I am aware of the rules concerning when a visitor to a workplace is taken to hospital after an accident it is reportable under RIDDOR. But in the case of students (under 18 yeas old) attending school are they classed as visitors - if not what are they classed as because they are not employees? I am also aware of the rules governing sports injuries sustained during curriculum PE and Sports which if an injury neccessitates a visit to a hospital is also reportable under RIDDOR. But what about the student who falls whilst running and sprains an ankle and they are taken to hospital as a precautionary measure for a check up to make sure there is no break. Are these types of accidents reportable under RIDDOR. If they are (and students are classed as visitors at school) then I would imagine that hundreds if not thousands of RIDDOR reports are submitted every year. Similarly if the student is a boarder where staff have local parentis is the student still classed as a visitor? One for Graham B and others I think Rich

Be aware of the changes in the recent revision. PE/Sports injuries are not longer automatically reportable but only if there is a failure of the school to manage associated risks.

Rich The latest version of HSE's Education Information Sheet No 1 (revision 2 ), alias EDIS1(rev2), issued in April this year is something of an improvement on its predecessors. My opinion for this is that it advises that injuries sustained by pupils during sports activities which result in them going to hospital are only notifiable under RIDDOR if they arose from an evident deficiency. This could be in either the condition of the facilities used (e.g. excessively slippery gym floor), supervision of a sports/physical education activity or failings in the organisation and management of an event. The previous versions of EDIS1 stated (wrongly in my view) that notification was required in respect of any pupil taken to hospital with an injury sustained during sports activities. It seemed that this was no more than advice from the inspectors who compiled the earlier versions of EDIS1 and did not reflect the actual requirements of RIDDOR. The effect of this advice was to generate unnecessary work and bureaucracy for the schools which heeded it. Also the resultant spurious notifications surely created unnecessary work for staff at the RIDDOR Incident Contact centre. Therefore, in my former work role I advised my employer's schools that sports injuries resulting in hospital visits were NOT notifiable unless there was a clear contributory deficiency, e.g. use of an ice-covered pitch or injury caused by an inadequately constructed/maintained goal-post assembly. Also, during network meetings with my counterparts from other local authorities I think I suggested from time to time that they followed a similar policy. Does anyone, especially members of IOSH's Education Group, happen to know what prompted HSE to amend EDIS1 so that it included notably better and more sensible advice regarding sports injuries to pupils? For example did the Group make any formal representations to HSE? Also, perhaps HSE and Contact Centre staff got fed up with numerous similar queries from schools, etc.! Even though EDIS1 has been slightly improved, it is likely that schools continue to experience difficulty in understanding RIDDOR and making notifications. This is because RIDDOR seems to have been devised mostly with manufacturing scenarios in mind. If anyone doubts this, have a look at the online RIDDOR notification form and imagine trying to complete it in respect of a pupil injury. For example, there's no category available for "pupil/student" - the nearest available category is "member of the public". Also, though my previous work role did not include making RIDDOR notifications (this was rightly the responsibility of line managers), I did get requests from time to time to give help by phone to intelligent people in schools who became baffled while trying to complete RIDDOR notifications.

good reply Graham, here in Saudi expat employees liven walled compounds, a recent case we had was the wife of an employee got injured while out jogging within the compound. if she had tripped over her own shoe laces that would have been her own fault, but she tripped on an uneven paving slab and successfully claimed against the company that maintains the compound.