RCN, disgusting advice

Do you honestly think any nurse would refuse to treat a patient?

What is more disgusting is the Governments impotence in getting the PPE issue sorted and blank refusal by ANY Minister to apologise for putting Health Workers lives at risk by their own negligence. It is also clear they are all on instructions not to apologise!

3% working population in nhs...roughly 1000 Kungflu deaths working age...30 nhs staff deaths.

Whispering death, sadly as in any job guidance like this protects those who shouldn't be nursing or doing so for the wrong reasons. My point really is about the RCN, those in charge should be sacked now.

The holier than thou thugs have been advocating death as a realistic option for the aged / infirm to avoid financial catastrophe
Suddenly they express a compassionate moralistic tone as they try to make political gain out of a statement borne by frustration from the nursing profession
Why doesn't it surprise me!

Geordie, maybe you should try having a balanced view on any subject instead of standing on the extremes shouting nonsense, desperate for attention

Geordie seems to be very much a holier-than-thou type himself but doesn't see it ...

SQ

I think it also has something to do with the Law and even protecting the patients they are treating.

The statement though morally wrong to me seems to borne out of desperation rather than a statement not to treat patients. One would hope the Government starts listening

their breaking the law by treating patients if their not wearing the correct,recomended ppe, its not a choice,optional advice like any worker in any company its the workers legal obligation not to treat a patient

What law are they breaking, and where is it metioned in their statement as i can't find it.

Nurses should refuse to treat Covid-19 patients “as a last resort” if they are not given adequate personal protective equipment, according to guidance from the Royal College of Nursing (RCN).

At least 19 NHS workers are known to have died during the coronavirus outbreak, and the government has been criticised for failing to provide enough protection.

A spokesman for RCN said: “For nursing staff, this will go against every instinct. But their safety must not be compromised.”

The union said it would provide legal assistance to those making what it acknowledged was an “enormously difficult decision”.

Business secretary Alok Sharma said health workers should not be put in such a position.
He told Sky News: “It is absolutely right that no medical professional should be placed in a position where they have to make that choice.

“That for me is self-evident. That is why we are making sure we get the equipment to the front line.”

Sharma added: “In a normal circumstance, you would have us providing PPE to about 233 hospital trusts across the country. We are now talking about supplying 58,000 NHS and social care settings.

“That is a huge increase and on top of that, there is huge global demand for PPE and that does put a squeeze on supply.”

bearing in mind very little ppe has been needed by the public but doesn't bode well if we,re ever having to face the aftermath of a chemical,nuclear attack does it, Jeremy hunt pulled the funding needed to cover a pandemic so we can safely assume the government has filed funding for a nuclear,chemical attack in the to expensive tray

The lefties just love threads like this.
Lets them virtue signal whilst battering the Tories.
Sad feckers.

Tell us your thoughts on the matter?
Tell us what advice the union should be giving its members?

union doesn't have to give any advice its the law of the land prosecutable offence not to wear recommended PPE, its just a role reversal in the majority of cases because itrs uncomfortable,hot,difficult to work in, its usually employee,s who are threatened by companies for not using it,wearing it incorrectly

What law are they breaking, and where is it metioned in their statement as i can't find it

Do you think that NHS staff should be provided with appropriate PPE when performing their work duties?

Do you believe that their is a statutory obligation placed on employers to ensure that they provide appropriate PPE to their employees?
Do you believe that employers have a general duty of care in regard to the safety of their employees?

Did you believe Alok Sharma when he told Sky News that "it is absolutely right that no medical professional should be placed in a position where they have to make that choice".

law of the land...ffs you are the king of sweeping statements..this statement had FA to do with staff 'breaking the law', it was (rightly) about staff/patient safety.

staff are breaking the law if
a, they use ppe incorrectly
b, treat patients whilst not wearing it

they don't have a choice its not an option, a decision they make for themselves,its as simple as putting on a seat belt in a car

How many have been arrested ?
The court must have a huge backlog, what with all the nurses wearing binbags.

Do you think that NHS staff should be provided with appropriate PPE when performing their work duties?

Do you believe that their is a statutory obligation placed on employers to ensure that they provide appropriate PPE to their employees?
Do you believe that employers have a general duty of care in regard to the safety of their employees?

Did you believe Alok Sharma when he told Sky News that "it is absolutely right that no medical professional should be placed in a position where they have to make that choice".

You can continue with your deflection if you prefer, that is your choice.

Angoose...advice, guidance or the law....you tell me ?

there,ll be 1000,s upon 1000,s of construction workers in this country sacked,suspended for not wearing a simple thing as safety glasses,there,ll be people sitting in jail now,lost companies,gone bankrupt because them not wearing,not giving people the correct ppe,safety advice has resulted in someone been injured,killed

whats difficult to understand than under the health and safety at work act its against the law not to follow safety advice,the health and safety people have more powers than the police,they can shut down companies in seconds if they so wish

There are numerous HSE regulations that are derived from The Health And Safety At Work Act.
But let's not continue with the deflections, let's establish some basic principles.

Do you think that NHS staff should be provided with appropriate PPE when performing their work duties?

Come on Eric, you clearly have an opinion on this matter, it's why you joined the thread.

Where on this thread did i say that i didn't think staff should be provided with PPE ???? All I wanted to know was what law they are breaking by not wearing them and where in the RCN statement did they mention that their staff were breaking the law by not wearing them ?

Angoose trying his best deflection methods here.

Of course in an ideal world everyone would have PPE.

That includes nurses, doctors, police, train drivers, delivery drivers, shop workers and the general public.

The reality is there are shortages and the best logistics minds in the country are trying to keep up with demand.

The RCN said as a last resort, nurses could refuse to treat patients.
It was inferred by Mr Sweeping Statement that nurses would break the law by treating patients without proper PPE.
I wanted to know what law and where in the RCN's statement did this get mentioned

their breaking the health and safety at work act
its every employee,s duty to look after his own and everyone elses welfare,he doesn't have a choice to make
if he hasn't got the correct ppe its not his decision to make whether he treats someone or not,HE CANT

its the old fire brigade argument of standing outside fires watching people die because they arnt allowed in till a building is either safe or made safe for them to enter, a member of the public could rush by and try and save someone a firemen is breaking the law and liable to prosecution if he does
whats hard to understand about that

Apr 12, 2020 -- 2:17PM, InsiderTrader wrote:

Angoose trying his best deflection methods here.Of course in an ideal world everyone would have PPE.That includes nurses, doctors, police, train drivers, delivery drivers, shop workers and the general public.The reality is there are shortages and the best logistics minds in the country are trying to keep up with demand.

Very good IT, very good, deflect an attempt to prevent deflection

and where in that RCN statement does it suggest nurses with inappropiate PPE should refuse to treat patients as they will be breaking the law ?? just copy and paste it from the statement..dead easy

At the end of the day your trying to tell us that nurses with inappropiate PPE have no choice but to not treat patients as they are breaking the law...and ultimately that is complete bollox

"I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm"

This statement by the RCN, opens the door wide for Euthanasia to be practiced with the clear backing from the RCN and legal team

Is that Angoose for real?  no one should work unless their employer can fully protected them,good luck surviving that, don't expect the lights to be on, or anything else come to that.

I am very much for real potlis, so I will pose the same questions to you that I posed to Eric.

Do you think that NHS staff should be provided with appropriate PPE when performing their work duties?
Do you believe that their is a statutory obligation placed on employers to ensure that they provide appropriate PPE to their employees?
Do you believe that employers have a general duty of care in regard to the safety of their employees?

You can respond in any manner that you choose to.

My preference, however, would be that you address the questions as stated, rather than simply produce a jaundiced interpretation of what you believe my views to be.

ffs, its not a choice ,option for employers its an obligation under the HASWA,and if they don'take all reasonable steps to protect their employees and patients their liable to be prosecuted ,its how the countries been run for 30 years

ffs...where did i even mention emploYERS
you wrote..
'their breaking the law by treating patients if their not wearing the correct,recomended ppe, its not a choice,optional advice like any worker in any company its the workers legal obligation not to treat a patient'
I asked what law they are breaking and where in the RCN statement this was suggested as a reason not to treat..you see your @rse...angoose goes off on a tangent trying to be clever.
I couldn't care less whether a nurse is not treating a patient because their scared about there/the patients health due to lack of PPE (thats up to them and you can't question that)
The fact is that no nurse is not going to treat a patient for fear of breaking a law(that you can't find)....and again nowhere in that RCN statement is that ever mentioned.

Angoose, I will answer your questions when you clarify what your asking, is question 2 asking whether I believe all employers have a statutory obligation to provide full PPE against cov19?

They have taken the hippopotamus oath.

Save life,cure disease and ease pain

If they are able to

They will do this even at risk to themselves, which seems to have happened for some with the corona virus

PPE for medical staff must be of highest priority

Also of course if Doctors and Nurses catch the virus, they can no longer treat patients, or they risk spreading

the virus themselves. PPE is of the utmost importance for Medical staff.

Apr 12, 2020 -- 7:07PM, potlis wrote:

Angoose, I will answer your questions when you clarify what your asking, is question 2 asking whether I believe all employers have a statutory obligation to provide full PPE against cov19?

My questions are precisely as written.

In general, you are not going to see specific named medical conditions within health and safety legislation and regulations.

Instead, they will talk in more general terms, setting out guidelines that require appropriate risk review tools to be in place that will seek to ensure existing risks are appropriately managed and that new and emerging risks are identified and also appropriately managed.

shame your answers are not as precise as your questions...no shame in just saying 'i haven't a clue'

If so, is like the army refusing to go to war because the other side has better weapons and more soldiers. I'm afraid deal with the rpesent situation as best as possible then take the government - present and future - to task for inadequate safety gear. If not address vote with their feet and walk away - the NHS is bigger than any government.

But, I think the NHS needs to be streamlined and cannot function at its optimum in his present manner. No amount of money can provide every service it's presently trying to offer.

So obviously the answer to question 2 is no I don't believe, in the present situation, an employer has a statutory obligation to provide full PPE for their workforce, why? because almost every employer will know that the major threat their workforce is currently facing is Cov19 , which would necessitate supplying full PPE kit against the virus ...not available ...or tomorrow morning send their whole workforce home.
So no food, water, electricity, or any services at all really.

As for questions 1&3 yes and yes.

It's a contradictory stance to agree with points 1 and 3 but disagree with point 2, you don't get to pick and choose which threats you are obliged to protect your employees from.

You are also applying a broadbrush approach when you require to perform specific reviews starting with a risk assessment.

Let's take supermarkets as an example.
They will have performed risk assessments which will have taken government advice in to consideration.

It is reasonable for a supermarket to assume that individuals already displaying symptoms of COVID-19 will observe self isolation advice.
Thus such individuals should not be present in their stores.

They have also implemented social distancing measures, designed specifically to reduce the possibility of a carrier of the virus passing their infection to staff or shoppers.

This will not be fool proof, but will provide substantial protection to both their staff and their customers.


Now lets look at hospitals, and specifically wards given over to the treatment of individuals tested positive for COVID-19.

Clearly, a non infected individual is at far greater risk of contracting the virus in this environment than in a supermarket where social distancing measures are being observed.

Thus the measures that require to be put in place will be more extensive.
And the NHS has produced extensive documentation and guidance as to what these measures should be, PPE being one major element of this.


That there is a statutory obligation placed on employers to ensure that they provide appropriate PPE to their employees is non disputable.
That enhanced measures have been implemented in hospitals since the outbreak of COVID-19 is also non disputable.

What is disputable, however, is whether or not sufficient supplies of PPE are available in individual hospitals when they are needed to ensure that the very enhanced guidelines that you hear Matt Hancock talk of are able to be applied.

And that is what the Royal College of Nursing is concerned about.

They have very publicly voiced their concerns as part of a deliberate strategy to ensure that the government continues to improve the delivery of the very equipment that they have agreed requires to be made available to frontline staff.

You just don't know when to stop digging do you, your post above explains why you were unwilling to clarify your original questions, because in the present situation they are meaningless.

Let's take your supermarket example, owners/employers will be fully aware that the main threat their staff face is from customers coming into the store carrying  cov19, therefore they are knowingly putting their employees at risk, so to fulfil their 'statutory obligation' to safeguard their workers they would either have to provide full PPE kit or shut the store.

Every store that is currently shut under the lockdown are displaying a notice stating "in order to protect our staff from Cov19 we are closed till further notice" Why not supermarkets? because the Government has deemed them essential and therefore the employers obligation regarding the safety of their staff, around cov19,
is suspended, which makes your questions irrelevant..

Don't die of ignorance.

Any worker has the right to refuse to work if the6 feel the conditions are unsafe.

This applies to Doctors and Nurses. Further to the RCN statement Doctors at Gwent are advising staff not to to work if they are not fully protected.

I remember going into the garage for petrol and noticing staff did not have latex gloves to take the cash or masks. Supermarkets were the same. This was a month ago or more. No hand sanitizer in the gym.

The Government is still not advising people to wear masks when out particularly in confined areas like shops or on public transport. This is more disgusting than any RCN statement.

dr running a big hospital in wales on good morning britan this morning saying he wont allow his staff on the ward without all the designated ppe,reminding them itstheir obligation to follow the advice,guidelines, which is the point I,m trying to unsuccessfully make they don't sit in a canteen deciding if they should treat a patient go into so call red zone without the proper ppe its not their decision to make and if one of them decide to be a hero its up to his fellow workers to stop him,report him, its their duty under the act if they don't thy themselves are brteaking the act
its how the world of work works, if everyone cant trust everyone else to follow the rules no one would go on the job

Tripped over your own stupidity.

potlis
ffs you cant suspend an act with legal powers b, because it suits someones agenda at a certain period of time,its what an act/law is put in place for,to stop this very thing happening
the government is quite clear any job that cant be done within the 2 metres guidelines has to be stopped ,its up to supermarkets in your example to adhere to it, because it suits supermarkets,customers to ignore the guidlines doesn't make them right, as in the bus drivers khan/TFL can expect plenty of compensation claims going in that they didn't do enough to protect their drivers under the HASAWA
what happens or doesn't happen today isn't the end, but only the start of the story

potlis, when conducting a risk assessment, your first task is to identify the risks associated with the activity that you are assessing.

There are then two major factors that you are trying to understand and evaluate :

[1] the frequency with which the activity is performed
[2] the severity of the activity going wrong

One thing that I can expect we can agree on is that death is the most highest level of severity.

There will always be some element of risk associated with the performance of an activity, with a risk assessment being a tool to help you better understand the activity and its associated risks.

Of course, the most effective way to eliminate risks associated with the activity is to cease performing the activity.
However, this is often neither practical nor desirable.

In the case of a hairdresser, it is quite easy to determine that this activity can be ceased.

For the provision of essential supplies, such as food, I suspect that even you will accept that it is neither practical nor desirable to cease this activity.

So, if you cannot cease the performance of the activity, you need to look at two groupings of actions you can take to reduce risk.

The first grouping of actions seek to reduce the frequency with which an activity is performed.

The second grouping of actions seek to utilise mitigating measures that can be implemented.
The use of PPE is one such mitigating action, others exists, it is all dependant on the particular activity you are concerned with.

For example, if you are performimg a pressure test on a valve at 15,000 PPI, you do it behind a blast wall, you don't perform the test in an open workshop.

That is interesting

Will the families of Bus Drivers sue TFL and Khan. I hope they do because both imho are guilty of criminal neglect. It goes to the top and the Directors of this organisation will have to demonstrate  the measures they took to keep their employees safe as it was their duty of care. They can be jailed for a serious breach although sheite rolls downhill and they will try and put the blame on others lower down the food chain. I dare say the drivers will in some email have been told they are not allowed to drive a bus without proper PPE and you can bet your bottom dollar they wasn’t enough.

potlis, I hope this helps, but please feel free to continue to be abusive, it is a common response on internet forums from those who are unable to construct logical arguments.

Poster
Simply reinforces the point that the questions being asked were meaningless in the present situation, buses are still being driven even though employers know drivers have already lost their lives whilst carrying out their duties,what passengers choose to do is neither here or there.
I think you will find the Government has given itself the right to do almost as it pleases regarding the law during the current crises.

during the current crisis,been the relevant phrase
the fun and games will start later

Abusive Angoose? You referring to your "don't die of ignorance" post.

No it doesn't help because no where in your reply do you mention the risk associated with cov19, which I assume was the point of the thread.

Doesn't matter how much you try to swerve it the fact remains that many employers know the greatest danger their staff face is from the virus, therefore they are currently unable to fully fulfil their statutory safety obligations, it's called reality, which make your questions irrelevant.

ignorance (NOUN)
lack of knowledge or information.

stupid (ADJECTIVE)
having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.

A significant distinction between the two terms.

Apr 12, 2020 -- 8:55PM, impossible123 wrote:

If so, is like the army refusing to go to war because the other side has better weapons and more soldiers. I'm afraid deal with the rpesent situation as best as possible then take the government - present and future - to task for inadequate safety gear. If not address vote with their feet and walk away - the NHS is bigger than any government.But, I think the NHS needs to be streamlined and cannot function at its optimum in his present manner. No amount of money can provide every service it's presently trying to offer.

no, it's more like this

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chilcot-report-iraq-war-troops-were-sent-in-under-equipped-and-military-was-humiliated-by-local-a7123561.html

Britain’s troops were sent to war in Iraq under-prepared and with “serious equipment shortfalls” and the military involvement in Basra ended with a “humiliating” bargain with local militias not to target its forces, according to the Chilcot.

The full scope of Britain’s contribution was only settled in mid-January 2003, weeks before the invasion, leaving barely any time to prepare three brigades for their combat roles. The extent of the risks were “neither properly identified nor fully exposed to ministers”, Sir John Chilcot said in a damning assessment which will vindicate the long-standing criticisms by families of service personnel who were killed in Iraq.

So rapid was the deployment and so under-prepared were the Armed Forces that initially there was even a shortage of desert uniforms and boots.

potlis, can you tell me a significant difference in the mitigating measures that you would put in place when pressure testing a valve with gas rather than water

Just looking for the one, when you have discovered it you will realise why.

You may or may not know what it is, If not, that would be ignorance.

Once you perform just a few minutes of research on the internet, you will have informed yourself, thus will not die of ignorance on that particular issue.

I find the assumption that I'm ignorant about what interests me, which isn't pressure valves, very insulting.

I have made no such assumption, I have merely pointed out that anyone who has no knowledge of a particular subject can be described as ignorant.

It is always important to resist the temptation to jump to conclusions, as it invariably leads to poor decision making.
Most of us have a tendency to jump to conclusions, I am no exception.

However, I have recognised this particular personal failing and strive to eliminate it in my daily activities, further recognising that I will not always be successful.

I am also always keen to learn about new subjects, educating myself and eliminating aspects of my ignorance.

Just a generalisation then, advise to all us forum users, perhaps you could get betfair to put it on a header page of its own.

don't think you can compare soldiers not having basic kit with doctors/nurses not having enough PPE. after all soldiers don't need an unlimited supply and changing it several times a day

i'd really like to know how much extra PPE is being used now compared to normal course of events. if it's many times the normal amount required then it's an impossible situation and throw in nursing homes as well

For what's it worth, a pressure test using water as the test medium can be conducted in the open air.

However, a pressure test using gas as the test medium should be conducted in a submerged tank. 
Both, of course, should be conducted within an appropriately enclosed area.

Using a submerged tank provides an additional means of detecting any leaks at the earliest stage due to the production of tell-tales bubbles.

Tests using gas have a higher potential for damage than those using water as the gas will continue to act as an accelerant for any projectiles released from the test failure.

The energy stored in the water will be immediately dissipated via any leak, thus will no longer act as an accelerant.

It is not the object being tested that will likely cause most damage should a significant leak occur, it is more likely that the test fittings will be projected at high velocity with the potential to travel significant distances if not interrupted by a suitable test cell wall.

Hence the need to be particularly vigilant with the maintenance of such fittings.