My thoughts are the same as yours - but I often see 'dynamic risk assessment' misused in this way to mean a task-specific or location-specific risk assessment recorded on a checklist.

A lot of companies I have worked for have a dislike for Dynamic Risk Assessments more often an not because they aren't recorded.

I think the term Dynamic Risk Assessment is being incorrectly applied to work/activities that may have specific precautions to be undertaken by the worker, but typically remains static. There are more relevant terms to use --all have some form of checklist-Last Minute Risk Assessment (LMRA), Point of Work Risk Assessment (POWRA)

Dynamic Risk Assessment concept with emergency response services is a different matter as the scenarios is indeed dynamic.

Don't like the term dynamic risk assessment as all two often I have seen it mean get on with the job at all costs and we will justify it later. However I agree that there are many times and jobs where you have to apply Dynamic controls. So for the examples given where people may be undertaking similar tasks at different sites the risk assessment may say, If Condition X are found then the following controls are applied, if Y then the following controls are applied, if Z then get the heck out of there!
I hope that makes sense as difficult to explain in a few words.

I agree totally with boblewis. DRA is something the HSE dislike intensly and are loath to accept as part of a suitable and sufficient risk assessment unless it was carried out in an emergency situation during a task, which by its nature is ever changing. Everything else should have been considered in advance of the task as part of the normal risk assessment process.

I hope this helps.

DJ

Ray

Organised outdoor activities for pupils, students and other young people can provide other examples of scenarios where, as you say at #11, "DRAs are most useful where the working environment may not be known or changes in time." For example, if students are doing biology-related work beside or in a normally docile stream or shallow river and it starts rising and flowing faster because of heavy rain perhaps falling some miles away, the students and/or any supervisory adult would be using DRA by deciding to abandon or at least modify the activity so as to minimise the risk arising from the change in the stream/river.

Some forum users might say that such groups should look at and note weather forecasts before venturing out of doors. However, such forecasts are not always obtainable, reliable or remain constant, especially for remote and/or mountainous areas.

The application of DRAs (as I understand them) by leaders of young people during outdoor activities also serves as a very valuable lesson for such people about the need to be alert about different conditions or what is happening around them, and to respond accordingly to significant changes.

Graham B

Dynamic Risk Assessment - a 'thing'
or assessing risk in a dynamic situation - a decision-making process?
As ever, the term 'risk assessment' seems to equal 'filling in a form'. And of course 'completing a form' is not 'dynamic'.

Being able to review plans 'on the hoof' and select appropriate options to maintain a safety envelope, would be the skills and behaviour needed; when out on a school trip (and the weather conditions change unexpectedly); dealing with an emergency situation, such as fire; or a myriad of activities where things just change, or turn out to be not 'as planned'. You can only record a dynamic situation and responses after the event (unless you record dynamically at the time such as by video etc).

Much of what has been mentioned is variation (sites) and usually across a predictable range. A WELL-DESIGNED short checklist can be used as a decision tool, also providing a record for these situations. But such scenarios are 'on the spot' assessments, not DRA.

DRA can only be used where circumstances anticipate and support it (emergency crews etc) and the appropriate level of training has been given, to develop risk awareness and decision making skills.

PS. There is a book - S Asbury/E Jacobs, 'Dynamic Risk Assessment', 168 pages. £35.

Bob

Not sure if the difference is semantics or practices. I cannot see how if it is done before the work it is not necessarily DYNAMIC. Going back to my example of working on a roof a generic RA is not much good if the idiosyncrasies associated with the task are not fully known prior to starting work. For example, is it a flat or a pitched roof, what are the prevailing weather conditions, can you access the roof internally or do you need a ladder, scaffold, MEWP, etc.

Now I suppose it could be argued that some of these factors should be known before sending the operatives out to repair the roof. However not ALL the factors could be predicted, such as the prevailing weather, which might dictate it is not safe to work on the roof. If this is NOT a DRA process, then what do you call it?

In my opinion anything that we do that has human input has some type of DRA attached, because it is about thought processes, we all think differently.

In the past when I used to train headteachers, school governors, etc., about risk assessment I tended to ask who had come to the training session by car and then suggest that while driving they had made numerous decisions, alias fleeting dynamic risk assessments (DRAs), for the situations they encountered, e.g. before pulling out of a side road onto a main road, looking both ways and assessing whether or not the traffic on the main road enabled them to do so without risk to themselves and their cars.

To echo Invictus's point above, we all make countless DRAs throughout our lives, but almost all of them are very fleeting and unrecorded and so we simply don't think of them as DRAs!

Graham B

I've not seen DRA's used in any area other than the Emergency Services. As part of my roles in Fire and Rescue I have used DRA's thousands of times, however these are not a standalone assessment. For foreseeable risks there will already be generic risk assessments (GRA) and operational guidance in place. However due to the dynamic nature of emergencies it is not always possible or indeed appropriate to follow these to the letter. The guidance is merely that, guidance... operational crews will work closely to the guidance and training they have received but if the benefit outweighs the risk they may increase the risk proportionally by carrying out a DRA. This should be backed up with an Analytical Risk Assessment (ARA) as soon as practicable. This is a written version of the DRA which highlights any variations from operational guidance, GRA's or Standard Operating Procedures and is updated on a regular basis as the incident changes.

GRA's, safe working practices, Method statements are the tools of our trade, we then produce specific for certain tasks although these then become GRA's.

It does depend on what we see as a dynamic assessment, is it something that changes as the task moves forward. If you take the FRS for instance, they must have GRA's for a lot of tasks dealing with demestic fire, rescuing cat from tree, rescuing from a car accident. Then they come across something that has changed or they do something different. We can never cover all aspects or take out human factors and that's when people make the dynamic assessment and how many times do you find out.

The simplest way is write a assessment for crossing a public that splits a factory no matter what you write you cannot take into account what another person is going to do, so the person crossing will make a dynamic assessment, speed, distance, statrt to cross before the car has stopped at the crossing etc.

I think David Thomas is doing himself and the WISH forum a disservice by not spelling the word out in capitals! See the waste pages on the HSE website.

O.P. Yes I agree in part.
Most people do talk of dynamic risk assessment when they mean a variable situation where predictable hazards may or may not be present and safe working choices have to be made within prescribed procedures. These are commonly found with work on third party sites. A sort of select from the menu of safe working practices approach. Selection made by competent and experienced people. A written record not always being necessary.

However, those in the emergency services or high risk industries will, I am sure, recognise the definition of the "continuous assessment of risk in the rapidly changing circumstances of an operational incident, in order to implement the control measures necessary to ensure an acceptable level of safety".
That definition reflects its use in the emergency services when safe working often has to be determined on the spot by competent experienced people. That doesn’t mean it should only be used in that environment.
What it does mean, however, is that it really only applies when the situation at hand is dynamic, i.e. rapidly changing as the situation is developing. Situations where it is neither sensible nor practicable to try to formally pre-assess all the scenarios that could occur. In fact to do so may actually increase the risks! That is the KEY point.

In my opinion any well designed risk control strategy must check whether any such rapidly changing circumstances could develop within the works undertaken by the business.

If they do, then the risk assessment process must include arrangements for dynamic control. Those arrangements must specify and provide the competencies, resources and authorities that will be required to control those rapidly changing risks.

If there are no such circumstances then we need to have those predictable hazards and controls wrapped in our risk assessments. Then it doesn't matter that much what we call them; it just introduces confusion amongst anoraks like us.

Surely it's both, before and during, before if it is specific assessment and this is the first time you have been on site you do not know what you are going to meet so you are carrying out a dynamic assessment as you are completing the risk assessment for whoever will then attend site.

People still need to know that even a generic assessment maybe subject to change whilst there on the job otherwise they will blindly follow the assessment and not think for themselves.

No the task changes just because people do things and all work differently doesn't make it 'dynamic' I don't believe working at height is dynamic, because if you have all the safety measures in place this should include speed of the wind that you cannot work in, but it could change if you do something that sets off other events, i.e. remove something and you notice that the wall or part of the roof becomes unstable.

People are a pain without them the job would be safe.

Ray

The issue of terms and definitions is important though otherwise we will all talk at cross purposes. OOOOPs just like this thread