I would like to get some further information and opinions on documenting dynamic risk assessments. I understand what they mean and the purpose of these etc. What I am not sure on is whether these always need to be documented as in reality, employees on the ground carrying out work will not take the time to document this. 

Hazard identification training I feel is important to ensure employees understand how to identify issues and what control measures to take to prevent serious injuries or fatality etc. The overarching risk assessment or SOP for the particular task will be the main documents to refer to and a DRA should only be required when something happens outside of the process. I do get the need for documentation but I feel we have to be practical also.

Interested in opinions please.

Hi Stevie,

I recommend including a section for Dynamic Risk Assessment (DRA) in the pre-start briefing sheet or the STARRT card. This ensures that any dynamic or emerging risks are assessed and documented effectively during the task. If your team isn’t using an application to record DRAs, this manual inclusion will ensure accountability and promote real-time hazard identification and control.

I'm with AK on keeping it simple though I wouldn't go quite as far as to say that if there is something unexpected people should automatically be elevating things to a higher level (Yes, AK I realise that's not exactly what you said!).

Possibly those at the sharp end do have the understanding and authority to make their own decisions as to what changes they need to implement to ensure appropriate H&S standards. 

That will depend on multiple factors including how experienced they are and what the problems are that present at the sharp end.

As example, suppose you have a couple of land surveyots who have to get from A to B and they come to a stream that is not shown on the map. It might be shallow enough and slow enough flowing for them to decide that if they do X and Y they can proceed as planned. OR they might think time to stop and go back to base camp and replan the job.

Life comes full with the need for lots of so called "work arounds". Most get dealt with by people on the job and most of the time the work is done successfully and without harm and with NO additional paperwork. However, a feedback loop will always help.

What the HSE gets narked about is when people say it’s a dynamic risk assessment when what they really mean is we leave it for the people on the front line to make their decisions with no support from the centre and if it goes wrong, it’s their problem not ours i.e abdication of responsibility disguised as dynamic risk assessment. So of course to do it properly you need to train your staff so they are fully competent and you( the person at the centre) can trust them to make there own decisions including deciding not to do it.

In my experience, even saying the words dynamic, or worse generic, with any connection to risk assessment gets the pulse rising in any regulator.

Even when the sole purpose is to review any non-foreseeable, on the day, changes to the documented risk assessment, I wouldn't even contemplate naming it any combination of dynamic or risk assessmant and be very clear that nobody should refer to it as such.

Fortunately my main experience of this came before FFI as there was hours and hours of HSE contact on this subject.  To be fair a predecessor had been 'convinced' by management that Generic Risk Assessments supplimented by "Daily Risk Assessments", completed by the workers (ie Employees not Employers) were what was needed.  Its also fair to say that said predecessor was absolutely scapegoated by said management for the subsequent regulator scrutiny.

Originally Posted by: achrn

I really don't like dynamic risk assesments - too often it's a code for 'make it up as you go along without proper thought'.

..... and without the ability to actually implement anything other than very simple risk controls.