enquiries@aline-associates.co.uk

The first EpiPens came onto the market in the 1980’s and since then, millions have been prescribed to those at risk from Anaphylaxis. Now the manufacturers of the EpiPen, Dey Pharma, L.P. have launched a new version of the EpiPen designed to make the administration of the Adrenalin (Epinephrine) it contains easier.

The new features of the new EpiPen include the following:

• a one step flip top carry case,
• a re-designed oval shaped body which is easier to grip, with clear markings on how to use the injector,
• New colour coding to aid identification of the safety release cap (blue) and needle end (orange),
• (this is coupled with a new rhyme to aid administration – Blue to the sky, orange to the thigh),
• When deployed, the orange end of the injector extends over the needle after use to prevent needlestick injuries.

Although the EpiPen has been re-designed it is important to note that the new EpiPen and EpiPen Jr still contain the same dose and formulation of Adrenaline, that the needle bore is also still the same and that the basic procedures for using the new EpiPen are the same as before.

Although the New design of the EpiPen is already being prescribed now, it is likely that examples of the old EpiPen will still be around until late next year.

For more information on the new EpiPen, check out the following sites.

http://www.epipen.com

http://files.epipen.gethifi.com/how-to-use-epipen/EpiPen-User-Guide.pdf

The show which is a fantastic day out for the whole family, will be held at Stoke Park, Guildford. The show combines entertainment and fun with the opportunity to see first hand the many aspects of country life and farming. The show is organised by Surrey County Agricultural Society, a membership society dedicated to supporting local farming and food production.

Here are just a few of the attractions that will be there on the day:

You can meet some real Meerkats as well as many farm animals, watch the Hot Air Balloon Challenge and Grand Prix Show jumping. There will be falconry and gun dog displays and many trade stands selling a wide range of produce and products.

In addition to the main attractions, Aline Associates will be running a stand in the Federation of Small Business (FSB) marquee which will be in Avenue B. In addition to providing information on our courses and services, we will be giving displays on casualty make up, how to do CPR, use an AED (Defibrillator) and how to deal with Motorcycle accidents.

We will also be selling first aid kits and other related products on the day. Incidentally, if you are a member of the FSB and would like to exhibit at the show, just follow this link for more information.

So if you are looking for something to do over the Bank Holiday Weekend, why not enjoy what we are sure will be a great day out and come and see us on our stall. To find out more about the show, show times and locations, click here

As part of his review, Professor Löfstedt looked at the requirement for the HSE to approve (workplace) First Aid training providers. Currently workplace first aiders, must attend either an Emergency First Aid or First Aid at Work course, run by an HSE approved training provider.

To become an approved training provider, the applicant must show the following.

That they/their instructors hold relevant/valid first aid and instructor/trainer qualifications, that they follow approved lesson plans and training practices which are updated to follow current first aid protocols, and that they have suitable administration, quality assurance and equal opportunity policies.  Assuming approval was granted,  the training provider and their staff would be re-assessed at least every 5 years.

Professor Löfstedt decided that in his view, this went beyond the requirements of the regulations and thus he has recommended that the HSE should no longer approve training and qualifications for workplace first aiders.

So what effect will this have on first aid at work training? There is little doubt that the HSE intends to stop approving training organisations. So what will be the implications of this change?

• Approved training instructors/providers will no longer be allowed to say that they are HSE approved.

• Any one will be able to run workplace first aid training without having to go through any approval process, as will those who either previously decided not to go for HSE approval, or who failed to get it.

• Training providers will no longer be subject to monitoring of qualifications/standards by the HSE.

While the current system has allowed some with less than ideal knowledge/experience to offer workplace training, it has by and large forced the established organisations to modernize their protocols and enforce amongst us all, a more uniformed standard of training throughout the UK.

Without approval and monitoring there is a real risk that those who do not have the required level of knowledge, skills or common sense will be able to reintroduce some of the nonsense that Professor Löfstedt has been trying to eradicate, one example being that you are not allowed to put a plaster on a child.

Despite the proposed changes, employers will still be required to “provide, suitable persons for rendering first-aid to his employees if they are injured or become ill at work” The problem is that the requirement to ensure first aiders are trained to a suitable standard, will fall much more on the employer, as there is no longer an acceptable standard to rely on.

Over the last few years, some of the larger first aid associations have become what is know as Ofqual Regulated Awarding Organisations. Ofqual is a government body which gives formal recognition to organisations that deliver qualifications and assessments.

These Ofqual awarding organisations already approve training providers who do not have HSE approval but want to run the Emergency First Aid at Work courses, using what is called an umbrella scheme. Many providers like ourselves have so far decided not to register with such organisations, mainly because such registration was unnecessary, and also because of the additional costs which we would incur.

Most of the approving organisations force the training provider to join them (for a yearly fee) before they will accredit them (which incurs it’s own fee). Then the accrediting organisation issues their own (logoed) certificates to the students and charges the training provider a fee of between £10 and £20 per certificate.

While such accreditation gives an air of respectability to the qualifications, the extra costs to the training provider (around £120 – £150 per course) will cut into their profit margin and if it becomes mandatory, inevitably lead to organisations like us, who follow best industry practice, to put up our fees to cover the additional costs, while less scrupulous providers cut theirs to get business.

The current situation is still very much fluid. As the year progresses the HSE will inevitably publish their plans for de-regulation of first aid training (which we think may happen around April of 2013).  In the meantime we will keep you up to date with the latest developments, while always ensuring, we continue to provide effective training for your staff.

As reported in our March newsletter, the HSE has recently set up an independent panel called the  “Myth Busters Challenge Panel” to investigate complaints from the public, where they think the advice they have been give in relation to Health & Safety rules is wrong or disproportionate.

Earlier this month, the Daily Mail reported the story of how the London Fire Brigade (LFB) were called on the 7^th April to a report of a trapped seagull on Carshalton Ponds in Greater London. Apparently, a member of the public had spotted the bird struggling to free itself from a plastic bag.

Five LFB appliances and crews (totalling 25 fire-fighters) were dispatched but, on arrival, they assessed that it was not an emergency and left the scene shortly afterwards. The bird was later rescued by a volunteer from a nearby animal centre. The Mail and the Sun newspapers quoted the LFB as saying that ‘protocols’ prevented its fire-fighters from entering the pond and that it was not willing to put crew lives at risk for the sake of a seagull. The Daily Mail, contacted the panel over the incident and the panel began its investigation.

On 13^th April, the HSE chair Judith Hackitt replied to the complaint saying “The Myth Buster Challenge Panel has been set up to bring common sense back to decisions made in the name of health and safety, and to do our job properly we need to establish the facts. We have now had chance to examine the facts in this case and it is clear that it was not about health and safety at all. The fire service itself has made clear that their decisions at Carshalton were not based on health and safety factors. We endorse this view”.

According to an LFB spokesperson: “The RSPCA called us out as an emergency. Our fire-fighters rushed to the scene only to realise they’d been called out to a seagull with a plastic bag round its leg, which was swimming around quite happily and wasn’t in any distress. This clearly wasn’t an emergency, so the fire-fighters left it to a local animal rescue charity to deal with and swiftly left the scene”.

“Often, by the time our fire-fighters arrive at an incident, someone has waded in to try and rescue an animal, only to get into danger themselves, so we send enough crews to deal with whatever we may find. The safety of the public and our fire-fighters is always our priority. Fire-fighters were not stopped from entering the water due to health and safety protocols. They are trained to make difficult judgement calls about when it is right to risk their lives in order to save another”

The spokesperson went on to give the example of a recent emergency call to rescue the driver of a bulldozer that had fallen 40 feet down into a quarry pit. “The crew realised the man’s life was at risk and acted outside of normal procedures, risking their own personal safety to lift him out and save his life”.

To read the Daily Mail  article follow this link.

The competition is open to all subscribers of the Aline Associates newsletter. One entry per subscriber only. Tickets may only be used in conjunction with the conditions as laid down by LEGOLAND as shown below. Each ticket can be used to admit one adult or one child.

Dedicated to interactive family fun, the unique hotel will bring LEGO to life with imaginative theming and a host of child friendly features. There will be three types of themed bedroom – Pirate, Kingdom or Adventure – all with interactive challenges to keep children mesmerised for hours on end. For the first time ever, children will be nagging their parents to go to bed!

Beyond the bedrooms, the colour, fun and interactivity of LEGO is stamped throughout the hotel, from the spectacular entrance right through to the restaurant and bar and outdoor lakeside seating area.

Stunning play spaces, including a LEGO Pirates themed splash pool, will inspire little imaginations and LEGO fans of all ages will delight in spotting their favourite iconic LEGO figures. Children’s entertainment, movies available on demand and the Bricks buffet restaurant which will serve up a menu of quality produce are all designed firmly with kids in mind.

The hotel will be situated in a tranquil but convenient location, right on the edge of the LEGOLAND Windsor theme park, set in 150 acres of beautiful parkland.

Guests will have easy access to the park’s 55+ interactive rides, live shows, building workshops, driving schools and attractions including NEW for 2012 the LEGO® Star Wars™ Miniland Experience plus its recently launched Atlantis Submarine Voyage attraction.

Priced from £247 low season or £337 high season for a themed family room (2 adults / 3 children), including breakfast and park tickets for two days, guests will also enjoy special LEGOLAND Windsor Resort benefits including early bird access to the park.

Premium themed rooms and suites are also available. Annual Pass Holders will be eligible for special rates. Find out more at www.legoland.co.uk or call 0845 373 2640 to make your booking.

According to the HSE, there were 171 fatalities at work in 2010-11, an increase of 24 on the total of 147 deaths in 2009-10. In addition, more than 24,700 workers also suffered a major injury in 2010/11. Following the rise, the agency is pressing employers to ensure they make tackling risks, to their employees a top priority.

These provisional figures show that on average, 6 in every million workers were killed at work between April 2010 and March 2012. There were 50 deaths in the construction industry, 34 in agriculture and 9 in the waste and recycling industry. These deaths make up more than half or all workplace deaths in the UK during 2010/11.

In the Yorkshire & Humber region, there were  24 deaths and 2,609 major injuries, compared with 23 deaths and 2,741 major injuries during 2009/10. to add to these figures, another 8,854 workers suffered an injury or ill health which required them to take at least three days off work in 2010/11, compared with 9,309 the previous year.

Paul Spurrier, Head of Operations for HSE in Yorkshire & the Humber, said “The families of the 24 workers in our region who lost their lives last year had to face Christmas and a New Year without them. While there was a welcome fall in the number of major and other injuries in Yorkshire and Humber, there were still hundreds of workers who have had their lives changed forever by a major injury”.

One of the big complaints from the HSE is that many employers send their staff on generic, off the shelf training courses, or get them to undertake E learning sessions. Whilst these provide staff with basic knowledge, quite often they fail to give those attending, the practical training and fact based knowledge they need to help them carry out their duties in a safer manner.

The reason that most generic courses fail to result in an improvement of safety standards is that the training is not tailored to meet the needs of staff as identified by a meaningful assessment of the activities they are involved in. In his report, Paul Spurrier goes on to say that “employers should spend their time tackling the real dangers that workers face rather than worrying about trivial risks or pointless paperwork”.

As an advisory service, we are often presented with risk assessments compiled by our clients. Some are very good but it is obvious that many are based on perceived workplace risks, rather than real risks. At one distribution site, all employees were required to wear high viz garments, not just those working in vehicle movement areas. Another is where everyone had to use blue plasters at a company which distributes pre-packed meals.

These may seem to be petty examples but they demonstrated a lack of understanding of what a risk assessment is meant to achieve. And while on the face of it, such attention to detail appears to present sites where health & safety matters are dealt with effectively, at both sites, our own assessors found serious safety issues where there was a high risk of injury, which had never been recognised or dealt with.

For example in the first instance quoted, where all staff were made to wear high viz jackets to reduce the risk of being hit by vehicles operating in the main yard, no assessment was made regarding the practices carried out by drivers, which included using 7 ½ tonne lorries to push stacks of supermarket type goods trolleys across the yard.

One way, death and injury rates in the workplace can be reduced, is for employers to take the time to better understand what the aim of conducting a risk assessment is and how effective assessments can guide them towards providing more effective training for their staff. This will then ultimately reduce the incurred through workplace accidents, and wastage on procedures and training which result in little or no obvious improvements in safety or productivity.

“While the increase in deaths is depressing, it is important to remember that the UK still has one of the lowest workplace death rates in Europe” says Paul Spurrier. “It’s important to remember that we still have one of the lowest rates of workplace deaths in Europe, but one death is still one too many.  I’d urge businesses to help cut the number of deaths in 2012.”

The Beacon school in Chesham Bois, is an independent day school for boys aged 3-13 years. Having been dissatisfied with the quality of training offered by other providers, the school Matron, Lyn Cole booked us on trial, to run an HSE approved 1 day Emergency First Aid at Work course for 30 of the schools staff, using 3 instructors.

The reviews from the staff were so positive that it led to us running a 2 day paediatric course and being booked to run another emergency first aid course, later this month.

Lyn, who was on the paediatric course said, “it was excellent and the information was delivered in a clear and concise manner which was suitable for all levels of  knowledge. We will be using Aline Associates again, I would highly recommend them”.

Here are some of the other comments made by the staff who have attended the courses so far.

1 day HSE approved Emergency First Aid at Work course. course. Caroline Yolland - Fantastic presentation format & knowledge of subject. Thank you.

Frazer Thomas – Very good and useful. Simple to follow and understand, many thanks.

Kathryn Johnstone - Right level of practical work Vs lecturing of information.

Kate Stanley – excellent – Well presented with some good methods to help remember things.

2 day paediatric course. Gwyneth Brown-Love – The instructor more than met my expectations, an excellent two days.

Niki Pendered - Excellent knowledge and interesting, all relevant, not boring. Suitable for all staff not just those with medical knowledge.

Jacqui  Evans - I felt at ease, the instructor got across what we had to know in a way that was easy to understand.

The survival rate for cardiac arrest is low, due partly to the fact that most people don’t know how to do CPR, and few are willing to have a go. The BHF campaign aims to address this by getting more of those not trained in CPR (compressions and mouth to mouth ventilation) to have a go at giving compressions only.

Research has shown that one of the main reasons untrained people don’t attempt CPR is the fear/reluctance associated with giving ventilations. Only having to do the compressions it is hoped, will remove this factor and encourage more people to attempt (compression only) CPR. It is hoped that this will eventually lead to an increase in the survival rate which is currently only around 7-10% in the UK.

While the policy is supported by the UK Resuscitation Council, their 2010 guidelines state rescuers should  combine compressions with ventilations unless they are “unable or unwilling to give ventilations” in which case they should just give compressions. This is what is taught on first aid courses in the UK.

So why have two standards?  The answer is all about time. When the oxygen supply to the brain is cut off suddenly, the brain cells start to die within 3-4 minutes. If the supply is not restored within 10 minutes the brain itself will die.

The aim of CPR is not, contrary to what you are told on the TV, to re-start the heart, which would have stopped due to a blockage of one or more of the coronary arteries. The aim is to maintain the oxygen supply to the brain, slowing down the death of the brain cells. This buys time to get the casualty to definitive medical care where hopefully, they maybe able to restore the blood supply to enough of the heart muscle to reinstate circulation of blood to the vital organs.

It is estimated that when a person collapses in cardiac arrest they have around 5 minutes worth of oxygen in the blood so by just giving compressions you can still slow down the death of the brain cells. The problem with compression only CPR is that once this reserve is used up, the effectiveness of the compressions begins to drop.

The ambulance service aim is to get to emergencies like cardiac arrest within 8 minutes. While most services achieve an average response time of around 6 ½ minutes, the actual times can be much longer due to the geographical location of the incident, the number of calls being dealt with by the ambulance service and the quality of the information given to them.

CPR is not an exact science and there are other factors which will effect the likelihood of the casualty surviving. The gold standard at this time is, wherever possible to perform full CPR however,  there is no doubt that if we simply get more people “having a go” more people will survive.

But here we should raise a note of caution. While it is important to spread the message that it is better to do something rather than nothing, we must also make people aware that the adverts do not show how stressful/hard it is to give compressions, nor the fact that even if you do full CPR, most casualties will not (as seen in the advert) suddenly sit up and come back to life.

Although as a final point we should say that those who do survive, will owe their lives to those who stopped and had a go.