First Aid - Employee Refusal To Go To Hospital

Shadmeister · Post by **Shadmeister** » Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:01 pm

Afternoon, just wondering what peoples takes are on a potential situation. So, an employee/contractor cuts themselves whilst carrying out a task at work (appears to be purely accidental on initial investigation), a competent first aider deals with the wound but whilst doing so expresses their concern that due to the depth of the wound the injured person needs to go to hospital, employee refuses, first aider extends their reasoning but the employee states that they will not go to hospital. Is there anything you can do other than record the injured parties refusal? Should your policy on first aid state that the person must go to hospital or be disciplined in some way? Where would you stand IF the person had repercussions from the wound which led to them looking to claim against the company? Is there any legislation that you could use to assist you on making a decision?

Any input would be appreciated as this is something I have thought about on a couple of occasions without, thankfully, being put in the situation.

Post by **WillPool** » Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:01 pm

All you can do is document their refusal to go to hospital/doctor. Have them sign off that they refused to go and if there ever was a claim in the future you would have that as your evidence. If they refuse to sign off then have your first aider document this in a statement and have them and any witnesses sign off on it.

I am sure there will be other snippits of help from other members.

Will

Post by **bernicarey** » Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:13 am

As a First Aid Instr, I can state that no casualty can be forced to do anything.
They can refuse any offered treatment, which includes advice of 'you should go to hospital'. It's all down to consent, they have to give 'explicit consent' unless unconscious or otherwise incapacitated in which case the First Aider can use 'Implied Consent' i.e would a reasonable person wish to be helped.

Just document it fully in the accident recording that the person refused to go to hospital.

witsd · Post by **witsd** » Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:03 pm

That's fine for a member of the public, but when they are an employee, isn't there a duty to 'cooperate with your employer' that could be invoked?

I mean, the employer couldn't force them to go to hospital once their shift was over, but during it, surely that's within their power? They'd still be free to refuse treatment at the hospital, I suppose.

(I know this is about a first aider's powers which are basically nil, but if the boss gets involved, does the situation change?)

Post by **bernicarey** » Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:18 pm

witsd wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:03 pm They'd still be free to refuse treatment at the hospital, I suppose.

That's the crux of it.

As to HSAW s7, the requirement is to cooperate with the Employer to enable them to meet their duty.

The FAW Regs state that :

An employer shall provide, or ensure that there are provided, such equipment and facilities as are adequate and appropriate in the circumstances for enabling first-aid to be rendered to his employees if they are injured or become ill at work.

The duty in the FAW Regs is entirely on their Employer to provide the facility/resource, there is no duty in the Regs on the employee to accept First Aid treatment.

Andyblue · Post by **Andyblue** » Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:22 pm

Its not unusual for people who are seen by paramedics / ambulance crews to decline to go to hospital. Ive seen some quite significant injuries and they still decline, so they sign a form and thats the end of it.
I would ask them to sign and then countersign it with a copy to both. Once they have signed off then the greater thought may be towards cleaning up and making sure injured party doesn't spread body fluids all over the place.

Messy · Post by **Messy** » Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:56 pm

witsd wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:03 pm That's fine for a member of the public, but when they are an employee, isn't there a duty to 'cooperate with your employer' that could be invoked?

Wow!!! "Invoked???" That sounds very Orwellian!!

Forcing a member of staff to accept medical treatment against their will? I dont think so!! The nearest parallel to that would be a mental health section: and they are not dished out like sweets and are very procedural heavy.

I agree that requesting they sign a document or otherwise keeping a record witnessed by others is the way forward. Depending on the injury , I would also offer transport or a member of staff to escort them home

ddlh · Post by **ddlh** » Sun Sep 23, 2018 5:28 pm

It is also - in my experience- unfortunate that a medic or first aider will take the easy option.

When a medic offshore will call an onshore doctor for advice. The onshore doctor in 50/50 cases will to protect themselves will request the person be taken to hospital for check / treatment.

Onshore - a first aider can only advise but will also put an IP to hospital - just in case!

Any first aiders reading this - ask your employer what insurance or protection you have in case you make a wrong judgement

stephen1974 · Post by **stephen1974** » Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:19 pm

Any first aiders reading this - ask your employer what insurance or protection you have in case you make a wrong judgement

You don't need any. We have the Social Action Responsibility and Heroism Act to protect us from such things, as long as we are not grossly neglegent and do totally stupid things, such as giving someone a tracheotomy instead of CPR.

One of the specific reasons given for creating this act was...

allay the fears about liability that can drive volunteers to take out insurance when they don’t need to

As for forcing people to go to hospital. No.
You can advise them, you can't force them. However, you can insist on them providing you with a fit for work letter from their doctor, if you think an injury could lead to them being put at greater risk, or others at greater risk, or if it will prevent them from performing their duties at all (though thats more a long term deal than a short term one) You would need clear grounds to do this though and not just do it as a backside covering excersise just in case.

witsd · Post by **witsd** » Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:46 pm

Messy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:56 pmWow!!! "Invoked???" That sounds very Orwellian!!

Ha! Well, that probably says more about my employment experience than I should let slip!

Forcing a member of staff to accept medical treatment against their will? I dont think so!!

No, absolutely. Staff maintain control over their own self at all times, it's just the trip to hospital that I feel could be mandated if the management desperately wanted it so. As I said earlier, once there, the staff member would absolutely be free to refuse treatment.

To be absolutely clear, I am not recommending this course of action.

Andyblue · Post by **Andyblue** » Thu Sep 27, 2018 5:06 pm

Have an issue with any manager having the authority to send an employee to hospital. Its almost the same as an employer saying an injured employee couldn't go to hospital.
It would be less oppressive to use the other options as above. And even the doctors letter to say they are fit for work - if there is a cost then the company should pay it, or perhaps adopt some form or occuhealth to screen the person - that would at least allow you to consider the specific hazards they might encounter in their working environment.

AdamJ · Post by **AdamJ** » Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:41 am

Reading through this does look like a bit of a case of over-thinking it and looking for problems and issues where none need exist. First aiders treat and recommend, and if the person chooses to follow that advice is up to them. The employer can make their own decisions as to whether that person is fit for work depending what they are doing but that's the line and beyond that it is up to the individual.