Agenda item

To consider a report and schedule outlining the status of defibrillators within the Council’s guardianship.

Consideration was given to a report and schedule of local defibrillators. Over the past few years, there had been an improvement in the number of defibrillators located throughout the borough. Some of these were sourced directly by Asset Management, whilst others were sourced through ward and parish Councillors. The presentation described how the defibrillator equipment is housed, with each defibrillator in a metal cabinet and displaying a contact number for emergency services. A few types of defibrillators were located throughout the borough. Each defibrillator had a nominated guardian. If the defibrillator were to be used, the guardian would be notified directly. These defibrillators, including those in other buildings such as neighbourhood and community buildings, used to be inspected by the Ambulance Service; this changed last year. Particularly in neighbourhood sites, there had been a lack of information on the guardians for defibrillators in those sites. In recent months the Service had managed to identify the guardians, ensuring that the defibrillators were still at the sites in working order and with fully charged battery. The Service go out every week and check all the sites as part of the normal inspections. It was noted that defibrillators can cost up to £1500 each. If a defibrillator went missing, there could be a lead time for replacement. The Service was on the register and were notified if the defibrillators are used. The next day, the Service would ensure the defibrillator was back up and running. Some external information had circulated which had highlighted sites that were not Council sites. The Service provided assurances that records would be kept up to date. The Service provided further assurances that the systems and register in place could be add to the Council’s mapping system. The Service ensured that they are supplied with a list of guardians for other sites.

In discussion, the Chair noted the maintenance responsibilities associated with a defibrillator throughout its life cycle, including testing and replacing of renewables such as pads and batteries. In respect of obtaining information about the guardians throughout the borough, assurances were requested that the Service was confident that the list is complete regarding library and theatre sites. The response from officers noted the current status of library and theatre defibrillators.

Members noted that defibrillators registered with the British Heart Foundation could be referenced on public websites such as https://www.defibfinder.uk. This website, for example, indicated whether each defibrillator is active or inactive. Assurances were requested around resiliency of the guardianship of defibrillators belonging to the Council, if only one staff member is nominated as a guardian. The response from the Service confirmed that one person is nominated, however, if this team member were not in the office the day that a defibrillator is used, the notification email would also go to Asset Management and would be picked up by half a dozen members of staff.

Members referenced specific defibrillators and associated time limitations. Further clarification was requested around which defibrillators are owned by Rotherham MBC. The response from the Head of Asset Management noted that the external ones at the front of riverside with football and redevelopment would be useful, so this is being looked at. The overall distribution of defibs was an area that required further consideration. Members noted that, where there may be a shortage of funding, there were excellent local charities who help with funding.

Members noted the need for sub-guardians. The example offered was that Civic Officers at the Town Hall cannot update the registry after inspecting the defibrillators at the Town Hall because they are not designated sub-guardians. This means that Asset Management must be contacted to request that the registry be updated, which creates an extra step. A further example was provided of a specific defibrillator that had been registered but was not appearing on the registry. The response from officers noted that clarity around how this information is collected and reported about coverage is an area of ongoing work.

Resolved:-

1.    That the report and schedule be noted.

2.    That clarification be provided in respect of defibrillator governance, including updated guardianship information, usage data, and maintenance procedures for defibrillators in the borough, including those that have been in use, or that have been deployed but not used.

3.    That consideration be given to strategic placement of defibrillators throughout the borough, taking into account the proximity and volume of people and the hours of public access to defibrillators that are housed indoors.

4.    That an update be submitted in 12 months’ time.