P.S. Well done IOSH! (p.s..s - the Radio 1 button was broken hence my choice of station - I'm no way near old enough for radio4 yet :) )

Also wanted to clarify my statement I meant to imply that some myths are based in fact and we need to explore why they have arisen, instead it sounded like I being more accusational than I meant to be. Apologies

Counter-intuitive to common sense? It all depends how you define 'common sense'. All too often it is assumed that this is something that we are born with (or not depending upon your viewpoint at the time!) and that we automatically have the knowledge on which to base our common sense decision. Of course, this is nonsense. Reaching a decision without sufficient knowledge to base this can hardly be described as 'common sense', yet this is often what happens. In my particular field I see lots of decisions made on the basis of 'common sense' without adequate knowledge, and which are then simply wrong. To me this is not 'common sense'. Common sense only works in conjunction with adequate knowledge. If I reach what is a logical decision based on adequate knowledge, could this not then be a 'common sense' decision? Perhaps what we should be aiming at is to ensure that people understand why common sense is not that common, nor that sensible either! Chris

I don't believe in 'common sense' as I don't think it is very common. Look at some of the accidents that occur if we use the common sense approach then you could argue that these accidents shouldn't have happened. But I also don't think that throwing a risk assessment together, writing it down and giving it to people to read is also the best approach. It may be a legal requirement but what purpose does it really serve 'to stop a claim against the company' it doesn't protect anyone. Risk assessing everything is not the answer 'making cups of tea, using a kettle, walking up and down stairs al a waste of time, what this does is deflect from the real issues and makes the profession a laughing stock. We should be allowed to risk assess real issues and then look at how to get the message across, specific training is better than any risk assessment. But come Friday afternoon and you want to finish early then that's another matter.

That was Albert Einstein! A great definition.

Just to add to my skepticism of some of the scenarios and Richard Jone's impromptu reactions, a couple of other ones stood out for me: - the case of the adult art class where they were not allowed a kettle in the art room. May be that same room is used for infants during the day? If so it could be taking quite a risk putting a kettle in there in case someone forgets to put it away after the class. May be some toxic paint chemicals are used, in which case keeping hot drink making separate is a sensible precaution. The listener said she was told it had to be removed because of risks of being scalded. May be that was a misinterpretation of why the rule had been set up. Who knows. - the case of the DIY store not putting tins of paints in bags. Richard said this is complete and utter nonsense. Why is it complete and utter nonsense? - I presume the average carrier bag is not designed to withhold a 5 or 10Kg load. If they suddenly rip - result can be injured feet, paint everywhere for the poor staff to clear up and a possible manual handling injury and slip hazard. So why would you say this is complete and utter non-sense? What is utter non-sense is when the person serving says they cannot put paint in bags and then suggest the customer does it themselves. Again the person who is giving the H&S warning may not be aware of the reasoning behind what they are being asked to do. -

quote=jay]A better response by the DIY store could be that our bags can take only x weight or a specific response instead of generic health and safety.

There was a comment earlier on about the response re: Care Homes and staff being made to walk up stairs in front of a resident. I spoke with my wife who has been a Carer now for nearly 30 years and Policy is never to take a resident up stairs by any other means other than with the assistance of mechanical aids, stair lifts etc. However, and my wife has checked with her senior managers to see if the Policy has changed in recent years, SHOULD the mechanical means fail and it would be a rare SHOULD as they have three mechanical aids, then two members of staff MUST assist and walk in front of a resident when taking him/her up stairs. There were cases years ago, before mechanical aids became the norm, when residents, if being assisted from behind and fell, caused severe injuries to the Carer if and when falling upon the Carer. Similarly, Carers are informed, never to hold on to a resident who may fall down stairs, as there have been cases when a Carer has caused serious injuries if pulled down and falls on to the resident in the fall.

I have not worked in this environment, but how exactly do they assist if they can not hold onto them ?, and therefore why are two people required?

I'm 44 and listen to Radio 1, 2 and 4 - the news from R4 is sensible, and if you are after a good analysis of current events then it beats TV news and most papers, all-in-all I'd prefer to listen to loud rock music, but as I find it quite useful to keep abreast of whats happening in the world, I make myself listen to R4.

I admire the beauty of your logic rich777. Personally, I think the situation is a bit more complex: Care homes are there (often not built) - just there because they are often normal houses in the community that are adapted. Perhaps you are thinking of large purpose built care homes. I work in the learning disability sector where most care homes are typical four or five bedroom houses built anytime between the Victorian and current era. So retrofitting passenger lifts is not always an option. However, I would agree that if a new build home is intended for people who are likely to have difficulty using the stairs then a passenger lift would be sensible. Another point to bear in mind is that people do not turn incapable of using the stairs over night. Like all of us, we age gradually. I have heard of occupational therapists saying that it is important to keep people using the stairs as long as possible because their mobility tends to deteriorate very rapidly once they become reliant on equipment. There are a number of balances to consider with these issues: - the balance between staff safety verses quality of life of the person they support - the right balance of safety of the person who lives in the care home versus their loss of independence and mobility - the right balance of huge expenditure on buildings compared to the likelihood of the people who live in the home becoming at risk of falling or reliant on mobility equipment. If I can respond to other comments about instinct to save people. All I can say is 'exactly', people will often instinctively save people from falling and that's where we can end up with two severe injuries instead of one. Hence the reason why practice or equipment is designed to not put people into the vulnerable situations of succumbing to instinct in the event of a fall. So coming back to the radio programme and the indignent listeners, I believe many of these issues are the result of lack of understanding of the nuances and subtleties of each situation.