At time of writing (early 2022) most training organisations have become familiar with the differences in first aid training quality assurance that was implemented in early 2021.
Here are some basic FAQ’s and answers on this to help build an understanding of it.
The short answer is: “The SETA’s quality assure first aid”. For more on what SETA’s are, read here. Then the DEL (department of employment and labour) comes and approves the SETA’s approval of an organisation who trains first aid. It’s SETA first, DEL second. Never the other way around. Both require an application process separately.
The long and complicated answer is as follows:
The QCTO is the overseeing body. They have what they call “QAP’s”, or “quality assurance partners” who are organisations that do work in partnership with them. At time of writing QCTO has no skills programs or qualifications in first aid. So technically they are the authority who needs to quality assure first aid, but they do not have a standard (or a curriculum) for it. So they simply appoint their quality assurance partners to do it.
The SETA’s are the quality assurance partners of the QCTO that quality assure first aid. SETA’s have standards and curriculums for fist aid, being unit standards 119567, 120496, and 376480. But now OHS Act requires that DEL (the department of employment and labour) regulates first aid training. If that’s the case, why are the SETA’s doing it?
DEL (the department of employment and labour) used to quality assure first aid directly. These courses were called “First aid level 1,2 and 3” and the certificate would be issued by a company that would need to be accredited with the department of labour and have a CI number (A Chief Inspector number). Now DEL don’t directly quality assure it, they instead require a company gets SETA-accredited for first aid, and DEL then place their approval on top of the SETA’s approval, giving their own certificate to say they approve of this SETA accredited company. They do not approve a company to train first aid who is not already SETA accredited.
The short answer is: The terms shouldn’t apply, but do apply informally in industry communications. The SETA courses are much larger than the old DEL courses, and doing a “SETA level 1 first aid” and a “DEL level 1 first aid” is a completely different thing in effort and course length. This has caused much commotion in the industry. The SETA courses are much longer and far more admin-intensive. They do however attempt to prove outcomes and competence, when the DEL courses do not try prove outcomes but try guide training through named topics.
The long and complicated answer is:
The terms are used because everyone was familiar with the DEL (department of employment and labour) terms for DEL first aid training. This training was done on levels 1,2 and 3 and was directly accredited by DEL. Because OHS Act requires it, droves of learners were sent on these courses every three years minimum by companies wishing to be OHS compliant. Each level had its own curriculum that was created and managed by DEL. They were called “training standards” and not “unit standards” and were more course guidelines than outcomes-based like unit standards are.
The corresponding unit standards to DEL standards in informal speak are:
Unit standard 119567 corresponds to DEL first aid level 1.
Unit standard 120496 corresponds to DEL first aid level 2.
Unit standard 376480 corresponds to DEL first aid level 3.
These are really bad comparisons though. The SETA courses are far longer, far more admin, and actually prove outcomes. The DEL courses would easily be a day course and a learner might be given a certificate for sleeping in class. The SETA courses require evidence of outcomes so a learner would need to produce evidence in a POE to show that learning took place.
For an employer sending his 100th first aider on course to achieve OHS act compliance this is a nightmare. The SETA courses cannot be done by attending for a day, should cost more, take longer, and are just far more admin and effort because outcomes need effort. For a potential casualty though, this is a life saver because the workplace first aider who went on a SETA course is likely to know first aid and be competent in treating them or stabilising them. The DEL first aider who may have slept in class could actually just delay treatment for a casualty if it is assumed they know first aid when they do not.
It may seem opinionated and harsh to compare DEL and SETA first aid in this way. What will actually happen does depend on the training organisation and how ethical and diligent they are. From what I have seen in the industry though, the comparison is quite accurate. Training contracts are awarded not always on who is the best trainer for the job, but who has the correct pricing structure, who will send the worker back to work the quickest, and also other factors that are not directly related to the level of training required to properly care for a casualty at work. This incentivises bad training over good. The SETA system adds accountability to the equation and that helps, at least in theory.
