Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By M Forbes
One thing that i keep hearing on these forums is "you need to identify if theres a risk" then perform a Risk Assessment.
Whilst that sounds perfectly acceptable, its not. EVERYTHING has a risk in some way or form, brushing your teeth, putting on your socks, walking up stairs.
People are continually saying see if theres a risk and do a risk assessment - that annoys me. Nearly everything has some potential to cause harm, but we don't need to perform a risk assessment on everything. You need to assess the likelihood and severity of injuries, and come to a conclusion not just say well theres this risk that risk and that risk its a 1 in a million chance, but better perform a risk assessment just incase.
Theres so much threads on this forum where people say "do i need a risk assessment", and people just say is there a risk? then yes. The telephone infection thread is a prime example, sure theres a risk, minimal at best, seeing as the bacteria on the phone is not airbourne, and most people do not physically touch the mouthpiece with their mouth to allow the bacteria to come in contact. However people say o it could happen so do a risk assessment.
I just don't understand it, Risk Assessments use to apply to dangerous activities. Now they can and probably are applied to using a pen. . .
/End Rant
Give me your thoughts
Regards
M Forbes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By DRB
Think about it. You assess the risk to identify if it's significant or not. If no ignore, if yes consider further controls.
In theory its as simple as that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete Longworth
The very fact that you have identified a risk is negligible means that you have done a risk assessment, you just haven't documented it. Nor should you. If you look at HSE's 5 steps, it specifies that you should consider significant risks and ignore the trivial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
We all continuously and intuitively assess risks. Those that don't will tend to lose out in the natural selection stakes.
Leaving that aside, it has been said many times before on this Forum - to simply post "you need to do a risk assessment" (formal or otherwise) is rarely particularly helpful!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By M Forbes
Yeah thats exactly what im saying. However if you look at the posting around various threads on these forums, you get people leaving advice saying. "Is there a risk? Then do a RA."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
I think where the 'ranter' is coming from is that the public / employer / employee perception is that a RA should be done and documented, even some 'H&S people' do this as well.
It would be better if we as H&S bod say NO this is not required and forget about it.
Doing RA just for the sake of doing them is utterly pointless and archives nothing apart from turning us into "H&S Nazis" to coin a recent phrase, it waste time, money, effort and prodction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Shillabeer
You siad itin your originalposting,every thing has a risk more often than not when things go wrong. So do a risk assessment (in your mind) and ask what would be the effect of that happening,if it isquite high doaformal recorded assessment if not just reach a decision is it worth doing more about it if not forget it. The law looks for significant risks to be recorded, addressed and those involved told about it. That is the most you will need to do formany risks. Where you find the risk is particularly high you will need to look for a safer way of doing it. It's really that straight forward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
As one posting has already stated, we intuitively do risk assessments.
You are in your car following a truck. You edge out to see if you can overtake. Can you get past safely before the next corner? Is that car coming the other way sufficiently far away that you can get past? Is there a turning ahead out of which another car might appear and block your passage? What is the risk?
The difference in health and safety is that we have made "risk assessment" something locked in formality, i.e. it has to be done to a certain formula, recorded in a certain way, etc.
One danger of this is a form of paralysis. We are so determined to ensure that we have covered ourselves that the risk assessment becomes a bureaucratic exercise and the whole operation is held up whilst the paperwork is completed. Another is that the risk assessment becomes some form of mantra without which nothing can happen. I have experienced situations where an operation that has been carried out for years with no problems or incidents and where a moments thought would have indicated that any risk was absolutely minimal, has been stopped whilst the "risk assessment" was done and the paperwork completed.
Could it be that our obsession with the risk assessment has contributed to the "conkers-bonkers" approach to health and safety?
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
This turning into a good discussion!
If we do risk assessments for everything the big danger is that when a REAL RISK is identified it gets lost in amongst all the other bureaucratic red tape and trivial rubbish which is produced and people / company assets / environment / profit could be put at REAL RISK!
"You don't wanna do thaaaat!!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jane Blunt
Sometimes we need to have the courage of our convictions.
In the lead-up to an audit I was once asked to present a risk assessment for 'task X'.
My response to the auditor was:
We do not have a risk assessment for task X
We do not need to since there are no significant risks for the following reasons....
Therefore it would not be appropriate to generate a risk assessment for the purpose of audit.
I got away with it.
Jane
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Auditor once asked me for a COSHH RA for a Biodegradble NON Hazardous product and could not get his head around the fact that it was not required.
What if it catches fire?
response its 98% water based!
Still to this day he says its required and still to this day he aint getting it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
"Now they can and probably are applied to using a pen. . . "
Well according to a study referred to in one of the responses yesterday, 25% of transferred infection was due to doctor's pens ... so you are right.
It has to come down to experience and appreciation of risks and outcomes. Now we know that pens have a medical risk, perhaps health trusts will risk assess them - but I won't be here in my office.
I can't remember telling anyone to do a risk assessment in any of my responses, basically because I assume they have done one - or that the question and responses almost count as one de facto.
I risk assess many things per day I guess, but I only record the significant and the relevant (never have I written down the fact that the road was clear before I crossed - but I did actually check at the time).
Sometimes I think people tell the writer to risk assess just for something to say - sometimes because they haven't read the question properly or given the author the credit of a bit of common sense (oops, wrong thread...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By DRB
The school where I am a governor was recently asked, by the LEA's H&S advisor, to complete written risk assessments for 171 different tasks!
Complete waste of time in my mind!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
The problem with the pen needs to be put into context.
The cross infection arose from, for example, a doctor holding the pen having just examined a patient, the replacing the, now contaminated, pen in his pocket. He then moves to the mext patient. He may wash his hands in between but then handles the pen and then the next patient, thus using the pen as a transport medium to spread infectious material from patient 1 to patient 2.
Yes, a phone could potentially spread infection, but, since the organisms will be on the phone itself, only if the person has direct contact with the mouthpiece. Do you generally lick the handset?
Having said this, it does feel nicer when one knows that the phone is cleaned regularly. Subjective perception is a wonderful thing!
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By M Forbes
Bob,
Im fully aware of how to carry out a RA and whether to document it or not. Hence this post.
The reason for this post is because i notice that not everybody follows this "procedure". Or at least some of the forum users don't give advice based on that. The amount of posts where someone has a problem and are asking for advice and the reply is "do a risk assessment". It beggars belief, the one on the transmittal of infections via telephone was really what topped this argument off.
Someone said should i enforce the use of wipes on a communial phone and posters came back "do a risk assessment". It is a joke.
If you are to carry out a risk assessment on a telephone for bacteria after allt he bacteria ona telephone would be transmitted by hand rather than by mouth, as the lips would need to touch the mouthpiece for the bacteria to spread. Seeing as very few telephone users physically touch the mouthpiece with their lips, the chances of spreading via this are minimal. Therefore the bacteria on a telephone would only be spread by users touching the phone handle.
Therefore according to the logic of the forum users. We should now perform a risk assessment on a door handle. On a remote control. On a handrail and so forth.
I mean chances are if your in a health setting with people coughing and spluttering everywhere your more likely to get it from simply being in the room rather than using the phone.
Some people post without logic. To perform a risk assessment on such mediocre tasks is the whole reason for the "bonkers conkers" view to health and safety. And the ridicule of our profession.
By the way im enjoying this discussion thanks for the replies.
Regards
M Forbes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
As far as this forum goes remember it is open to every person in the world if they have the means, so the poster of a response may or may not have H&S Experience and the experience they have may have been wrong from the beginning!
Any person from the media can look on here and say what is that H&S person on about are they really saying we have to do that? Thats conkers bonkers me old fruit!
Hence ridicule!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philip McAleenan
There are a number of references above to ”significant risks” and this is a misnomer. What the regulations require is that an employer record the significant findings of an assessment, which is a different matter entirely.
A finding is a conclusion arrived at after examining of the facts of the situation.
For it to be significant it must have an important influence or effect on the proposed activity or operation.
By way of example, an assessment of a work operation that shows all the necessary controls to be in place must conclude, “work operation safe to proceed”.
Alternatively, where essential controls have yet to be identified or implemented the conclusion must be “work operation not safe to proceed”.
Both of these are findings, the former (significant in a positive sense) permits the continuation of the work operation, the latter (significant in that it is unsafe to proceed) prohibits it, and by extension requiring that the operative/manager do more before he can give the go-ahead. Further controls and safeguards need to be put in place. When these are done, there should no longer be any significant (-ve) findings, no need to record what doesn’t exist, and therefore the activity may proceed, safely.
It is up to the individual how much more they wish to write into their record of findings, but it would be preferable if time and energy were devoted to developing and implementing the necessary control mechanisms, and writing safe working procedures if these are required, than writing unnecessary volumes of risk assessments.
If the work activity is controlled such that there is no risk, then there are no significant findings regarding risk and therefore there is no requirement to record them, ergo …
Philip
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Philip I agree with what you say however what I think this discussion is about is recording and writing down every single work action and having a n RA to say it can 'proceed' this is just plain daft as we would have a total department just doing a frivolous red tape form filling exercise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Shillabeer
The need to undertake risk assessments is set out in Regulation 3 of the Management Regs. The regs say that all employers should undertake an assessment of the risks to workers and anyone else that may be affected by thier work orbusiness in order to identify what action they need to take to protect those individuals. Quite right too. The regs also say that the assessment should be suitable and sufficient althogh suitable and sufficient is not defined in the regulations. It goes on to say that the detail of the risk assessment should be proportionate to the risk and the sophistication of the risk assessment should be proportionate to the risk. The wholething about compliance with the regs is being able to demonstrate that the level of assessment is balanced with the actual risk invoilved, to risk assess everything isboth pointless and dangerous for reasons already stated by others. In the end it about being sensible and taking a balanced view,dealing with those that are significant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philip McAleenan
I appreciate you point Dave about the purpose of the thread. I believe that the problem arises because there has been too much talk about “written risk assessments” and “recording significant risks”, neither of which are actually required, by law or to ensure good practice. What the misinterpretation of the regulations has led too is an industry built around these two concepts, and it permeates the training that many people receive, with the result that far too many people are using forest loads of paper for no useful purpose.
Of course we identify risks and relate accordingly. When I cross the road, my purpose is not to assess the risk, my purpose is to get across the road safely. And this is the priority, not the risk assessment.
Philip
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By M Forbes
"Of course we identify risks and relate accordingly. When I cross the road, my purpose is not to assess the risk, my purpose is to get across the road safely. And this is the priority, not the risk assessment. "
This is the logical approach, however the H&S approach is now to cover our proverbial backside, the risk assessment is the priority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Shillabeer
Exactly right Chris, the thing about less children taking part in physical sport is a case in point
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
I agree Phil!
M Forbes is this not a different view to the original you posted, in the context of the thread?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Shillabeer
Phillip
Sorry gotthe namewrong,Chrisjust walked by and confused me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adam Hammerton
I carry out a reasonable amount of training on risk assessment and one of the questions I am always asked is if everything has to be risk assessed. When I say yes there is always someone who pipes up with the conkers bonkers, red tape argument and states that creating bits of paper just for the sake of it is a waste of time, and here in lies the problem (at least in my experience).
What the majority of people believe is that a risk assessment is a piece of paper. It's not until you change their understanding that the piece of paper isn't the RA, merely a record of the significant findings, but that it's the process that you undertake to identify whether hazards that could lead to foreseeable risks are being adequately, effectively and efficiently managed, that they start to understand my statement that everything needs to be assessed.
I now try to ensure that I specifically ask for the record of risk assessment if I want to see documentation and try to avoid asking if RA's have been done by asking if they have looked at the activity/area and identified the hazards, risks and controls.
Slowly but surely it seems to be working and people are starting to come round to believing that risk assessment is actually beneficial.
Adam
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By M Forbes
Dave,
My original posting is still my view on the matter, however what i meant when i said "the H&S approach is now to cover our proverbial backside, the risk assessment is the priority."
Is that other people within the industry take this approach, not myself personally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
OK mate
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Adam but what you are then doing is forcing these people to produce paperwork for the sake of it and thats the whole issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Spiers
Interesting discussion but the one thing no one has raised is compensation. I am the last to defend the bonker conkers and trivial insignificant risk assessments BUT when some one puts a claim in for compensation and the insurance investigator cannot tick the box 'risk assessment completed' then its pay out time. That perception of easy money for trivial or exagerated injuries fuels fear and encourages disproportionate risk assessments and also tarnishes all but the significant injury claimants as malingers with no personal responsibility.I know I exagerate but I am convinced its civil liability that fans the fire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Absence of a risk assessment is not grounds for paying claims, if it was foreseeable and the injury could arise from that then fair point but not just no RA so we pay.
it's liability
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adam Hammerton
Why am I forcing people to produce paperwork?
If they carry out their risk assessment and identify that there are no significant risks then they don't create pieces of paper to state that fact. A method of recording that the activity, etc has been assessed provides evidence that we are managing/reviewing our assessments should anyone ask for proof.
If you're referring to my point about asking for the record of risk assessment then the note in whatever system is being used to record that the assessment was done/reviewed (we are currently moving towards a single database) is sufficient. I never ask for paperwork to be created where there are no significant risks in evidence. To be honest there aren't that many assessments that aren't recorded as there is usually something significant but there are some.
Adam
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kenneth Patrick
Another aspect that irritates me is quotes like this:
"The company should have:
a) assessed the work activities in a systematic way, so that potential hazards were identified and controlled.
b) They should have had better arrangements in place to monitor and supervise the work on site,
c) should have risk-assessed the demolition of the wall, and
d) should have provided clear instructions to the men undertaking the work.”
Surely a, b and d are the complete risk assessment so why include the line c)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Hang on people this discussion is not about producing risk assessments, we all know we have too, it's about producing risk assessments for every day menial no / low risk activities.
No one is saying do not do them but it has to be meaningful and reduce risk, not paper pushing.
have you risk assessed making a cup of tea in the office or doing the photocopying etc? If so why and what benefit have you gained from this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Spiers
Just to pick up on Daves point Mr Clarkson ( bless him )wrote recently that the BBC had risk assessments for using a revolving door and boiling a kettle for a cup of tea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete Longworth
Just to pick up on Dave's point re - Its Liability.
That is only true if the case goes to court. With my last employer I saw many claims settled out of court merely because the costs involved meant pursuing the case in court was uneconomical. It was easier to pay out than pay for solicitors, barristers etc. I am sure that in many of these cases the plaintiff would not have been able to prove liability.
Sorry to hijack the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By M Forbes
There we go that's what im on about, a RA for making a cup of tea. . . . RIDICULOUS!
Making tea isn't even a required or necessary part of the job. There is no severe risk with it, and the likelihood of anything going wrong is minimal! And really anyone who works anywhere is suitably "trained" in how to make a cup of tea. Otherwise they probably wouldnt be drinking it.
Whats next, we;ve identified the risk - we should probably arrange tea making training courses, and put in a boiler that only outputs water at a temperature of 80 degrees to reduce the potential for injury? - Didnt think so
So why do a Risk Assessment.
The whole liability approach does my head in. Surely if judges are stupid enough to allow cases like the above to go to court we should be publicly objecting to it, rather than finding ways to cover our proverbial ass!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete Longworth
Been said before I know but it's worth repeating.
You can't make a decent cup of tea with water at 80C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
I agree however if you had a higher level H&S training qualification you would understand that its not judges who decide who goes to court, either civil or criminal, the CPS or the Aggrieved person, judges judge on the case in front of them.
Employers normally pay out as the excess they have on EL claims is above the cost of settling a claim and its cheaper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By M Forbes
Not being cheeky, but it's part of the NEBOSH General certificate that you learn the differences between criminal and civil law, and also the difference between the english and scottish court system.
I realise where you came from cuz i used the terminology "allow these cases to go to court" but what i mean by that is they should just say, an employee involved in a motor accident whilst travelling between places of work. . . . not the employers fault get out of my court room.
Regards
M Forbes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Remember what I said on the other thread about not making rash decisions, in my career I have learned never to say anything to a client, employer or even on here unless you are 100% sure of what you said is true and you can back it up, because some smart git will pull you up and say, it doesn't say that.
exuberance of youth I think, as some people on this forum will take great delight in bashing you mate, for me, I agree with most of what you say!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.