Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 05 July 2006 06:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Linda Crossland-Clarke Hi Folks The current National Occupational Standards for the Health & Safety NVQ’s, are in the process of being reviewed to ensure they are current, and reflect industry requirements in relation to health and safety good practice. ENTO is holding consultation meetings and gathering feedback via questionnaires. I have attended the first round of meetings (so have other providers and institutions including IOSH) and have put our and our candidates forward for suggested changes. Would any one who has undertaken an H&S NVQ over the last 3 years have any comments they would like me to put forward? Or you can get involved yourself by visiting www.ento.co.uk and clicking on “Projects and Consultations” page. If you think there are currently any gaps in any requirements in the NVQ tasks, knowledge, skills or practical experience, make your comments here, to me or direct to ENTO. Threads on this site show that epidemiology, FEMA’s, input – conversion – output models seem to cause interpretation problems for both candidates and assessors, so we can ask for further clarification on the evidence requirements or knowledge levels needed. Regards. Linda. SHE Knows.
Admin  
#2 Posted : 09 July 2006 21:29:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By David Bramall Linda Fully agree that we should all participate in this fundmental issue. Indeed I have attended the consultation in Belfast and have sent a formal response to ENTO. It is important that we all take responsibility for the standards in order that they reflect what is required. I would hope that everyone (yes even students) take part in this exercise, it does affect us all and any views are welcome. Lets be radical and actually try to simplify something for a change; 1. get rid of unit 401 (personal ..................) 2. Combine 406, 407, and 408 3. Combine 409 and 410 ( i think these are related) 4. Take away the requirement for using every tool - FTA, ETA, CUSUM, etc. etc. etc. and specify that a variety of methods should be understood and used. 5. Ensure that competence is the key. ENTO appear to be very open to any views on the subject so make your voice count, maybe the problem isn't totally the current standards but the way certain providers interprate these. DrB
Admin  
#3 Posted : 10 July 2006 08:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stupendous Man Oh no!! Not another review! It's small wonder that employers and students alike get so confused when the qualifications, or their content, structure and numbering are constantly changing. Can we not leave alone for at least a little time to get some stability and consistency?
Admin  
#4 Posted : 10 July 2006 09:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Linda Crossland-Clarke Hi I can see your point about why have to change it - it could get confusing for those on the other end of the stick. We've seen on this forum the confusion over the NEBOSH Diploma ratings. The name and grade of the NVQ qualifications will still be the same, and as it is about your work place there shouldn't be any issue with the providers not haveing the course materials in place. A review and update does stop complacency from setting in with the providers, keeping everything current. Continuous improvement and all that! If managed correctly, there should be no one on the wrong end of the stick. The first posting echos what many people have been saying. Combine the 3 risk assessment units into 1, clarify actual evidence requirements for consistancy between providers. Revisit the personal development unit, and look at the requirements for FEMA, epidemiology, hazops etc. With the level 5, the range statements hopefully will disapear, making delivery and general reading of the standards simpler. Any other thoughts out there? Regards Linda. SHE Knows.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.