Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Steveeckersley  
#1 Posted : 27 April 2012 11:50:16(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Steveeckersley

I know what my view is on this and is concurred by one of my Risk manager colleagues. Hospital beds (manual hydraulic or Electric operated) Should they be covered under Loler? I look forward to answers and your rational behind your answer. Ill tell you a previous HSE answer next week which might start another debate. best wishes Steve
SpaceNinja  
#2 Posted : 27 April 2012 12:04:01(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SpaceNinja

I've dealt with electrically adjustable massage tables before (which I'm guessing are extremely similar) and if I remember rightly they don't fall under LOLER as they're not defined lifting equipment. I seem to recall them not being lifting equipment as the lifting was not the primary function of their operation.
Xavier123  
#3 Posted : 27 April 2012 12:07:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Xavier123

Pretty sure this one's been covered before. And my belief is no, they shouldn't. PUWER yes. LOLER no. Why? Lifting equipments is 'work equipment for lifting or lower loads' - from the Regs. That seems to indicate a yes vote since a person can be defined as a load. However, is adjusting the height of a bed for the purposes of accessing the patient etc. counted as lifting? I think not. In the same way that pallet trucks and dentists chairs are considered excluded from LOLER (see HSE website), I think that hospital beds fall under the same category. Their primary role is 1 - a bed, 2 - a trolley and 3 - height adjustment. Lifting is not really part of it.
Jake  
#4 Posted : 27 April 2012 12:08:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Jake

I agree with the above, not LOLER.
SpaceNinja wrote:
I seem to recall them not being lifting equipment as the lifting was not the primary function of their operation.
This is the key point to assess, and it's why pallet inverters, manual pallet trucks, non-double stacking electic pallet trucks etc. are not covered by LOLER.
PIKEMAN  
#5 Posted : 27 April 2012 13:00:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
PIKEMAN

I can't understand this business of "primary purpose". Surely, by pure logic, if it lifts stuff, it's lifting equipment? Imagine you had a container under pressure whose "primary purpose" was something else, by this logic it wouldn't come under the Pressure systems regs? Nope, doesn't stack up. In my view if a bed moves up and down with a person or any other "load" on it, it is lifting equipment. Period. HSE states "Lifting equipment is any work equipment for lifting and lowering loads" - nothing about it being a primary function at all.
Ron Hunter  
#6 Posted : 27 April 2012 13:13:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

Dentist Chairs are excluded from LOLER. Logic dictates hospital beds be excluded too.
SpaceNinja  
#7 Posted : 27 April 2012 13:19:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
SpaceNinja

Pikeman wrote:
I can't understand this business of "primary purpose". Surely, by pure logic, if it lifts stuff, it's lifting equipment? Imagine you had a container under pressure whose "primary purpose" was something else, by this logic it wouldn't come under the Pressure systems regs? Nope, doesn't stack up. In my view if a bed moves up and down with a person or any other "load" on it, it is lifting equipment. Period. HSE states "Lifting equipment is any work equipment for lifting and lowering loads" - nothing about it being a primary function at all.
If you check out page 15 of this document: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l113.pdf you will note that it says "In most cases LOLER will not apply to work equipment which does not have as its principal function a use for lifting or lowering of the type associated with 'traditional' lifting equipment such as cranes, fork-lift trucks or accessories such as chains or eyebolts."
Renny Thomson  
#8 Posted : 30 April 2012 12:12:46(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Renny Thomson

Within our care premises, we do not follow LOLER for our height adjustable beds, changing plinths, riser chairs, etc. However, as others have noted following PUWER makes good sense as it needs to be maintained in good working order to manage the associated M&H risks.
RP  
#9 Posted : 01 May 2012 07:22:34(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
RP

Not LOLER - it is a single lift piece of equipment, unless you are using it for a function other then up and down. It's like the bin lifts on the back of rubbish lorries, not LOLER. PUWER applies, so inspection, maintenace, etc is appropriate.
Steveeckersley  
#10 Posted : 01 May 2012 10:43:24(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Steveeckersley

RP whats the other function than just up or Down which therefore applies it to Loler. A Lift goes just goes up and down unless youve watched the original Willy Wonka film (Tongue in Cheek)! ATB Steve Can anyone tell me what the difference is between a Scissor lift and a mortuary trolley under Loler as Im stumped because technically a Mortuary trolley is a mini scissor lift.
jay  
#11 Posted : 01 May 2012 11:43:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jay

There is a comprehensive Health and Safety Executive/Local Authorities Enforcement Liaison Committee (HELA) Local Authority Circular that also refers to an HSE operational circular OC 234/11 on the variuos aspects of LOLER. http://www.hse.gov.uk/lau/lacs/90-4.htm Para 8 extract:- .........The Regulations should not be applied where risks are low, for example raising someone in a barber's chair, (which, in any case, may be considered as a 'height adjustment' rather than a 'lifting operation'). Other equipment, such as a vehicle jack, which may seem similar to this example, is more likely to involve risk and LOLER should be applied.
Steveeckersley  
#12 Posted : 01 May 2012 12:08:04(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Steveeckersley

Jay I appreciate the risk level issue and is why I am somewhat confused. Unfortunately their is empirical evidence of serious accidents involving patients and bed failure. Interesting enough an email from a colleague received a communication from Undertakers in that their trolleys are covered by Loler but Im hard pressed to see the significant risk as the deceased is classed for loler puposes as a non person (inanimate object). I ask the question again a Mortuary trolley is a sissor lift by any other name True or false? A Kings fund bed or electric profile bed uses the same or very similar mechanisms to lift to height. Therefore is this not covered under Loler?By the very nature the regs distinguish between lifting an object (inanimate load) and a person for period of Inspection and testing!
cars10  
#13 Posted : 01 May 2012 12:51:51(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
cars10

Common sense points to PUWER for design, use, maintenance etc. A Risk Assessment approach to the problem may also help. We don't want Mr Cameron to get the wrong idea about Health and Safety do we:-)
Jake  
#14 Posted : 01 May 2012 13:40:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Jake

steveeckersley wrote:
I ask the question again a Mortuary trolley is a sissor lift by any other name True or false?
The design and name is irrelevant. The guidance asks us to a) consider the risk level and b) consider the primary function of the device. The mortuary trolley is clearly primirarily designed for the storage and transportation of bodies, as a secondary function it can lift and lower. As lifting is not its main purpose, it does not require inspection under LOLER.
steveeckersley wrote:
A Kings fund bed or electric profile bed uses the same or very similar mechanisms to lift to height. Therefore is this not covered under Loler?By the very nature the regs distinguish between lifting an object (inanimate load) and a person for period of Inspection and testing!
Same argument, it is irrelevant about design, it's primary function has already been discussed and that is not the lifting or lowering of an object / person, therefore it does not require inspection under LOLER. A seperate argument would be on the level of risk associated with faliure of the lfiting mechanism, but this is completely different to comparing beds to scissor lift etc. and would consider the bed / trolley on it's own and the level of risk associated with faliure (not what your question was about).
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.