Posted By peter gotch Hi Steven, If in doubt report ! Definition in online medical dictionary starts "Removal of part or all of a body part enclosed by skin. For example, removal of part of a finger or an entire finger would be termed an amputation...." RIDDOR 1995 unlike its 1985 predecessor does not include any minimum amount of tissue that requires to be cut off to fall within the definition of what amputations are reportable. Regards, Peter

Posted By ITK Disagree with "if in doubt report", thats how RIDDOR stats become grossly over reported, if its not reportable don't report it, seek definitive advice from the Enforcing Authority. Not forgetting that if the person who has been injured is unable to do the full range of their normal duties for more than 3 days (including days off) then it becomes RIDDOR reportable anyway.

Posted By ITK Peter, thanks for that, I work for a LA and see countless RIDDOR forms (particularly from the care sector) which are non reportable, but they go on the stats both with the LA and the ICC for example where an elederly person has fallen in a residential care home for no apparent reason, which as you know is non reportable. If a H&S manager cannot understand the legal requirements of RIDDOR and wont seek advice from the EA then I pity the organisation, furthermore if an Enforcement official (LA or HSE)cannot give a difinitive answer on legislative requirements then I question if they are in the right job. I still stand by the don't report for the sakes of it stance. Regards.

Posted By Steven The injury was such that the injuryed person lost about 5mm off the end of here finger, half of their nail. My original question did not have all the relevant information for people to decide whether it is reportable or not. The incident has been reported but what would you report it under - major injury or 3 day(as that is what it will be)

Posted By Cr8r Mark - it was me who said about the bone! I don't know about an ear and I guess that would qualify! I only enquired at the time in relation to a thumb! At the end of the day, we make the judgement on what we think is best - usually following a phone call to the HSE! Even if a previous respondent says this is inconclusive. Lots of us have further repercussions if we have a RIDDOR, and therefore reporting "just in case" is not always the most sensible outcome. In one company I worked for, a RIDDOR would result in at least a fortnight of endless phone calls, report writing and grillings. Believe me, you only end up reporting what you fully believe is required. More fuss is made over the fact that there's a RIDDOR that what actually happened to someone. I'm not saying this is right, just that it happens.

Posted By Brian Hagyard Was beginning to think I was in the wrong job (thanks ITK), cannot find any definition in the regulations themselves the guidance LACs or HSE web site! Then eventually found the following. www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/statnote.pdf Achieving the Revitalising Health and Safety Targets Statistical Note on Progress Measurement Health and Safety Executive Epidemiology and Medical Statistics Unit and Economic and Statistical Analysis Unit June 2001 On page 21 of this report on accidents it states: Amputations of fingers, thumbs or toes were only reportable if the joint or bone was completely severed; Not definitive I know, and I don’t know where ears fit in but as this is an HSE report I would suggest that skin and nail off the end of the finger look to be none reportable. Brian

Posted By Brian Hagyard Come on people, Stevenon asked for a RIDDOR definition of amputation, and how much of a finger needed to be lost for it to be an amputation. So far I have seen peoples personal opinions but no definitive definition in the regulations or guidance. I have seen insurance policies for injuries that will pay out different sums depending on how many joint of the finger you lose, if no joint is lost its not classed as an amputation, but that does not make it a RIDDOR definition. If its not defined in the legislation or guidance then my understanding would be that it would only be down to the courts to interpret. Medical definitions may give guidance to a court but they are not always followed, how long did we refer to RSI before court cases made us switch to WRULD? So I challenge you to find a definition in an HSE document or a court ruling that makes this case clear and let us not get confused about other parts of the body. My personal thought is still that this would not be a RIDDOR major injury but needs reporting as an over three day injury, as Stevenon has indicated he has done. Brian.

Posted By George Wedgwood I would not recommend to my Board that we report it, as 'trauma' was not involved - i.e. the need for immediate intensive care was not required. If the bone was involved, then I would be sympathetic but will continue to classify such as a Minor injury. I have seen worse being treated with 'Lasso tape' and the IP continued working after the bleeding had stopped!!

Posted By J Knight Really can't agree with George that it's only reportable if a visit to hospital was involved; nowhere in the major injury definition does it say or imply that the injured party should have to visit hospital. I too have been delving into the HSE website and have found a reference in the 2000 version of the HSC's enforcement policy a statement to the effect that all RIDDOR reports of amputations below the first joint should be investigated. While this doesn't define amputation it does imply that an amputation above the first joint would still be reportable, though not automatically investigated, John