First aid kits - requirement vs practicality

Cynthia Z

I have just carried out the refreshing of the expirable components of the companies first aid kits again. This change out included a significant number of vehicle kits. I understand the intent of ensuring our teams are prepared for any possible situation that may arise while they are at work.

I am interested in other points of view on this matter. The requirement vs practicality when our workers are driving from point A (with a full kit) to point B (with a full kit) AND have a full kit in the vehicle seems like overkill.

There is a requirement that all workplaces must have at least one kit.
The Act also specifies that any vehicle used for work purposes is considered a workplace.

Has anybody found the magic solution to be legally compliant while also applying this in a practical sense?

Stephen Small

I may be a heretic but.... to be practical and pragmatic, ask "what are my workplace's mechanisms of injury", and link your first aid kit contents to them:
If you don't have burn risks why have lots of burns dressings? If you don't have major cut/laceration risk why have lots of wound dressings? If you don't have lots of small nicks or scrapes why have 50 bandaids? If you don't have lots of soft tissue injury risks why have multiple bandages?

A small kit used frequently, is better that a large kit which is never used -and thus ends up in the most inaccessable place when you really want it.
(one of our vehicle FAKs had 7 CPR masks - I'm not sure what the 3 crew members were expecting??)

Matthew Bennett

There is an overlap in this thread with one about 'vehicle mounted F.A.K.'s'

Pretty much all medical supplies these days appear to have an expiry date, understandably. I think a bandaid won't compromise health if it's expired, it just might not be 'as effective'. for our first aid kits we've removed almost all items that have an expiry (that would compromise health). Makes kit maintenance much easier.

Chris Peace

Read Regulation 13 in the General Regulations.
"... adequate first aid equipment ... workplace ... access ... facilities"
"... adequate number of workers ... trained ... workplace ..."
This looks to me like a requirement to first carry out a risk assessment.
As part of that, think about the research that shows more first aiders than legally required can lead to a reduction in harm. The research is old and none is from NZ. This could be a good research project.

Jaylene Barwick

Background in nursing and practicalty. Had this discussion with an auditor earlier this year. From my perspective if someone was bleeding heavily I am not going to care if the bandage has expired. If I was in the bush it would be make do with what I have. The ISO auditor agreed with my perspective and said I just needed to document that as our process. If I was doing surgery in a hospital then yes there is a need for sterile dressings, but as long as the packet is intact then I am happy to use expired dressings up to 5 years past expiry. It's about cost and sustainability.

Jason Borcovsky

↪Cynthia Z

I just wanted to say that you shouldn't dwell on covering every possible situation. As Chris says, do a risk assessment, figure out what's needed, and assess what training staff will need. Be practical. If the kit is for minor injuries during transport, you may not need much at all. Many kits in vehicles serve as on-site first aid kits that just happen to be in a vehicle for convenience, and need to be more comprehensive.

Chris Peace

An interesting post on the Lexology website today about new first aid regulations in British Columbia. They include the requirement for a risk assessment. See:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=aebedfa6-18c7-4c6e-9569-70b27dd761c2&utm

First aid kits - requirement vs practicality

Welcome to the Safeguard forum!

Categories

More Discussions