Rank: Forum user 
|
Hello all,
So 4 weeks in to my new career in Health and Safety and I have just completed my IOSH managing safely. :)
I have noticed from day 1 the vast difference in Risk Assessments used by different companies and wondering if IOSH have a standard template to use, or if anyone can advise the most compliant template?
I would like to use the risk rating calculator of 1-5 as per what I've just been taught and the project completed. I have noticed that the current ones used within the business have H, M and L (high, medium and low) as the risk level and limited information/descriptions.
The company is wanting to get accredited with UKAS for ISO 18001, does this make a difference in what template to use?
Thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
In short no. The format you use will be largely down to personal taste. Just remember though that H&S should be about consultation with employees, so no point using RAs that they don't understand, as they should be completing these themselves with your support.
Glad you have completed your IOSH MS but you really need to look at broadening this if you are going to be responsible for your companies H&S. Have a look at the membership grades on here and the quals required, to give you an idea of your next steps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi
There is no specific format for risk assessments and the H,M and L is used on the HSE example risk assessments - http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/casestudies/.
I've used 1-3, 1-5, 1-4 it really varies from company to company and there is no real right or wrong way. As long as the Risk's are identified and controls are implemented how its quantified does not really matter (i'm going to get flack for that one).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi,
The HSE have a useful template on their resources area here http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/index.htm but the risk assessment is only as good as the effort applied to it.
I've not seen a template endorsed by IOSH - though I'm not a full member here.
OHSAS18001 doesn't specify the type of template to use just as long as you have a procedure that primarily satisfies 4.3.1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hello and welcome.
Unfortunately 'IOSH Managing Safely' is not a good foundation for a career in H&S, as you are possibly about to discover. I am assuming you are already signed up for more extensive training?
There is a swathe of discussion on this and other fora about risk assessment - summarised as - there is no one way.
Risk assessment is more than filling in any specific form. There is no such thing as the most compliant template. 'Suitable & sufficient' assessment AND CONTROL of risk is what is required. Regrettably, MS gives a very theoretical and over-complex method of risk assessment but is weak on the detail of managing these and is completely at odds with HSE guidance, which ought to be a key source of reference for you. 18001 doesn't specify particularly (auditors may have a view); just that you do what you say you will.
If it's not broke, don't fix it - so if everyone is comfortable with H, M & L don't mess with it until you have absorbed and analysed the whole process. It is the control and management of residual risks that matters, not numbers, forms or templates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Ok that's good to know that there isn't a specific template we should be using. I can adapt the ones we already use to a format we can all understand, use and apply.
WatsonD wrote:
Glad you have completed your IOSH MS but you really need to look at broadening this if you are going to be responsible for your companies H&S. Have a look at the membership grades on here and the quals required, to give you an idea of your next steps.
The IOSH managing safely was my first step, and now NEBOSH General Certificate. Haven't looked further than that as yet...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
In an ideal world we would all be the using the same template for RAs and Method Statements come to that, it would make life so much easier. Apart from the specialised applications I see no good reason why industry could not adopt the same templates.
In the railway industry clients request a risk matrix based on 1-5, with 1 being the lowest risk. Again it does not really matter as Mr Flibble states what numbers are employed, as long as the rating is clear and consistent - rare in itself! The numbers are really an idiots guide anyway, I never take much notice of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Perhaps you can tell us a bit about your organisation before we give advice. (size, industry etc)
One thing I will suggest is getting hold of "Risk-led Safety - Evidence Dirven Management" by Duncan Spencer & Chris Jerman. £20 well spent. It will rapidly escalate your learning, even before you move on to bigger courses and certificates.
Read the HSE guidance thoroughly on risk assessment and Reg 3 of the management regs.
There is no one or best way or template. It is not the assessment so much as the results. If you already have rules, procedures, safety systems, method statements, they came from a judgement about how to manage the risk.
I disagree that we should all use the same format, because that takes the H&S world back to 'fill in a form' safety management and we are supposed to be better than that now. Horses for courses . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
aud wrote:Perhaps you can tell us a bit about your organisation before we give advice. (size, industry etc)
One thing I will suggest is getting hold of "Risk-led Safety - Evidence Dirven Management" by Duncan Spencer & Chris Jerman. £20 well spent. It will rapidly escalate your learning, even before you move on to bigger courses and certificates.
Read the HSE guidance thoroughly on risk assessment and Reg 3 of the management regs.
There is no one or best way or template. It is not the assessment so much as the results. If you already have rules, procedures, safety systems, method statements, they came from a judgement about how to manage the risk.
I disagree that we should all use the same format, because that takes the H&S world back to 'fill in a form' safety management and we are supposed to be better than that now. Horses for courses . .
Really? And we are not a form filling industry with meaningless reams of paper...I must have missed something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
RayRapp
are you eluding to the forest decimating documentary evidence as requested by auditors and insurers pre/during/post-shift, daily/weekly/monthly/quarterly tick lists?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
RayRapp
are you eluding to the forest decimating documentary evidence as requested by auditors and insurers pre/during/post-shift, daily/weekly/monthly/quarterly tick lists?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As has been said this is no standard format for universal Risk assessments or there shouldn’t be. Anybody claiming to have one is deluded. The form being used (that should be proforma) will be a guide to enable you to assess the risks from a particular type of area, to prioritise those risks and to select suitable controls to deal with those risks. You can either issue the form to the people doing the work or use it to develop a suitable SOP/Method Statement/SSOW etc which you then issue to employees.
A good risk assessor who knows their stuff can create an risk assessment on blank sheet of paper as a narrative story with a conclusion saying “and this is what we will do.” Most need some sort of guidance through the process. If the form tries to cover everything and be very generic, then there is a danger of creating page blank space covered in “n/a” which is just a waste of time and paper.
So… there isno such thing as generic perfect risk assessment form IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Which format you decide to use will also depend on the nature of the risk you are assessing. Risks due to physical accidents and risks due to chemical exposure require different approaches. If you are dealing with chemical hazards then get hold of a copy of COSHH and of the 6th edition of the Approved Code of Practice for COSHH and study these. If you are then still confused feel free to get in touch (PM me with your e-mail address)
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Oh dear! My hobby horses are getting a lot of exercise today!
Aud suggests reading reg 3 of the management etc regs.. I would advise against it! Reg three does NOT say what most people seem to think it says!
An assessment compliant with reg3 will simply identify relevant legislation, and what needs to be done to achieve compliance with the requirements and prohibitions therein... Reg 3 does not provide any general framework for risk management or control. Despite what the IOSH MS course (and the HSE guidance) seem to suggest... The wording is clear, but frequently overlooked!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Regulation 3 is the actual real law on risk assessment.
I am sure about what it says, I am not sure everyone is - hence I recommend people do read it!
Without the old L21 ACOP and guidance it is a short read, however, it does set out the framework. Risk assessment is only required to identify the measures to comply with the relevant statutory provisions. Back to regulations then, to find what to do. It also speaks of ‘risk assessment’ in the singular.
Without this starting point, one could assume (from a MS course) that everything must be ‘risk assessed’ thus leading to copious amounts of pointless paperwork. Surely not the intention!
It is of course, the ‘so what do we do’ actions which are important, not any numerical assessment, hence my reference to a good book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Let us not continue to confuse 'risk assessment' the noun...with the verb 'to assess'.
Risk assessment is a process and only the final teensy little part of Reg 3 talks about writing anything down....and yet 'Risk Assessment: The Paperwork' always seems to be the main event.
OP - sweat not the template as others have said. It's there as proof of a thought/discussion/evaluation process having occurred. So long as it reflects an effective process it will likely be fine.
NB. Unless you're dealing with pedantic auditors. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Xavier123 wrote:
NB. Unless you're dealing with pedantic auditors. ;)
Is there any other kind?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thank you everyone for your replies.
I'm clear now that it's the content and ability to understand rather than a specified format that's more important.
You've been a great help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.