Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages12>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
lorna  
#1 Posted : 31 March 2016 11:39:07(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
lorna

I'm just bouncing this one off you ...
Patient (with learning Disability) gave an employee a over exuberant hug, was told not to & did it again. Employee took the full weight of the patient & is now off with a neck injury.
I don't think it was related to the way the work was organised, carried out or supervised - hugs aren't part of the job - & there is no suggestion of aggression, just over-friendly!
I'm fairly certain it isn't reportable but the union are scrutinising every 'violent' incident at the moment so I'd appreciate a bounce-off from a peer...
walker  
#2 Posted : 31 March 2016 11:47:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker

Well it happened, so it must be part of the job.

lorna  
#3 Posted : 31 March 2016 11:52:02(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
lorna

Unfortunately we have had numerous incidents where being thumped in the face seems to be 'part of the job'. Hugs are much rarer...
jwk  
#4 Posted : 31 March 2016 11:58:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

I'm with walker. In my time working with LD organisations I would have reported this....

John
Invictus  
#5 Posted : 31 March 2016 12:15:32(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

It's not!, there is a HSE guide document for this type of incident!
yulkok  
#6 Posted : 31 March 2016 13:08:21(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
yulkok

have you received confirmation from a medical professional that the person has a neck injury? If not self diagnosed injuries are not reportable irrespective of the circumstances.
Regards
Yul
walker  
#7 Posted : 31 March 2016 13:19:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker

YulKok wrote:
have you received confirmation from a medical professional that the person has a neck injury? If not self diagnosed injuries are not reportable irrespective of the circumstances.
Regards
Yul


Where does RIDDOR say that?

I'm not getting involved in the is it or isnt it reportable, but if it is I assume it would be as a 7 dayer
Xavier123  
#8 Posted : 31 March 2016 13:38:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Xavier123

walker wrote:
Well it happened, so it must be part of the job.




That is not the appropriate test.
lorna  
#9 Posted : 31 March 2016 13:45:21(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
lorna

I read the guidance, Invictus, but it was as clear as mud - which was why I was bouncing it ...
YulKok - over 7 day absences here need a Dr note so we do have confirmation.
Had a quick chat with the union man (we're on good terms), told him why I'm not reporting it but I'll reconsider if he can find the appropriate bit that says I must ....as far as I'm concerned, end of!
Invictus  
#10 Posted : 31 March 2016 13:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

lorna wrote:
I read the guidance, Invictus, but it was as clear as mud - which was why I was bouncing it ...
YulKok - over 7 day absences here need a Dr note so we do have confirmation.
Had a quick chat with the union man (we're on good terms), told him why I'm not reporting it but I'll reconsider if he can find the appropriate bit that says I must ....as far as I'm concerned, end of!


Good I wouldn't either
Anderson8  
#11 Posted : 31 March 2016 14:52:20(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Anderson8

It's not reportable in my view, you've made the right choice. Always worth capturing within the investigation why or why not an incident was reported for future audits and reviews etc. Just so this can be reflected back upon, should it be someone else asking the question in the future.

chris42  
#12 Posted : 31 March 2016 15:34:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Not saying it is reportable, but isn't it a violent act, all be it unintentional. The Ip did not consent to the person hugging, as the OP said they had previously been told not to. I,m not in this industry, but this seemed a little odd. It sounded like the Hugger put their arms around the other persons neck and lifted their feet off the floor ( how else was the neck injured). If they had both fallen and the injury more sever would it still not be RIDDOR.

Just a question, does violence have to be intentional ?

From the Guidance

For the purposes of RIDDOR, an accident is a separate, identifiable, unintended incident that causes physical injury. This specifically includes acts of non-consensual violence to people at work.
Russ1977  
#13 Posted : 31 March 2016 16:00:42(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Russ1977

Surely if the accident happened at work, its reportable if the 7 day absence period has elapsed??
In this case, a hug, however unintentional, has caused an injury that has lead to an absence exceeding 7 days, so surely this has to be considered a reportable accident?
Xavier123  
#14 Posted : 31 March 2016 16:05:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Xavier123

Accidents happen.
Accidents happen at work.
Correlation does not equal causation.

An accident taking place at work does not automatically make it work related. The guidance couldn't be clearer on this matter and yet people keep on ignoring it....
jwk  
#15 Posted : 31 March 2016 16:08:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Xavier,

A great deal in this particular example hinges on what is meant by 'work' and what is related to it. I would have reported this,

John
Russ1977  
#16 Posted : 31 March 2016 16:34:02(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Russ1977

jwk wrote:
Xavier,

A great deal in this particular example hinges on what is meant by 'work' and what is related to it. I would have reported this,

John


Exactly my thoughts.
DaveBridle  
#17 Posted : 31 March 2016 16:45:48(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
DaveBridle

If I am reading this correctly:

The injured person was at their place of work and performing their role (i.e. on duty for example).
The "accident" happened whilst performing their role.
The injury sustained was not one in the list of reportable injuries, but did result in an over 7 days incapacitation.

If all the above is correct then as far as I am concerned it should be reported.
Zyggy  
#18 Posted : 31 March 2016 17:01:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Zyggy

Having lived with RIDDOR in all of its guises & NADOR before that, here we are again debating is it or isn't it reportable.

As part of any deliberations on my part over the years I always pose three questions, which you won't find in any HSE Guidance on the subject:

1. Would the Enforcing Authority be interested in the accident to try & prevent repetition & does it come under the "spirit" of why we have RIDDOR in force?
2. Has the organisation carried out an action which has directly caused the accident, even vicariously?
3. Has the organisation made an omission which has directly caused the accident?

I discussed this many years ago with a senior HSE Inspector when changes were being made to RIDDOR & he was of a similar mind!
toe  
#19 Posted : 31 March 2016 19:21:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
toe

Zyggy - you beat me to it.

I get involved in this stuff quite a lot.

Is it reportable = yes.
Would I report it = no.

The HSE would not be interested it this type of event and is not what RIDDOR was intended for (i.e. the spirit of the law) Again the worst piece if safety legislation ever written. Hence the numerous posts on this forum relating to it.
RayRapp  
#20 Posted : 31 March 2016 21:08:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

toe wrote:
Zyggy - you beat me to it.

I get involved in this stuff quite a lot.

Is it reportable = yes.
Would I report it = no.

The HSE would not be interested it this type of event and is not what RIDDOR was intended for (i.e. the spirit of the law) Again the worst piece if safety legislation ever written. Hence the numerous posts on this forum relating to it.


Looking through the myriad of comments toe's post sums up my feelings nicely.
Ron4aldo74  
#21 Posted : 31 March 2016 21:24:49(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Ron4aldo74

If the employee is off more than 7 days yes it is...
toe  
#22 Posted : 31 March 2016 21:37:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
toe

lorna wrote:
Unfortunately we have had numerous incidents where being thumped in the face seems to be 'part of the job'. Hugs are much rarer...


We are also in the line of work whereas challenging behaviour is (was) a big an issue for us.

This may sound so simplistic, but we did a lot of work in training our staff to simply keep at least two arms length away from an individual on the early indications of this type of behaviour and for them to learn and understand antecedents. So far it has made vast improvements leading to reduced injuries.

Apologies for going off topic.
Invictus  
#23 Posted : 01 April 2016 08:08:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

toe wrote:
lorna wrote:
Unfortunately we have had numerous incidents where being thumped in the face seems to be 'part of the job'. Hugs are much rarer...


We are also in the line of work whereas challenging behaviour is (was) a big an issue for us.

This may sound so simplistic, but we did a lot of work in training our staff to simply keep at least two arms length away from an individual on the early indications of this type of behaviour and for them to learn and understand antecedents. So far it has made vast improvements leading to reduced injuries.

Apologies for going off topic.



So small people work closer than bigger people!

How does that work, when most will be working in a caring environment that will have some issues with violent episodes. Working with the elderly, special needs were service users will sometimes need a hug to to feel good, loved or when upset, childrens homes were particularly very young need that comfort and sense of being something, even a rub on the head to say well done. There are all sorts of occasions, when employees will hug, shake hands etc.

I for one wouldn't like to be looked after by your company if the need ever arose or allow any of my family.
Who do you work for OFSTED sounds like something they would say.
Xavier123  
#24 Posted : 01 April 2016 08:54:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Xavier123

jwk wrote:
Xavier,

A great deal in this particular example hinges on what is meant by 'work' and what is related to it. I would have reported this,

John


I don't actually disagree.
However the prior comments described an incorrect process for the RIDDOR decision. I can foresee situations where this sort of incident may well be work-related e.g. a known serial hugger!!! There are equally situations where this would not be the case e.g. an absolute one-off first time event totally out of character etc.

The exact situation and circumstances make the RIDDOR and NOT the (admittedly far more simple) fact of it being an accident that happened at work.
jwk  
#25 Posted : 01 April 2016 10:21:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Xavier, I agree entirely. Toe's most recent post sums up why I would report. I suspect that there may have been steps that could have been taken to reduce the risk of this, even if the person was not a serial hugger. If the risk can be reduced, to my simple brain that makes it something in the emploer's control; i.e. somthing arising out of work,

John
Invictus  
#26 Posted : 01 April 2016 10:36:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

Double standards,

It is a legal requirement and it must be reported within 14 days, but now some of us decide what we will and won't report.

If you believe it is reportable then you MUST report, arguing it is but I wouldn't is even reasonable no wonder people are confused. If an accident happened on a building site and someone didn't report then people would be shouting from the roof tops.

No wonder people find RIDDOR confusing!

I believe it is not reportable they were not carrying out any task, they were in work but if I tripped over my own feet there was nothing wrong with the flooring etc and I went off for over 7 days it doesn't make it reportable just because I was on the prenises.

I am annoyed that people believe that it is reportable but they wouldn't report what in fear of looking stupid if it was reportable.

Come on, if we are here to do a job then we need to do the job.

We should not be picking and choosing what we need to report, it is either reportable or not!

jwk  
#27 Posted : 01 April 2016 10:38:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Invictus, I mostly agree entirely with your post. However, this isn't tripping over your own feet, it's much more akin to tripping over a torn carpet, or it is in my view at least.

And yes, RIDDOR is and always has been an absolute pain,

John
Invictus  
#28 Posted : 01 April 2016 10:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

Sorry correcting some errors.

It is a legal requirement and it must be reported within 15 days, but now some of us decide what we will and won't report.

If you believe it is reportable then you MUST report, arguing it is but I wouldn't isn't even reasonable no wonder people are confused. If an accident happened on a building site and someone didn't report then people would be shouting from the roof tops.

No wonder people find RIDDOR confusing!

I believe it is not reportable they were not carrying out any task, they were in work but if I tripped over my own feet there was nothing wrong with the flooring etc and I went off for over 7 days it doesn't make it reportable just because I was on the premises.

I am annoyed that people believe that it is reportable but they wouldn't report why? In fear of looking stupid if it wasn't reportable.

Come on, if we are here to do a job then we need to do the job.

We should not be cherry picking what we need to report, it is either reportable or not!
Invictus  
#29 Posted : 01 April 2016 10:44:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

jwk wrote:
Invictus, I mostly agree entirely with your post. However, this isn't tripping over your own feet, it's much more akin to tripping over a torn carpet, or it is in my view at least.

And yes, RIDDOR is and always has been an absolute pain,

John



If you believe it is akin to a torn carpet, then you MUST report!
jwk  
#30 Posted : 01 April 2016 10:52:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Exactly, and I would have (don't do much work with people with learning difficulties in my current organisation),

John
chris42  
#31 Posted : 01 April 2016 11:01:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

I'm not sure we have been given enough detail to decide if it was work related or not. The person could have been on their way home and just passing the Hugger or they could have been conducting their normal care duties at the time.

I don't think we can say that just because hugging is not part of the job then they were not working. Being punched in the face is also not part of the job, but if that was to happen it would be considered they were working and reported.

There was no intention to cause harm, and RIDDOR reporting does not require someone to be at fault, just it happened. It has been suggested above there may be ways to reduce or control such situations, so regardless perhaps measures can be put in for the future.

I do agree with invictus, in that I don't consider I should be second guessing what the HSE may or may not be interested in. If I think it meets the requirement to report I do, if I don't, I don't. If I report something and they are not interested then that is up to them. If they get too many reports that they feel should not have been made then they have the option to improve their guidance.

I do think that these threads are a healthy thing for us all to discuss, even if we differ. Those that occasionally have an input to the forum know that a lot of others just look on and take note of the discussion and it may help them form their own opinion. I have been very interested in the PEEPS discussion even though I have no input to it.

Security code 6MA4i ( B MAD i )
Invictus  
#32 Posted : 01 April 2016 11:10:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

In this case maybe it's not RIDDOR that should be looked at maybe thier sickness record, Injury on duty policy. Maybe looking at an opportunist. I wish someone would hug me so hard I went off for over 7 days. Instead of looking at it as a violent episode maybe report under a crush injury!
David Jones  
#33 Posted : 01 April 2016 14:27:48(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
David Jones

Based on the description if it is an over 7-day absence then it is RIDDOR reportable
Mr.Flibble2.0  
#34 Posted : 01 April 2016 14:51:17(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Mr.Flibble2.0

For me it comes down to one thing; was the hug an act of violence. From what we know, I would say no as it doesn't seem to have been intended that way.

The injury and fact that they had 7 days off is Irrelevant.
Adams29600  
#35 Posted : 01 April 2016 14:59:57(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Adams29600

The employee suffered an injury due to an interaction with a client (patient) therefore the injury occurred in connection with work and if it meets the RIDDOR criteria would be reportable?
David Jones  
#36 Posted : 01 April 2016 15:01:37(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
David Jones

Mr.Flibble2.0 wrote:
For me it comes down to one thing; was the hug an act of violence. From what we know, I would say no as it doesn't seem to have been intended that way.

The injury and fact that they had 7 days off is Irrelevant.


Did the incident arise from an activity relating to the work of the employee? Yes, the role involves interacting with the patients - this interaction unfortunately resulted in an injury. Therefore if the absence / inability to undertake normal duties is over 7 days it is reportable.

I do not believe that this incident would be classed as violence.
ttxela  
#37 Posted : 01 April 2016 15:09:49(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
ttxela

I would report anything that happened at work that resulted in a 7 day absence, seems like a simple clear cut rule to me?

As for the HSE not being interested - I don't work in the care sector but I would have thought they'd be as interested in collecting statistics for this sort of thing as for anything else?

I know incidents that aren't work related don't need reporting however I interpret this as things like injuries playing football at lunchtime etc.

Mr.Flibble2.0  
#38 Posted : 01 April 2016 15:15:20(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Mr.Flibble2.0

Some examples on here as to what is and isn't re-portable according to the HSE:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/ri...reportable-incidents.htm

Got to love RIDDOR
Xavier123  
#39 Posted : 01 April 2016 15:58:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Xavier123

David Jones wrote:


Did the incident arise from an activity relating to the work of the employee? Yes, the role involves interacting with the patients - this interaction unfortunately resulted in an injury. Therefore if the absence / inability to undertake normal duties is over 7 days it is reportable.

I do not believe that this incident would be classed as violence.


Happy April Fools day everyone!!!
Look, if we all keep on inventing different ways of defining work-related then there will continue to be confusion. Why don't we just go with the HSE guidance yeah? ;)

Here it is....in black and white....on the HSE website:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/riddor/key-definitions.htm

There fundamentally has to be a contribution to the accident by the way the activity was carried out, the organising of (or lack thereof) or the work environment. The fact that an accident occurred during someone undertaking a work activity, or at a place of work, does not automatically make it work related. Call it semantics if you will but there are critical differences when you stop to consider it. The link to the examples above is also useful for actively demonstrating the same.

I'll temper this by highlighting that there is no legal penalty for reporting an accident that the enforcing authority decide is not reportable. So in terms of erring on the side of reporting, knock yourself out.
lorna  
#40 Posted : 04 April 2016 09:33:26(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
lorna

Have to love the way you all continued debating this issue after I'd already decided it wasn't reportable - and before you all jump up & down, I'm ex-enforcement, (also CMIOSH & worked in the care sector for many years) so I'm happy with my decision.
Hello Zyggy! I use the same test as you... I think we discussed it once at an ADSS meeting long long ago.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.