Hi there! 

We have just recieved notification that a member of the public using are swimming facilities had been been to see a doctor and thinks it is likely she picked up a bacterial infection in our pool. I am just querying the RIDDOR side of things.

I am happy to accept that this is work related as we are in charge of cleaning etc... however the RIDDOR definitions on thier website do not define if reportable under "Exposure to carcinogens, mutagens and biological agents" when they are a member of the public only for staff.... 

Has anyone been in a similar situation - can you help?

Many thanks! 

Thanks Bigmac1, I just think it is a different situation as its not an acciddent. Under the RIDDOR definitions the taken directly to hospital relates to accidents not occupational diseases. 

Under the biological section it refers to "Acute illnesses requiring medical attention must be reported when they result from a work-related exposure to a biological agent, including its toxins or any infected material" which I believe this comes under however it only refers to workers in this section. In this section also I believe it acknowledges that noone would be transported directly to hospital as these things require multiple appointments and reactions etc.. can only appear after a period of time, therefore overridding the "taken directly to hospital" rule.

And I am extremely frustrated with the RIDDOR definitions as they are completly designed for workplaces where you would have visitors but not to hotels and leisure clubs where there is an incresed risk to visitors who can be exposed to such things where in other workplaces visitors wouldnt be exposed.

Edited by user 01 August 2017 15:35:23(UTC)  | Reason: Additional info

As Zyggy has stated, I would agree that this incident (unless of course it becomes a significant outbreak where many more people are affected) wouldn’t be reportable as a Dangerous Occurrence under the “biological agents” clause.

I think that it’s more likely that it’s Regulation 9 (which requires employers and self-employed workers “to report cases of occupational cancer, and any disease or acute illness caused by an occupational exposure to a biological agent”) that is being referred to in this case, but I think the word “occupational” is the key here, and I don’t think it would apply to a member of the general public.

The RIDDOR guidance also states that “minor infections common in the community such as colds, bronchitis or stomach upsets cannot generally be attributed to work-related exposures to biological agents, and so are generally not reportable. However, where there is reasonable evidence of a work-related cause, such as inadvertent contact with the infectious agent during laboratory work, you should make a report”.

Unfortunately, we don’t know exactly what “bacterial infection” is being claimed, but if it’s relatively minor (as per the above paragraph), I would still be quite confident that it’s not reportable.

Reading the law really makes this rather obvious.  It is for a member of the public. Biological agent section clearly states report only for occupational exposure to people at work.  The end.

Caterer123 - I've a link to a document that should assist you with RIDDOR from the Leisure Expert Panel. Although it doesn't cover occupational disease.

Guidance concerning compliance with RIDDOR

In a previous life we had an employee who MAY have been infected with a zoonosis (animal borne pathogen) which MAY HAVE BEEN work related. We contacted the HSE and they said they were only interested and only required a RIDDOR report if we were CERTAIN that the infection was work related.

So if member of the public gets a possible bacterial infection from a swimming pool the HSE are not interested.

No RIDDOR.

PS Did the doctor send away a sample to Public Health England and did they come along and tested the water to see if the pathogen in the water sample was the same as that infected the person involved. (by the same I mean same strain (genotype) not just the same sort)