Yes, a simple idea but ..... and in H&S there's always a but ....

Have they looked at the products used by the Contract Cleaners? These people are working their premises, therefore, they should know what products are being used on their site even if not by their staff. Worth asking the question as some of the products may also be stored on the site to save the cleaners carrying them backwards and forwards.

I'm suffering from fat-finger syndrome today!

That should read "what a complete and utter waste of time"

My only concern would be how often they were washing their hands and were they then using a moisturiser to replace the lost hydrolipidic film in the skin. The standard is that more than 20 hand washes per shift is potentially harmful. Otherwise there is no need for an in-depth risk assessment for a hand cleaner or sanitiser.

Chris

Thank you for the information, with the exception of Ron Hunter; I can see from your post you are a SUPER FORUM USER and very supportive of members posts. (if you have nothing constructive to say please do not make a comment no wonder there are less and less posts form members with that kind of comment)
The office is used by 2 people part time is in a NHS building they are contract cleaned and managed by the NHS, with all the COSHH information available used by the cleaners Personally I thought it was very inventive and forward thinking, reducing the amount of paperwork and systems that do not need to be in place.

Maybe Ron could have been less blunt but essentially he is correct.
Read COSHH regs and you will see it says concentrate on the real risks.

Ron being diplomatic as ever!

Given the office staff had completed the COSHH information I'd first have congratulated them on considering every risk. Granted, it's not a major one and the assessment isn't needed but it shows they are interested and THAT is something that should be nurtured as too often people think of safety as "someone elses problem not mine".

Have they identified any bigger issues (slips, trips and falls being the usual one in offices)? Perhaps get them to think about those and how they could be reduced (good housekeeping etc).

Being constructive rather than dismissive tends to get more results imho.

Perhaps congratulate isn't tbe best word - acknowledge perhaps but the rest is EXACTLY what you said Ron, pointing out the bigger issues.

However, completely dismissing their COSHH assessment could be a mistake - what if someone were to introduce an extremely toxic substance that DOES need an assessment and you've already dismissed the subject out of hand - steering them in the right direction by giving advice on what does constitute a COSHH assessment is more constructive no? I.e. What substances they should consider recording (if any - if there isn't then saying so but at least they would then know what to consider in the future).

It's not focusing on trivia but providing guidance on what should be recorded vs what isn't relevant to their organisation - big difference in my book.

Excessive hand washing is a major issue for contact dermatitis in health care. Not including it in the COSHH assessments and ensuring adequate controls, when around 50% of nurses will suffer from this condition is not something that I would consider acceptable, nor have some HSE inspectors. Actually the issue is not just hand washing as 'wet work' but has to include the damage to the skin by the frequent wearing of occlusive gloves. Of course, in an office situation there will not usually be a significant risk, but in other situations (health care, food handling, etc.) I would certainly encourage a risk assessment, just to be sure.
Chris