Torres, I get involved in a wide variety of work for risk assessments. Machines, processes, building work. I don't DO that sort of work myself, I can't operate the machines, so I always do Risk Assessments WITH the operators, with the persons using the machines, digging the holes, pushing the buttons etc, and also involve people who to the repairs and maintenance. It's the best way, because then you find out about the different jobs they do with the machines etc. e.g. a bandsaw or a chop-saw might be used to cut long pieces, short pieces, plastic, wood, metal. Each job might present different hazards.

Fully agree that the person carrying out the work, especially if it is of a specialist nature. I was recently asked to sign up to an RA produced by a big famous civils company, for a diving task within their project, informing me that I need to have a supply of "pure" oxygen on site to treat decompression illness, as " the oxygen provided by ambulances is not 100% pure ". Also that "if a diver suffers DCI that under no circumstances are they to be flown to a recompression unit, as air travel is dangerous" Another howler on the same RA was that " the 100% oxygen provided for divers suffering from DCI is under no circumstances to be administered to any other worker in the event of an accident as it is poisinous" All of the statements they were asking me to sign up to were untrue, and in some cases dangerous. I can confirm absolutely that ambulance service oxygen is 100% pure, and in an accident should definitely be given to any site worker if they require it. It is only poisinous to divers if breathed at depth. Any serious cases of DCI are always flown by helicopter, they just stay as low as conditions allow. It shows that little knowledge is a dangerous thing. They are specialists for a reason, please consult them! Phil

Hi Creative, I think your referring to Entonox, the analgesic gas sometimes used for pain relief. It's 50% oxygen, and 50% nitrous oxide. They had actually referred to this being a no no for any casualty who has dived within the previous 24 hours, in the risk assessment. So it was just genuinely duff info they were giving. Phil

To get back to the question from Torres. Of course the 'employer' is legally responsible - not much help practically but can be important when trying to engage managers who reject responsibility. Safety practitioners should only rarely 'do' RA, mostly they would contribute (in a number of ways as follows), but they do need to be an expert in the process, techniques, psychology (there is some), marketing and possibly the overview and monitoring. Practically RA needs to be (and probably has been) done by relevant managers or supervisors. Whether that gets recorded in any useful way is another question. In the ideal world, a good assessment would involve the relevant manager and an experienced respected operative sitting with a facilitator (the safety adviser), and working through the mind map of safety problems (ok 'hazards' if you must) which relate to the task. The 'task definition' is crucial - too small, you will be crushed by the weight of beaurocracy of too many separate tasks, too broad will lose detail and become a nonsense in itself. In my experience the best use of the SA is to capture the content of this discussion (mind mapping ideal!) and unfortunately may also end up doing much of the writing stuff down. The art of transfer across to the manager is not easy . . The SA can also guide the emphasis to producing good and clear solutions from this collective session - these may already exist, and the process could be most beneficial by really reviewing these critically. The outcomes should be (1) easy-to-follow operator instructions, (safety procedures, rules, method statement) (2) an action plan for manager - specify, obtain, replace, train, inform, supervise, check, check, check, manage - put all the support in place for the procedures to work. (3) the RA record (mind map notes, scribbled pictures, forms, whatever) which is for filing (by the manager). NOT just an all-in-one 'RA Form' which is usually of limited value. The SA can help with questions such as 'is this actually dangerous?' (ie. we've never had an accident yet . . ) and the responses will be evidence-based ("there have been close calls, other employers have, the statistics show") etc. The SA can also help by coming up with sensible and useable ways for the process - devising appealing and easy-to-use documentation templates, proformas, using appropriate and simple checklists, anything at all to ease the pain. See things from the manager's point of view. Help them to make it seem 'oh - so simple'. Back to responsibility - avoid anything suggesting 'the signing of' RA documents. It may well be resisted by managers, and YOU don't want to be doing it, and it's not a legal requirement anyway. However, a section to identify the various contributors by name will have a purpose when reviewing. It also emphasises the communication and 'shared' role. Flexibility in reviewing processes is also helpful - is it really necessary to insist on annual review for everything as some do? Some tasks may be special one-offs, some may be ongoing for ever and a day. Agree at the session what review schedule is appropriate and who will be doing it (the manager!). This process also counts as 'training' for the manager - remind them that they are (after some practice perhaps) competent and capable of assessing risk.

As stated in the previous reply RA should not only address what is done but what SHOULD be done [to reduce risk to as low as reasonably practicable]. WHO should do the RA is important, and I agree that a team effort is best. If nothing more needs to be done to reduce rist to ALARP then fine, simply state existing controls assessed as adequate. I note an earlier response indicates "avoid anything suggesting 'the signing of' RA documents. It may well be resisted by managers". However, if something more needs to be done (especially if it costs money) it is important that those with authority to enable this the happen take ownership, hence the need for sign off at the appropriate management level, or at lease a record of decision, spend approved/ not approved by <name>. This should focus the controlling mind on the gravity of the decision being taken.

One of the key questions that the HSE are personally asking employees on visits/inspections now is; Have you been involved in the risk assessment(s) for your work? I think that statement says it all to both Directors/Senior Managers & employees.

In many cases I feel that having someone with greater industry experience and an understanding of the hazards and risks within their chosen field is better equiped to carry out risk assessments than someone highly qualified but lacking real experience.