Posted By Tracey Thompson We use a very good software package maintained by a well known provider, which provides this authority with health and safety guidance and templates etc. on various topics relevant to the organisation. One particular template - General Risk Assessment, is causing some confusion during training sessions with regard to wording, that I would like to hear some proffessional opinions on. The form itself has a severity and probable frequency column with ratings from 1-6. The idea is that the general assessment is used first and is then followed by the detailed assessment for any overall risk scores that reach 9 or above when the two are multiplied (severity and frequency that is). The wording which causes confusion, instructs: 'Score the 'severity' as the type of accident that could happen in a 'worst case' scenario with no controls in place'. 'Score the 'probable frequency' as the likely frequency of an accident with current controls in place'. The problem I have is that trainees are scoring the 'probable frequency' low where they are aware that suitable controls are in place, hence making it unecessary to carry out a detailed assessment. In some cases, this may apply to a hazard that could potentially cause a death or multi-death and could be something that is either used daily, by lots of people who may/may not be trained etc., which may well be significant enough to apply more detail to. My question is: should the general assessment be carried out on the basis that we assume there are no controls in place in order that the potential severity and liklihood can be rated first and control measures can then be considered and described in the detailed assessment where necessary? The company that maintains the system will not change the wording as they say the general assessment should be made considering the circumstances 'now'. If this is the case and they continue to refuse to change the wording, should the form be asking for details of what the current control measures are, when assessment of risk has been rated overall below 9 but is still a major hazard? I hope this all makes sense!! Tracey

Posted By Raymond Rapp Tracey - I concur with the previous respondent. Why anyone would want to risk assess with and without controls, with the exception being as a one-off exercise, I am rather miffed. Worst case scenarios in my experience are not a realistic method of evaluating risks either. Assuming I have not misunderstood your comments. Clearly, if it must be done then the logical method must be to assess the risks without controls and then with controls, otherwise as you have already found out, there is very little purpose or value in the whole process. Regards Ray

Posted By JPM Tracy Sorry about the spellings there, but I was pretty quick on the key pad, it always slows me down if I have to use all the letters in my words Chow

Posted By Mark Talbot I will continue to ask people to assess initially without controls to show those involved in the process what the controls are. Often it is useful for custom and practice to be identified as control measures formally so they are not dispenced with. As others have said, it also gives the opportunity for their use to be reconsidered and evaluated. It also shows people that improvements have been achieved, even if they are being taken for granted.