I would like to get the opinion of some of the members here at IOSH. I have recently had a debate with a colleague who is not a Health and Safety Practitioner but has participated in some safety training at Level 2. I was reviewing a risk assessment with this person, and in an effort to lower the final severity rating I stated we could lower the severity of the injury as the PPE put in place had significantly reduced the severity of any final injury even if the original hazard took place. I.e. a harness was being used that instead of making a fall from height result in death, would make the fall from height result in, at worst case, a broken bone but most likely not even that. However my colleague is of the opinion that you cannot under any circumstances lower the severity of injury figure as that severity is always present. His argument is that the control measures may not be adhered to etc etc and that accident severity remains. The thing is I remember the person who did my risk assessment training stating the same thing, but this wasn't an accredited course it was an in-house course. So my question is this; given that the only purpose of PPE is a last resort that doesn not to reduce the likelihood of an injury but is utilised to reduce the severity of an injury should an accident, is it acceptable to lower the final accident severity (after control measures have been implemented) in light of the use of PPE. I look forward to your response

stuff4blokes, I'm glad the first response is in agreement as this is something I find quite concerning. The whole purpose of PPE seems to be lost when it comes to a risk assessment and it's ability to reduce the severity of injury seems to be completely discounted during the risk assessment process. I am of course still keen to get feedback from as much people as possible to get an overall opinion.

Totally agree, your colleague should try the application of common sense to his argument and see what results he gets!

This is an all too common pitfall for those starting out in Risk Assessment. There is a temptation to consider the "worst case scenario" every time, as opposed to the most likely consequence. I personally refer to the example of someone falling from the 3rd or 4th rung of a ladder. We concede that on occasion, the best trained people using the correct equipment in the correct environment may come a cropper. Yes, people have died as a result of such a fall, but better to consider the most likely outcome of (say) a major injury. An over-focus on "danger of death" tends to bring the whole process into disrepute.

couldnt agree more.

Some risk assessments are taught using a format that calculates the initial risk without control measures and then with control measures. It appears that your employee has not understood the link between control measures and reduction in severity (in rare cases probability) and hence overall risk. In my view for the example you have given, probability of the fall will be the same with or without PPE, but the severity of injury will reduce.

I am almost certain I am right, however I work in the oil industry and in line with what I was told at my risk assessment course at Weatherford (a massive oil service company) the severity should not be reduced after control measures implemented. This is evident across every risk assessment I have came across whilst working in the oil industry. PPE is stated as a control measure, but the severity of injury has not been reduced.

In past companies we have reassessed the risk and shown both results, demonstrating the reduced risk if control measures are in place

But fall arrest does nothing to prevent a fall - it only provides any protection after the fall has happened. So it can't reduce the probability of a fall. I suppose you could argue it reduces the probability of hitting the ground ...

Borisgiles has it right. Risk assessments only tell you the risk. Risk management then attempts to eliminate or adequately control that risk. But having introduced your risk management measures you then have to go round again and reassess the risk to ensure that the management measures are adequate, otherwise how do you know? you might then decide that there is still an unacceptable residual risk and this, to my mind, is where PPE comes in, not as a means of controlling the primary risk but as a means of controlling any residual risk. It would be at this stage that the probability of failure of the PPE would need to be assessed and, if appropriate, additional measures introduced. Chris

The risk assessment control measures would be supplemented by "safe systems of work". Yes, control measures may fail, but in essence the reliability of control measures is ensured by safe systems of work! Otherwise, if we want to include failure of control measures in the risk assessment, then we end up with more stringent/sophisticated risk assessments such as Failure Effect Mode Analysis ( FEMA ) , HAZOP, and so on. The question can control measures reduce severity, not about the reliability of control measures. To assess reliability of control measures, techniques are available, but generally not used as long as robust safe systems of work are in place

Risk is all about probabilities and therefore so is a risk assessment. In my view the general approach should be to maintain the severity as it is and reduce the risk by reducing the probability of that risk being realised. Like Chris Packham said, PPE for instance always fails to danger. If your control is PPE then when it fails, the severity of the injury will be just as severe. All the PPE does is make the injury less likely. Take as another example, the risks involved when crossing a road. The main hazard is moving traffic and the likey outcome of being struck by a car is death or serious injury. Crossing a country lane in Lincolnshire may be considered as low risk because the small amount of traffic, but if a car doies hit you then goodnight. Crossing a busy high street has a higher risk because of the larger volume of traffic making the probability higher. If you cross at a pedestrian crossing the risk is reduced, but again, if you are hit by a car them it's curtains. Try to cross the M6 - well you get the point. There may be instances when controls reduce the severity of an injury but in my view they usually only reduce the probability.

It appears that most are singing from much the same hymn sheet. A 'reduction strategy' is a widely used method to help manage risk and can be used to reduce either the likelihood of an incident or injury occurring and/or the severity of an injury. In fairness I would say that most probably reduce the likelihood. However, your query concerns the latter and I suggest that a couple of simple examples where 'a severity' can be reduced are: Substituting a very toxic substance for one that is harmful Using 110v or battery powered kit instead of 240v

Are we discussing risk assessment or risk rating here? The purpose of a risk assessment is to assess the hazard and risk in an effort to reduce, or eliminate the potential harm. Risk rating is when you give a number (rating) to the potential hazard/risk and the likelihood of that risk/hazard being realised. Example - electrical hazard could result in electric shock and death if contacted by person. Keep that person away from the hazard and you reduce the likelihood of the harm but the hazard is still there and contact could still be fatal. The hazard has not been reduced but the likelihood has been. The hazard has not been removed. Similar a water hazard could result in drowning but erect a fence and warning signs and the likelihood is reduced - the hazard remains. The parachute post - could still lead to severe injury or death if the PPE fails or is incorrectly packed. Simply by providing a parachute does not ensure no hazard remains.

Chris, neither is health and safety management.

I agree with some points in this thread but i personally preach that the severity should remain the same..depending on the identified hazard. The thread discusses WAH falls and harnesses..which seems to change the fatal fall to going for a swing in a harness (tongue in cheek) but my example is traffic management (working on a motoway). If hit by a HGV, you would probably die and no amount of PPE is gonna change the severity, so i think the issue and severity change are hazard specific

This is truly amazing. The concept of PPE reducing the severity of harm seems completely illogical. Let’s use safety eyewear as an example. Imagine that small metal projectiles are occasionally present in the workplace. We do the risk assessment and end up with PPE and training on its use in order to reduce the risk. As a result of our confidence in the effectiveness of the risk reduction strategy we decide that the severity of injury is very minor thus sufficiently lowering the risk. Low and behold, one day a worker temporarily removes the safety eyewear in order to read some small text (just for a moment). At that moment a metal projectile strikes the worker in the eye resulting in the loss of sight in one eye. In this circumstance would the incident investigation reveal that the worker had experienced a very minor injury? I think if we asked the worker they would very clearly state that their injury was quite serious. The PPE does not change the hazard. In my opinion: Injury severity should almost always be associated with the properties of the hazard in the circumstances that are being assessed. PPE can only effect the probability or likelihood of the worker experiencing the amount of potential harm that presented by the hazard. Cheers Tom Doyle Industrial Safety Integration

Hi Forbez Responses to topics like this make me chuckle sometimes. In your post you state that PPE reduces the severity and not the likelihood. Why do you assume this to be a hard and fast rule? A hi visibility vest worn by a person who is hunting is used to lower the likelihood of another hunter shooting him by accident. This is an example of PPE reducing the likelihood however, the same item of PPE does not reduce the severity (unless it is a bulletproof hi viz vest :-) ) PPE is a last form of defense but it does not mean measures MUST be implemented before PPE is used it just means you need to explore other options (ERICPD) and if they are not reasonably practicable, PPE it is. You mention the use of a harness. This is a work at height issue and collective fall PREVENTION is required such as guard rails. If this is not 'reasonably practicable', individual and/or fall PREVENTION measures should be looked at. A harness is an individual measure of fall protection as it protects a person in the event of a fall it does not prevent the fall like guard rails would however there is no reason for a harness not to be used as a control measure. Follow the flow of ERICPD in your risk assessment and eventually you will stop at the correct measure. Sometimes it can be worse to go overboard than 'underboard?' It is always best to eliminate or reduce both the severity and likelihood but most of the time this is not reasonably practicable e.g. if you were working close to an open edge and there was a risk of falling, you would erect barriers to prevent the fall (fall prevention reducing likelihood). If this could not be done, you could use airbags to protect the person in the event of a fall (fall protection reducing the severity) or you could get rid of all that money and go way overboard by using both! To conclude, PPE CAN be used to lower severity and / or likelihood. It all depends on the situation at hand. Too many times I hear people say 'you cant do that' but most of the time there is no legislation to back this up just rumour. Sensible use of a hierarchy of control that will work depending on the particular hazards present is the way to go. Keep it simples. Simples!

'So my question is this; given that the only purpose of PPE is a last resort that doesn not to reduce the likelihood of an injury but is utilised to reduce the severity of an injury should an accident, is it acceptable to lower the final accident severity (after control measures have been implemented) in light of the use of PPE.' Forbez, I hope you have got the answer you sought. In short, PPE may reduce the likelihood of an injury and it may reduce the severity of an injury - it depends on the type of hazard and PPE. Moreover, any control measure will to reduce the overall risk rating, but not normally the severity if the risk is realised. I hope I have summarised that correctly...getting late. Ray

I have seen the same risk assessment [identical in every way but for 1 aspect] undertaken in two ways. The first example gave the control measure and then left the risk rating as high and the second example gave the same control measure but then reduced the risk rating because of the control measure. Thereafter managers were left to their own devices In all cases where the risk rating had been reduced even though everything else was the same management became lax. Thereafter we always retained the risk rating level as if there was no control in place as it focused attention This is an example of a number of experiments we undertook via the nuclear and off-shore game when planning the channel tunnel whilst looking at how people brains worked [I was a very lowly member of a very cleaver & distinguished number of teams undertaking safety cases/experiments] So; in my personal view, there is an argument for both sides but the higher the risk the more we should look at retaining that high risk rating irrespective of the controls present instead of showing it as reduced because people become lax ---- I know of cases at this time where the PPE as the control has in theory reduced the possible severity. However where management see the lower risk rating thereafter they stop managing the people properly and allow poor practice which then reduces the protection of the PPE and in fact raises the severity level back to where it was without the PPE as they become focused on the reduced risk rating level instead of the severity present! Severity is reduced/controlled only where a combination of risk assessment and best practice management is present NB: I find that there are very few suitable & sufficient PPE risk assessments out there ----- at 1 specific seminar that I attended the HSE publicly admitted, after my open question on the subject, that they had completely missed the area [other than giving a general reference] in a very high risk industry