This one caught my eye. Glad it passed even if it’s not binding like the hunt one.
4 Likes
Am I reading that they encouraged members to not vote for having defibrillators on sites?
What’s the point of these votes if none of them are binding.
1 Like
No, they are saying that the proposed blanket criteria for deciding which sites should have a defib does not make as much sense as their current method of letting each site do their own risk analysis and make the choice.
At the end of the day, almost anyone could have a heart attack anywhere, and it would be better to have a defib than not, but I understand their reasoning for wanting to allow each site to decide for themselves.
Pretty much.
I don’t agree with that logic. A site that gets 40k+ visitors a year that charges for entry isn’t a bad way of deciding that. The more aed’s there are out there the more likely a life could be saved.
The fact is they do save lives when they are available, they would be able to get a bulk discount and also potential funding sources are available for the purchase of them. They could even run a campaign to fundraise for them which would be epic PR for them.
4 Likes
Straying a little off topic but…
Absolutely. I was merely pointing out that the NT response was not, “we do not want AEDs on our sites,” just that they believe they are capable of deciding for themselves where they are deployed.
1 Like
Reading the justification from National Trust I agree with their decision making and believe they have gone the correct way in looking at risk and mitigating circumstances of each site, perhaps they should adjust their criteria to a Public Access Defib within quarter to half a mile of a manned site if they dont already possess an AED on site.
It doesn’t make sense though. Sites with 40k+ visitors that charge entry. Liklihood is high % of people visiting are going to be in the at risk age range. Epic pr makes perfect sense to do it.
Even more so when they probably could access funding and deals to purchase it.
Just typical of how they conduct business drones, hunting aed’s policy doesn’t make sense and often has no legal or moral standing.
1 Like
The likelihood is that a site with 40k+ visitors will have an AED on site, it is sensible to risk assessment each venue, encouragement and oversight from head office is the best way forward. An FOI would be interesting.
You would hope but something tells me it’s not the case.
Risk assessment is subjective and if they are happy to ask members not to vote for this then I suspect they would be happy to not focus too much on this risk.
Foi would be but they the NT wouldn’t be required to respond and the ambulance services wouldn’t be able to easily work out which calls were to the NT without going over the cost limit.
I suspect that part of their reasoning behind this is their legal liability. We have an AED on site but we have been instructed by our head office legal team not to allow its use by the general public nor for any one of our registered first aiders to use it 'off site. This means should a poor soul collapse outside our gates we are not allowed to either use or offer the use of our AED located 100 yards away even though with modern AED’s it’s virtually impossible to defib someone that medically doesn’t require it.
This could possibly be the reasoning behind the NT reluctance to ensure all it’s properties have one on site as standard.
I personally think the more publically accessable AED’s the better. You don’t need specific training to administer a shock to someone that needs it and the costs, such as they are, are far outweighed by the potential life saving benefits one could bring.
1 Like
The vote on defibrillators at properties was carried
1 Like
In North Yorkshire theft of milk bottles from doorsteps is a major crime!
And so it ‘kin well should be 
3 Likes
As someone who is a CFR and also has used a PAD in anger this winds me up. The legislation doesn’t support this stance.
It’s also a bit callous to be that way. Not saying the should be handed out to anyone but a member of staff could go with it.
Not aimed at you, just your employers legal dept.
2 Likes
Yep but it’s the fact they advised members to vote against it and that its not binding.
2 Likes
Incidentally, we have, to a man, all said we’d ignore it if push came to shove and someone actually needed it and our AED could potentially save them.
Hello. The tablet that will use most of the apps is the Ipad mini 4 and if you look to get one only for flying the one to get is the low memory ones as they go second hand for next to nothing as the memory is so low it makes them not a good tablet for home use.
1 Like
So, in their opinion a remote site with more than 40,000 visitors annually is not an appropriate site for an AED. I would have thought that having more than 40,000 visitors per year and being in a remote location is all the more reason to have AED’s available as the chances of them being needed at such a location is much higher than easily accessible sites with few visitors. Their “context” paragraphs are not in context at all, AED machines can be required anywhere, at any time, not just 5km runs or where vigorous activity takes place. Or am I reading this wrong??
I think the proposal was any locations that charge for entry that have 40k+ visitors a year regardless of location.