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 : 11 September 2008 11:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Claire C
Dear all,

I am looking for some clarification on a recent incident which occurred on one or our sites.

An operative, whilst grinding, was hit in the eye with a spark. He later went to hospital for treatment. The operative stated that they were unable to remove the particle and asked him to return the next day. On return to hospital they froze his eye and removed the small metal particle with a needle. The operative was off work for 2 days and was able to return to work carrying out his normal working duties.

Can you tell me if this would be classified as a RIDDOR reportable injury? The Regulations state that 'a chemical or hot metal burn to the eye or any penetrating injury to the eye is reportable'.

Is this an actual penetration of the eye? Your thoughts on this matter are appreciated.

Thanks



Claire
Admin  
#2 Posted : 11 September 2008 11:40:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Donk
I think you have answered your own question, the particle has caused a hot metal burn to the eye, i would report.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 11 September 2008 11:48:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ian Blenkharn
Why always the focus on NOT reporting?

[OK, I know the answer to that and the question was somewhat rhetorical, but the H&S industry seems to go out of its way to avoid RIDDOR reporting. That is surely a sorry state of affairs].

I guess there was no eye protection, or that it was inadequate, and an accident occurred. Maybe the wheel was at fault in some way - so you will surely learn from the incident in some way.

But by seeking to avoid RIDDOR reporting, as so many others do, you fail to let others learn from the incident by not commiting to the statistical value and singular purpose of RIDDOR reporting.

Ian
Admin  
#4 Posted : 11 September 2008 11:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Donk
Ian,

unfortunately some organisations are too busy counting numbers than learning from past events.

I know of some large organisations that use the over 3 day injury to manipulate the figures.

Sorry for hi jacking the thread Claire but i would still report.

p.s. spell check not working again.

Donk
Admin  
#5 Posted : 11 September 2008 12:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mitch
Claire,

This is a penetrating eye injury (I know I've had them!)so report it, I am with Ian on this, if in doubt report it let them sort it out.

Mitch
Admin  
#6 Posted : 11 September 2008 12:23:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jay Joshi
You can do a google search, but a penetrating eye injury appears to be one in which the "inner contents" of the eye are affected, i.e. whta is known as the "globe" is pierced.

From your description, it does not appear to be a penetrating eye injury, but best to get confirmation from a medically qualified person, i.e. ophthalmist
Admin  
#7 Posted : 11 September 2008 12:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mitch
Try this link,

http://www2.netdoctor.co.../foreignbodyintheeye.htm

Mitch
Admin  
#8 Posted : 11 September 2008 12:35:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ian Blenkharn
Jay

Your word games are sadly not uncommon, but just how far would you go to avoid the responsibility of reporting?

Ian
Admin  
#9 Posted : 11 September 2008 13:10:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jay Joshi
I have qualified my response--check with a medical professional and if they can confirm it is not a penetrating eye injury, then it is not RIDDOR reportable.

If an organisation has proper procedures, this accident will have been recorded in the accident book, and there may be a seperate accident investigation report. The report can state why the injury was not a RIDDOR major injury. That is the "proof" that there was no intent, not to report it as a RIDDOR.

I do not subsribe to the view if in the slightest doubt, then report it as a RIDDOR. My view is that find out what it actually means.


Yes, if there is significant doubt, then report it.
Admin  
#10 Posted : 11 September 2008 15:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Claire C
Thank you for your responses.

I can confirm that the injury has been recorded within the accident book and i am in the process of completing the accident investigation.

One of the recommendations from which was to review our reporting and investigating procedure into eye injuries and to ensure that eye injuries are being classified correctly - however it seems that from most people i have spoken to regarding this matter they all seem to have conflicting views as to what actually constitutes a penetrating eye injury.

It should also be noted that i have since contacted the HSE regarding this matter who firstly informed me that it was NOT reportable; then when i asked them to clarify what constituted an eye injury they told me that 'any eye injury which requires hospital treatment and irrigation and removal of a object' is a major reportable injury....' which would mean that it is reportable.

Please do not think that all of this about avoiding reporting to HSE - as this is definitely not the case - i merely want to understand what is meant by a penetrating eye injury.
Admin  
#11 Posted : 11 September 2008 15:31:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mitch
Claire,

The NHS website advice on eye injuries is 'all eye injuries should be treated a penetrative until proven otherwise' on this basis you should report anyway, unless you can procrastinate long enough for it to be proved otherwise!

Mitch

whereis that pesky spell checker
Admin  
#12 Posted : 11 September 2008 15:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mitch
Sorry that should read 'all high velocity eye injuries'ooops!

http://cks.library.nhs.u...iew_all_detailed_answers
Admin  
#13 Posted : 11 September 2008 17:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jay Joshi
The mode of treatment need not have much to do with the RIDDOR penetrating eye injury.

On that basis, even a blow (without any penertration at all! )to the eye that causes redness is an eye injury, and for that matter has first to be considered whether there was a scope for penetrating eye injury, but it is definetely not a penetrating eye injury.

The key word is penetrating, meaning perforate, pierce or puncture.

It should be a simle matter to get that information from the attending medical person and would have been in the medical notes
Admin  
#14 Posted : 11 September 2008 17:40:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jay Joshi
Last, but not least, I cannot imagine that if anyone had a true eye penetration injury, they would have been sent back to return the next day!

Admin  
#15 Posted : 12 September 2008 08:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mitch
Not quite last, they quite often return to work the next day, when treated correctly the eyes are amazingly resilient and recovery can 'happen overnight'

Mitch

Come on where is the spell checker???
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.