Posted By Michael Kirby
The manager of Health and Safety wants to remove the right that allows anyone to report (via the Accident Book) accidents, and make the first aid representative or Team Leader responsible. His reason for this is mainly due to possible fraudulant use, in relation to claims against the company.
I see his point but believe that everyone should be allowed to report accidents, in order to evaluate trends etc also I believe that it is a legal requirement. Not having time at the moment to research this via regulations, I wonder if my fellow members of Iosh could shed some light?

Posted By Neil Pearson
I agree - I find this actually the best way. Having first-aiders do it gives more consistency and makes it easier to follow up. You also collect information about more minor accidents.

If you want to argue the point, the law to argue is Regulation 25(3)(a) of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regs 1979, SI 1979/0628. I have normally managed to win people round so far (had some scrapes along the way, though). Social security people I spoke to believed the employer could decide to make entries on someone's behalf, and the employee had no legal right to make an entry. Others who look this Reg up may interpret this differently.

Personally, I have always provided a single accident book on site anyway for anyone who insists on making an entry in that format.

But you can comply with social security, RIDDOR and data protection law by designing your own form if you like - it's only the information that matters, not the format.

Posted By Gilly Margrave
Some cynical TU Safety Reps might think that the employer was trying to avoid recording legitimate accidents. Of course if this were the case and the accident just happened to be RIDDORable the TU Rep would submit their own RIDDOR which could leave the employer in a very invidious position indeed.

Gilly

Posted By George Wedgwood
I have been used to an 'in-house' printed accident book in the past, where there was space for the 'employer' and the employee to sign. In every case, first aiders were instructed to ensure that, wherever possible, the accident book entry was seen or read to the injured party and agreed to before they signed as a true record. The HSE book does not do this but there is nothing to stop you allowing the IP to sign. That removes any later ambiguity about treatment or injury description. I feel the employee should be clearly asked if they wish to make the entry or even get someone on their behalf to do it, under the supervision of the first aider or other manager - as after all, it is the employer's duty to keep the record. George

Posted By Dave Wilson
Me too, and also where does it say that you have to use an 'accident book' thought it was a duty to report and record by paper or electronic means.

Posted By Dave Wilson
Think what we are getting at is that there is at present no duty to investigate ALL accidents and there is no Legal requirement to have an accident book, under the present statutory requirements, however this may change in the near future along with Corporate killing????

Posted By Jay Joshi
There is a lot more of "OBJECTIVE" (non-prescriptive) legislation wherein everything is not explicit. The HSC/HSC ACoPs and Guidance generally provide means of compliance (or dutyholders need to demonstrate equivalent).

I would clarify to an employer etc. that the existing requirement to investigate all workplace accidents resulting in personal injury is IMPILCIT--and refer to the points I have put forward previously and advise on procedures such that the level and scope of the "investigation" is proportional to the accident and injury sustained. Especially in this age of personal injury claims

Regulation 5 of The Management of Health and Safety at work Regulations 1999 is implicit on this matter.

The Approved Code of Practice to Regulation 5 is EXPLICIT in this matter. It states:-


"Monitoring

Employers should measure what they are doing to implement their health and safety policy, to assess how effectively they are controlling risks, and how well they are developing a positive health and safety culture.

Monitoring includes:

(a) Having a plan and making adequate routine inspections and checks to ensure that preventive and protective measures are in place and effective. Active monitoring reveals how effectively the health and safety management system is functioning;

(b) Adequately investigating the immediate and underlying causes of incidents and accidents to ensure that remedial action is taken, lessons are learnt and longer term objectives are introduced.

In both cases it may be appropriate to record and analyse the results of monitoring activity, to identify any underlying themes or trends which may not be apparent from looking at events in isolation."

Approved Codes of Practice have A SPECIAL LEGAL STATUS. If employers are prosecuted for a breach of health and safety law, and it is proved that they have not followed the relevant provisions of the Approved Code of Practice, a court can find them at fault unless they can show that they have complied with the law in some other way.

The the HSE guidance on "Accident Investigation" is due to be produced soon.

Refer to HSE Press release:-
http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2003/c03002.htm

Posted By Lee Daniels
The company I work for has approx. 6000 employees spread across the UK at sites ranging from 2/3 people to a couple with 100+ people. We operate a 24hr telephone number to which employees report accidents, the accident details taken by the telephone operator includes all the questions in the BI510 and more. After the telephone report the local supervisor and safety adviser are notified and we investigate the accident. This telephone reporting system seems to work OK, with about 750 accidents reported a year and staff usually having access to a telephone or company mobile phone. We still have Accident Books at various locations and staff are also told to fill these in as well.

My question is can we abandon the use of the printed Accident Books and rely solely on the telephone reporting; and still comply with the law?

Posted By Neil Pearson
My understanding is as follows. You must keep written records for social security law as you have more than 10 employees. As long as you ensure the information specified in the social security regs and RIDDOR is recorded, and you comply with data protection law, the records can take any form you like. The records must however be available for inspection at any reasonable time, including by employees.

Posted By Neil Pearson
There IS a statutory duty to investigate all accidents! It's in the social security regs.

Posted By Jack
er Dave, the Regs say employers must investigate (although the purpose is to confirm it was an Industrial Injury rather than determine the causes).

Posted By Dave Wilson
Barbour Index produced this in their weekly news letter

Proposal for a new duty to investigate accidents, dangerous occurrences and diseases

The HSC has issued a consultative document on implementing a new duty to investigate accidents, dangerous occurrences and diseases. This follows a discussion document issued almost two years ago which sought initial views on the need for investigation and the scope of the new duty.
At that time, the main options discussed were:
 making no change in the law, but providing further guidance on methods of accident investigation

 introducing a simple duty to investigate accidents, which would require an employer to take steps that are reasonable and proportionate to the accident, to establish the causes and then take them into account when revising the risk assessment

 introducing an elaborated duty which would be the same as the simple duty but would include more requirements, such as sending a report to the enforcing authority.
The new document examines the results of the earlier consultation, which clearly showed a preference for making an amendment to the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 – this idea is the basis of the HSC’s latest proposals. Regulation 3 (risk assessment) would be altered to introduce a new schedule on investigation. However the new duty could equally be inserted into other health and safety regulations, such as RIDDOR, to link accident reporting and investigation, or be issued as a set of stand-alone regulations.
The consultative document asks:

 if the duty to investigate should be incorporated into the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations and, if not, what the preferred legislative route is

 whether the duty to investigate should apply to those accidents reportable under RIDDOR, or whether the scope should include a different range of accidents. At this stage, HSC proposes retaining the same scope as RIDDOR, with a review during 2001/02

 whether the duty to investigate should apply to near-misses, but be limited to those dangerous occurrences reportable under RIDDOR or should encompass a different scope. HSC proposes to issue guidance on investigating near-misses, but without a statutory requirement to do so

 whether the duty to investigate should apply to diseases,
but be limited to those reportable under RIDDOR or should encompass a different scope

 whether the duty holder should be the same person as the one who has the legal duty under RIDDOR to report accidents, dangerous occurrences and diseases, or whether someone else should be responsible. Here the HSC proposes that the ‘responsible person’ as defined in RIDDOR be the person who investigates. As things currently stand, the employer is implicitly responsible for accident investigation

 whether an investigation should start within the timescales set out in RIDDOR. Enforcing officers would be required to show sensitivity in cases where (for example) a small business operator could be involved in the death or major injury of a member of the family or close working associate. There are also requirements to involve workers’ representatives and, on occasion, the health and safety inspector

 whether the proposals for keeping records of investigations are sensible and workable, or if they should be aligned with the requirements of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, with RIDDOR or with both. There is a possibility that requirements may be extended to change the organisation’s safety policy and safe working methods, if appropriate

 what arrangements are currently in place in the respondents organisation for record keeping in respect of the investigation of accidents

 whether the legal duty should be extended to include providing the investigation findings to others, for example, the person involved, their safety representative or the employers’ liability insurers

 whether respondents want to make any general points about the approach adopted in the proposals.
The document includes a draft version of the proposed 2001 Regulations in which the new duty will become Regulation 3A and is detailed in Schedule 1 to the regulations.
The consultation document contains further annexes which are:
 the principal findings of the previous discussion document
 the regulatory impact assessment, which summarises the costs and benefits of the new duty
 an extensive summary of HSE research into current industry practice on incident investigation
 the response form for the consultative document.
Comments should be sent by 3 September 2001 to:
Health and Safety Executive, Policy Division, SASD, 8 South Wing, Rose Court, 2 Southwark Bridge, London, SE1 9HS
tel: 020 7717 6426
The consultation document can be viewed on the HSE website at:
www.hse.gov.uk/condocs/
HSE Books
Free (Single copies)
CD169

Posted By Dave Wilson
Jay,

Not to get into a legal disagreement here but you yourself have said that ACoP are not enforceable and it does not say in Reg 5 "every employer shall investigate all accidents and keep and accident book"

I will say again that it is the best practice way to go where all incidents however trivial are looked at, if only for trending purposes but there is NO STATUTORY DUTY under H&S Law to do this.

The problem I have found, in my experience, that when quoting legislation to an employer to get things done you have to be really spot on, as there is always some git out there who will say that it doesn't apply or doesn't exist, especially people in Quality departmets.

PS as is there is no duty to keep an B1whatever accident book, as is fire wardens, as is Risk Assessment of all activities

Posted By Dave Wilson
Nuff said! But would be interested to see where I actually said the following

"take personally your generalised insult that we are all gormless automatons who are paralysed by endless irrelevant pedantry instead of being robust, sensible and practical contributors to business management."

Any way shouldnt be called 'Quality' as this infers that what is produced is 'Quality' in reality its more of a 'consitency' approach, because if you produce/deliver/manufacture garbage and have a good 'quality' system this means you can produce garbage consistently, doesn't it?

Think the point I was making was that is a good H&S person only able to spout forth reams of legislation which in all honesty your employer really does not want or need to know, but what effect and what do I have to do etc, so when we get it wrong, it then tars us all with the same brush and we get this Grey man, tweed jacket, cardigan with the leather patches on the sleeve, walking around with the clipboard and checkoff lsit telling us what we can / canot do and then walking away saying dont know just know you are non compliant etc!

Posted By Andrew Rushton
Dave,

You are obviously well up on your safety legislation but if you are going to spout about quality please get an education.

Quality is:-
the degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfills a need or expectation that is stated, generally implied or obligatory.

Or in english. Give the customer legally and safely what they expect, when they expect it.

Your only understanding of quality is based around the 1980's BS5750 (ISO9000)standard which has since been replaced twice.

HSG (65) is in fact based around TQM process based management principals that were being used to good effect in successful companies before the six pack and when HASAW was in its infancy. Remember successful Japanese industry?

As for accident book usage. As H & S manager for a large multi site manufacturing operation I tend to agree with earlier posts. Centralise your accident book and get relvantly competent persons (first aiders, managers,security etc), to complete the book on the injured persons behalf. This has proven effective in ensuring accuracy of information and timely investigation. It also deters the I need a holiday so I'll make a claim brigade.

And as for guidance on investigating and recording accidents, anyone under any illusion should speak to their EL insurer. They are a strong enforcers of good health and safety practice.

If anyone who would like a copy of our reporting and investigation procedure can send me an email.

Andy
Quality and Health & Safety professional

Posted By Andrew Rushton
Geoff,

I think people who can spout the regulations have their place, and are often very good senior strategists and policy makers. And I am sure that we could not improve safety without them.
It's just not for everyone. Similarly without the hands on approach, guidance would never be applied effectively where it is needed.

One group over complicates things as seems to have happened in parts of this thread, and the other can over simplfy. If we were to be perfect we would be somwhere in the middle, which is what I think we all aim for.

As for the jibe at Dave it's well deserved for the wrongful criticsm of quality.

Don't we bitch when we are passionate about something?

Andy

Posted By Hilary Charlton
There is a small space somewhere for people who spout regulations and do the hands on as well, I am sure, there is nothing like a good smack in the face with a regulation to those unitiated managers who want to know -why? There is also a little space for those who do Quality and Health and Safety, they are very often teamed together these days.

However, to get a little perspective on the issue, I don't think we were ever meant to investigate ALL accidents - those that are RIDDOR reportable of course, trend analysis from the accident book is also an invaluable tool but every little cut and bump - c'mon let's get real here, nobody is going to investigate a paper cut but it still should be recorded in the accident book.

Can we take this with a small pinch of salt and a large dose of common sense please.

Hilary

Posted By Sean Fraser
I don't know if the BI510 ever had a section for investigation - it certainly doesn't now. This is why we have to duplicate our reports - one on the "official" form and the other in our electronic databse. Reason? The BI510 records the accident took place and that someone was injured - the in-house system records the details, prompts investigation into root cause and notes actions taken as a result. In addition, the in-house system catches potential loss incidents (near misses) - the BI510 doesn't.

I agree that some are simply records of events and that there is limited value in conducting an "investigation", but there is still merit in assessing the report as to whether it needs investigating in the first place. The result of the assessment should be recorded, even if the conclusion is NFA - no further action. But a frequent number of minor injury incidents or repeat potential loss incidents will be used as evidence that investigation is now justified - the actual incidents themselves may have seemed insubstantial and inconsequential by themselves, but weight of numbers indicates something is wrong and needs adressed before a more serious injury is reported. And that is the crux of the matter - prevention is better than cure.

Let me provide an example. We recently had an employee offshore who reported a swelling in her arm and was unable to continue work. As a result she had to be medevaced off the platform but was able to return after 2 days. The original injury was non-work related. As far as we know now, the reason for the swelling is also non-work related. Therefore it is not a work injury. But I logged it anyway, since there was actual disruption to ongoing operations. In time, should another similar incident take place, I can justify further closer investigation into working practices to determine if there IS a contributory factor from our working environment and can take appropriate action accordingly. Chances are this won't happen and it will remain an isolated incident, but now it is recorded fact, not aprocyphal office legend. It's there if I need it - it was recorded, it was assessed and was effectively dismissed. Case closed - unless it needs re-opened later.

Had this taken place onshore then chances are it wouldn't have been recorded. The fact that it was non-work related means it would only have become a sickness record throgh HR, not a safety record. But on an enclosed environment such as an oil platform, all factors need to be considered and I erred on the side of caution.

There will be times when you need to make a judgement call - record, or not record. I would argue that if you are having to ask the question, then record it anyway. What have you got to lose?

The question of who actually records it is irrelevant - as long as it is accessible, consistently applied and the information supplied is used appropriately, then it will achieve the intended aim - to be effective in help reduce workplace injuries and to promote safe behaviour.

PS for those who want to know why we haven't just replaced BI510, it is because the electronic system is not a secure area (being open to all to view and report) and the confidentiality aspect could not be maintained as required under the DPA 94.