Posted By John Webster Enrique You don't say, but are you working in the UK NHS or elsewhere?

Posted By Lance Morgan Enrique I believe this falls within the scope of COSHH. Plenum ventilation is installed and used to control the spread of airborn pathogens in 'high' risk areas such as IDU's and ICU's. The pressure can be changed from positive to negative and viceversa depending on the particular risk of infection i.e. protective isolation as well barrier isolation. As such it should be tested every 14 months to ensure that it is working properly.

Posted By Lance Morgan The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1999.There is an Approved code of practice. There will also be Health Technical memorandums and Building notes with regard to standards for ventilation systems in IDU's/ICU's obtainable from NHS Estates. Contact your Estates or facilities department. Involve your Occupational health Nurse and Infection Control Doctor or Nurse. Hope this helps Lance

Posted By Ian Waldram There is some more general legislation than what has been identified above - the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regs 1999: Under these, all employers have to carry out (and record, if they have more than 5 employees) "suitable & sufficient risk assessments" (Reg. 3), which include identifying the hazard (e.g. spread of TB infection) and the controls they have in place to ensure the risks from these hazards are as low as reasonable (e.g. -ve pressure differential of "x mm's water gauge"). They also need to be able to demonstrate that the controls are effective (MHSW Regs Code of Practice, Para 36a), for example any pressure differential needs to be measured - ideally this would be continuous measurement, with suitable alarms, as apparently was originally fitted. If the technology can't be made to work, then regular manual testing might be OK - but I'd think there still ought to be some alarm to ensure the fan continues to run between tests! So the question to ask is to see the risk assessment - its key findings have to be communicated to those affected by that hazard (see MHSW Regs 10(1)). If there is no relevant risk assessment - the MHSW Regs have been breached. If there is a risk assessment and it quotes the -ve pressure, then ask those responsible for your H&S (the senior medical person for that area - don't let them fob you off by saying that some manager or engineer is responsible, your line manager is!) how they know that control is effective in reducing risk?

Posted By John Webster Enrique I think the most important questions are "Has a risk assessment now been carried out? If so, does it identify a need for the differential pressure system? If so, is the system now working as designed? Is it effective? Are there systems now in place to verify its effectiveness, continue to monitor its performance and to ensure remedial action is taken should there be any future shortfalls?" If not, then I really would contact your office of the HSE. Hospitals are currently fairly high on the HSE's hit list. Even if there is no prosecution, or even any enforcement notices, if they have cause for concern they will, as minimum, require the hospital to produce an action plan to bring things up to standard. After all, the primary objective surely is ensuring that things are put right before somebody is harmed rather than seeking retribution for past failings. Unfortunately (though with plenty of shining exceptions), health & safety in the NHS is still often way behind that of general business - Crown Immunity was only lifted in 1991. There is also a common problem with a division between clinical and non-clinical. Health & safety is seen as non-clinical, things like infection control, clinical waste disposal, moving and handling of patients etc are clinical and therefore nothing to do with the Health & Safety Adviser! The Health & Safety at Work Act does not really apply to clinicians!!!! So the occasional big stick to help them see the light may not be so bad. I agree that proving past exposure to a harmful substance would be very difficult if you or your colleagues have no evidence of ill effects. But make sure that you attend your occupational health dept and that your concerns at possible exposures to certain substances are recorded. There may also be tests which can be carried out. If some ill effect should appear in the future at least you will have a chance of demonstrating how and when that happened, (and you may be in more need of the money then) John