First aiders and fear of blood

L

littlewoman

Longterm Registered User
I am doing a Peadiatirc First Aid course at the moment. There's 8 on the course, me, one mum and 6 people who are professional child carers of some sort. 3 of those professionals are squeemish about blood. One is so bad that when shown a Powerpoint slide showing a finger with a tiny bit of fake blood, she could not look at the screen.

This raises a few issues. When a child falls they mostly need reassurance, even if its just a bump. So should anyone be working in child care at all if they're going to freak out at a bit of blood.

Is it right that someone can be a first aider yet can't deal with any blood. Would it be OK if they were not the only first aider.
There's probably some injuries that would have most of us feeling a bit queezy. Is it Ok to feel queezy about stuff as long as you can get the job done and give the treatment needed. Or could we accept that a first aider may be queezy with more serious stuff (that they'd be less likely to see in the workplace) but its not at all acceptable for a first aider to get queezy about minor stuff even if they can deal with it.
 
littlewoman said:
I am doing a Peadiatirc First Aid course at the moment. There's 8 on the course, me, one mum and 6 people who are professional child carers of some sort. 3 of those professionals are squeemish about blood. One is so bad that when shown a Powerpoint slide showing a finger with a tiny bit of fake blood, she could not look at the screen.

This raises a few issues. When a child falls they mostly need reassurance, even if its just a bump. So should anyone be working in child care at all if they're going to freak out at a bit of blood.

Is it right that someone can be a first aider yet can't deal with any blood. Would it be OK if they were not the only first aider.
There's probably some injuries that would have most of us feeling a bit queezy. Is it Ok to feel queezy about stuff as long as you can get the job done and give the treatment needed. Or could we accept that a first aider may be queezy with more serious stuff (that they'd be less likely to see in the workplace) but its not at all acceptable for a first aider to get queezy about minor stuff even if they can deal with it.
Click to expand...

Its the same as "is it right for someone to work in security who are not willing to get involved physically if required"

I honestly dont understand why people who are queazy at blood go on these courses, even if the employer pays for it - its the person responsibility (in my opinion) to tell the employer "sorry I'm no good"
But can there also be the factor that these queazy people are playing up for sympathy or for attention seeking. Are they saying they are queazy, not looking at the screen etc in an attempt for the trainer to treat them a little softer at examination time
 
I've seen so many doorman leave after there first scuffle (not even a proper fight) and alot of first-aiders on the FPoS and FAAW courses I've attended where squimish of blood.. But they do this stuff cause it looks good on paper or increases chances of employability even though they wouldl be useless in a realistic scenario, I think maybe examiners should be able to chuck people off the course like the army can chuck you off basic if your not up to scratch.. It should be the trainers responisbility to refuse training and the employee or persons responsibility to say "This isn't for me"..
 
Darkness said:
I've seen so many doorman leave after there first scuffle (not even a proper fight) and alot of first-aiders on the FPoS and FAAW courses I've attended where squimish of blood.. But they do this stuff cause it looks good on paper or increases chances of employability even though they wouldl be useless in a realistic scenario, I think maybe examiners should be able to chuck people off the course like the army can chuck you off basic if your not up to scratch.. It should be the trainers responisbility to refuse training and the employee or persons responsibility to say "This isn't for me"..
Click to expand...

but problem is (as with DS/SG training)...

1 person off turns you from earning ££££££ to just ££££ they don't care whoes there and whoes not, the more they have, the more they earn
 
These 3 aren't putting it on. 2 very much have a problem, whilst the third only admitted the problem to me quietly when it got to the more gory slides.

I actually don't quite get how women can be so queezy about blood at all, I mean how do they cope once a month?

I can see that if a workplace has a policy that all staff are trained in first aid it makes sense to send people on a course regardless of any phobia. However I don't think they should get the qualification if they can't actually deal with a relatively minor incident.
 
I agree it is good practice to have as many trained first aiders a possible however If I was the employer I would not want to waste money on getting people trained who will not or cannot assist anyone with an injury due to a phobia.

Or a person who trains in security sector who then will not help a client or team member due to a fear of being hands on.

As mention a lot of peole will complete courses to place on thier CV as it looks good to potential employers but will not put the basic applications to work when required.

I would have more respect for a person who comes to me and informs me of thier phobia or fears and requests not to undertake the course rather then waste money.
 
andy13978 said:
I agree it is good practice to have as many trained first aiders a possible however If I was the employer I would not want to waste money on getting people trained who will not or cannot assist anyone with an injury due to a phobia.

Or a person who trains in security sector who then will not help a client or team member due to a fear of being hands on.

As mention a lot of peole will complete courses to place on thier CV as it looks good to potential employers but will not put the basic applications to work when required.

I would have more respect for a person who comes to me and informs me of thier phobia or fears and requests not to undertake the course rather then waste money.
Click to expand...
But I can see the logic of all school staff knowing how to deal with allergies, asthma attacks, epilepsy etc. even is some can't deal with serious amounts of blood. On the other hand its a matter of degree, if they faint or run off when a kid grazes their knee should they be working with kids at all. If you have someone who is a brilliant teacher can you overlook that one problem. Of course maybe the employer should look at therapies to help them overcome the problem.
 
Where I work in my day job, we have six first aiders including myself. Most could just manage cleaning woulds and put plasters on.
After I did my FAW I joined my local St John Ambulance unit so that I can gain experience in treating injuries and keep my skills up to date. This is what led me into becoming a door supervisor and the experience I gained at festivals etc got me first d/s job. The company I work for has all the next of kin details and I have ICE numbers in my phone in case anything happens to me
 
Well I was always squeemish about blood, used to feel faint if I saw it and even now still feel quesy at times. However when there was a serious car accident and I was first on the scene I didn't have a problem in climbing into the car to help someone who had a hole in his head and try and stop the bleeding, I took my shirt off to do so. I was covered in his blood, yet I it didn't affect me at the time, nor stop me trying to help him. I personally didn't think about it at all, my main concern was to help the person. Now had I been watching it and the amount of blood that was around, It probably would have given me a different reaction. So sometimes people are better when they are in an situation whereby they've got to help someone and calm them down, because they are distracted in helping someone else. In emergency's people can surprise you.
 
Last edited:
Fair point Gabi you can't realy judge a person untill its put into action, but again if they know they would not perform if that would to happen, or not get stuck in if a customer or collegue was in trouble (first aid or D/S ) they should'nt realy opt for the job/course.. thats just an opinion though

as far as therepy for those It would be great but to employers its just more expense isn't it?? so I doubt it would become mainstream lets say
 
Darkness said:
Fair point Gabi you can't realy judge a person untill its put into action, but again if they know they would not perform if that would to happen, or not get stuck in if a customer or collegue was in trouble (first aid or D/S ) they should'nt realy opt for the job/course.. thats just an opinion though

as far as therepy for those It would be great but to employers its just more expense isn't it?? so I doubt it would become mainstream lets say
Click to expand...

Sometimes you don't know what you really will do in a situation until you are faced with it,you can react completely different to what you think you may do. Life isn't always black and white.
 
Last edited:
Hence why employers should say "I see you have been a first aider for a few years, can you tell me about any occasions when you have used that skill.". Applies to any training, employers should make sure they are not hiring a list of certificates, they need to look at the person carrying them.

As for a pediatrics course, if I were the trainer I would have discussed the seriousness of the training and the need to be able to accept upsetting images in order to prepare for injuries.
 
littlewoman said:
I am doing a Peadiatirc First Aid course at the moment. There's 8 on the course, me, one mum and 6 people who are professional child carers of some sort. 3 of those professionals are squeemish about blood. One is so bad that when shown a Powerpoint slide showing a finger with a tiny bit of fake blood, she could not look at the screen.

This raises a few issues. When a child falls they mostly need reassurance, even if its just a bump. So should anyone be working in child care at all if they're going to freak out at a bit of blood.

Is it right that someone can be a first aider yet can't deal with any blood. Would it be OK if they were not the only first aider.
There's probably some injuries that would have most of us feeling a bit queezy. Is it Ok to feel queezy about stuff as long as you can get the job done and give the treatment needed. Or could we accept that a first aider may be queezy with more serious stuff (that they'd be less likely to see in the workplace) but its not at all acceptable for a first aider to get queezy about minor stuff even if they can deal with it.
Click to expand...

Allbeit, I see exactly where you're coming from LW, I have to say, a healthy fear of the red stuff, is nothing to be ashamed of, and truth be told, is something that all of us at some point in our lives, have feared to some extent or another.

The real question should be, 'are they so fearful that it debilitates them'? If the answer is yes, then they need to think very carefully about their role as a first aider.

On the flip side of the coin, I'd be more concerned about someone who loves the sight of blood rather than somone who is happy to openly admit that they don't like the sight of blood.
 
Starlight said:
Allbeit, I see exactly where you're coming from LW, I have to say, a healthy fear of the red stuff, is nothing to be ashamed of, and truth be told, is something that all of us at some point in our lives, have feared to some extent or another.

The real question should be, 'are they so fearful that it debilitates them'? If the answer is yes, then they need to think very carefully about their role as a first aider.

On the flip side of the coin, I'd be more concerned about someone who loves the sight of blood rather than somone who is happy to openly admit that they don't like the sight of blood.
Click to expand...

I'd quite agree that we probably have some natural instinct to see various types of damage to the body as worrying and that there is the other end where someone may take delight in gore and suffering. But I think there is a level for each workplace where a phobia becomes too problematic. An ambulance crew would need to be capable of dealing with just about anything. But in any workplace, someone who can't even look at a drip of blood surely can't be a first aider. If they feel a bit queasy but can still cope then that is Ok.
 
Starlight said:
On the flip side of the coin, I'd be more concerned about someone who loves the sight of blood rather than somone who is happy to openly admit that they don't like the sight of blood.
Click to expand...

Poppycock :)

Seeing with your own eyes that someone has good perfusion and clotting is reassuring for the field medic and hospital staff alike, shying away or averting your gaze when you have the skills to help is of no use to anyone.
 
I agree with Gabi on this, after seeing my mate stick his arm through a window as I kid I was left a little squeamish but went on to manage ten years in the ambulance service. It's down to focus, when you have a clear role to carry out I found no issue but just sitting back and viewing photos when there was no incident to deal with was a problem. I had a student on a first aid course nearly pass out on day one when we talked about bleeding, he said to me he thought he should leave the course but I persuaded him to stick with it, explaining my experiences, by the last day I gave him a good gory moulage with plenty of fake blood and he dealt with it no problem. A lot of it in my experience is about coaching and mindset and not reinforcing the students fears.

Boop
 
Starlight said:
Allbeit, I see exactly where you're coming from LW, I have to say, a healthy fear of the red stuff, is nothing to be ashamed of, and truth be told, is something that all of us at some point in our lives, have feared to some extent or another.

The real question should be, 'are they so fearful that it debilitates them'? If the answer is yes, then they need to think very carefully about their role as a first aider.

On the flip side of the coin, I'd be more concerned about someone who loves the sight of blood rather than somone who is happy to openly admit that they don't like the sight of blood.
Click to expand...

I think this is most wise set of comments.

Training reinforces your ability to carry on. For example, I am nearly phobic of needles (I think it is related to a rather nasty incident with a cottonmouth snake, and I also hate those little buggers in general too).

But I can cope with the sight and use of them (needles, not snakes) thanks to realistic training, and to be honest at the incidents where I have either had to assist paramedics closely or be threatened by people with needles when trying to arrest them-the "adrenaline dump" (can't think of a better way to put it) gets me through it.

And so I think that realistic training will give you that "muscle memory" and reinforce the instictive will to win that you must develop; however much of a internal struggle that must be. I hope that makes some sort of sense, and you can see what I am edging towards.

There is no substitute for preparation and rehearsal, in my humble opinion.
 
Back
Top