Posted By Andrew Meiklejohn
Hi John

Been in you situation before. I don't think the form is the problem. No matter which type of risk assessment you use - the assessors, without previous experience, will look at it with a blank expression and then push it to one side. What I would recommend is setting up a 1 day training sourse covering a couple of different styles of risk assessment and then letting get them to do case studies for the rest of the time

Posted By Barrie (Badger) Etter
Andrew
Your comment ... 'What I would recommend is setting up a 1 day training sourse covering a couple of different styles of risk assessment and then letting get them to do case studies for the rest of the time' ... I don't think he would accept the course. He's just disagreeing over the wording at the start of the form, in wanting to cut it right down to a couple of simple paragraphs which by his example I've seen don't do justice to the assmt process, hence my request for comparative examples which would give a basis for why I've laid mine in such a fashion.

Badger

Posted By Barrie (Badger) Etter
Thanks Pat,
I've used these HSE examples as anaide memior. But they don't fulfill what I'm after, namely the bit at the front of the forms to tell the user why they have the form to hand and how to use it. I give part my whiskers version below:

To enable objectives and improvements to be set, each aspect will be evaluated in terms of negative impact on Safety & Health or Environment, i.e., its’ severity x likelihood of it happening. An outcome score of 21 or greater on the grid above is to be investigated immediately. The scores are calculated to define the scale of the problem, then show where any reductions in severity may be made. Examples of areas that may produce an incident are – machines without guards, trailing leads across a gangway or office walkway. Alternatively waste being sent to landfill.
Supervisors and / or departmental managers will notify the SHE Representative (who will maintain a register of incidents), of any new processes or products.
Continuous improvement shall be made via monitoring feedback through surveys [Proactive] and incident investigation [Reactive].

Outcome Score Risk Levels =

Negligible – (1- 9) no additional controls required; monitor to ensure existing controls are maintained.
Moderate – (15 – 27) risk should be reduced within definite time period; improved control measures needed.
Substantial – (35 – 49) work should not be started until risk is reduced; existing work to be completed a.s.a.p. and no further work to commence. Considerable resources required; urgent action needed.
Intolerable – (63 – 81) work should cease immediately until the risk is reduced; if risk cannot be reduced, work remains prohibited.

Obviously there's other bits which are tabulated which wouldn't paste to this section. So now you can see what I'm after are there any other verions better than mine that say the same?
Badger

Posted By stevehaigh
Badger thanks for the copy ..it is simalar to ours but your Outcome Score Risk Levels are in my humble opinion quite extensive 1 thru to 83??
We simply use low / medium / high on the form but access with 1 to 25 in the Severity / Likelihood Level. Our system does not confuse staff and is easy to evaluate. Who knows the difference between a risk at level 1 and level 6 when in the same section

Here's ours


LOW Monitor existing controls, reduce Severity / Likelihood Level if reasonably practicable to do so

MEDIUM Implement controls to reduce Severity or Likelihood Levels as soon as is reasonably practicable.

HIGH / URGENT Implement controls Immediately to reduce Severity or Likelihood Levels.

Posted By GARRY WIZZ
Just a thought from my training on RA's based on a numeric scoring system.

You should lower all risk to reasonable and practical.

hence on scoring system for risk, when you have completed your RA's start work first on the high scores but continue down through all scores.

If a score of 8 can be lowered to 4 then do it if it is reasonable and practical.

Garry