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

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 20 October 2003 14:28:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Paul Elliott An incident occurred to a member of staff last week which resulted in a member of the public who was present at a housing interview, leapt over the desk and assaulted the member of staff. Naturally, housing team members have called for 'improved security' along the lines of screens, partitions etc. However, I have carried out a little research in trying to publish my recommendations and have found that screens may not necessarily be the answer, in the fact that they can be regarded as 'PPE' in such that this should be a last resort and that other procedural issues should be addressed first. This may well sound fine to H&S professionals, but even the mention of such controls does not hold well those staff concerned. Has anyone heard of or encountered such situation? I would welcome any responses on this sensitive area.
Admin  
#2 Posted : 20 October 2003 15:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Sean Fraser Paul, I recall that the DSS had identified the exact opposite - they believed that by having a physical barrier between the client and the advisor, they were subconciously reinforcing the image of a distant uncaring government that demeans people and would therefore be more likely to trigger violent responses in frustrated or bewildered clients, thereby increasing the demand by staff for more extreme conditions which then created further negative impressions, and down the spiral goes. Also, by boxing in staff and keeping them separate from clients, they created a perception that every client was a danger and this in turn created a beleagured mentality - there but for the grace of God go I. Instead, they wanted scrap the barriers and open out the layout and create a more welcoming, civilised environment where, by not treating every client as a potential criminal, they would make violent behaviour much less acceptable and hence a rarer occurrence that become more self-limiting. The practical application of psychology. Unfortunately, this doesn't help those who are on the front line and in danger of a violent attack right now. A tricky issue. Preferably, I would consider effective training for all staff in anger management techniques (over and above customer service training), so they can spot the danger signs early on and to calm a situation before it gets out of hand. I would also suggest a good support system where if they signal for assistance, it is provided. I'm not sure what the legal stance would be on providing training in restraining violent persons - although I would advocate it, there are increased dangers of litigous claims and possible criminal charges (he hit me! said the aggrieved armed robber) so check with your insurer first, 'cos if they ain't happy perhaps you shouldn't do it. The staff need the right training to identify the warning signs and deal with them effecitvely, but they must have the assurance that if they need support, it will be provided immediately. The message needs to be made with the client that violence is completely unacceptable as a negotiating tool. Also, I would endorse prosecution of ALL violent attackers - again, reinforce the message. I'm not sure of the outcome of the DSS story. Perhaps the TUC can help you - it was probably UNISON or prehaps Amicus that was involved. I do know that our Manpower offices in Aberdeen are all open plan and ordinary desks, with use of dedicated computer terminals to allow for job searches etc.. Clean, bright - and most of all, non-threatening. Probably doesn't help you with your original question, but anyway . . .
Admin  
#3 Posted : 20 October 2003 15:58:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By David Mains Paul, there was a recent issue with Jobcentre (or whatever it is now called) staff threatening to strike due to the open offices that they had. They wanted improved security and physical barriers due to the number of attacks that they were experiencing. An internet search should come up with a few links. It is a difficult issue as it revolves around the perception that staff have - as you know this won't always be the same as fact. It is also interesting to note that the people who want the open plan approach are not th eones who have to sit in that environment. Might I suggest our old friend Risk Assessment would give you the best idea of what is required.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 20 October 2003 16:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Paul Leadbetter Paul Screens, etc. cannot be regarded as PPE; the PPE Regs say that PPE is something worn or held by the person being protected. Paul
Admin  
#5 Posted : 20 October 2003 16:15:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Paul Elliott Paul, I was trying to illustrate that screens etc. could, by some, be regarded are ‘the last resort’, much the same as PPE on many occasions and that a more procedural control hierarchy should or could be applied primarily. e.g. Elimination of the risk etc. Paul Elliott
Admin  
#6 Posted : 20 October 2003 16:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stuart C Paul, There are a number of control measures which could be used, the extent to which you go obviously dependant on the significance of the risk. Suitable design and planning of interview areas being a key factor, but also the communication of information about those service users who may be potentially violent. If you have information relating to past aggressive behaviour this should dictate how the individual is interviewed in future. e.g two members of staff in the interview. In effect it may be appropriate to have client based assessments. Appropriate selection and positioning of furniture is important. Some organisations have the luxury of two or three "interview" rooms available which have gradually increasing levels of security. This gets away from making every client feel like a criminal. You should also consider fitting alarm systems into rooms. Training in de-escalation and break away techniques may be appropriate but I would suggest that restraint would not be. This requires thorough training, and regular use and monitoring of the techniques and even then often leads to injury to staff appropriate design of offices and training to allow staff to disengage and escape is preferable.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 20 October 2003 18:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jason Gould You have a tricky situation to deal with their by the sounds of things. I have been in these places when people "kick off", and I personally don't think break away techniques etc are going to be much use without security and supporting responces being their to deal with situation. Though de-escalation training may be usefull from a good provider. Let's get real here (please read all of my comments before thinking Im a nutter) 1. Security Officers are effective when there muscular 30 something men/women that look like they have just left the army as a Provo sergent. These guys will not accept 4.50 phr and have moved on for more prestigious jobs. Leaving us with either a 21 year old with shirt collar hanging off shoulders or someone drawing a pension next year. Sorry thats my perception when I have visisted council, Job centre, colleges & Hospitals etc. 2. Your staff may have to encounter abuse not just from one person but sometimes you get half of their mates with them at same time and even strangers joining the CAUSE e.g. Im not leaving this office till you provide a house and/or my dole so me and my freinds can all pile in and have a smoke. On the flip side there are also people in that office that are nice law abiding citizens with genuine concerns and complaints etc. 3. I suppose when you look at risk assessment control hierachies and this goverment office situation any normal person knows that your not going to eliminate abuse from members of the public unless you can give in to demands. Hard decisions have to be made that do at times infuriate even the most patient of us. Reduction may be achieved by de escalation and security presence but still there is a risk. Segregation may provide some usefull techniques to be applied i.e. One room setup with screen for potential high risk clients. I think it has to do with policy and publication of this, and whether or not you are prepared to prosocute every physical assault etc. You really need the back up of senior levels with this, and yes as stated by someone earlier, it isnt until they have sat in that seat, do they then fully understand. I personnaly would vote for screens in hotspots, segregation, and de-escalation training with consultation between higher bosses and workforce. On a last note, our local benefit office has a ticket machine proces where you wait to speak to someone for 2 min who will assess who you may need to speak with and probably get a rough idea of the type of person you are. Then you wait again for your number to be called, and then go to appropriate interview room. Good luck with the end result. Jason
Admin  
#8 Posted : 20 October 2003 18:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jeff Manion May I recommend visiting. http://www.violenceatwork.co.uk Jeff Manion, MIOSH, MRSH, MIIRSM, www.groveservices.co.uk
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.