Posted By Robert K Lewis You have not indicated the trap points - are there common patterns to the incidents. You seem to have some idea as to what is causing the problems as you seem to know the problem doors. If this is so then I think the HSE is correct in asking about your action plans for remediation. If this is not the case then I feel you would be rght to talk to your Principal Inspector for a fuller justification of their approach. One area I have found troublesome is self-closers which are not two stage, ie rapid initial and then slow final close, as this 2 stage type does eliminate many trapped fingers. I am also aware that many maintenance personnel adjust these badly so that they effectively are single stage types Bob

Posted By Graham Bullough You are right in the sense of likelihood about the risk of finger trapping accidents being low. Given the numbers of doors, pupils and closings of such doors in schools, the numbers of finger trapping injuries which do occur are remarkably low. However, the snag is that finger injuries caused by the trapping zone at the hinged sides of conventional doors are painful, distressing for all concerned and in some cases can result in permanent mutilation or even amputation to the small fingers of young children. Therefore, the risk can be significant in terms of the severity of foreseeable outcome when injury does occur. The dismissal of the recent county court (compensation) case which you mention on the grounds that doors in schools pose a "normal and acceptable" risk should only be considered in relation to the particular circumstances of the accident from which the claim stemmed, e.g. age of child, etc. In view of the fact that there are at least 5 UK makes of device which totally enclose the hinged trapping areas of doors, HSE inspectors evidently take the view that the trapping risk is significant and that it is reasonably practicable to eliminate the risk by fitting such a device. Also lawyers pursuing door crush claims are equally aware of such devices and normally have little difficulty in obtaining compensation usually well before proceeding to a court hearing. As part of the generic risk assessment process for your education authority it would be worthwhile, if feasible, getting brief details of the door trap incidents which have occurred in recent years. In my experience nearly all such incidents involve pupils of nursery and infant age. If this is borne out by the incidents for your schools, then it could be argued that doors in nursery and infant schools or departments are the ones which get priority for the fitting of devices. Another consideration is that only the lower half of the trapping area of a door poses a risk of injury to young children because they cannot or are unlikely to reach above its mid-height. However, the devices are usually sold as individual units just under 2 metres long to cover the full height of a door. Therefore, is there are any good reason (apart from the aesthetic aspect) why the units cannot be cut in half so that each half length can be used to protect the lower halves of two doors? If there are no good reasons, this practice will still enclose the area which actually needs protecting against the unwitting entry of small vulnerable fingers and help to make the scarce financial resources of schools go much further. Also, there may be scope for negotiating discounts for bulk purchases of devices. Talking of costs, some of my counterparts and I suspect that some devices are overpriced. Are there any readers of this forum with knowledge of the devices and production manufacturing who have any thoughts on this aspect? We also think it sad that such devices are not publicised and readily available for sale for use at home. If demand for such devices (from organisations and companies and also from the potential domestic market) were to rise significantly, would this result in a significant price drop like that which has occurred with household smoke detectors over the past 15 years or so? Another thought: Having door protection devices fitted isn't the end of the matter. Although the devices are designed to withstand a vast number of openings and closings they are vulnerable to damage, e.g. from being hit by a TV trolley. Therefore, the devices should receive brief visual checks from time to time and staff should be asked and reminded to be vigilant for and report any damaged devices.

Posted By John Webster Don't forget to give extra attention to areas used by special needs children. For example, some may have similar risk to nursery children, but may be older and therefore taller.

Posted By James Sullivan I previously worked at Great Ormond St Childrens Hospital. They had the same issue and installed finger protection on all doors to wards. I seem to remember (almost 3 years ago) that the Estates Department there came up with a cheaper alternative than any manufacturers could supply. Anybody wishing to find out their solution could contact the Estates Department.