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
ADALE  
#1 Posted : 09 August 2017 09:28:51(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
ADALE

Good morning, 

I can see this stoking all sorts of debate, so I'll restrict this to experience rather than too much abstract opinion. (I'm aware the guidance changed a while back too btw).

The difference in the latest 2 revision of INDG 163 on Risk Assessment at step 2 appears to be one significant paragraph on details of 'how' the 'who' are injured. The latest revision only has a sentence with 'How' in bold, the predecessor asked for detail of injury when discussing the how.

Has anyone seen the changes filter into proforma if they evaluate or carry out assessments as part of their roles? I'm seeing plenty of assessments lately with no detail of potential injuries (implying reliance on the subjective ratings applied) and to be honest, it niggles me. Particularly as I have exposure to knowledge court cases where the injury type wasn't specified and thus wasn't adequately controlled - leading to the injury and resultant prosecution on the basis the assessment wasn't suitable and sufficient.

Is this a casualty of red tape challenge or just the HSE trying to make more pallatable information? What are peoples experiences please?

Thanks in advance

Ron Hunter  
#2 Posted : 09 August 2017 16:13:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

On balance, I suggest the "how" is prompted by discussion at the "record your significant findings" section on page 3?

Hsquared14  
#3 Posted : 10 August 2017 11:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Hsquared14

When I do risk assessments and coach others to risk assessments I always take the approach "tell me the story"  tell me what could go wrong, how and why it could go wrong and how and why that could hurt someone and who it will hurt.  Surely you need all that information to be able to work out a control measure?  I think people get too bogged down in paragraph this of guidance that and forget what risk assessment is trying to achieve and why!

Users browsing this topic
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.