Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Paul D
Where I'm working management have started to use the stop card system to collect near miss data as they have said this is being under reported and I guess that is the case, however using the stop system in this manner seems wrong to me, as personnel are supposed to remain anonymous, one other thing as a near miss, "is something with the potential to cause harm, but the harm is not realised" then where do you draw the fine line between that and a good catch, e.g. a nut vibrates off a bolt and drops onto a walkway 3ft below, but the walkway is 60ft up, the bolt has not fallen out of the bolt hole and both the nut and bolt are found by someone doing an inspection of that area, is this a good catch or a near miss, another example, is a small drip or leak which is seen coming from a piece of equipment and immediately spotted by a worker, the job is stopped and the leak is repaired, no one slips on the small patch of oil, the machine had not started doing anything it should not do, is this a near miss or a good catch, I know everyones perception is different, however as a safety advisor I'm finding it hard to see where the common sense has gone to, I will hold my hand up and be the first to admit I was wrong, but I feel that we are going down the wrong road with this, can anyone enlighten me please am I wrong or is this a grey area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Prakash bhosale
Stop card is to be used only for audit purposes. Nearmiss reporting is different than stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul D
Amendment to the nut and bolt saga, I was misinformed, the nut did not vibrate loose off the bolt, the bolt sheared in half and both ends remained in the clamp, if one or both of the ends had fallen they would have landed on the walkway 3ft below as previously mentioned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian G Hutchings
Hi Paul
I am an ex DuPont consultant and am very familiar with the Safety Training and Observation Programme (STOP) approach. In my opinion in some ways the approach is often misunderstood and incorrectly implemented by companies; often because it can be bought without the necessary consultancy support to implement it in the right way.
That aside, back to your question. The cards were designed to observe unsafe acts and unsafe conditions as part of an approach to engage with staff, not to report near-misses. However you could argue that anything that increases near miss reporting can only be a good thing. My concern here would be that this dilutes the observation and more importantly the engaging discussion about personal health and safety.
To my knowledge the approach was never intended to stop work and 'STOP' stands for something else (see above). Unfortunately when it is misunderstood and implemented incorrectly (which I have seen in several companies) it damages the whole point of behavioural interventions and peoples view of what behavioural safety actually involves.
Sorry, I did go off on a bit of a tangent. If you want some further advice please drop me an email I am always happy to help out with things like this.
All the best
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Thos G
A simplistic tree of unwanted events are - injury and/or damage - accidents - near misses - unsafe acts/conditions.
In terms of occupational HS if you reduce the unsafe acts/conditions then the potential for the more adverse outcomes must reduce.
The 'STOP' system is new on me. I must admit that on reading the post or hearing the term I would have assumed that we awere looking at some sort of 'Prohibition System'.
Regards
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Barry Cooper
Paul
We are running STOP in our company. As the previous response stated it is primarily designed as an observation tools, but we also use it to identify at-risk conditions, which could be a near miss, depends upon definition.
For STOP to be effective you do not necessarily need consultants to introduce it into an organisation, we successfully did it internally and saved ourselves a fortune.
The important factor about STOP is that it is anonymous, so as to avoid any chance of blame.
Barry
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
One can rationally argue however that 96%+ near misses are either unsafe acts or unsafe conditions however and thus the use of STOP is applicable to the Near Miss reporting to a major degree.
Think about the reasoning around why and how the nut became dislodged/free
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Zayed Sayyadi
Hello there.
In the previous company that I use to work for (Drilling Company) We had the STOP Card system and as we start implementing the system in there we faced pretty much the same problem and worse, it was miss used to be used for personal purposes between employees and Rig Hands.
However, we started new STOP Cards Policy, where every card shall be investigated and corrected Immediately, and if it turns that the Hazard or Risk is High, then it will be reported as near miss for more attention from Top Management, if the Hazard or Risk is Low then its corrected on spot and kept as stop card and entered into our system as stop card...and if it turns that the card was used for personal purposes, then HR will take care of the employee and take the necessary action.
I hope you will find some of the above information helpfull for you.
have a good day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GARRY WIZZ
had STOP at a previous company. It was able in conjunction with other stratergies to get everyone on site actively involved with safety.
So I considered it very very useful and any down sides did not out weight the positive.
Garry
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.