency services want to repeat.

They also don't want the responsibility of a driver using their first aid training and doing something wrong which could land the company in hot water over the training provided.

That is a myth.

 

[craigwilson]

They also don't want the responsibility of a driver using their first aid training and doing something wrong which could land the company in hot water over the training provided.

As a trained first-aider myself, this excuse always annoys me.

No-one has ever being successfully sued for making a mistake whilst administering first aid in good faith - if someone is potentially dying, any first aid (even if insufficient) is better than none.

St John Ambulance also offer insurance to any of their trained first aiders so that they can use their skills without fear:

http://www.sja.org.uk/sja/training-...questions/associate-membership-insurance.aspx

IANAL, but isn't first aid at work covered by employer's liability insurance?

Also, I agree that drivers don't need first aid training (they are best utilised driving the tran safely and getting any casualty to a safe place), but guards could be trained?

 

[hounddog]

Our union has asked if they could make first aid courses available, even on a voluntary basis, but it's always come back as an absolute no way.
.

I take it you mean the company won't let you do it on company time. Nothing to stop you taking a course, and the union providing it, in your own time.

 

[me123]

I think Drivers and Guards should have basic First Aid training - because an incident can occur in the middle of nowhere this would save lives.

Personally, I strongly believe all customer facing staff in all industries should have the kind of basic, one day per 3 years, course that is required of many volunteers such as Scout leaders. I'd be happy for it to be funded via the NHS from general taxation. The more people know first aid, the better, it is not possible to over-do it.

Yes, their primary responsibility is to drive the train, but once it has been safely stopped in a suitable location (which could well be the next station for ambulance access) assistance could and should be provided.

Agree totally. First Aid training should be significantly expanded, although try explaining that to Philip Davies.

Basic first aid can be readily taught, and really can save lives. In the case of cardiac arrest, time is of the essence and CPR does save lives. In fact, immediate bystander CPR increases chances of return of spontaneous circulation, and reduces morbidity and mortality. In the five minutes until an ambulance gets there, lack of circulation will cause irreversible brain damage. Despite this, people still don't act which is probably a combination of lack of knowledge and lack of confidence.

First Aid training should be expanded across the population as a whole, and I think that railway staff should certainly be included. First aid gives you very basic skills that really can save lives. On a train, it can be some time before you're able to get an ambulance, and in time sensitive situations basic actions really can save lives. No-one in the UK has ever been sued for providing first aid.

I'm sure that lots of people will point out that the job of railway staff is to operate the railway. I don't disagree with this. Absolutely, train drivers should be driving trains. Guards should be performing their duties. But, where you are able to do so, providing basic medical assistance is a relatively basic skill to learn (no-one's expecting you to have a medical degree!), and can save lives. And this extends beyond the railways, everyone reading this should consider having some knowledge. In the railways, surely knowledge of what to do in an emergency and how to best get help is important, and it's already been demonstrated on here (in Bald Rick's example) that the action taken would have actually delayed medical assistance.

I'm pleased to see some really good stories here, such as TDK's anecdote. It emphasises my point that it's not about providing gold standard advanced life support. It's about calling for help early, doing the basics, and thinking about the best way to get the casualty to medical attention.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They also don't want the responsibility of a driver using their first aid training and doing something wrong which could land the company in hot water over the training provided.

This is a false fear. While there is no formal good samaritan law in the UK, AIUI a First Aider acting within the remit of their training has never been successfully sued in a UK court.

Very disappointed TOCs will not consider this - though I am tending towards the idea it should become a law.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Agree totally. First Aid training should be significantly expanded, although try explaining that to Philip Davies.

He is an idiot, pure and simple, and should have been thrown out of the House. But I think there could be a solution to this nonsense - for such Bills debate would have to cease in a timely fashion such that a vote can always take place.

Frankly he should consider himself responsible for a number of deaths (though it would be hard to say how many) by having blocked the Bill.

 

[Llanigraham]

I sort of agree that we should have official first aid training but companies have always refused. Our union has asked if they could make first aid courses available, even on a voluntary basis, but it's always come back as an absolute no way.

I do understand and to a point agree with the reasoning though. They are running a railway and what they don't want is a driver blocking the line whilst doing first aid for 20mins. They'd prefer, if safe and possible, for the passenger to be removed from the train to keep things moving. As much as it sounds uncaring, a 20min delay in the rush hour will stop the service running in a huge way. Obviously there are times when they can't remove the person from the train. They also don't want the responsibility of a driver using their first aid training and doing something wrong which could land the company in hot water over the training provided.

As a First Aid trainer I can assure you this is a myth.

 

[A-driver]

It's a myth an individual could be sued etc for wrongfully administering first aid. But the company will receive a lot of bad press and may have their training and regulations surrounding first aid called into question of it created an issue. That isn't a myth.

The union could of course it for volunteers to trained but why should they? They don't employ us and its up to the company to train us as they require. Some drivers are first aid trained but are advised by the company not to use their training at work other than to call an ambulance.

 

[Bald Rick]

Incidentally, we are but 2 weeks away from 'National Sick Rail Passenger Day' on January 4th. So anyone commuting on that day, please eat breakfast, take a bottle of water, and if you see someone taken ill on the train, only pull the cord when in a station if at all possible. You will be doing everyone a favour.

 

[cjmillsnun]

As a First Aid trainer I can assure you this is a myth.

As a trained first-aider myself, this excuse always annoys me.

No-one has ever being successfully sued for making a mistake whilst administering first aid in good faith - if someone is potentially dying, any first aid (even if insufficient) is better than none.

St John Ambulance also offer insurance to any of their trained first aiders so that they can use their skills without fear:

http://www.sja.org.uk/sja/training-...questions/associate-membership-insurance.aspx

IANAL, but isn't first aid at work covered by employer's liability insurance?

Also, I agree that drivers don't need first aid training (they are best utilised driving the tran safely and getting any casualty to a safe place), but guards could be trained?

First Aid at work to employees is covered by the Employer's liability insurance but this does not extend to the public. That said, everything above about no one being successfully sued is correct. As a trained first aider, I would jump in and help where I can. Thankfully I've not had to use it that much, mainly to the extent of cuts and TLC (SJA trained first aiders will know exactly my meaning of that )
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's a myth an individual could be sued etc for wrongfully administering first aid. But the company will receive a lot of bad press and may have their training and regulations surrounding first aid called into question of it created an issue. That isn't a myth.

Sorry, completely wrong. If an individual is trained in first aid, if they make a mistake it is nothing to do with the company. If they were not trained with up to date certificates but were on a list of first aiders, then the company will be in trouble, otherwise, again they were acting on their own initiative and the only policies and procedures that might be used would be a chat without tea and biscuits.

The HSE will look at two things. Was the employee administering first aid trained and holding a current certificate?

If yes, then fine, if no then were they on a list of company first aiders. If yes then there is a problem, if no, then that is down to the individual.

That's it.

It is easy to check the validity of someone's training. If they hold a current certificate in First Aid at Work or Emergency First Aid at Work, then they give a copy of their certificate to HR. The rule is then, no certificate with HR, don't do first aid. Simples.

You'll get as bad a press if someone dies because of no first aiders on the train. So the company is on a loser either way...

 

[Sebastian O]

First Aid at work to employees is covered by the Employer's liability insurance but this does not extend to the public. That said, everything above about no one being successfully sued is correct. As a trained first aider, I would jump in and help where I can. Thankfully I've not had to use it that much, mainly to the extent of cuts and TLC (SJA trained first aiders will know exactly my meaning of that )
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Sorry, completely wrong. If an individual is trained in first aid, if they make a mistake it is nothing to do with the company. If they were not trained with up to date certificates but were on a list of first aiders, then the company will be in trouble, otherwise, again they were acting on their own initiative and the only policies and procedures that might be used would be a chat without tea and biscuits.

The HSE will look at two things. Was the employee administering first aid trained and holding a current certificate?

If yes, then fine, if no then were they on a list of company first aiders. If yes then there is a problem, if no, then that is down to the individual.

That's it.

You'll get as bad a press if someone dies because of no first aiders on the train. So the company is on a loser either way...

HSE wouldn't give a toss about First Aid delivery unless someone made a complaint about it.

Ultimately a lot of situations you cannot make worse..