A member of our staff has reported to us that she has been signed off for 2 weeks with damage to tendons in foot. This happened whilst she was working and brief detail of incident as follows:

Pushing a bed up a ramp (with assistance) and left foot slipped off the shoes she was wearing (crocks) qnd hit the side of the wheel on the bed . Not wearing any socks at the time as had forgotten to put them on that day, she was bearfoot in crocks, on a hot hospital ward, and feet were sweaty and wet due to it being a hot day. Policy does allow certain staff members to wear crocks (mainly theatre staff) .

I am inclined to say this was not "work related" but would appreciate others view on this.

I would agree with Carrie that this is a work related injury and that it will require reporting. This incident will provide you with he opportunity to review the policy on footwear and make changes where necessary.
Hopefully she makes a full recovery and has learned a valuable lesson that can be transferred to others to save it happening again.

Hi Helen, given the facts you have provided here the incident is reportable under RIDDOR as its clearly connected to the working activity being undertaken.

Don't confuse the duty to report accidents under RIDDOR with any accident liability, you may be doing this in your thought process.

That's why there are so many posts on here.

Off the subject a bit but John - I think you will find the reason for wearing sock in children's play areas are for health reasons e.g. preventing the spread of foot diseases.

I know it's not Friday, but



is something I'll file away happily until it is.

Interesting discussion, and it's a reminder that it's always worth thinking about the cause of an accident before reporting everything just because it happened "at work". On balance I can see Helen's point and wouldn't report this depending on the investigation results.

Depite the fact the IP was carrying out a work activity, the accident doesn't appear to be related to the equipment being used or the condition of the premises, which leaves us with

"the manner of conducting an undertaking".

If you think (as you say) that the accident was caused by the IP's combination of footwear and absence of socks AND you think that management controls on footwear were adequate then I wouldn't report it as it doesn't satisfy the point above.

If, however (as you also suggest) you think management controls should either be more proscriptive OR should have picked up the forgotten socks then I would report it, as it arises from the reason quoted above.

Remember, RIDDOR isn't about the government blindly counting accidents. RIDDOR effectively asks you to tell the government about those accidents which an employer might be able to do something to prevent, and to answer that question you have to consider the three issues above.

Always willing to be corrected, though, even though RIDDOR in general can be a total sidetracking factor in properly controlling risk.

Xavier123,

the OP stated the individual concerned was working in a hospital undertaking a work activity, the accident occurred at work which has subsequently signed them off for over 7 days, and the reason they slipped was because obviously and admittedly the footwear policy is not robust enough against the situation given, which is a management concern, which you find at work, thats my logic anyway. A full investigation of the circumstances should give an answer, but don't forget posters are basing thoughts on limited details and own experiences

I understand and I realise you are not being critical, personallyI think its good being able to explain how a conclusion is reached. In this scenario given the data available, I would report on these circumstances- you would or wouldn't for other reasons- same as Tom, Dick or Harry. I think people don't realise Health and Safety isn't black and white, sometimes time, thought and discussion is needed also, and a debate is always a healthy exercise in my book

Jodie

Ultimately somebody has had an accident arising from being at work, I agree that this alone isn't sufficient enough for reporting. But she was pursuing a work based task, she wasn't simply walking down an isle. The fault maybe the weight of the item she was pushing that created an increased force upon the footwear and that they aren't designed to withstand such forces. So many variables here make it difficult to make a thorough conclusion. It is always better to report than not, if you make a mistake in reporting and are informed as such, lesson learned the easy way. If you fail to report and are informed as such, lesson learned the hard way.

Having read the entire thread here and the facts as presented in the original comment, how is this not work related? It was a work activity. It was carried out at work. Someone was injured as a result of carrying out the task. The fact they had no socks on and were wearing crocs is irrelevant.

Why do people find RIDDOR confusing? Whilst we may all have a different opinion to each other from time to time, it is pretty straightforward and the published guidelines i think are more or less black and white and leave little to interpretation.

I agree entirely.
The lack of knowledge on display here is astounding.

I don't think that this is a lack of knowledge; I think it’s a fear of reporting under RIDDOR. It’s not so much that they are worried that the HSE will pounce on them waving enforcement notices and demanding money under FFI but having to include them under the KPI that our betters have told us we have to use to measure H&S performance. This means that people will spend ages trying to find ways of avoiding reporting a RIDDOR. It seems to be particularly bad in the construction sector where one RIDDOR can mean the difference between being awarded a contract or going hungry.
How we have got ourselves into this situation is what we should be discussing not whether angels falling off the point of a needle is a RIDDOR.


Spot on 100% agree!

I would suggest that it is likely that there are a number of factors that lead to this.

I think that there is some lack of knowledge and I would hazard a guess that some don’t even take the time to gain a basic understanding of the regs (the thread about who reports incident/injury involving their own employees springs to mind) before posting on here seeking the ‘answer’. In many cases the answer remains elusive often due to the limited information provided by the OP; the recent ‘wasp sting’ thread being an example. The devil is in the detail.

But I would I would also agree with A Kurdziel at #10, that there is probably also some ‘fear’ of reporting due to the introduction of FFI. In the main I would suggest that this ‘fear’ is generally misplaced as in my experience the majority of’ injury’ reports (even post FFI) do not lead to an intervention; as opposed to ‘disease’ reports for which you can almost certainly expect one.

Also as Azza has pointed out, other factors might possibly be KPIs based on RIDDOR reports and for those organisations tendering for works where the number of RIDDOR reports form part of the pre qual process may create a reluctance to report a RIDDOR if there is some (for whatever reason!!) question as to whether it is reportable or not.

However, as already pointed out by Xavier123, that the incident/injury MERELY occurred AT work isn’t the ONLY deciding factor. It’s that little devil in the detail; again.
Do look at section 2 – interpretation.

At the end of the day it is for each organisation/competent person to decide (and if necessary justify) if a particular incident/injury/disease is reportable or not.

I don't disagree that all those items will likely feature in any workplace but the real kicker for debate is about whether any of those matters 'played a significant role' in any given accident.


The HSE website gives several examples of what would and wouldn't be reportable and includes some discussion of what is work-related throughout. It may help in providing some steer on what is and isn't significant for the purposes of debate. However, as every accident tends to have its own unique issues, it does have somewhat limited value.