Posted By Liz Maw Hi there Any scoring mechanisms you use when undertaking risk assessments - 5 x 5 matrix approach etc.

Posted By Tony abc jprhdnMurphy My favourite subject. Risk scoring is a nonsense. How can you possibly score a risk ( the likelihood of something happening) without the full facts, a clear understanding of the hazards, associated statistics and/or full access to industry standards. Even if you did have all the information to hand, what would be the point of scoring. If you cross the road with your eyes shut you may get run over. Your control measure is quite simple. What would the score be?

Posted By Coshh Assessor Isn't this referring to physical measurements (noise, vibration, substance concentration etc) which are then used in the evaluation of risk?

Posted By LL1921 I hope not, the risk assessment I am using as an example if for carrying out asbestos sampling. There is nothing to measure with it such as you are suggesting.

Posted By Tony abc jprhdnMurphy Steve every day is tough for me. What really winds me up is people who over simplify Safety by using a matrix, a score chart, management buzz words etc. Having said that you are right, i cant wait to get home, i have some Leffi in the fridge.

Posted By steve e ashton My school exam tutor drilled into me the need to "rtfqs". Roughly translated that means read the question... Coshh assessor seems to be the only one here who has read what LL1921 wrote in his query... The question asked is about 'use' of 'suitable measurements' for 'supporting risk evaluation'. It is NOT a question about scoring, and neither is it a question about risk 'assessment'. It is about evaluation. So - to answer the question LL1921: Firstly, you may have chosen the wrong example... If you were trying to evaluate the risks from asbestos materials in your workplace you might measure (or get someone else, suitably qualified, to measure) the concentration of fibres in the workplace air over various periods of time (at peak activity, and for the duration of a shift for example). You would then use those 'suitable measurements' to support/inform your evaluation whether the risk to the employees in the workplace was significant. Trying to do the evaluation for the guys doing the sampling seems to be putting the cart before the horse, since (as you rightly say) there aren't any suitable measurements at that stage. Similarly, you may be concerned about the presence of flammable atmospheres around a manufacturing process. You would need to take 'suitable measurements' of the vapour or gas concentrations over time, and at various operational cycles, and 'use' those measurements to support your evaluation of the need for zoning the area for electrical equipment safety... And so on for noise, radiation etc - as COSHH assessor suggested. Hope this is helpful. Steve

Posted By LL1921 Thank you to all of you who have given helpful advice, I will amend my example accordingly to include some meansurements. I have had to carry out noise assessments recently, so will use that as the example assessment. Thanks again.

Posted By GaryC40 Just a note of interest. I am currently undertaking a PGC in Safety and Risk Management. My tutor (no names) is 'connected' (very highly) to the HSE. Quote: "Every time i inspect a risk management system post accident/incident that is designed to control/evaluate 'normal' working practices and find a complex numerical quantitative risk assessment form, my heart sinks! I have since binned this approach for the company i work for and now use a semi quantitative/qualitative approach using the published HSE formula along with a non-numerical - very low,low,med,high,very high X unlikely likely...risk matrix. The result is a significantly improved understanding of RA by staff. Interestingly, i have attended several RA training courses over the years (including Nebosh) and every tutor / organisation promoted the opposite of HSE / MCA by teaching the full on numerical quantitative approach to RA. I don't wish to hijack the thread but can anyone adequately explain this? Because it is extremely frustrating as a late developing risk manager! I also know of a very large UK wide HSE consultancy that supply 'bespoke' risk management systems to companies as diverse as a building contractor to a fish merchant...using quantitative numerical calculations on their RA forms. My view is that consistency is a good friend when deciding on risk evaluation and I'm sorry to say it just isnt out there. Any views? GC

Posted By Chris Packham Gary All risk assessment is subjective, particularly in my special area of interest (prevention of damage to health from skin exposure), where measurement of exposure to chemicals and its significant is not a practicable possibility. Risk assessment by its nature is an attempt to evaluate what might be the outcome of a particular event or sequence of events. In my view anyone who thinks that they can be definitive is not being realistic. Just look at the definition of assessment in the dictionary. Assessment = "to estimate the size or quality of" Estimate = "an approximate judgement of" Judgement - "an opinion" As you so rightly put it, consistency is the key. We need to ensure that each risk and its consequences are evaluated (assessed?) using the same criteria then ranked according to their significance so that they are dealt with in a sensible order. I find that using a system of factors for the many elements that I need to take into account for each task helps create a structured approach that managers find easy to apply and that ensures consistency. In this connection I will disagree with your HSE connected person (as I disagree in several areas with HSE in my particular field anyway). The numbers are not an end in themselves, merely a method of simplifying what can be a complex task where it is all too easy to make assumptions that later turn out to contribute to a health problem. Chris

Posted By Chris Packham Gary I entirely agree with you that for the actual worker a much simpler approach is called for. However, I would also suggest that the individual worker will only be concerned at the one task he is involved in at the moment. My approach is aimed at the manager who has to conduct risk assessments across a whole spectrum of tasks and needs to be able to prioritise the order in which the risks are dealt with. Since yhou mention the HSE also have to say that I have a fundamental disagreement with the HSE approach to risk assessment for chemical hazards. Theirs is based on information on the safety data sheet and on risk phrases. Neither is suitable for a risk assessment for skin exposure. Indeed. the ACoP in paragraph 13 actually draws attention to this, albeit in a slightly oblique manner. There are thousands of substances that do not have a risk phrase - and will therefore seldom appear on the safety data sheet - that can cause damage to health in contact with the skin. For example, there are common sensitisers, contained in the standard series used by dermatologists for patch testing, that have never been allocated R43 and thus will not be shown as sensitisers on most safety data sheets. Identifying the real chemical hazard that arises during a task is actually more complex than many realise. Chris