Posted By Sharon This has be discussed here: http://www.iosh.co.uk/in...iew&forum=1&thread=33822

Posted By Kieran J Duignan Ian You've touched on an issue with far-reaching implications. It has not so much gone 'under' the safety radar but is under scrutiny in the control centre. The HSE is reportedly considering a research report from a group including medical, osteopathic, ergonomic and other expertise. The nub of the issue reportedly concerns difference in interpretations of vulnerability to musculo-skeletal disorders: just as with stress, each person has a fairly individual threshold of vulnerability. And, just as with stress, once an individual has suffered a disorder, an employer is then under notice of his/her vulnerability and has a well-defined responsibility to prevent a further injury. So, the root difficulty is not one that can be easily resolved as it has to do with the limits of modern medical and ergonomic knowledge. You can appreciate how this complicates matters in the course of litigation for an expert witness, for a claimant and a defendant and their lawyers, even before it gets near judges. This does NOT mean that 'training is a waste of time' but simply that preventative guidelines are less cut and dried than perhaps one might interpret from the HSE present Guidance on manual handling. In practice, you can do four things to make the best of the ambiguity. 1. Continue to provide training that explains the nature of the risks of injury so that each employee is informed about his/her vulnerability and liability and has been trained in preventative methods of back care. 2. Issue warnings of risk through notices, etc. 3. Watch out for HSE updating of its official guidance. 4. Keep studying court judgments on claims for personal injuries associated with manual handling and DSE usage

Posted By Merv Newman "There was considerable evidence that principles learnt during training are not applied in the working environment..." That I think is the essential point. People coming out of MH training need to put the new techniques into immediate practice and change away from their old MH ways. Without frequent reminders most will try the new ways a few times and then fall back into their old habits. But after the training there are very few reminders and little or no positive reinforcement for those who try to put the training into practice. But why are there no reminders and or recognition I hear you ask ? Mainly, I believe, because MH training is "reserved" for the workers. Managers and supervisors don't put themselves down for it: "Don't need it. Never lift anything heavier than a coffee cup do I ?" So they don't have a clear idea of what the new techniques entail and cannot correct continuing bad habits nor reinforce the good ones. So the old MH ways just carry on. My advice ? (you are now asking)(and I'm going to SHOUT a bit just to reinforce the message) ALL H&S TRAINING SHOULD START AT THE TOP ! The first group to be trained on any H&S matter should be senior management (the board if one exists) (surely the MD would just love to learn how to handle a fire extinguisher) Then it can cascade down through middle management, then supervision and, finally, the end-user. Only in this manner will the hierarchy acquire the knowledge required to help and assist the workforce in their understanding and application of the new material. Merv

Posted By mike morland Ian I posted the same title on 2/2/08 and was kindly referred to the HSE MAC (Manual handling Assessment Chart) which can be down loaded from hse.gov.uk and is designed to assist risk assessments in preventing MSD but does not comprise a full RA as it only covers lifting, carrying and team handling operations. Coincidentally, yesterday, I attended a local HSE seminar on their 'Better Backs Campaign' where the MAC tool was explained using case studies. Additionally, talks from an egonomist on ULD's and the benefits of early intervention highlighted by a qualified physiotherapist all helped to support that whilst MH training is important it shouldn't necessarily be relied on as 'job done'. Regards

Posted By GeoffB4 But the techniques are still valid Jim, and can be applied to all lifting. LITE allows delegates to be fully involved and to come up with a comprehensive selection of issues which allows appropriate/inappropriate control measures to be discussed for a variety of lifting tasks, and especially those specific to the delegate activities. I think it is unreasonable to discount any method of getting the point across - if the style & presentation works. You talk disparagingly about the tweed jacket types - a sweeping generalisation intended for what purpose? To dismiss others ways of lecturing says more, in my opinion, about the person doing the criticising than the target.

Posted By Robert K Lewis Further evidence for me that training, no matter how good, does not equate to competence. The conclusions of the report for me suggest that few organisations actually evaluate and monitor the implementation of training post course. It is a far reaching message and the quicker organisations learn to manage the competencies of their employees the sooner the lessons of training will be applied at work. The A66 incident with the mobile lighting unit and the overhead power cables also demonstrates this fact with the organisation's belief that having trained the people were competent to do the task. Bob