With regards to page 3 of this document and the flow chart contained within, how would safety people contend with / what are safety peoples thoughts on, "potential" fainting as a hazard in this flow chart? http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg373.pdf

Rob's right.

A hazard you might need to consider though is her environment - machinery, stairs, edges, chemicals, etc., these are all hazards which one would not like to faint around.

Identify whether fainting is an issue for her (it doesn't present with every pregnancy), then look at the hazards she may be exposed to if she does faint.

Uhhh ok, so fainting isnt a hazard but hitting the ground is right? Thats like saying cars arent a hazard but being struck by one is. Also as there is a higher liklihood of a pregnant woman fainting then isnt that a more significant hazard for that person rather than a regular person.

Here we go.

No, hitting the ground is not a hazard as the ground is not posing a risk.

A car parked on the pavement is a hazard if one has to walk into a busy road in order to walk around/past it. The risk then would be a person being in contact with the moving traffic and that the moving traffic would become an additional hazard.

If sitting on the ground near a fainting pregnant woman..The falling woman would be the hazard ...

Never seen a pregnant woman fainting but it does happen. Blood clots can and do kill but we can go on for days like this.

So in order to his the floor you have to faint right so you cant have one without the other. The process of fainting makes you hit the floor so hitting the floor is a hazard of fainting. This conversation is getting bogged down in semantics now.

btw tabs you took it from the drivers perspective rather than the person crossing the road's perspective.

A fainting anybody has the potential to cause harm if they land on you.

A medical condition causes the faint.

If someone is ill, feels faint, light headed etc the seek medical help. It is a medical condition. The hazard would be letting an ill person loose on plant.

The floor is not the problem here and this is getting silly or does Brian think it's Friday already

:-)

No zimmy I don't think its Friday, and I agree that we are getting bogged down in semantics- The point I was making is in most case's I would not consider fainting in a risk assessment as unlikely to be able to put controls in place. Don't consider it to be a significant risk in most pregnancies so again would not consider it routinely - but if someone started with a history of fainting I might want to talk to the person to see if it was IU safety Issue I could deal with.

Now you may have posted again while I am typing this so, just as you did on my last post so please be aware that I am only responding to your post with the Friday comment - neither am I trying to score points just help out a fellow practitioner.

Brian

Right, these are the kinds of comments I was after. In all honesty, we dont see her as a risk, we see her as trying it on to get out from working her term under safety grounds.... it feels a bit like a whiplash injury claim in all honesty. She hasnt fainted in work though said she has at home though this is unverifiable. Low risk office worker though can be on her own except for contractors obtaining paperwork from an office on regular intervals.

the main thing of point her at the door marked 'Doctor' is it has financial impliactions when the fainting is, as yet, unproven, though it is her word that it happens at home so as we are aware it is now reasonably forseeable, and 'maybe' reasonably likely. As I said, feels like a whiplash injury claim, the invisible injury.

rockybalboa

Your in one of those wonderful catch 22 situations we often find ourselves in. The lady has told you she is fainting, unless you are medically qualified can you assess that?

I think you are correct to assess the situation.

Do you have any occupational health support that could assist (nurse etc) as its medical related you have to be extra careful.

You say its unverafiable but if the first time you could verify was at work you could be in a sticky situation. Her work place is low risk you say except for being on her own fileing - could you not keep her in an area where there are others about to see her faint and fall. Or some mobile phone has a system where by you are notified if a pesrons is imobile for two long - have seen these used as part of a lone worker programe.

Good luck with your efforts on finding a solution.

quote=rockybalboa] You know I bet not one of you has actually looked at the chart in the pdf HSE document in my original post.

Hi Brian,

Your in one of those wonderful catch 22 situations we often find ourselves in. The lady has told you she is fainting, unless you are medically qualified can you assess that?

I think you are correct to assess the situation.

Do you have any occupational health support that could assist (nurse etc) as its medical related you have to be extra careful.

You say its unverafiable but if the first time you could verify was at work you could be in a sticky situation. Her work place is low risk you say except for being on her own fileing - could you not keep her in an area where there are others about to see her faint and fall. Or some mobile phone has a system where by you are notified if a pesrons is imobile for two long - have seen these used as part of a lone worker programe.

Good luck with your efforts on finding a solution.

No I cant assess the situation, her doctor said she is fit for work though I still dont think that will exempt us from a potential claim should it head that way. Our occ health team might be worth a shot but dunno what they'll say to fainting. Possibly CCTV with her, regular check ins on people. Its really to appease the pregnant employee and head this off at the pass.

Looking at it from purely a numbers game I think paying her at work and taking the risk of her fainting and injuring herself versus her fainting injuring herself and claiming, I reckon we would save money paying a claim rather than pay two employees for the same job. Possibly not the best way to look at it but pragmatic given that the unpredicatability of it all.

Tabs, sorry if you picked me up in the wrong way though all the semantic posts I was wading through said nothing at all on the flowchart which was my original post and I guess my frustration surfaced. Actually on reading your post again I would say yours is surfacing a tad more. No matter, thank you for your analogy. It was very easternish I though with trees falling in the woods making no sounds...spooky. :)

Thank you for your effort though

Mine is:

Contrafribularites

Andy

Semantics aside, the post asked how "fainting" would be applied in the context of the flow chart on page wotsit of the referenced guidance. The answer therefore remains the same. Fainting isn't a hazard, therefore you cannot hope to address this using the referenced flowchart.

I detest that particular guidance document. Fainting isn't a hazard, and neither is pregnancy, and yet this document suggests we conduct a "risk assessment" of the individual. Patent nonsense of course.
Whatever happened to sitting down and talking to people? 'Risk Assessment' indeed!

Phantasmagorical.

Gosh I do love this forum! It has more sarcasm, self loving and fights than an episode of Eastenders!! :)

When doing your Risk Assessment your assessing what harm could become the mother or un-born child as part of a works process.

Now normally as part of your regular review with the lady she has to declare if her Dr has imposed any special conditions on her due to complications or risk etc.

If there has been an increased risk of fainting highlighted by the lady, see if you can get it confirmed by her Dr (doubtful but anyhoo). Reflect this in your RA or reviews and move her to job where she is sitting down etc if possible to reduce the risk should she faint.

If you have a HR department get them involved too.

Have Fun!

I like this idea - in fact get them to do it and you can go and have a lukewarm cup of tea and some chill time :)

What an odd thread. I really can’t believe that it has got bogged down in the semantics (that word again) of whether fainting is a hazard or not; personally I would consider it to be so. IMVO, ‘purist’ arguments about whether or not fainting is a hazard unhelpful and little more than an unnecessary distraction that actually serves little purpose other than to avoid the issue being discussed, and of little help is seeking to address any health and safety issues that may be associated with fainting.

The bottom line is that if I was doing a ‘maternity’ risk assessment and the person told me that they were prone to fainting (whether this was pregnancy related or not) would I give that consideration in my assessment. Yes. I reckon it’s relevant, and I would.

Pregnant women who have fainted and lay on the floor are a tripping Hazard. We therefore have to decide the course of action to remove such a hazard.

1) Remove the Hazard by good house keeping and place in a safe area

2) Isolate the Hazard by locking them in the kitchen, preferably at home

2) Don't allow anyone (man woman or child) who says they are prone to passing out into the work place as they should be on the sick!