Raining today so no golf, thought I'd have a little look in & then found this. Relates to the 'wasp sting' thread last week. Absolutely spot on here is Judith - no wonder our industry gets ridiculed.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/ne...segen&cr=1/01-sep-14

Whilst I fully agree with Judith's comments, these relate to what one might term an 'incidental' wasp sting. It might be a different situation if the person's work involved handling bees. In such a situation:
You would have no way of knowing in advance whether the person (and there could, of course, be more than one) might be sensitised as there is no prior indication of sensitisation. Testing for sensitisation would be impractical.
A sudden occurrence of allergy accompanied by anaphylaxis could not be ruled out and could occur without warning.
It might therefore make sense to have the appropriate means of dealing as a first aid measure with a sudden extreme urticarial reaction, possibly with anaphylaxis, and have a first aider trained to do this.
As speed in vital in cases of anaphylaxis, have procedures in place for getting the affected person to hospital quickly.

Presumably you would already have risk assessment and appropriate exposure management strategies in place.

Chris

*like button*

Hmmmmmm ........... Here we go again.

Isn't Judith saying just that? If your work involves working with bees, or wasps for that matter you will expect to have risk assessed your work, however if not involving bees or wasps then no need to risk assess because it is not related to your work.

Further she is saying no need to investigate so why not take her advice and just treat it as a one off and concentrate on your real risks.

What would you rather bee or a wasp :)

Doh

I’m with you Victor.

Judith makes a point about a wasp sting in the workplace and a ‘full investigation’ might be considered an over the top response.

On reading her article I assumed that Judith was referring to a non-bee/wasp related workplace. Or – indeed – she wasn’t referring to a workplace where the employer was warned that a large piece of plant contained a very active wasp’s nest and did nothing about it. [For example as happened in a factory I worked in during the 1970’s that resulted in a number of workers being stung before said nest disappeared. Wouldn’t happen the 21st Century of course.]

How ironic that the point Judith was making was that we needed to get things into proportion!

Some years ago a young girl swallowed a wasp and it caught in the back of her throat. By the time professional assistance arrived, her throat had swelled, windpipe contracted and she was asphyxiated. Her family were devastated. Not devastated in the journalistic sense of the word – ie the celebrity model was devastated when she broke a finger nail – but devastated as in nothing will ever be the same again. Should this be the benchmark against which to do a workplace risk assessment – a person somewhere might die?

Apparently in the USA around 40 people a year die from bee/wasp stings.

However when I read Judith’s article about giving proportionate advice – especially as I had to sign up to ‘Provide sensible and proportionate advice’ on applying to be on the Occupational Safety and Health Consultant’s Register – it seemed to me that was what Judith was giving. I don’t think she was offering up advice to those whose work circumstances require a legitimate risk assessment for bee or wasp stings.

On a more practical note, bees and wasps belong to the Hymenoptera order. Whereas the furry, industrious, laid back sounding bumble bee is apparently most happy when collecting pollen, it does not tend to get upset unless disturbed or threatened.

Wasps, on the other hand, are notoriously vicious. Hence all wasps emit a sound that can be instantly recognised as bringing trouble on the wing. Having seen close ups of a variety of different wasps, they all had quite vicious looking faces, a viciousness that was also underlined by the liberal application of the universal hazard warning colours – yellow and black. The whole demeanour of a wasp screams ‘Get out of my way!’ - ignore at your peril.

Cheers.

Nigel

PS Where's BUZZ Lightyear when you need him!

Hi Victor,

You've cheered me up no end with that post. Great to see basic cop on within the HSE.

Ciarán

Nice one pete48........ got stung myself this morning....... for the coffees - missus forgot her purse. Mind you I'd defy Houdini to get her to buy the coffees because I've never known anything to come out of that purse in 40 years.

Peter, I can't believe you survived!

IMHO wardrobes should be topple tested, obviously, because that's just what wardrobes do when unbalanced.

The company fined for not doing so have no complaint.

Walker, did you read what the circumstances of this tragic and wholly avoidable fatal accident were?

John

walker

http://www.shponline.co....fined-following-resident’s-suffocation

I have to say when I read this article I could not help but think - oh, the benefit of hindsight strikes again. I do admit I know nowt about care homes or topple testing - just the university of life!

Furthermore, I find it a bit rich that Judith is preaching common sense. The HSE have been the insitgators of many OTT regulations, ACOPs and guidance over several decades.

I work in a hospital and this has been a major issue. We now have all wardrobes and chests of drawers fixed but there had been a number of incidents of toppling particularly when the top drawer was opened, most of this prior to my time. I had to prepare a rerort highlighting the extent of the issue and spend an inordinate amount of time trying to explain the law of the lever to the maintenance department who did not see the issue! Finally got tired of this and had the Nursing department have them removed from all areas. All at fixed points within a week.
Anyway sorry if i strayed from the point.

The wardrobe had been fixed to the wall!

The failure was caused by inadequate fixings for the force that the deceased was able to apply when trying to open the locked door. A straightforward technical issue.

This suggests that:

-the person who identified the standard of work was either not competent to do so or made a simple error of judgement.

-there is no adequate company wide engineering standard for such employees to follow. (yes I know that doesn't happen everywhere)

So if this person also completed a risk assessment, whether written or not, then it is unlikely that the outcome would be any different.(Incidentally we don't know from the article if there was any formal risk assessment or indeed whether the judge was suggesting that there should be in this case.)

Highlights the problematic nature of who does such technical aspects of defining hazards and controls. It seems that the person(s) doing the work are not necessarily the best person (s) to risk assess the work? All too often such things are left solely to a 'coal face' person.

So everything to do with proportionate risk assessment IMO. However, as in this case, not so much at the coal face bit but, more importantly, the strategic management of risk within an organisation.

A good wardrobe fixing kit may not be good for very long if the wall is a thin plasterboard.
Using the wardrobe, just opening the doors and pulling drawers, over time may loosen the fixing, the rawlplugs may lose their grip and unfortunately one day a bit if forceful drawer opening or pulling on the top shelf may cause it to come away.
So regular testing in risky situations (e.g. old folk and students) is good practice.

Ray, I think the bit you are overlooking in your comment is the personal care plan for any individual in care that has to go alongside the more general 'workplace' assessment. That was quite a significant part of this tragedy IMO.

JohnW, indeed the fixings in this case were only into the plasterboard and not the solid wall hence my comment about inadequate engineering

p48