I would state that they are required to identify hazards and the associated risks of the workplace or task and the control measures needed to reduce the risk(s). There are obviously many and varied risk assessments so long as they are site/task specific and signed off then, that probably is the key factors. Hope this helps

I feel an interesting debate coming on .......... The questioner has asked when not why. Every work task is required to be risk assessed, and should include the worker. Every time a job or a worker changes a risk assessment should be reviewed or re-assessed. That should do for a start....................

The Management Regulations do not specifically say when you have to do a risk assessment however it is implied that you should assess the risks in your workplace before you begin any new work. There are specific regulations e.g. COSHH which state that you cannot start work before you have assessed the risks COSHH covers. Generally risk assessments should be undertaken; before a new activity, when something may significantly change the risk i.e. change of worker, new equipment, new process, place of work; where it is beleived that the risk assessment is no longer suitable and sufficient i.e. if there has been an accident/near miss or on a 'regular' basis (according to the risk involved) i.e. monthly, annually. Hope this helps.

ChrisBurn Not every work task has to be risk assessed. Only tasks/activities with significant risks. If every task was required to be risk assessed we would be carryout out a lot more than is required. Phil

Goose, you beat me to it.

Hooray get the flags out - someone agrees with me ha ha. The original questioner asks when? Records are something else. Thank Goose.

It's a good question. I see that there are two possible strands here - when (chronologically) do I carry out a risk assessment and when (what would prompt me) do I carry out a risk assessment Where I see that 5 steps lets people down is that it doesn't really prepare the ground for risk assessment; 'grab your clipboard and go hazard hunting'. Well in a small business that probably works to a degree. But in much larger organisations it simply doesn't. We (in my org) use 'tasks' as the focus for risk assessment. People, somewhere, doing something, with something. Our assessment is then a conclusion of how well (or badly) we do those things. Then we add controls blah blah. So, if we have a handle on tasks, when we plan those, we consider whether assessment is needed from scratch, whether we can modify an existing one to get us started or whether indeed we don't need anything. We keep a document called the Central Task Listing. It's an index of what we do. So when new things are planned we have something to link to. We try to perform assessment before the new task is undertaken - but we are not perfect. When a new task comes along and we feel that there are no significant findings, we put it on the list with an annotation that we looked and decided it needed no further assessment. That way the list grows and supports our decision making process. We can not only show the assessments that we have, but the ones we 'rejected'. If something goes amiss, we go back to the list, see if iw had it on there but decided it was insignificant or add it and ask was this occasion a 'freak' or did we miss something and it could happen again. So, really to answer 'when' or 'what prompts' is the same; when we are looking at something new. As the task encompasses 'people' 'location' and 'equipment' it doesn't matter what the new thing is it triggers a look. New building? New role? New process? As they are all PART of a task, it gets looked at. When we started the process, we found that we had loads of assessments but none of them were actually the ones that we needed. We are in a much better place now. Goose was spot on in that one sentence, but as I said, 5 Steps or MOHASAW doesn't quite say that in crystal clear terms. It's the 'every risk' should be assessed bit that is unhelpful. Hang on, how do you assess a risk? Isn't risk the outcome of assessing something? If not we end up risk assessing a risk and recording significant risk of a risk causing a risk to someone - arrrgghh! Chris

Goose OK Task/activity Using a stapler; you’re going to risk assess that? Writing with a pen; pencil risks assess that? Carrying a ream of paper in the office from the stationary cupboard etc? That is what I meant by every task not requiring a risk assessment. Come on guys; you can't tell me you would think about these as risk assessments then decide there is no significant risk so I won't record it. Isn't there more dangers around than the ones I have mentioned which can be called tasks? Phil

It's always fun to take a quote out of context and try to make someone else look silly isn't it? Where did I say I don't consider workers significant? What I said was that I don't consider a change of worker necessarily implies a significant change to the process which means you have to redo the risk assessment. Example - I have a trained experienced operator doing a job. Next day I have a different trained experienced operator. Must I redo the risk assessment? No. Is it practical to expect me to if changing the worker doesn't cause a significant change to the risk? No. "every time a job or worker changes" is way over the top. The word significant is as important here regarding changes as it is in the example Goose rightly gave above about when findings need to be recorded, otherwise the whole thing becomes ludicrous. Sensible H&S please. Or we'll all be wearing goggles to play conkers again...

If the tasks involve Work@Height, the answer would be in the organisation and planning stage to ensure it is carried out in a safe manner. (Reg 4)

If risk assessing manual handling, and we do not r/a the person than what do we assess, is it just the load? Of course it isn't. So then we change the person, different stature, height, weight, age, sex etc. Do we still not assess the individual?

Well, it is standing us in very good stead I have to say. The real, absolute and most crucial element is getting a good task listing before you do anything else. Once we had that, we were able to prioritise the order in which we wrote the assessments too. So not only were we filling gaps, but we were filling them in the right order. That way, we found that as we got down the list of priorities, the rest of the list started to take on a different look. We then reached a point where it was clear to us that to go further would be to stray into assessing the insignificant. There is a tricky bit to grasp on this, and that is the difference between significant RISK and a significant TASK. Significant risk as we all know is anything really that gets onto a risk assessment in terms of findings. Most people call it high, medium or low. Low risk isn't no risk. Neither is it insignificant risk. It's just the lowest category of significant findings - yeah? But how many risk assessments have I seen in my time, that have recorded findings that say 'insignificant'. What's that all about. Why have that on you 'assessment scale'? We look at the significance of the task too and determine the relative importance of the task to our business. In other words, what would the faces of the jury look like of we said, 'No we didn't consider having a risk assessment to examine that task in further detail'? So a DC for example. What are the things that are core and central to it being a DC. Or a hotel, or a school? They may do some of the same tasks, but because of who they are and their overall 'risk picture' some of this may be pointless. Each organisation MUST set out its argument for where it draws the line of significance. We have been talking about staplers. Well do you need to assess their use? If I was a Royal Marine jumping into enemy territory under fire and I needed a stapler, I wouldn't be bothering with an assessment I can tell you. But perhaps if I worked in a care home for people with special needs, or maybe a post room, suddenly, staplers might become important. I'm not saying that they are folks, frankly I think that staplers fall into the trivial and mundane, but that's my view. I am happy to chat this through, but might be better on the phone. To be frank, over the years I have spent a good deal of time providing written explanations such as you would like only to receive not so much as an acknowledgment back from the interested person. As I am on company time, it might be easier to just do it over the phone. I can send you some e-mail docs later if you want them. If you like I can send you a PM with my number. I am not a consultant by the way - my business realises that supporting the community through IOSH etc is good for us too. It's all good for CPD too isn't it. C

Thanks to you all, thats as clear as mud!!! I know how, I know why, I know to review, I know the hierachy of measures but still not when.

You forgot to mention post number 4 ?

Chris did you really just say that you RA the use of a stapler in an office?? That saddens me.

Yes indeed I did, but that's because it's wrong :)

Redken With all due respect but I feel it has to be said: those who risk assess the use of staplers especially if they claim it is a legal requirement and then go onto to say that all tasks must be assessed ,are giving our profession a bad name. This is why we are held up to ridicule in so many quarters When I posted my remark and go back that answer I could not believe my eyes and thought exactly what you wrote. I have 4 Nebosh quals including Diploma, I have a good idea what to risk assess and what not to; so to see with my own eyes EVERYTHING has to be risk assessed, do some member understand risk assessments and what should be risk assessed; the answer to some is NO. As you said Redken know wonder we are open to ridicule! Phil

You did. "An example of a risk assessment method - when risk assessing an office task, (including the use of a stapler)" The above is a quote from one of your posts on this thread.

But it is the fact that you would even inlcude the stapler in the RA of an office that many (including me) have issue with. If anyone said they would include an assessment of a stapler I would say the same thing. A stapler is not a significant risk and therefore does not need to be included in an office RA. You have, however developed a reputation as being someone who is risk averse, wanting to eliminate all risk instead of manage it to a sensible level. Such an extreme and unwarranted approach will always receive a negative reaction from the majority who adopt a more reasonable approach to safety management. One that is promoted by the HSE who are at pains to stop over zealous H&S. Have a look at their example of a RA for an office. You will not see a stapler mentioned.

Yes, and I think that is all Chris was saying rather than being risk averse (in this instance).