Posted By Jonathan Breeze
Lisa,

As I understand it from previous postings on the subject, any form that contains the same information (formatted headings etc.) as the BI510 is legally acceptable.

However, whether this satisfies your internal procedures or contractual obligations is only something your auditor or manager can advise you on.

Someone with more experience in this area will probably be along soon to clarify the issue though.

Posted By Adrian Clifton
Lisa

We no longer use BI510. We have an internal report form (designed by yours truly) which captures all the information of the BI510 plus much more.The form is for incidents (near misses) as well as accidents, it identifies the relationship to the organisation (staff, visitor, member of public etc). In the case of accidents to staff it requests info on absence from work.
If you are interested in seeing a copy (blank of course), let me know.


Cheers

Adrian

Posted By Graham Bullough
As Bill Elliott rightly says, it would be worthwhile challenging the CSCI as to why they want accidents to elderly residents of your organisations to be recorded on the tear-out accident record sheets from the BI 510 pad which replaced the old style BI 510 Accident Book. Perhaps it is specified in some sort of CSCI inspection manual or guidelines or is just the whim of one or more people from the local CSCI office.

As mentioned in previous threads, the single sided BI 510 form contains minimal information and is only intended for accidents involving employees. One niggly flaw of BI 510 which causes confusion is that the new pad was given exactly the same reference code (i.e. BI 510) as the old book version, while the tear-out forms themselves have no reference code whatsoever! Phew, have wanted to moan about that for a while and now I've done it!

As other people have said, it is far better to use your organisation's own internal accident/incident form for recording injuries, assaults, near misses, etc., for employees and all other categories of persons such as residents, visitors, contractors. Any reasonable internal form should incorporate a section for local management to complete with brief details about action taken or suggested to prevent recurrence. As your internal form is likely to contain more than the basic details on the BI 510 form, try showing both forms to the local CSCI representative/s for comparison and ask why they insist on the inferior BI 510 form. Furthermore, if you just use your internal form rather than the BI 510 one, there's probably little that the CSCI can do about it!

For others reading this, if your organisation is using the BI 510 form as well as a reasonable internal form, you should advise it to stop using the BI 510 form. Among other things, line managers will be grateful at being spared the time and effort in dealing with 2 different forms. Also, there is generally no need to submit your internal form to the Dept of Work and Pensions (DWP) for approval as long as it contains at least the same information about the injured employee, and enables the form completer, if different, to be identifable by name, position and workplace.

Posted By Graham Bullough
Am slightly puzzled about John Murgatroyd's query which some readers might interpret as suggesting that using the BI 510 forms somehow confers more confidentiality than in-house forms.

Although I am open to informed correction, my understanding of the gist of the Data Protection Act (DPA) is as follows: Irrespective of what system or format is used to record any personal details about employees and others (including BI 510 forms, in-house accident/incident forms, RIDDOR forms, electronic records, etc.) the DPA requires that any personal information which can be related to named individuals should be kept confidential and only accessible only to those who entitled to see it.

Posted By John Murgatroyd
Well, I was just interested.
Quite a lot of employers keep their accident book/s under lock and key. The accident book can have an entry inserted by anyone...it should be available at all times for same. Your in-house forms may not be confidential enough.