Hi All

I have been working on a "On the spot risk assessment" or Last minute type risk assessment, but I am not 10 happy with it as I feel something is missing (I am not sure exactly what).

It is in an effort to compliment our already existing assessments, but for those tasks which just seem to pop up from no where. I want our employees to consider risk before start the job, which they do at the moment but I want to formalism it for them and also give them some steers.

Is there anyone out there who does some thing similar and can perhaps share with me there forms?

Any help appreciated.

Thanks.

Where I work we call them point of work risk assessment BUT

They supplement the main RA not replace it AND

There are strict criteria about proceeding

Whatever you come up with you may also want to consider a feedback mechanism, to allow the main assessment to also consider these issues (without the potential pressure for on the spot decisions) for future work.

Hi Ken.
You say employees - I suggest there must be line supervisors in the chain, which is the key person to make decisions about risk. Maybe you meant them.

Only if the risk is significant do we need to 'record' - keeping it as short and simple as possible.

There are always situations cropping up which are not anticipated - it baffles me that 'we' think that everything in life can be considered so far in advance that long forms can be completed, and information, instruction etc. documented. By someone.

Thanks Sadlass

Yes these will be completed by Supervisors/Team Leaders. And I hope to record it for a couple of reasons 1. to give feedback on how well forms were completed. 2. To see if there was any learning from it. 3. If there are trends which are there but never logged then I can put in place something more prescriptive and detailed that people can refer to if/when the jobs rears it head again.

Thanks

Ken

NR

I still maintain a priori rights to the use of Take % as a form of dynamic RA even though it has been stolen and modified beyond belief so it is a mere shadow of its real self

I can find no legal authority for "dynamic" risk assessments.

Are we not confusing common sense and gut feeling with fashionable but useless buzz words?

Jon

Of course Warwickshire - sorry my bad - nicely corrected.

There are several terms used for this. We use "Take Two", but it has other terms too. Essentially, it is a stuctured way of using common sense, but as I have personally come accross, this has to be ingrained in the work-force as there is occasionally a natural tendency to take short cuts. This is also not placing ALl the responsibility onn the fronnt line, but empowering them to step-away if they feel there is something unsafe.

TAKE is an acronym which stands for:
T= Talk: Have I talked with everyone involved with this job?
A= Action: Do I know the proper actions I need to follow to do this job safely?
K= Knowledge: Do I have the proper knowledge (competence) to do this job safely?
E= Equipment: Do I have the proper equipment, including the proper personal protective equipment, to do this job safely?

Two:- It generally doea not take more than two minutes to do the above.
.

Somewhere people are confusing the legal requirements and the role of DRA. We are legally required to assess work and record significant findings, which includes control measures. If we want a record then DRA is NOT the way to go and I shall not argue the toss about which nemonic is best as I know mine is:-)

Where persons are undertaking work remote fromthe workplace in such as client premises then one has to consider how the legal requirement can be met. Standard tasks can be generically assessed BUT they must be reviewed for all control measures and any additional necessary controls required at the point of work and signed off as the assessment for that place of work. In such cases say of service engineers who may return to a specific place to undertake the same work many times for a client then this final assessment becomes the start point for a reviewed assessment at the next visit and again signed off and so forth. Permanent changes to a location then become incorporated into the whole.

Do not attempt to make DRA the prime assessemnt for a task - it is intended to be a continuing iterative process throughout the task - keeping the operative alert to the changing nature of the workplace and any unexpected situations that arise within the task itself and then seeking new controls or confirming that the existing are adequate. Bear in mind that the original Take 5 was developed in the forecourt delivery situation for petroleum delivery drivers. It was then developed by myself for use by service engineers and thence into site construction activity. It has been forced by many into being a recorded assessment notably in such as the jobcentre plus contracts. Do not fall into the trap of attempting merely a DRA, even if recorded(sic) to replace the legally required task assessement.

Bob

Not aswering Ken's question but an HSE inspector's view on DRA taken from an IOSH conference presentation last March:

How many use dynamic risk assessments on site

Investigation reports refer to dynamic risk assessments – becoming more common

Management Regs state that you shall record significant risk assessments where you employ five or more

It does not refer to dynamic risk assessments

Dynamic risk assessments means I forgot – no record – no proof
In breach of the management Regs

Will accept in an emergency – recorded later

DRA is always an extra to any process and while I agree that it can seem to be a cop out this is only when organisations fail to undertake what is required under legislation. If there are significant findings then record and a mere record of the risk is just as useless without control measures as one not done at all. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that companies manage the risks of their business and not proceed on a wing and prayer so to speak.

DRA is not another simple layer of bureaucracy - it is about keeping persons undertaking tasks involved in assessing the ongoing risk as they develop or not. As soon as the TRA is written it is in danger of being out of date - certainly as the work progresses. It is the balance that has to be correct and yes the courts do not like non concrete evidence BUT the use of DRA to support a formal RA is recognised as evidence of a well managed system, just as diary notes by supervisors following a walk round the workplace.

If I put my auditors hat on and look at the standard clause 4.3.1 re risk assessment - the simple existence of a RA does not totally prove compliance with the system, I look for supporting evidence of the application via the activities of supervisors in monitoring and the actions of persons undertaking the work. Operatives aware of whether or not the TRA is not totally applicable or that there are changes in the work environment give confidence of a functional system. Evidence even in a diary note that supervisors have been correcting deviations gives even more confidence. All of this is above and beyond mere regulation but then mere regulation following does not mean necessarily that the workplace is safe.

Bob

Correction - exitus.