What do we all think on the new over seven day injuries instead of the previous three day reporting. Does anyone know how long this has been in the planning ? And reasons for the change ? Is the new 7 day reporting beneficial, just interested in peoples views. Rob H

Personally, I am all for it. It being brought into line with the self cert is common sense to me. As for dumbing down the figures - we will be putting into place figures which show a true reflection by comparing the old riddor to the new riddor. We also have a tendancy for some employees to stretch the truth and take the extra day off to put it into the old riddor category.

Yes they must still be recorded I believe if you record them in an accident book this will be acceptable.

In terms of recording O3D accidents, a new Schedule prescribes what needs to be recorded (whether in the accident book or elsewhere). This probably means more effort than complying with the existing Schedule setting out what needs to be recorded for other accidents, where simply keeping a copy of F2508 or the online report form will do the business. Steve, thanks for pointing out the NI angle. Government DID see the EU angle - specifically covered by the Consultation Doc CD237, but with no attempt to quantify the costs of e.g. HSE ringing up companies to find out the causes of their O3D accidents or even sending that rarity - an inspector - to look at accident books. Government just chose to ignore the issue, probably with the expectation that most of UK plc will see the "cut in red tape" and completely fail to recognise continuing requirement to record. Slightly ironic that SUPPOSED reduction in legislative burden results in a longer code of regulations AND for those who do comply a need to keep another statistic.

There is nothing new with the requirement to record accidents. Employees have a duty to report all accidents to the employer under DSS regulations - easiest way of doing this is by using the F2508, although many companies have their own Accident Report forms. This means that accidents are recorded as a matter of course. All that is required is to make a small amendment the accident report to identify over 3-day or RIDDOR. Alternatively, if an accidednt log is maintained the number of days absence could be shown on the log. Job done Phil W

All accidents / incidents should be recorded. I am all for the new reporting timescale as it makes more sense and hopefully will see a reduction in the "chancer" taking a few days off. However, I do not see the HSE being more pro active with the new regime as they do not have the manpower, unless of course they see an opportunity to increase their income by introducing charges !

There is an implication for businesses with the change. HSG 453 highlights this on page 2 where it details what is reportable (Major / O7D / Dangerous Occurrence) and what is recordable (all O3D accidents). This is separate from the requirement to have an accident book to comply with the social security regulations. The next sentence states that businesses must produce RIDDOR records (not just reports) to the HSE et al upon request. RIDDOR records includes Major / O7D / Dangerous Occurrence / O3D. To be able to show all RIDDOR records businesses need to then be able to identify O3D accidents. Just by having it in the accident book or on a spread sheet of all non-reportable accidents you have not captured the right data. This is the implication, businesses will still need to capture data and be able to pull accidents reports out for O3D-O7D accidents. http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg453.pdf

Anyone know how we'll hear of the fabled 'parliamentary approval'? No update on the HSE's site and the live date is fast approaching. Have any of you gone ahead and publicised it within your organisations yet?

Thanks, jay. From what you've said, I take it that we don't expect an NHS Reforms-style revolt in the House of Lords and might as well go ahead and prepare the way for the new RIDDOR arrangements.

My reading of indg453 indicates that >3 day absences need to be recorded. Every company already has an accident book or similar and there is no suggestion that >3 day absences need be separately identified from the hit thumb with hammer 15 minutes absence. No additional recording or admin needed. The only change that I can see is that we no longer have to report until the injured employee is unable to do their usual work for the 8th day (assuming not a major injury etc). Smells like an improvement to me.