The firm commissioned research which shows that a quarter of workers have never participated in a full fire evacuation of their workplace. One in 20 UK workers also said their workplace had no marked fire exits at all.

According to the survey, over 40% of people said they would spend time retrieving personal belongings or work documents before vacating the building. One in ten workers said they sit at their desks for more than a minute before getting up to leave the building on hearing the alarm go off, regardless of whether they believe there is a real fire or not.

RSA says not enough is being done to ensure that businesses operate good fire safety practices in the UK. The company is calling for businesses to step up their behaviour, encourage all employees to take fire safety seriously and hold more regular fire drills.

David Geer, UK business director at RSA, said: “Our research revealed a much higher level of apathy about fire safety among workers throughout the country than we had hoped. It is crucial in the case of fire safety that companies not only evacuate employees from the workplace quickly and efficiently in an emergency, but also make sure that staff are made acutely aware of fire safety procedures and the location of their nearest fire exit.

“Businesses that do not take fire safety seriously are risking their employees’ lives and their livelihoods.”

Source: Info4Fire

Landlord Colin Perry, his tenant Pei Yu Liang, and manager Wen Chun Yeoh, were last week each convicted of between seven and nine breaches of the legislation, having all pleaded not guilty. Mr Perry was ordered to pay a £5,000 fine and another £5,000 in costs, while Ms Yeoh was fined £4,000 plus £5,000 in costs. Lessee Pei Yu Laing was fined £4,000 and ordered to pay £3,000 in costs.

The Royal Phoenix Chinese Restaurant, in Tadworth, was found to have no safe escape route from the first floor, an “inadequate” fire alarm system and “inadequate” emergency lighting. The building was in a poor state of repair with areas of high fire loading, while one room was found to contain a stack of bamboo chairs, a petrol strimmer and signs of discarded smoking materials.

Surrey Fire and Rescue Service took action in March 2007 following an inspection of the premises. A prohibition notice served previously on the first floor of the premises, which prevented people from sleeping in a dangerous building, was being breached.

Eddie Roberts, Surrey Fire and Rescue’s group manager for protection, said: “This case highlights that liability for fire safety measures can be shared and may not be the sole responsibility of the occupier of the business premises. Responsible persons have a legal obligation to comply with the [Fire Safety Order] and where their responsibilities are not taken seriously, we will consider prosecution.”

Source: Info 4 Fire

By getting involved in the biggest annual celebration of workplace learning you could uncover new skills, build new partnerships and help reach your business goals – all at the same time!

Learning at Work Day has been run by the Campaign for Learning since 1999 as part of Adult Learners’ Week. The Campaign for Learning believes that it is more important than ever that workplaces and individuals maintain and develop their skills levels in order to adapt and thrive in the economic downturn.

This year’s theme is Creating Connections. The theme highlights the links between different types of learning such as informal and formal learning, the benefits of bringing people together to learn from each other, the strength of partnerships and the role of learning in organisational success.

The Campaign for Learning offers support for organisations wishing to run Learning at Work Day, including planning guides, activity ideas, promotional materials and special offers. Last year, thousands of organisations took part including large corporations, SMEs, public sector organisations and government departments.

Source: Learning at Work Day

This was despite health care instructions that a 999 call be made immediately after a serious attack.

His mother rushed him to hospital in her car but Sam Linton, 11, died 90 minutes later.

A hospital doctor had told the inquest at Stockport, Greater Manchester, she believed that he could have been saved if the school had dialled 999. Sam had the fatal attack during a lesson at Offerton High School, Stockport, on December 4, 2007.

His mother Karen, of Offerton, had told the three-week inquest she found Sam with caretaker Len Cunningham and Sam’s 14-year-old brother Jacque outside a building at the school.

She said: “As soon as I saw Sam, I knew it was serious. He looked washed out with a grey tinge to his skin and his mouth was blue. I have never seen Sam look so bad before in all the 100 or so previous attacks, even the ones which required hospitalisation.

“My only concern was to get Sam to hospital. He tried to stand up but dropped back down again and the caretaker lifted him into the passenger seat of my car.”

Mrs Linton wept as she told the inquest she drove him to the town’s Stepping Hill hospital where he was taken to a resuscitation room.

She said she and husband Paul, a double glazing engineer, were with their son when he died. Mrs Linton told south Manchester coroner John Pollard the school knew Sam had a severe asthma and allergy condition and that a health care plan had been devised by a community nurse to instruct staff how to handle an attack.

The plan, kept in the school office, said that Sam had to have eights puffs on his inhaler and eight more after 20 minutes. If there was no improvement an ambulance should be called.

Form tutor Janet Ford who left Sam in the care of Mr Cunningham and Jacque while she went to a staff meeting, was said to have been “in after-school mode”.

Mrs Linton said that Sam had two attacks prior to his fatal one.

As a result, the mobile phone numbers of his parents were put on the school computer and she took a spare inhaler to the school to be placed in a cupboard under Sam’s name.

She said: “The ambulance was to be called before myself or my husband was called. We were told that the policy was that the child was always the primary concern.”

She said that she also pressed for the health care instructions to be transferred into Sam’s school journal, which he carried with him at all times, but this never happened.

The inquest jury foreman said: “Samuel died of an acute severe asthma attack which could have been prevented if prompt emergency treatment had been sought.

“He died of natural causes, significantly contributed to by neglect, both individually and on a systemic level.”

A spokesman for Stockport Council said last night: “The school and the local authority will continue to take steps to address issues identified from Samuel’s death.”

Source: Daily Express

“If you were to take the best engineers in the world and try to design the perfect plug for a child’s airway, it would be a hot dog,” Gary Smith, director of the Centre for Injury Research and Policy at the Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, told USA Today.

The academy also wants food manufacturers to put choking warning labels on their products, in the way that toy manufacturers are required to.

According to Stephen Cadwallader, a food technical consultant, hot dogs could easily be redesigned in any number of ways: square, circular or “pretty much any shape you wanted. It would be a piece of cake, if that’s not the wrong choice of words. But then would it be a hot dog as we know and love it, and will people buy it?”

Other high-risk foods highlighted by the academy included grapes, nuts, chunks of vegetables and items such as hard sweets, chewing gum and marshmallows. “It is noteworthy that many foods with high-risk characteristics associated with choking are man-made,” wrote the report’s authors. “The characteristics of these foods are engineered and, therefore, amenable to change.”

But if there is no market for a flat hot dog, what is the answer? “I think the best thing would be to do nothing, and just get people to try their best to use their common sense,” says Cadwallader. “We just cut them into bits for our two kids.”

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/feb/23/hot-dogs-top-food-hazards

Employers’ legal duties

The Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 require employers to provide adequate and appropriate equipment, facilities and personnel to ensure their employees receive immediate attention if they are injured or taken ill at work. These Regulations apply to all workplaces including those with less than five employees and to the self-employed. Detailed information can be found in First aid at work. The Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981. Approved Code of Practice and guidance.

What is ‘adequate and appropriate’ will depend on the circumstances in the workplace. This includes whether trained first-aiders are needed, what should be included in a first-aid box and if a first-aid room is required. Employers should carry out an assessment of first-aid needs to determine what to provide.

The Regulations do not place a legal duty on employers to make first-aid provision for non-employees such as the public or children in schools. However, HSE strongly recommends that non-employees are included in an assessment of first-aid needs and that provision is made for them.

Assessment of first-aid needs

Employers are required to carry out an assessment of first-aid needs. This involves consideration of workplace hazards and risks, the size of the organisation and other relevant factors, to determine what first-aid equipment, facilities and personnel should be provided.

Application of the Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 to self-employed workers

If you are self employed you are required to ensure you have such equipment, as may be adequate and appropriate in the circumstances, to provide first aid to yourself while at work.

You should make an assessment of the hazards and risks in your workplace and establish an appropriate level of first-aid provision. If you carry out activities involving low hazards (eg clerical work) in your own home, you would not be expected to provide first-aid equipment beyond your normal domestic needs. If your work involves driving long distances or you are continuously on the road, the assessment may identify the need to keep a personal first-aid kit in your vehicle.

Many self-employed people work on mixed premises with other self-employed or employed workers. Although you are legally responsible for your own first-aid provision, it is sensible to make joint arrangements with the other occupiers and self-employed workers on the premises. This would generally mean that one employer would take responsibility for first aid for all workers on the premises. HSE strongly recommends there is a written agreement for any such arrangement.

Source: http://www.hse.gov.uk/firstaid/legislation.htm