Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Richie
My organization has a policy of cleansing some PPE (mainly respiratory) before and after use, meanwhile the equipment is kept centrally, for other users.
The Health and Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002 state: " (4) Where it is necessary to ensure that personal protective equipment is hygienic and otherwise free of risk to health, every employer and every self employed person shall ensure that personal protective equipment provided under this regulation is provided to a person for use only by him."
My questions are:
a. Where have others drawn the line regarding where it is “necessary”?
b. Have you simply blanket-applied the statement?
c. Is there further guidance (cant see any in L25)?
For those wondering, I am fully aware of the fit testing requirements.
Cheers,
Richie
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
Richie
When considering PPE my recommendation to my clients is always that PPE is individual to the person who will be using it.
There are several reasons for this, including:
1. If the PPE might be used by a number of different persons, this generally reduces the care with which it is used.
2. How does the new user know how well the previous user cared for the equipment? What would be the consequences of damage or exposure to a chemical that, perhaps not visibly, might have impaired the equipment's performance.
3. Where the performance relies upon a seal between skin and equipment, there is always a possibility of transfer of micro-organisms, i.e. an enhanced risk of cross-infection.
I understand that you are looking at re-issue after cleaning and that you might feel that these do not apply. However, you need to ask how effective any cleaning might be and whether there is a possibility that these consideration might affect how well the reissued PPE is working.
My own particular interest in PPE is in skin protection, e.g. gloves. Under no circumstances would I consider cleaning and reuse of gloves for protection against chemical hazards, as you have no information at all of the performance following exposure and subsequent washing. Studies show that this might well be very much reduced, resulting in worker exposure.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By darren booth
we use welding helmets in my place of work.these are assigned to individuals as ppe,but are regularly cleaned and inspected by one individual,with any parts deemed as unfit replaced.we keep a pool of spare helmets for use as replacements for damaged helmets or to be used by new employees.
to sum up,some ppe is designed to be disposable,some is designed to be maintained and re used.check with your supplier!
(sorry for the waffle,just thought an example would help!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Clifton
Richie
"For use only by him" is quite emphatic. With respiratory PPE the requirement is that it fits the user. Due to the fact that people are different (shape of face etc.) it is not right to expect several people to use one piece of kit. If the "face fit" is not right, there is a danger that the kit is not fully effective exposing the wearer to undue risk.
PPE is exactly what it says on the front cover of L25, personal.
Adrian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Geoff Parkinson
This is a most interesting thread. If RPE is 'one person only', how do you suppose fire brigades manage with their breathing apparatus masks, the certainly don't issue them on a personal basis.
If you have a robust cleaning system and provides suitable and sufficient training, monitoring, refreshers and audit, a s'hare and clean' programme is acceptable.
Fire services use RPE daily, often with the equipment being worn by more than one person in any 24 hour period. They are NOT above the laws, but appear to have a satisfactory, acceptable approach. It does, however, require strict workplace discipline.
Just my thoughts......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
Geoff
May I suggest that firemen are in a somewhat different situation than the average worker in a factory or on a construction site? After all, we would hardly expect a factory worker to enter a burning building! Thus for firemen one could argue that different parameters have to be applied when considering health and safety. The same could probably be said for our armed forces when in the front line.
I would still be hesitant about the sharing of PPE. Certainly, in my particular area of interest, the most common form of PPE will be protective gloves. Where these are used for protection against chemical hazards, reuse after washing is something to be treated with great caution. Sharing of gloves is certainly something that should be avoided. There are several good reasons for this, but it would be beyond a posting on this forum to go into detail.
In a study of dermatitis in print workers done for the HSE it was found that those actually printing had the highest incidence, although 90% wore PPE such as gloves. Doesn't this suggest that the gloves were not working? Not surprising when you know enough about their limitations.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
I wont get into the "fireman" part of this debate but I have very strong opinions on respiratory protection.
Each mask carries a tag with the name of the person to whom it was issued and fit tested after medical advice and training.
After use the inside and outside of each masked is wiped over by the user with a medical disinfectant wipe. Then stored in a closed container.
I certainly do not wish to put to my face a mask into which YOU may have sneezed. Or have smeared with your acne.
Merv (ex-BA trainer)(no longer in practice and therefore incompetent)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
Merv
I couldn't agree more! Equally, I would not want to put my hands into some rubber gloves that someone else has worn before me. How do I know if they were suffering from a stomach disorder and didn't wash their hands after using the toilet?
The expression: "Yuck" comes to mind!
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Calming down a bit, I regularly see "degreasing stations" where various people take bits to be cleaned off and a pair of heavy protective gloves are just left at the station for anyone to use.
I must admit (mea maxima culpa) (this spelling checker doesn't do Latin !) that the thought of cross infection had never crossed my mind. Hummm. And YOU are a consultant, Merv ?
On the other hand, some of my sites have solved the "visitors with no safety shoes" problem by issuing them at the gate. Shoes are sterilised between use. (rather like rental ski boots)
One site does not sterilise but they give you a present of a pair of new socks. One of their products, carrying the company name and logo.
Now, how many of you provide "visitor" safety glasses ? And what skin disease did the last person to wear them suffer from ? Do you give them a bit of a wipe, or just throw them back in the draw ?
What a juicy subject !
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham Merv Ooh!!! One pair of gloves hanging by the degreasing tank and used repeatedly by different people. What a recipe for exposure! Have you checked when the gloves were first in contact with the degreasing chemical? What was the permeation breakthrough time? Remember that the clock start running from first contact. So there could well be chemical contamination inside the glove just from permeation breakthrough. This also supposes that the people concerned actually remove the gloves correctly and only put uncontaminated hands into the gloves. There is a study by HSE to show this doesn't usually happen and in our Skin Awareness Days, when training on glove donning and removal we often find over 50% of participants contaminate their hands (and this even after having been shown the correct technique!). Incidentally, on permeation breakthrough time you should keep in mind that the manufacturers' published performance data does not indicate the useful life of the glove. There are several reasons for this. If you let me have your e-mail I will send you some information that we produced on this. Regards Chris chris.packham@enviroderm.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Chris
you are quite correct. I've run permeation and break-through tests my self to qualify different models of gloves. (gas spectrometry). How you compare the continual immersion required by such tests and what happens in real life is the difficult bit.
I was just confessing that communal gloves at degreasing stations had somehow just passed below the event horizon.
There must be a H&S equivalent of the Chernyakovsky (I don't think the spell checker got that one right, but you all know who I mean) limit. (below which objects fall in to the black hole to oblivion)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Richie
Many thanks for the considered advice. To clarify, I am in favour PPE being exactly that -Personal.
I also stated in the original thread that I was fit test aware, and to clarify a point regarding the fire service, there is an aggreed 'donning procedure' drawn up between the HSE and the home office regarding firefighting BA systems.
Happy to receive opinions, however no-one seems to have yet hit the nail on the head.
So, where is it necessary???
Is this further defined anywhere?
Cheers,
Richie
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
My answer to this would be: Wherever conditions of use indicate that this is necessary. In other words where soiling of the respirator has occurred and the respiratory is to be re-used.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.