Rank: Super forum user 
|
Is it soon to be a legal requirement that all accidents have to be investigated? Yes I know they should be, but currently is it simply best practice, usually based on the seriousness of the event and not always a legal requirement.
SBH
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I thought the government were trying to get rid of legislation not write more :)
OK - my answer - it already is... why do I say that?
1) to report the accident in the accident book or under the RIDDOR regulations requires a certain amount of information to be gathered = investigation?
2) the Management regulations (reg 3,3(a)there is reason to suspect that it is no longer valid;) imply that after an accident the risk assessment must be reviewed - the only way to this properly is to investigate.
This used to be clarified in the AcOP but as it's now gone I would say the duty is higher :)
(Old ACoP - "b) adequately investigating the immediate and underlying causes of
incidents and accidents to ensure that remedial action is taken, lessons
are learnt and longer term objectives are introduced.")
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Apparently the new Health and Safety (Sharps Instruments in Healthcare) Regulations 2013 do impose a duty to investigate needle stick injuries in a health care setting: Reg 7. (1) (b) investigate the circumstances and cause of the incident; This the first time that a duty to investigate has been defined in law.
I doubt in the current ‘let’s get rid of red tape’ climate that this principle would be extended to other types in incident. Even if there was the will to do this, what incidents would you want to investigate? I cannot see the benefit in investigating every paper cut and I have severe reservations about using the RIDDOR criteria as a basis for an investigation. Finally I’d be slightly concerned that in the future the cash-strapped HSE might us this as another tool to prise money out of employers under the FFI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Specifically, Regulation 5 of the MHSWR.
As described in L21 ACoP paragraph 36(b): "adequate" investigation. I would take "adequate" to infer a proportionate response, dependent on the actual or potential outcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
ron hunter wrote:Specifically, Regulation 5 of the MHSWR.
As described in L21 ACoP paragraph 36(b): "adequate" investigation. I would take "adequate" to infer a proportionate response, dependent on the actual or potential outcome.
The ACoP has been withdrawn. I am not clear what if anything replaces it.
MHSAW reg 5 deals with the generalities of organisation and arrangements but does not specify a duty to investigate
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
L21 withdrawn, but certainly not forgotten, and I think a reasonably valid reference in the context of the OP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
ron hunter wrote:L21 withdrawn, but certainly not forgotten, and I think a reasonably valid reference in the context of the OP.
In what way?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A Kurdziel wrote: In what way?
Whilst it has only just been withdrawn, it was before that ACoP (with all that brings in terms of legal authority) and it specifically stated:
"Monitoring includes.........adequately investigating the immediate and underlying causes of
incidents and accidents to ensure that remedial action is taken,lessons are learnt and longer term objectives are introduced."
No doubt L21 remains admissable in all outstanding relevant proceedings.
I've yet to plough through the on-line replacement info. Whilst there may well be something that says the same thing, it won't have the ACoP status. IMHO deleting the ACoP is a significant loss for all concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.