Rank: Forum user 
|
I know there are lots of posts along these lines, but none I've found are the same, so here is another request for your opinion.
Staff member gets a really nasty infection in knuckles of one hand, swelling and pain, goes to hospital an spends three days there on a drip with her hand being flushed etc. Doctor tells us that this has resulted from an infection that could have arisen from a thorn, cut, etc. She is signed off 14days.
Now - if we knew where the infection came from it would be simple but we don't and she does not remember cutting or splinters or thorn pricks recently. She is our Reserves Officer and spends a lot of time in the field doing practical conservation work so there is a good chance this infection was picked up at work, but no proof as it were.
My feeling is to report as RIDDOR as it was a nasty infection but to clarify that we do not know when it occurred or if it occurred at work. Our own accident/incident reporting has it all covered.
Any opinion out there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I'd report it.
The probability factor leads me to that decision, and stating that there is no conclusive evidence that it is work related is a prudent move. I wouldn't expect there to be any repercussions from reporting it.
Andy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Tomkins
If you've investigated it and found no proof that it occurred at work and your staff member agrees, then I would say it is not reportable. What would put on the F2508 in terms of when it occurred, where and how etc?
Remember the (supposed!) purpose of RIDDOR is to highlight serious risks within the workplace - there appears to be nothing to report on this.
It wouldnt be reported as an infection, but as she has been off for more than 7 days.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Hi
I'm in accord with Sunstone on this one. You have no proof or even circumstantial evidence that it was done at work, it could have been done anywhere doing anything. I think you need an internal report/investigation to ascertain that fact which should be file with an incident sheet so that should the question arise in the future you can prove that you have examined the incident from all angles and decided against it.
It should also be investigated to see if there are any measures that could be implemented to make their job safer as it has highlighted a "potential" problem that "could have" occurred in the field and should be a learning and improvement opportunity.
On the other hand, if you are at all worried about whether you should or not, then just do it. There won't be any repercussions from over reporting just to be sure.
Hope this helps
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I am in agreement, investigate, then decide whether to report or not, it depends on what sort of work your employee was doing
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
hilary wrote:There won't be any repercussions from over reporting just to be sure.
Not true, we have had our knuckles rapped by HSE (pun intended) in the past for spurious and over- reporting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
ron hunter wrote:hilary wrote:There won't be any repercussions from over reporting just to be sure.
Not true, we have had our knuckles rapped by HSE (pun intended) in the past for spurious and over- reporting.
I'd be tempted to report. We have had similar things happen to our staff but in these cases there was more evidence linking the absence to a specific incident.
Ron- I am curious to know about having your knuckles rapped for over-reporting. I have never heard of this and have always assumed that the HSE rather you did report than not.
Could you give us some details?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I've never had my knuckles rapped for 'over reporting', and there is a reasonable chance that I have in the past.
However, if you/your company operate in a commercial environment and competing for business, then it is possible that over reporting i.e. reporting where this isn't necessary, may put you at a commercial disadvantage as rightly or wrongly (in my opinion generally the latter) the number of 'RIDDORs' is often used as a measure of H&S performance during the tendering/pre-qualification process. Just a thought.
On balance, I would suggest probably not reportable as arguably the infection could quite reasonably have come from a non work related activity/exposure. IF, you do report, I would report on that basis.
CAPs used for emphasis
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I would investigate, complete report and at the end of the investigation make my mind up, but from the information supplied so far, I would say not reportable, no evidence to say that this is a workplace accident/incident. But at worse case you would have an argument with HSE, if any problems arise from the injured party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I would report this. This is potentially an infection acquired through a work activity: it is almost never possible to pinpoint the time and place during work activity when an occupational infection was acquired, and this could be days or weeks before symptoms presented, but that does not absolve the employer. After all, it is the infection that is being reported, not the thorn-pricking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thank you those who responded
as much as your advice was useful and all taken on board, I am heartened to find that my unsureness is supported by a variety of answers.
On balance
5 yes (including my own)
7 No (with provisos that a proper investigation has been made)
I'll go with - finishing up reports (which I don't think will generate much more info) and then report to RIDDOR
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Just an observation, but the "I" in RIDDOR equates to injuries. Given the details so far, there is no actual evidence of an injury, just speculation on how the infection occurred; so I'm in the "no" camp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
zyggy - Too simplistic I feel. RIDDOR does not apply only to injuries in the sense of visible physical traumatic damage to external parts of the body.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Tomorton - I don't believe that I actually said it did!! You can of course have internal injuries that do not manifest themselves externally! What I was trying to say was, that in this particular situation, given the details so far, there is no evidence that the infection was caused within the work environment, just conjecture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
ron hunter wrote:hilary wrote:There won't be any repercussions from over reporting just to be sure.
Not true, we have had our knuckles rapped by HSE (pun intended) in the past for spurious and over- reporting.
Likewise with me, Ray. The Inspector queried if we actually understood the regulations, as a few recent reports at the time were 'reported just to keep us right'. It backfired......
Tomkins - it's your call to report or not. My advice has not changed from my first posting. Good luck ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A Kurdziel wrote:
Ron- I am curious to know about having your knuckles rapped for over-reporting. I have never heard of this and have always assumed that the HSE rather you did report than not.
I've certainly never heard of a company being told off for over reporting. It could be though and I think it should be. I consider it to be time wasting. To say the HSE would rather you just report it is a nonsense. There's already an excess of paperwork and each RIDDOR has to be evaluated to see whether it requires investigation. So if you duplicate that for how much over reporting goes on, that's a lot of time wasted by someone in the HSE evaluating RIDDOR's that aren't RIDDOR's. It also disorts the statistics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
These comments sit uncomfortably against the many other comments by the community here, month after month, year after year, who seek to avoid RIDDOR reporting at any cost.
The twisting of words and circumstances to dodge a report is widespread, and is widely evident in the field. THAT distorts the record. It makes meaningful detailed analysis of the RIDDOR databases nigh on impossible.
While there may be some inappropriate and unnecessary reporting, there is also a whole industry geared toward finding reasons not to report.
I am well aware that the trades are often measured by the number of RIDDOR reports they have submitted. Since subsequent contract success will depend on the lowest possible number the focus is too often on the avoidance of a RIDDOR report, whatever it takes. Until the architects of the RIDDOR regulations, and those in HSE who act upon them, design that out of this particular regulatory framework it will always be flawed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I completely disagree with you Ian.
I think the number of people who try to avoid RIDDOR reporting at any cost are relatively few.
What most people do, and it is what I see most on this forum, is the try and evaluate whether something is actually reportable rather than taking the easy of option of 'report it anyway', which does no one any favours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ian.Blenkharn wrote:These comments sit uncomfortably against the many other comments by the community here, month after month, year after year, who seek to avoid RIDDOR reporting at any cost.
The twisting of words and circumstances to dodge a report is widespread, and is widely evident in the field. THAT distorts the record. It makes meaningful detailed analysis of the RIDDOR databases nigh on impossible.
While there may be some inappropriate and unnecessary reporting, there is also a whole industry geared toward finding reasons not to report.
I am well aware that the trades are often measured by the number of RIDDOR reports they have submitted. Since subsequent contract success will depend on the lowest possible number the focus is too often on the avoidance of a RIDDOR report, whatever it takes. Until the architects of the RIDDOR regulations, and those in HSE who act upon them, design that out of this particular regulatory framework it will always be flawed.
I could not agree with you more Ian.
SWIM's last two roles (spanning just over 15 years) lets just say that submission of a RIDDOR was the absolute thing to be avoided at all costs - Basically a KPI breaker. Ultimate failure.
SWIM's roles were in mahoosive blue chip companies with many sites throughout the UK.
Without repeating your post word for word ALL of the above goes on and some.....
Before I get a backlash - I am just being honest and not supporting any stance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I,m strongly in the no camp on this one Tomkins; fair play to you though for considering reporting this even without any evidence, however as there isnt evidence to say it was work related, I would be comfortable not sumbitting a RIDDOR.
Clairel, I usually agree with your comments 99.9% but have to differ on this one; I have been involved with global companies who are quite happy to have men sitting in vans and pottering about in offices (light duties?) rather than submit a report when said persons are clearly unfit to carry out their normal duties.
Sad but true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I genuinely don’t think that people in the main try and avoid reporting, you can see by the many posts on here is understanding they are looking for not avoidance measures. - so Ian I don’t agree with you but I do understand where you are coming from………………...
Garryw1509 - if any person who's had an injury who cant undertake their full range of duties, then these incidents must reported……………..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I must agree with Dam and Garry, within large organisations it is very common place to do what every you can to avoid a RIDDOR e.g. putting the person on holiday, light duties etc.
I am not condoning it, just stating that it happens and you get a lot of pressure from the Gods above to make sure it happens!
And about the person not being unable to undertake their normal duties...the argument would be that anyone may be expected to do paper duties as part of their normal role..(weak argument but if its in the person job description!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Nothing to argue about for Mr Fibble L73 is clear
63 An over-seven-day injury is one which is not ‘major’ but results in the injured person being away from work or unable to do the full range of their normal duties for more than seven days.
If they cant do there normal job and the full range of duties expected within, its reportable
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Totally understand the Regs DP; and I,m pretty sure you wont find many on here would disagree with what should be reported; my point............. this is not always the case with some organisations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
DP, you can't read paragraph 63 in isolation. It has to be out of or in connection with work (and the subsequent criteria defining this) and as it stands, there is no evidence that this occurred in the workplace. If further investigation clearly attributes this injury to an incident which happened at work then, and only then would it be reportable. This is not about avoidance of reporting, but appropriate level of investigation and where required, action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sunstone - my comments are not about this particular post/ incident and commenced following Ian comments regarding avoidance of reporting. I'm merely stating that if you have an employee who as been injured in connection to working activities and you put him on light duties to avoid the incident being reported your in breach.
I appreciate that post sometimes go off track - I trust I have cleared that up. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.