Registered healthcare professionals would be covered to act within their scope of practice in accordance with whatever indemnity arrangements they have in place (ie, not under RAFAC indemnity). They’re expected to be competent to decide when and where is most appropriate to exercise their skills, and when it’s more appropriate to refer to others.
(For example, a neurologist in the shops would be more than competent in managing a seizure. However, they should call 999 for an ambulance, and allow the pre-hospital professionals to treat the patient in that environment - taking appropriate advice from the neurologist as needed)
The revised “Cadet Training Package” is directed at CFAVs, yet mandated for delivery to cadets.
The ACRoMaTI are almost completely unfit for purpose given the amount of other policy they attempt to streamroller (most egregious to me is the dress section, but there’s multiple other areas including the first aid bits discussed in this thread).
We need a complete overhaul to the ACRoMaTI that’s consistent with other policy (not duplicating it or contradicting it would be a start), and that concisely but clearly explains how the activity should be run.
Frankly, the whole policy shouldn’t need to be more than a few pages long - it’s not a particularly complex activity…
(I write as an RMTL, not as active as I would like, but still doing a fair few walks a year)
failing to declare a medical condition is the situation here.
if it is determined that that medical situation cannot be handled because there was no prior knowledge of it, because, as you are quick to point out, the Cadet doesn’t need to because “its the law” - then the CFAV has validity to send that Cadet home.
NOT because they broke the rules and obeyed the law - by not declaring a medical condition
but sent home because there is no provision within the CFAV resources to handled, manage and cope with that medical condition now it is known.
that does not appear to be unreasonable or breaking any laws but maintaining “safeguarding” principles but managing the situation.
actually do they?
we expect them to fill out a TG23
how honestly they do that is up to them, and i am sure most of us know examples where we have seen ones which have been economical with the truth.
but if we as CFAVs find out of a medical situation which is not practical to manage on a camp/weekend course, then i see no reason why that individual cannot be sent home as their condition cannot be managed by the adults in place to ensure everyones safety.
where does the “good samaritan law” come in?
these laws encourage people to help in emergencies without fear of being sued, reflecting a societal benefit of voluntary assistance
i recognise it is intended for the care giver and patient to not know each other, so in theory team leader of Wing 1 could “treat” a walker in team 2 being a separate Wing/Region and thus “unknown” but is an interesting point to consider…
Good question, from my understanding (although I’m sure the more legally-minded on the forum could weigh-in further) the healthcare professional would be covered within reason, but it may come down to how foreseeable the situation and/or the interventions used may have been, and how in-depth that would be. I would expect basic life support +/- rescue breaths with a mask and maybe a basic airway would be reasonable, but use of advanced airways or advanced life support interventions (medicines etc) would probably require indemnity.
Let’s be realistic - the ACRoMaTI were first authored to “standardise” training and delivery. Prior to its creation, the activity came under all manner of responsibilities - was it Sport, Adventure Training etc…. Leading to all manner of qualifications to deliver it.
Taking time to discuss how different Wings deliver RM, is when you realise how much terrain, local routes and ease of access affects the way the activity is delivered BUT, ultimately the basic principles are still the same and ultimately it comes down to correct Risk Assessments - and ensuring all activity staff have actually read and understood the contents.
But as with many documents, the “need” to cover every eventuality and possible consequence means the document became rather “wordy”…
Take a look at my posts / comments, you’ll see that in the worst person to be describing something as overly verbose!
It has been suggested by a senior, very well respected officer, that MOST training documents could be shortened to a series of Safe Standards of Practice.
The benefit of doing such would make standardisation uniform across the corps, would greatly reduce the admin burden for all involved - potentially increasing the ease by which activity can be delivered.
But - at the heart of the problem, is the reliance on volunteers, who are giving up THEIR time and energy - including those who are creating, reviewing and revising the training docs.
The public sector (including armed forces) have plenty of people that are willing to focus on admin and procrastinate - in order to deflect accountability.
Private sector want to get stuff done, because time is money.
I think we’ve all seen enough examples of HQAC being happier to “waste” Volunteers’ time, rather than invest in professional resources.
On a side note…
Observing “warm ups” and “warm downs”, including stretches etc being advised for RM (and other activity), begs the question - what coaching training is being delivered to staff?
Similarly - what guidance is provided for staff to be able to assess, diagnose and treat bone & tissue aches & pains?
For example - insufficient arch support / uneven wear on soles of 2nd hand boots, can cause supination or over pronation - which can cause other issues through over compensation.
But - this is not limited to just RM - it would also impact cadets on DofE expeds… so why doesn’t RAFAC offer introductory Physio training for its volunteers…?
but this is outside of the scope of the “good samaritan” - i am referring to the person on the street finding a stranger and providing care within the best of their ability - regardless of training to improve the situation of the patient
A Good Samaritan law provides legal protection for those who volunteer to provide reasonable assistance to someone in medical distress or other danger, shielding them from liability if something goes wrong.
thus finding someone in pain due to a blister a “good Samaritan” could/would intervene and in doing so pop a blister in the belief/knowledge it is the best outcome, perhaps ignorant of the infection risks…
if team leader from Wing 1 was a “good Samaritan” and saw a member from Wing 2 in distress the above scenario could be considered valid…but is bending the situation to suit indemnity
The problem is by demanding to know the full medical history of the individual. This is a blatant breach of GDPR - by requesting info that could be considered excessive.
It’s a flippant response - but, as an example, say I had been prescribed an antibiotic to treat chronic acne, or an oral contraceptive to help regulate my periods (ok my user name would suggest otherwise…), but what on earth does that have to do with whether or not I am
able to participate in Road Marching, Flying, Collecting for Wings Appeal etc…
Nothing - therefore demanding to know what medication I’m taking is a breach of GDPR, and breach of privacy.
There is an assumption by many staff that we have to know everything, so that we can better support the individual… and this attitude extends beyond RM - as has been shown.
Part of the problem is that as an organisation, RAFAC has copied vast swathes of policy from the RAF - which simply do not apply to young people / volunteers etc in this organisation - as it becomes overreach.
yes i understand tha - you seem quite keen to make that clear. i am not disagree with it.
I do not disagree with this. it makes no difference.
but you haven’t answered the question i asked
as a reminder, taking the example:
finding something out because you saw a Cadet self administering or carrying medication which the event IC was not aware of is not breaking the law - that is spotting something happening with your eyes.
this is not demanding to know anything when the situation has been spotted.
sending them home because the CFAV are not equipped to deal with the medical condition, or have safe guarding concerns about continued involvement (either for the individual or other Cadets) is not breaking the law.
do you agree with this? as you seem keen to impress on something i am not questioning and ignoring the situation i have given.
i would question GDPR cannot be breach if the person who owns the data hands it over.
filling in a TG23 is sharing data - that data must be handled in line with GDPR policy.
but while no one can be forced to give their information, there can be no breach of GDPR if there is no data shared.
forcing someone to share data is a breach of privacy laws, not data protection.
data protection only applied to data held by an organisation on an individual to ensure it remains “need to know” and used for “appropriate reasons”.
forcing someone to hand over their DOB is privacy law
how that DOB is handled is GDPR law
Asking a casualty’s medical history and medication is standard practice for first aiders, it’s also required information on a HSEP 008. Not that the person has to give you the information, but you’re certainly permitted to ask.
If you spotted the cadet taking something - I would go out on a limb to suspect it is not something nefarious.
I would also not jump to conclusions - and try to take a big picture view - is the individual’s behaviour / health dramatically altered…
Correct me if I’m wrong - but the standing order is to simply share concerns with CoC.
Referring to @juliet_mike’s comment that “or send them home…” my point is this viewpoint is overly controlling, overreaching and admin burdensome.
As for punishing an individual for failing to declare a matter they wish to keep private - such as the taking of oral contraceptives.
As adults - it is reasonable to assume that none of us would be bothered - but a shy, introvert young female cadet might be.
Again - I realise it’s a sledgehammer / nut argument - but the disclosure of contraceptives by females was a MAJOR red flag for investigators on Operation Yew Tree - and remains so today.
In a nutshell - CFAVs and anyone acting in Loco Parentis cannot be held responsible for something that they don’t know about.
How about cadets taking homeopathic / natural remedies, vitamins and supplements…, do you want a list of all of those and what they’re for…?
i have had Cadets fill out TG23s because they are vetegarian (not necessary - see TG21 dietary requirements) and have seen TG23 for female CFAVs who have declared HRT medication (again not necessary being on the prescribed list, but the “any condition not listed above” is open ended).
99% of the time i agree - but if a Cadet was spotted “pill popping” it would raise questions and some of those answers might lead to a situation where their attendance is not sustainable. Likewise if someone has valid and legitimate reason to have needles for regular injecting, it could be considered not be secure for these to be held in the individuals luggage, for the individual or the room mates either the sterile ones or the used ones.
while this is not a reason to send someone home, it brings into question a the element of trust - what else are they not sharing?
you haven’t said it yet, so i shall take it for the 1% of the cases where it is more serious, you see no reason (ie legally) why sending someone home would not be valid.
of course if in the case of needles/or non/prescription drugs there were being used for nefarious reasons that should hopefully be clear cut?
if there were muscular conditions which makes participation difficult or indeed dangerous that would also be a clear cut situation.
As an example I have on more than one occasion binned a cadet of a L98A2 IWT course after day 1 as they were simply not capable of cocking the weapon - they were unsafe and could not handle the weapon - they were simply too small for the weapon system. - now this is not a medical condition, this is simply a case of needing to grow a bit more, but there could well be physical conditions which Cadet suffer from that might require additional support or provision made - but not being declared cannot be made in the available time and so the only option is for them to no longer participate.
the Av Med Form 1 is an example where we ask about medical history - it is within everyone’s interest and safety that the information is complete and truthful - yet any question which has a “yes” answer flags further questioning before participation.
As you indicate while we cannot legally ask someone for that information, and there is an advantage for them not being honest (as it may preclude their involvement) should a CFAV find out after submission of the Av Med Form 1 or TG23 that the Cadet has not been honest raises questions about their honesty.
there must be a balance between privacy and “need to know” medical conditions for the safety of everyone involved.
I think there’s a key distinction to be made here.
From my understanding, as a healthcare professional, we (CFAV) can ask for any information we please, as long as we can justify its relevance and ensure it is only stored and used appropriately, and is disposed of once no longer needed. We can make decisions on safety and appropriate supervision based on this information, or on a lack thereof - that is not illegal.
People may withhold this information, however this may impact their participation in activities - again, that is not illegal. People have a right to privacy of information, this is true - but they do not have a right to participation in our activities if we judge it to be unsafe or inappropriate following a risk assessment.
We can’t demand this information, or gain it through any means other than consensual sharing. This consent must be made with appropriate information, including the risk that if we cannot make a reasoned risk assessment it may impair individual participation in activities.
Surely that is not compatible with GDPRs third principle of data minimisation.
Do I as an activity commander of a Road marching course need to know that someone has a kidney removed when they were two years of age especially when they have been signed of by a GP to live a normal life without any restrictions on what they do and are not taking any ongoing medication.
Probably not from your end but it’s the person completing the form who is deciding what to disclose.
If you the person disclosing thinks you need to know then they will add it. If they don’t (because GP said everything is fine) then it doesn’t matter & you don’t need to worry about it.
