Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Thundercliffe26308  
#1 Posted : 21 May 2015 12:05:49(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Thundercliffe26308

I recently went out to an office and they have completed a COSHH assesment which identified the products used (hand wash washing up liquid and hand sanitiser) as the only products used, identifed them as low risk, then got all the office staff to read the assessment and sign an information sheet. The photcopies are on contract and an engineer will turn up and change and remove teh cartridges from site and the office is contract cleaned. Good simple idea or not ??
hilary  
#2 Posted : 21 May 2015 12:13:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
hilary

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.
Ron Hunter  
#3 Posted : 21 May 2015 14:29:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

Thundercliffe26308 wrote:
I recently went out to an office and they have completed a COSHH assesment which identified the products used (hand wash washing up liquid and hand sanitiser) as the only products used, identifed them as low risk, then got all the office staff to read the assessment and sign an information sheet.
Quote:
What a complete and utter was of time!!!!!
Ron Hunter  
#4 Posted : 21 May 2015 14:31:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

Thundercliffe26308 wrote:
I recently went out to an office and they have completed a COSHH assesment which identified the products used (hand wash washing up liquid and hand sanitiser) as the only products used, identifed them as low risk, then got all the office staff to read the assessment and sign an information sheet.
I'm suffering from fat-finger syndrome today! That should read "what a complete and utter waste of time"
Ian Bell  
#5 Posted : 21 May 2015 14:39:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian Bell

No doubt Mr Packham will disagree - standard response about water damage to hands etc. But I did kind of think the same - just I don't comment as much these days. Not worth the aggro you get from the Mods
chris.packham  
#6 Posted : 21 May 2015 20:53:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

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
bob youel  
#7 Posted : 22 May 2015 06:53:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bob youel

with all due respect; I would concentrate on significant risk only -unless there's something going on in this office which has not been highlighted in your posting best wishes
Thundercliffe26308  
#8 Posted : 26 May 2015 09:01:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Thundercliffe26308

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.
jodieclark1510  
#9 Posted : 26 May 2015 09:15:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jodieclark1510

Personally I wouldn't, but if that is what suits the situation then that's what matters really.
walker  
#10 Posted : 26 May 2015 09:23:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker

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.
walker  
#11 Posted : 26 May 2015 09:24:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker

chris.packham wrote:
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
Thats a useful "rule of the thumb". Thanks Chris.
Melrose80086  
#12 Posted : 26 May 2015 09:46:25(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Melrose80086

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.
Ron Hunter  
#13 Posted : 26 May 2015 11:21:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

OK - a bit blunt and apologies for that - but I stand by the statement. Unlike Melrose, I wouldn't be congratulating anyone here. I'd be (diplomatically) steering these people away from trivia towards real hazards (fire, musculo-skeletal, slips and trips) and quietly dropping that "COSHH" work into the bin. This unfortunate focus on trivia can give those office people entirely the wrong perception of health and safety risk (or "health and safety" as a whole) - even in a low risk office environment.
Melrose80086  
#14 Posted : 26 May 2015 17:09:44(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Melrose80086

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.
Matt_Channnon  
#15 Posted : 28 May 2015 16:00:06(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Matt_Channnon

I don't condone completing a COSHH assessment for hand washing or saintisers, this is over the top. If these people need to wash their hands and or sanitise - there must be a "real" hazardous substance which they need to control?
chris.packham  
#16 Posted : 28 May 2015 18:19:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

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
Users browsing this topic
Guest (3)
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.