[Metrobeans]

B421 - Provision of Defribrillators Bill, TSR Labour

Provision of Defribrillators Bill - Labour
This bill intends to ensure that all primary and comprehensive schools within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have defibrillators available for use, in order that the rate of death from sudden arrhythmic death syndrome (SADS) may be reduced.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

1. Compulsory Provision

(1) All schools must have a defibrillator available for emergency use upon their premises.
(2) All schools must employ at least one (1) medical staff trained in the use of a defibrillator.
(3) For the purposes of this Act-

(i)"available for emergency use" means that the defibrillator can be accessed as quickly as possible in response to emergencies, within reason.

2. School Nurse Training

(1) The Nursing and Midwifery Council is responsible for ensuring that accredited nurses are trained in the use of defibrillators.

3. Provision of Funding

(1) A sum of £900 per state school is to be available from the Department of Education for each state school within England.
(2)A school may apply for this funding for the purpose of purchasing a defibrillator, providing they currently have no defibrillator in working order.

4. Commencement, short title and extent

(1) This Act may be cited as the Defibrillator Act 2012
(2) This bill shall extend to the United Kingdom, excepting 3.(1), which shall extend to England; and
(3) Shall come into force within six months following Royal Assent.

Notes

This bill is a direct response to Angry cucumber's post in the General Election thread. Approximately 16-17 people die each week from SADS. A sixth of these are of school-age, and therefore, provision of defibrillators will help reduce those numbers. There are approximately 23,000 state schools in the UK, meaning this would require a one time sunk cost of £20,700,000. There would also be a small maintenance cost each year of purchasing new defibrillators for newly established schools, or for those schools who need a replacement; however, the amount of money required will likely reduced as defibrillator technology and production methods improve and they decrease in price. By the fifth year of the implementation of this bill, this has the potential to have saved around 700 lives. By the tenth year, around 1400.

[TopHat]

Nick, you totally promised you'd fix the numbering! :P

[Metrobeans]

(Original post by TopHat)
Nick, you totally promised you'd fix the numbering! :P

I don't think anyone noticed!

[TopHat]

4.(2). should be "excepting 3.(1)", rather than 2.(1). Thank you!

[JPKC]

I support overall, but I don't get the focus on schools particularly (young are less likely to have heart problems etc.). All establishments that regularly hold over a certain amount of people should legally have to purchase them - also, perhaps the cost of defibrilator sets could be subsidised for all organisations wishing to make a purchase? Why is the Bill not more adventurous?

Also, I class myself as a trained expert in this area since I am a certified 'Heart Start Emmergency Life Supporter'. Certificate and all.

[tufc]

Only concern is training to use them - obviously all schools have trained first-aiders, but is the use of defibrillators covered by basic first-aid courses? Because they're likely to make things even worse if used incorrectly.

And you misspelt 'Defibrillators'.

[mevidek]

Aye.

[thunder_chunky]

Good to see Labour are keeping with the current times.

[DeeWave]

For the '700 lives saved in 5 years figure', you assume that every person of school age who has a potentially fatal dysrhythmic episode has that episode whilst in school, and that the presence of an automatic defibrillator in the school will in all cases prevent the death.

Clearly not all episodes will not take place in school. Of those that do, the defibrillator will not always be correctly used. And even when correctly used, automatic defibrillation is not necessarily clinically successful.

Therefore on three levels this assumption is quite unrealistic; the number of deaths prevented will be significantly lower than the quoted figure.

[TopHat]

(Original post by JPKC)
I support overall, but I don't get the focus on schools particularly (young are less likely to have heart problems etc.). All establishments that regularly hold over a certain amount of people should legally have to purchase them - also, perhaps the cost of defibrilator sets could be subsidised for all organisations wishing to make a purchase? Why is the Bill not more adventurous?

We wanted to make sure this would pass. We felt that if we tried to impose this everywhere, for example, imposing a cost to small businesses to make sure they had one, the Libertarians would find themselves in need of a defibrillator themselves.

(Original post by tufc)
Only concern is training to use them - obviously all schools have trained first-aiders, but is the use of defibrillators covered by basic first-aid courses? Because they're likely to make things even worse if used incorrectly.

It is compulsory for all schools to have some sort of medical staff, and by changing the process for accreditation the Royal College of Nurses requires, that means all school nurses will be able to use them. If enough people think it necessary, I would gladly submit a Second Reading of this bill with a line about defibrillator training being included in basic first-aid courses.

And you misspelt 'Defibrillators'.

In fairness, we spelt it right a few times too! :P

(Original post by DeeWave)
For the '700 lives saved in 5 years figure', you assume that every person of school age who has a potentially fatal dysrhythmic episode has that episode whilst in school, and that the presence of an automatic defibrillator in the school will in all cases prevent the death.

Clearly not all episodes will not take place in school. Of those that do, the defibrillator will not always be correctly used. And even when correctly used, automatic defibrillation is not necessarily clinically successful.

Therefore on three levels this assumption is quite unrealistic; the number of deaths prevented will be significantly lower than the quoted figure.

I agree completely, which is why the notes explain:

this has the potential to have saved around 700 lives

We feel that the majority of children's time is spent in schools, however, so it is a fairly good bet this will meet the majority of those potentialities. In addition, the fact that trained medical staff are required should also minimise the number of occasions where a defibrillator is incorrectly used.

[MacDaddi]

We want schools to teach, not to treat. That is what Hospitals are for.

I would like to see some sources for the quotes.

You also haven't mentioned how much it would cost to get teachers trained.

Good intentions, but unrealistic.

[thunder_chunky]

Hardly a shocking bill.

[TopHat]

Schools already require at least one medical staff since 1975, although they can be provided through the local authority, local council, local NHS, or even the school itself. You don't have to train teachers in this. That's what 2.(1) is for - it means that to become a school nurse, you must know how to do this. In fact, as it happens, I think 2.(1) is probably overkill. I'd be highly surprised if the NMC didn't already require training as part of the accreditation process. We just wanted to make sure.

The quotes are on SADS are from the Oliver King Foundation:

http://www.theoliverkingfoundation.co.uk/

The quotes on how many schools there are is from the Department for Education.

http://www.education.gov.uk/popularq...ere-in-england

(do remember to subtract the 2,300 odd independent schools. In fact, the number we provided is a slight overestimate to be on the safe side in costing)

Costing for the defibrillators is from going on Amazon and searching "defibrillator". :P

[Mr Dangermouse]

I find it unbelievable that some of the more right wing members of the house would grudge school children the opportunity to survive from a sudden cardiac arrest.

Actually it disgusts me.

[TopHat]

No, there are legitimate questions about the cost of training. However, 2.(1) means that cost is effectively minimal - it'll simply become part of the standard practice of the NMC.

[TopHat]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
Hardly a shocking bill.

Oh, you.

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by TopHat)
Oh, you.

Well it's hardly an electrifying bill.

[TopHat]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
Well it's hardly an electrifying bill.

You didn't put up any resistance.

[JPKC]

(Original post by TopHat)
We wanted to make sure this would pass. We felt that if we tried to impose this everywhere, for example, imposing a cost to small businesses to make sure they had one, the Libertarians would find themselves in need of a defibrillator themselves.

Fair enough - maybe consider expansion for the second reading depending on what the general response here is? The Libertarians are always going to struggle with public health bills. And as for the cost to small businesses, if the government subsidised defibrilators that could be considerably lessened - also, small ones may not necessarily need to buy them!

(Original post by MacCuishy)
You also haven't mentioned how much it would cost to get teachers trained.

Good intentions, but unrealistic.

The voluntary sector and NHS actually already extensively provide training for both staff and pupils, the access to the equipment is the main difficulty with heart-related first-aid.

[DeeWave]

(Original post by TopHat)
I agree completely, which is why the notes explain:

This has the potential to save around 700 lives

Whilst I agree what you say is not technically wrong, I feel using the number 700 when both you and I know it is completely unrealistic could mislead people. Many might in a hurry not consider the timing issue, and without medical knowledge, many might assume a higher success rate than would actually be found.

I would be surprised if more than 100 lives were saved over 5 years. But I don't mean to present that as a reason to veto the bill - I just feel that people may be unfairly swayed in their opinion by this excessively aspirational figure.