EFAW vs FAW

This is something we get asked a lot at Castleford Training Solutions (CTS) and I do not think there is a simple answer. The simple answer ought to be based on your actual job role within the company you work for and what the type of business that you work for, but life is not that simple… … if it were then there would probably not be the need for First Aiders in the first place.

I suppose we should start by saying that an Emergency First Aid at work (EFAW) is a one day course (6hrs) that covers Cardiac Arrest, Chocking, The Recovery Position, Minor Injuries and Minor Burns and Seizures. A First aid at Work (FAW) is a 3 day course (18hrs) that covers the same subjects as covered in an EFAW – in fact the first day of an (FAW) is actually the same lesson plans as an EFAW, it then goes on in day 2 and 3 to cover subjects including Diabetes, Anaphylaxis, Temperature Exposure, Bones/Muscle and Soft Tissue Injuries, Heart Attack and Stroke, Asthma, Sepsis and Meningitis as well as smaller subjects such as The Secondary Survey and High Voltage Burns. My first problem lies actually in the title of both courses, with the inclusion of the word “work” it sort of leads the learner to think that the qualification only covers them for responding when needed when actually at work. Thankfully most learners on courses do not buy into that fact but it is fair to say that we have had a few that be believe they have no moral responsibility to help someone outside work.

Back to the actual question I suppose a lot of the decision making will be based on things like cost and actual time they need to allow for the training to take place rather than the more important things like the actual need of the workplace, things like the type of work undertaken (office based or manual handling/manufacturing) or maybe whether the workforce includes employees that suffer from things like Anaphylaxis Diabetes or Asthma making it a greater possibility of needing a First \Aider with skills covered on a FAW but not on an EFAW. Another factor that should be taken in to account should be how far the business is away from the nearest Accident and Emergency (A&E) department or how rural the business is located. There could start another debate … …

If the business is more rural without easy access to either a suitable hospital or even the relevant emergency services, possibly an industry like farming where it is both rural and the fact that most activities involve the use of heavy machinery meaning that any accidents that occur would have a high probability of serious harm. Then there could be sense in the fact that employees should be trained to a higher level than FAW, perhaps a course like Level 3 First Response Emergency Care (FREC 3) where the training includes a greater degree of trauma training and a better understanding of things that have more impact on accidents like the mechanism of injury would be more appropriate. However if course costs and the fact that the a FREC 3 is a 5 day course would impact on whether employees were released for training as it does with EFAw and FAW then most companies would rule this out as an option.

So I suppose after reading this we are no nearer an answer as to which qualification should be given to which employees but I do think that the minute you split your First Aiders and have a certain amount of EFAW trained and then some FAW trained it becomes more problematic, there is no different title given to each qualification, both qualifications make the learner entitled to be a “First Aider at Work”. I don’t think there should be a different level of First Aider at work as that would just make it both awkward and problematic.

Perhaps the better option would be to scrap both titles and make it that a First Aid at Work certificate that takes 2 days to complete and during these two days the current 3 day syllabus is covered.

Until the next instalment !!!!

Shaun