Today’s question is:
… a question about first aid training for a professional fire service
I help manage our first aid training programs and have long made a push to receive nationally recognised qualifications for our firefighters. We are currently trained to HLTAID014 Provide Advanced First Aid and HLTAID015 Provide Advanced Resuscitation and Oxygen Therapy.
We have a dedicated group of instructors with a wealth of experience from a medical doctor, through to some former paramedics and combat medics. We have remained within the scope of the above units but have also designed the course to be as specific as possible to the challenges and incidents we face.
I’m reaching out with a question about a potential shift away from the nationally recognised HLTAID015 Provide Advanced Resuscitation unit in favour of non-accredited training. They would like to run nationally recognised training every three years but for the refresher years in between they would prefer to run non-accredited.
The reasoning I have been given is that it provides more flexibility and customisation of the content and will reduce the paperwork and compliance burden on the Emergency Services RTO.
While I understand the flexibility non-accredited programs might offer, I’m concerned about potential legal implications, particularly if something were to go wrong in the field.
- Would firefighters (and by extension the organisation) face liability if their recommended renewal date for advanced resuscitation qualifications lapsed due to switching to non-accredited training?
2. What level of risk might this pose to the organisation, especially if there is an incident involving resuscitation efforts?
Our current EA explicitly states that firefighters will be trained in advanced first aid and advanced resuscitation (no units such as HLTAID015 are mentioned).
Additionally, I’m interested in your thoughts on what would be required to mitigate these risks:
3. What level of record-keeping and documentation for non-accredited training would be necessary to protect both the individuals and the organisation?
4. Would mapping the training to equivalent nationally recognised standards and assessments provide any legal reassurance?
The short answer is it won’t make any difference what the training is called and whether or not it is ‘nationally recognised’. The point of nationally recognised training is that a syllabus has been developed that Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) can deliver and is considered equivalent to other training by other RTOs. Nationally recognised courses are listed in the National Training Register (https://training.gov.au/) see https://training.gov.au/training/details/HLTAID014/unitdetails and https://training.gov.au/training/details/HLTAID015/unitdetails.
If an employer needs a person to have HLTAID015 Provide Advanced Resuscitation it doesn’t matter which RTO provides that. If it was provided by an RTO then it’s equivalent to the same training by another RTO.
It doesn’t mean that the training is better than non-accredited training that has been developed by an employer for their own, in-house use. Where an employee has had non-accredited training and wants to transfer their skills it is harder for another employer to give recognition for prior learning. Where it is an accredited training then the next employer knows what has been learned and assessed.
In context then it may make a lot of sense for a fire and rescue agency to provide specialist training to its members who are going to face particular issues (eg smoke inhalation and burns) more often that someone who is doing an advanced resuscitation course in a different context. If the fire services determines that the training it is providing meets the needs of its members and addresses the context in which they operate then that is sufficient. If for example firefighters were going to provide a first response medical service they would need training beyond a first aid certificate. If that is all they got that would be inadequate but there is no law that says the training they do get has to be nationally accredited. One might look at nationally accredited training eg HLTAID014 Provide Advanced First Aid and recognise that it is not sufficient for the context in which staff operate. In that case it is not be some legal shield to say ‘but we provided that training’ – that would be saying ‘we did the bare minimum’ which may not be enough.
The need to redo qualifications is just a recommendation. Units of competency do not have an expiry date. The Safe Work Australia Model First aid in the workplace Code of Practice (July 2019) says (at p. 17):
First aiders should attend training on a regular basis to refresh their first aid knowledge and skills and to confirm their competence to provide first aid. Refresher training in CPR should be carried out annually and first aid qualifications should be renewed every three years.
That is a recommendation not an obligation and it doesn’t say that the ‘refresher training’ has to be a complete course. It doesn’t say ‘CPR qualifications should be renewed every year’, just that one should have refresher training.
In terms of legal issues, the issue will always be what was done and was it reasonable in the circumstances. A person may provide very competent first aid without ever having done a first aid certificate. A person may be dangerously incompetent no matter how many courses they have done.
Let me then turn to the questions:
- Would firefighters (and by extension the organisation) face liability if their recommended renewal date for advanced resuscitation qualifications lapsed due to switching to non-accredited training?
No, if there is a question of negligent performance of a skill (and recognising that is extremely unlikely in this context) the issue will be what the firefighter did and whether that was reasonable in all the circumstances including the training received. If an issue of training comes up the question that may be asked is ‘did you complete training?’ and ‘what was in the training program’ not was the training accredited and listed on the National Training Register.
2. What level of risk might this pose to the organisation, especially if there is an incident involving resuscitation efforts?
No different to the level of risk in providing accredited training. In either case if a firefighter performs at a sub-standard level questions may be asked about what training they received and whether the training was appropriate. No-one will care whether it was or was not nationally accredited training. For the firefighter the question might be ‘did you attend the training?’ and ‘Did you perform in accordance with that training?’ For the service it will be ‘was the training and assessment in all the circumstances reasonable’ (see Ambulance Service NSW v Worley [2006] NSWCA 102 discussed in Eburn M. Ambulance Service of NSW v Worley; Further Legal Lessons for the Emergency Services. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine. 2007;5:1-7. doi:10.33151/ajp.5.2.413). The issue will not be ‘was the training listed on the National Register’.
3. What level of record-keeping and documentation for non-accredited training would be necessary to protect both the individuals and the organisation?
Remember ‘good records, good defence; bad records, bad defence; no records, no defence’. One would want to have course material so it can be shown what was in the training, and records of attendance to show who has done the training and who signed off that the candidate was competent. I wouldn’t have thought that was particularly onerous for an employer who would need to have records of attendance for calculating salary and would want to keep track of training completed by each staff member.
4. Would mapping the training to equivalent nationally recognised standards and assessments provide any legal reassurance?
No. It may be helpful if people want to recognition of prior learning later. It would be much more important to map the training to scientific standards, eg Australian Resuscitation Council guidelines rather than the training syllabus for nationally accredited training.
Conclusion
This all has to be put in context. I would think most people expect firefighters get training that is different to the first aid certificate that a member of the public gets at a public first aid course as firefighters are going to be exposed to more serious injuries, of a specific type, more often than your average citizen.
The question will be whether the training was appropriate in the circumstances. In that it will be judged against the likely needs of the trainee and evidence based best practice, not the minimum training standards set out in nationally accredited training.
This blog is made possible with generous financial support from (in alphabetical order) the Australasian College of Paramedicine, the Australian Paramedics Association (NSW), the Australian Paramedics Association (Qld), Natural Hazards Research Australia, NSW Rural Fire Service Association and the NSW SES Volunteers Association. I am responsible for the content in this post including any errors or omissions. Any opinions expressed are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or understanding of the donors.
This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only. It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.
Australian Emergency Law 
The HLTAID009 Provide CPR certification expires every 12 months officially. It also makes up 1 of the 4 units of your HLTAID014 that expires every 3 years. To maintain a Current 014 one would need (based on the expiry of certificates) to requalify their 009 every year to maintain the 014.
If the organisation provides the awards at no cost and requires them then the best option is to liaise with a trainer able to provide contextualised training for the organisation they’re training. Something we as trainers can do where required.
The National Training Register says, for HLTAID009 Provide CPR (https://training.gov.au/training/details/HLTAID009/unitdetails), ‘Specific licensing/regulatory requirements relating to this competency, including requirements for refresher training should be obtained from the relevant national/state/territory Work Health and Safety Regulatory Authorities.’ As noted the work health and safety authorities across Australia have adopted the model Code of Practice. That says refresher training every 12 months is recommended but that does not mean the certificate itself expires (see https://australianemergencylaw.com/2021/05/30/another-first-aid-myth/). Do you have any other source for the statement ‘The HLTAID009 Provide CPR certification expires every 12 months officially’?
The point of the question and the post was to ask whether the organisation, in this case a jurisdictional fire and rescue service, does require one of the nationally recognised qualifications and my answer was that there is no law that says the training has to be the nationally recognised qualifications and in context they may be inadequate. Further the service is itself an RTO so it has trainers and again I think that is the point, they are developing non-accredited training so they don’t need RTO trainers – they can use doctors and paramedics who may not have the relevant Cert IV – but they have the capacity to provide ‘provide contextualised training’, just not accredited training.