We have recently finish an IMS which incorporates ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001. The model we adopted was based on PAS 99. Like you we we a little concerned around how all of the elements would interact, but we gritted our teeth and went forward with accreditation. Which we sailed through and have now been through the first round of surveillance visits, with only one minor non-conformity. I think the problem that people have with an IMS is that they don't always look like or have the words that we all feel comfortable with when we have a traditional system.

IMS's can be great but I find that HS&F gets watered down to suit other areas in many cases and can be left to one side as it's seen as having less kudos than other areas and compliance to the standard takes priority to compliance to law - I see many many IMS's that look good and comply with the various QA standards yet time and time again I can within moments find poor practice on the front line / in reality I advocate that for other areas an IMS system can be and is great but HS&Fire is above compliance to a QA standard so should be stand alone and be set above other areas NB: I have been involved with QA since the early 70's in many many areas so I feel that I have a sensible opinion to give Wellbeing: Wellbeing is another area that is tagging onto or covering/connecting with HS&F which is again watering down HS&F