As is often the case with RIDDOR, it all depends. The HSE's guidance for schools EDIS1 (see link) should help clarify things for you. If the accident was nothing to do with the school in terms of managment or the condition of the premises, then it is unlikely to be reportable. Having said that much depends on the circumstances of your particular incident and you don't give us much to go on!  

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/edis1.pdf

I am happy to be corrected, but RIDDOR states:

Accidents to members of the public or others who are not at work must be reported if they result in an injury and the person is taken directly from the scene of the accident to hospital for treatment to that injury. Examinations and diagnostic tests do not constitute ‘treatment’ in such circumstances.

There is no need to report incidents where people are taken to hospital purely as a precaution when no injury is apparent.

I don't see anything there that says: "Have a good look round and if you decide it wasn't your fault - don't bother to report." RIDDOR is used for statistical analysis of accidents as well as being a tool for HSE to investigate accidents.

Originally Posted by: WatsonD

I am happy to be corrected, but RIDDOR states:

Accidents to members of the public or others who are not at work must be reported if they result in an injury and the person is taken directly from the scene of the accident to hospital for treatment to that injury. Examinations and diagnostic tests do not constitute ‘treatment’ in such circumstances.

There is no need to report incidents where people are taken to hospital purely as a precaution when no injury is apparent.

I don't see anything there that says: "Have a good look round and if you decide it wasn't your fault - don't bother to report." RIDDOR is used for statistical analysis of accidents as well as being a tool for HSE to investigate accidents.

OK.  I'll bite.  That's not actually what RIDDOR says. Here you go:

5.  Where any person not at work, as a result of a work-related accident, suffers—

(a)an injury, and that person is taken from the site of the accident to a hospital for treatment in respect of that injury; or

(b)a specified injury on hospital premises,

the responsible person must follow the reporting procedure

You missed the 'work-related bit'.

From EDIS (HSE) 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/edis1.pdf

"Injuries to pupils and visitors who are involved in an accident at school or on an activity organised by the school are only reportable under RIDDOR if the accident results in:

■ the death of the person, and arose out of or in connection with a work activity; or

■ an injury that arose out of or in connection with a work activity and the person is taken directly from the scene of the accident to hospital for treatment (examinations and diagnostic tests do not constitute treatment). The lists of specified injuries and diseases described in Section 1 only apply to employees.

If a pupil injured in an incident remains at school, is taken home or is simply absent from school for a number of days, the incident is not reportable.

How do I decide whether an accident to a pupil ‘arises out of or is in connection with work’? The responsible person at the school should consider whether the incident was caused by:

■ a failure in the way a work activity was organised (eg inadequate supervision of a field trip);

■ the way equipment or substances were used (eg lifts, machinery, experiments etc); and/or

■ the condition of the premises (eg poorly maintained or slippery floors).

So, if a pupil is taken to hospital after breaking an arm during an ICT class, following a fall over a trailing cable, the incident would be reportable. If a pupil is taken to hospital because of a medical condition (eg an asthma attack or epileptic seizure) this would not be reportable, as it did not result from the work activity. "

Of course, it is down to interpretation.  Happy to be corrected on mine. In fact, if I'm wrong I need to know.

Originally Posted by: Xavier123

Originally Posted by: WatsonD

I am happy to be corrected, but RIDDOR states:

Accidents to members of the public or others who are not at work must be reported if they result in an injury and the person is taken directly from the scene of the accident to hospital for treatment to that injury. Examinations and diagnostic tests do not constitute ‘treatment’ in such circumstances.

There is no need to report incidents where people are taken to hospital purely as a precaution when no injury is apparent.

I don't see anything there that says: "Have a good look round and if you decide it wasn't your fault - don't bother to report." RIDDOR is used for statistical analysis of accidents as well as being a tool for HSE to investigate accidents.

OK.  I'll bite.  That's not actually what RIDDOR says. Here you go:

5.  Where any person not at work, as a result of a work-related accident, suffers—

(a)an injury, and that person is taken from the site of the accident to a hospital for treatment in respect of that injury; or

(b)a specified injury on hospital premises,

the responsible person must follow the reporting procedure

You missed the 'work-related bit'.

It was taken from the HSE website rather than RIDDOR and had no mention of 'work-related' that I recall. However, as I said I am happy to be corrected and I have learnt something new today, so thank you.

As indicated by JWG the message is read the regulations and don't always assume that HSE guidance is right.

Lots of pressures on HSE to try and get the number of RIDDOR reports down. These include not really wanting to know about some types of incident, let alone having to process the reports and record within national and international reported statistics

But the key point is whether work related rather than whether there was something that was illegal. You can have an accident that is RIDDOR reportable without there being a breach, whatever those who announce that "All accidents are preventable" say. They ignore the concept of reasonable practicability.

I've investigated fatalities that could not have been prevented via reasonably practicable means (by ANY of the duty holders, including the victims).

Edited by user 16 January 2019 12:42:02(UTC)  | Reason: Typo and a few extra words

The guidance on RIDDOR has changed dramatically over the 30 years I have been involved in H&S, and the bit we all appear to get confused about is “Was it part of the Work Activity”. The example I have used with schools in the past is this.

A child in a  is walking down the corridor – trips over their own untied shoelace falls, is taken to hospital and is found to have broken their arm – RIDDOR reportable? No because tying shoelaces is not part of the work activity.

A child is walking down a corridor and trips over a torn carpet – taken to hospital and is found to have a broken arm – RIDDOR reportable? Yes because maintaining the carpet is part of the work activity and the child needs hospital treatment.

As a caveat to this had the child gone home first it’s no longer RIDDOR as you have to go straight to hospital form the accident, or if they had got to hospital and the x-ray had shown no broken bones – again not to be reportable as this is diagnosis not treatment. (Unless of course some other treatment is given and that another argument – what is defined as treatment?)

Hope that helps in some small way.

Originally Posted by: Dave5705

I wasn't confused but I am now. What is the position? Should the accident have been reported?

Dave, it should not have been reported. The OP states that the school contributed nothing to the accident; therefore not work related, therefore not reportable,

John

I have been giving advice to schools re RIDDOR for the best part of 25 years & it is still a FAQ despite written guidance!

I would just like to throw a slight spanner in the works re posting #8 which quite correctly gives the HSE's guidance re reporting.

On the one hand it states that lack of supervision can be one of the factors to take into consideration, but an asthma attack resulting in a visit to a hospital for treatment would not be reportable.

Well, let me give you an actual case where a child at a High School had an asthma attack & the staff did not follow the correct protocol for that particular child.

The child was eventually taken to hospital where unforunately he died & at the subsequent Coroner's Inquest a Consultant from the hospital stated that, in his opionion, the child would probably have lived if admitted earlier.

There was no subsequent action by the HSE for non RIDDOR reporting or anything else....my question is, should there have been & is the current RIDDOR advice flawed?