Hi Eddy, The SSOW is commonly used as the training tool, it should reflect hazards highlighted by the risk assessment and the controls required form part of the SSOW. If you then train out the SSOW to the staff, get them to sign a copy (also give them a copy) and keep the record on file, this should suffice as evidence of training. The additional issue that is sometimes raised is how the message or training is given, I tend to do a read through and a practical session. Some people also do a small test to show understanding.

Hi Eddy - there will be different answers for sure, but we look at risk assessment as a tool to determine control effectiveness and /or gaps etc - pretty standard stuff. But we also use the level of risk (see separate arguments) to determine the 'strength' of control if you like. I have always been at pains to point out that the Act talks about Information, Instruction and Training. We see that as a hierarchy and link it to the 'strength' of control required. Typically low risk stuff - we provide information and high risk stuff would get formal training. Med risk? Well instruction, naturally. OK that is a simple argument boiled down into one chunk folks so don't burn me at the stake for brevity. Therefore, there would not be a formal written SSOW for everything unless it was all high risk. We see these type of controls (SSOWs) as material to be used in training. And as we know, we all record training for our people - yes? Now, where instruction is used, we have those instructions written too, but as a 'tell' which is far more simply delivered usually by line managers. This is recorded too. So do employees sign solely for a SSOW? No, they sign for associated training which includes the relevant SSOW. Clearly we use version numbering too so that we can show which SSOW was used. But training has to MEAN training. Not read and sign. Jericho

In my experience signatures count for nout. In the event of any problem they or their solicitor will just state that they signed but did not understand. Make everyone do a "validation test" ie a simple quiz of 50-10 qs (can be mulitple choice) and keep these as records. This demonstrates that they understood. Furthermore, giving out any written stuff will fail if they have reading difficulties etc - why not a talk/mini training session to ensure understanding, then monitor that they are following the procesedures / RAs......................

I wouldn't "issue" these to staff -that isn't usually required. Neither are staff "accountable" to your formal R/A and method statements. The employer is required to provide suitable and sufficient supervision, information, instruction and training (SIIT). The content of that SIIT depends on many factors: the skills and experience of the workforce, the extent of confirmation of retained knowledge and understanding, prompt reaction to emergency, etc. etc. In other words, 'horses for courses' but rarely (if ever) in the range of work I'm involved with would this ever involve issuing copies formal risk assessments to the workforce -this is not the purpose or function of risk assessment.