Our primary school says if children need medicine at specific times 'pop' in & DIY

[wonkywillow]

Surely this penalises busy working parents, with occupations where they can't just 'pop' in? Or a parent who simply has other pressing commitments..

Can schools actually do this? They seem to be negating their responsibilities towards providing education and support for children with long term medical conditions that require regular medication.

It does discriminate against working parents. I would cause an uproar about this and wouldn’t stop until they changed the rules

It’s due to the huge amount of paperwork... we did administer medicine as we had a chronically ill child with working parents. It probably cost in courses and time about £3000 though. This came from a small budget and did mean less contact hours from specialist SEN staff as a direct result. There isn’t always give in the budget and most schools are running in skeleton mode so really can’t just ‘be more efficient’.

In an ideal world schools would take his on, or better yet we’d had nursing teams that did this sort of thing. Realistically I can see why schools do all in their power to persuade parents to take on this role.

That is what I thought. Tbh it has been going on some years. My friend used to have to go in to give her diabetic child their insulin. But I did not question it as she seemed happy with the arrangement and perhaps preferred to administer it herself. However this was in a recent newsletter. That a lot of children are requiring medicine and if it is 'imperative' they receive it at certain times to 'pop' in. I thought that many parents just can't do this. I thought schools had an obligation to administer medicines?

There isn’t always give in the budget and most schools are running in skeleton mode so really can’t just ‘be more efficient’.

In an ideal world schools would take his on, or better yet we’d had nursing teams that did this sort of thing. Realistically I can see why schools do all in their power to persuade parents to take on this role.

But this is a form of discrimination.

There is no legal obligation for schools to Administer meds.

Mummy are you talking about quite specific medications? I don’t understand why special training/ courses would be required. I’ve been govorner of a few schools and it’s never been an issue as far as I am aware. School staff have to administer emergency or one off medication so would need training etc for that anyway

Oh right, Thirtyrock. How can this not discriminate against children with long term medical conditions that require regular medication? Do you have a source that makes the ruling clear?

Surely legal obligation is neither here nor there? If they don’t administer the medication whilst the student was in their care their health would deteriorate. That was be negligent

Schools have no obligation to administer medication and every school will have their own policy on it. My dcs school will only administer prescribed medication but won’t give calpol for a headache etc.

Back in the 90s my 5 year old sister needed regular doses of medicine. My mother was single and worked full time around a 30min drive from the school. I had to give it to her at the grand age of 10. The school refused to help at all.

I think there is a big difference between a child finishing a course of antibiotics where a parent/carer/neighbour/friend should go in to administer the dose - and take the meds in with them, as many need to be stored in a double locked fridge on school premises and, long term medical conditions that require regular medication.

To administer medication there needs to be specific signed documentation from the prescribing GP and the primary carer.
Medication needs to be stored safely - normally in a locked cabinet within a locked cupboard, apart from emergency meds such as those for anaphylactis, asthma and epilepsy, which need to be easily accessible to staff but locked away from pupils.

Medication given by schools needs to be administered with 2 members of staff present, one to give the drug and one to check and countersign.

The staff and school have to have all the correct procedures in place. To cover themselves and keep everyone safe.

It is not as simple as just going to the office at playtime for a spoonful of whatever.

Schools priority is to educate and care for the pupils, I don't think discriminating against working parents, by not being able to cover the staffing and legal requirements to give short term meds can also be their responsibilty.

A child who requires medication long term should absolutely be given it at school and all the correct procedures followed and this will make up part of the child's EHC plan. Otherwise the CHILD is being descriminated against.

These days, I would imagine that very few schools have the personnel 'slack' to be spending precious time administering meds. Plus there must be a liability issue should a child be given the wrong one. I've often advocated that one of the admin staff should also have a nursing qualification to cover this role but that would then bump up the cost of said member of staff above usual admin rates.

It is an issue but I'm not sure what the solution is? Even if parents aren't working, if you don't live close to the school (and don't have a car) it's going to be a total PITA, isn't it?

Parents will end up having to pay to fund someone to do the lunchtime meds round...

A child who requires medication long term should absolutely be given it at school and all the correct procedures followed and this will make up part of the child's EHC plan. Otherwise the CHILD is being descriminated against.

Well, yes obviously. But, in turn, a working parent is also being discriminated against as this would affect their ability to work.

We had a school nurse when I was at primary school in the 80s - I guess this sort of thing would have come under their remit.

Parents/Carers with parental responsibility
Must take responsibility for making sure that their child is well enough to attend school and take
part in all learning activities. This includes group, class-based activities, organised trips and visits.
Should ensure their child’s school has contact numbers and arrangements are in place should a
child become unwell.
One parent is required to agree to or request, in writing, that medicines be administered.
Should provide the headteacher with sufficient information about their child’s medical condition,
medication and treatment or special care needed.
Should endeavour to reach an agreement with the headteacher on the school’s role in helping
with their child’s medical needs.
Should ascertain whether prescribed medication can be taken outside school hours. Parents
should ask the prescribing doctor or dentist about this.
Will confirm their agreement to the sharing of information with relevant staff to ensure the best
care for their child.
Parents and carers should be aware of those infectious diseases which should result in not
sending their child to school.
Parents and carers should be aware that there is no contractual obligation for teachers or the
headteacher to administer medication

I found this quote:

"...it is not generally acceptable practice to:

..require parents, or otherwise make them feel obliged, to attend school to administer medication or provide medical support to their child, including with toileting issues. No parent should have to give up working because the school is failing to support their child’s medical needs; or..."

(www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/638267/supporting-pupils-at-school-with-medical-conditions.pdf)

In London and other large cities, it would probably be possible to employ a school nurse to work between an number of schools (in the same 'cluster') over a two hour 'lunchtime' period to administer meds. Not sure it would work in less well populated areas though.

So whilst school staff their is no contractual obligation for school staff to administer medicine, it would seem that the school has an obligation to ensure there is facility within the school for medicine to be administered. Without requiring parents to go in and do it, that is.

That should read, 'whilst there is no obligation for school staff...'. Typo.

Ours will administer anything prescribed by a GP - must have the prescription info on the bottle - but only if it needs requiring at a specific time or four times a day. My DD is on anti biotics a lot & they will only administer certain ones - if they only need taking twice or three times daily they refuse. Calpol etc we have to do ourselves.

I guess it's a fine line; god forbid something happened. Her nursery would give calpol or brufen if a consent form was signed, & antibiotics but she wasn't allowed in for the first 24 hours of starting them in case she had a reaction

It does seem that some schools are in breach of the government guidelines I posted above then..,

It’s to do with the possibility of giving incorrect doses etc. We had to buy and power a specific lockable fridge, send three members of staff on a course (which also meant paying for cover). Staff had to have their job descriptions changed, some negotiated more money as a result (unions tend to be against you administering medicine). We had to have two staff spend about 10 minutes (including paperwork) three times a day.

As I said, I’m totally against discrimination for children with medical conditions but doing all the above meant some dyslexic children didn’t get as much help as they needed (or even less than the reduced amount). It’s horrible that’s staff are in this position of balancing discriminating one child with other children but that’s the reality. We can’t magic more money. I often think parents are unaware how very very short of cash schools are.

As I said, I’m totally against discrimination for children with medical conditions but doing all the above meant some dyslexic children didn’t get as much help as they needed (or even less than the reduced amount). It’s horrible that’s staff are in this position of balancing discriminating one child with other children but that’s the reality. We can’t magic more money. I often think parents are unaware how very very short of cash schools are.

Why is it always the children with additional needs that are assumed are going to have to suffer? It should not be a matter of balancing one additional need against another but balancing the needs of the whole school community. Schools should not be discriminating against children or parents in this way. The government guidelines I posted earlier spell this out. If school staff will not administer medicine, it is up to the headteacher to liaise with the school nursing service to ensure there is provision.

Interestingly since becoming a governor and heading up the finance committee I’m amazed at how much money schools DO have, and how much they waste whilst agonising about replacing a broken laptop (true story: it was thought better that the member of staff simply stopped working on a computer rather than replace it )

Schools aren’t generally very good at managing finances because they don’t have the expertise that a similar sized business would insist on employing

My son has a very rare illness and if he still has it when he's school age it's going to be an absolute nightmare. I speak to parents of other kids with the same thing and the complete negligence of some of the schools is beyond belief - not monitoring them as they're supposed to, not treating them when they're in crisis as they've been instructed and trained to do. Children have to attend school, and most parents have to work - this is such discrimination against disabled children and their parents, it makes me so angry.