I am currently updating my guidance notes to clients on the proposed changes & am wondering if the requirements under the section "Injuries to persons not at work" will dilute the reasons for reporting. I am specifically referring to the proposed requirement to only report visits to hospital if treatment is actually given as opposed to the current Regs. where this is not currently required. The other factor which triggers a report is that the injury arose out of a "work activity", but this may now mean that the cause of the injury may not be investigated with the same vigour if the injury is not treated & therefore not reported. Your opinions would be welcome! Zyggy

I think the HSE answer to a query made on behalf of the Universities Safety and Health Association will answer the question posed. I will quote the question posed to the HSE and the answer received. I trust my USHA colleagues will have no objection to me posting this from their forum. “During the recent consultation on RIDDOR I asked HSE the question about Injuries to non-workers and I thought that this might be of help you all. In the new guidance it says You must report injuries to members of the public or people who are not at work if they are injured through a work-related accident, and are taken from the scene of the accident to hospital for treatment to that injury. Examinations and diagnostic tests do not constitute 'treatment' in such circumstances. There is no need to report incidents where people are taken to hospital purely as a precaution when no injury is apparent. The question being how would we know if the injury was treatable as such? We are reliant on the person contacting the University to say that they received treatment. As you are aware Universities have quite a lot of visitors and students that we either take or send as a precaution to A&E (another problem for the NHS which is bumping the numbers up) but we rarely get to hear about what happened. We always follow up with students as we have a contact number but they often ignore the message as for visitors we might never know. So can we safety assume that the act of notification is on the individual themselves to report that they received treatment? Reply from HSE as follows Diagnostic examination or tests have never been considered 'treatement' under RIDDOR. Further, there is no requirement under RIDDOR to provide a report if you do not have information about any treatment provided at a hospital. So, where it is clear that treatment is required (or indeed already being provided ) when the person is taken from the site you would report it (assuming other criteria are met). Where it is not clear that treatment is required (a precautionary visit) and you do not receive information to confirm treatment, you do not have to do send a report. There is no onus on the responsible person to follow up each case that goes to hospital as a precautionary measure. This detail is published in an FAQ on reporting in schools on our main RIDDOR web pages: http://www.hse.gov.uk/ri...njuries-in-schools" John

John, thanks for taking the time to post your reply, much appreciated! However, the HSE's response that if "you do not receive information to confirm treatment, you do not have to send a report" is at odds with the "web friendly" version of L73 (4th edition published 2012) which states: "The phrase in regulation 3(1)(c): ‘Taken from the site of the accident to hospital for treatment’ describes a situation where someone is taken to hospital because it appears that some medical attention may be necessary. There is no requirement to check that treatment is actually administered by the hospital. The injury must still be reported in cases where the person does not receive treatment." It's that last sentence that is the issue, i.e. currently no treatment, but still reportable versus the proposed new legislation where no treatment means it is not reportable! Zyggy

John, I understand what the revised proposals say, but it is the current guidance as previously mentioned which states "The injury must still be reported in cases where the person does not receive treatment." If no treatment always meant no report, then the previous advice from the HSE was plainly incorrect!! I may be wrong (& frequently am!) but I think that many of my H&S colleagues followed the current HSE advice as a result of that advice...I stand to be corrected! My view is that the proposed guidance on this topic is just too woolly & open to a myriad of interpretations which is what the new legislation was supposed to address. Zyggy

why o why o why o why... Not to this thread in particular but the thousands like it including this one. Why do so so so many people get thier knickers in a twist about RIDDOR full stop? Never has or will a single piece of Legislation be the cause of so much misunderstanding, misinterpretation, debate, confusion and take safety thread airtime as RIDDOR. Lets try another way, without being silly, but trying to offer a common sense approach. Think 'Does reporting [insert incident] this add any value to anyone, feel like it should be reported, feel like its close to (without splitting hairs) something described in the regs, make common sense to report and from a humane, economic and legal sense feel in the spirit of the regs to report? If the answers is well actually yes then its a fair call the HSE want to know about it. If its a no, they probably don't. Don't ignore the realistic chances of you having to explain on oath why you did/did not report said incident - you have more chance of being a double lottery winner - IMO. Don't lose any sleep over it and carry on lowering your overall risks to reduce the likelihood of having potentially reportable accidents in the future.. Why do so many people worry needlesly about RIDDOR? 1) fear that reporting 'x' = inspector turning up on doorstep tomorrow = fine/publicity/notices = sack = dole queue. 2) Target this year is 10% reduction in RIDDOR's from last year. Failure = sack = dole queue. Teeny weeny chance of a visit ( see similar odds above) - higher if reporting a fatality of course but more likely a '1' gets added in a tally chart for statistical purposes and the world keeps turning..

Without meaning to extend this debate any further than it needs to, my experience is that within companies in the public eye (e.g. retailers), a high % of RIDDORs are followed up by the local authority (I was the person who got the calls). I would say in excess of 70% of the RIDDORs we submitted (over a 3 year period that I was there) lead to a phone call / request for RAs / site visit / any combination of the 3. The only significant drop in % was during summer holidays and xmas, and that is not a joke! Not that the above should have any bearing on reporting, just my experience seems different to yours in that regard.

Surely we have the HSE response at #3?

As I posted #3 I can assure you it came from a source that is 100% reliable. If it had not been I would not have posted it. No mind reading skills required :-)