work place accident

[tiggerbounce]

My partner had an accident at work and I was just wondering if anyone knew anything about being an appointed person. He was first taken to the local doctors by two members of staff who are not first aid trained, his work say that because he is first aid trained that was ok but in my mind he was now the patient and not and appointed person. He was told he then needed to go to a&e and was driven there by another appointed person and the two other members of staff, should the appointed Person not of been driving as he couldn't pay any attention to the patient?

 

[suzib76]

I don't know, I'm assuming it wasn't a serious accident as he was taken to the GP initially

I'm not sure what the relevance is with the appointed person? Did he not get adequately looked after by work

 

[tiggerbounce]

I am trying to find out if they followed the correct procedure. He is currently of work due to his injury and as yet we don't know how long for x

 

[Rachel_C]

Was he not looked after appropriately? Does it matter whether the people involved were the 'appointed person' or not, if they did the right thing? If he was disadvantaged in some way by it not being the correct person, I would look into it but if it's just nit-picking to see if you can get something out of it, I would leave it.

 

[suzib76]

^ that's what I was thinking, I mean if he was taken to the GP and the go recommended A&E and they took him there I can't see what they did wrong tbh, other than the label of appointed person being the driver, they took him to be seen too.

If he is still off and can't work I'm sure the reason for it is something more, or other than, the 'appointed person' driving the car

 

[tiggerbounce]

It was an accident that wasn't his fault, we are not trying to get anything out of the company but wanted to know what the correct procedure was as I was always taught that the appointed person shouldn't drive and they are telling me it's fine, if they have there procedure wrong then they need to look into changing it x

 

[Rags]

I am a work first aider and it would be very unusual for me to be working with other 1st aiders, or appointed persons. If something happens to me I would expect another employee to assist me in any way they could. If I was concious I would instruct them, if I wasn't responsive I'd expect an ambulance to be called. I'd suggest that it's the GP's actions you should consider, they directed him to a&e but didn't suggest an ambulance. As a first aider I hand responsibility over once a medical practitioner is involved, going with someone to hospital after they've seen a Dr would be more about support and concern for a friend/colleeg.

 

[suzib76]

I don't see why you would question the actions of the GP?

Plenty of people go to A&E departments without requiring an ambulance

 

[tiggerbounce]

He didn't get seen by a doc, the receptionist sent him there, the injury want bleeding do no ambulance was required. His work are not really too bothered 8f the followed correct procedure or not and quite frankly have not been too helpful to us financially, we have only asked for Whay he would get paid at this time of the year while he has been signed off, am I asking too much seeing as the accident was there fault and they are liable? I thought they woukd be gong out of their way to help and support us x