Posted By Kevin Bray
After an accident last year our organisation has been in discussions with a representative from the HSE.

He has given a very strong hint that we should introduce some way for our employees to carry out a site-specific risk assessment for every job we undertake.

He is suggesting that our workforce go through a thought process to identify any risks which are not included in our general arrangements (unusual or additional risks) including site wide risks (not just activity based risks).

We have discussed changing our job orders to include a short RA form, which our workforce would have to complete even if there is no change to the risks.

We don’t disagree with what he is suggesting we try to do. However, we want to be realistic about the practicalities of doing this.

In the long term we are looking to introduce hand held technology, which we might be able to use to help us address this problem. But we have been asked to consider something in the short term.

We have a good safety management system, which includes risk assessments/method statements for most of our activities, which we ask our supervisors to review and make site specific for planned work.

Our concerns are with the reactive work – mainly small minor maintenance jobs in domestic dwellings. (600+ jobs per week (100 men).

We want our workforce to think about the risks they might face but are realistic about the practicalities of this.

We want something that will work and deliver real value without increasing the burden on our organisation.

We would welcome your thoughts and comments

Posted By Robert K Lewis
CFT

Be careful in the way you phrase your response. All RAs should be specific to the taks which includes the environment of the work. You can standardise the assessment to cover such as People and Tools and this is where I think the inspector is coming from. He is then effectively moving to Dynamic assessment against this standard risk. Initially the operative needs to assess if there are additional significant hazards hence risks over and above those on the standard form - if there is they should be assessed to create the final task assessment. Only chamnges/additions need to be recorded for relatively routine works. Following this assessment the operative would enter "dynamic mode" assessing the work as it proceeds and undertaking correction as unexpected or new hazards become apparent. This last phase does not need recording unless there are unusual hazards that would need to be recorded for the benefit of future works - these can be incorporated as necessary in your standard assessment.

Drop me a email if you want to discuss this further.

Bob

Posted By CFT
Robert

Thank you for your advice, I would with the greatest of respect ask that you carefully read what I in fact have said, and not what you perhaps perceived that I said. As with all responses to a question one must assume certain information and my own response suggests that the company may have mis-understood/heard the HSE inspector. By inference I am assuming there are generic assessments already in place and the inspector is possibly suggesting he would like an assessment to be specific to the site/task if it is ‘necessary’, and that one should not assume therefore that every site will be identical, nor that every single task undertaken requires a specific RA. Personally speaking, dynamic RA clearly has a place in industry, Fire Brigade as a classic example, but not really in this instance. If the operative/s that were originally involved in the production of RA's consider existing control measures to be inappropriate or that they can be improved upon for the benefit of all persons involved, then this information should be documented within an amended RA and that information shared to all those that it may effect. I therefore fully stand by my response and await further information from Kevin regarding the employed/contractor status of said operatives.

Again; for the record, if you are to create a RA for every single specific task undertaken in the course of an operative’s working day in every specific location, metaphorically speaking you have it completely wrong.

CFT

Posted By Kevin Bray
Thanks for your responses so far especially Stu's information. Very useful!

The start of the thread was so long in an attempt to anticipate some of the question which I thought might be asked. I failed there then!

CFT

I wish I had mis-heard the HSE rep, but didn't. His view was that even if there was no change or significant risks indicating so on a job ticket would show that the operative would have gone through the thought process.

Incidentally, I am not convinced that it is right to do this for every single job. However, the HSE seem to have more clout than me.

We are talking about our own employees.

Sally

The reactive work we do could range from fitting a door handle to installing a domestic heating system.

Unfortunately, some of our clients send us work to react to, which really should have been planned. But that is another discussion.

Please keep the comments coming.

Regards

Kevin

Posted By rees davies
kevin,
I hope you and the others who have posted here will not mind my response as it's my first posting as a junior safety officer.
I would like to suggest that I think Sally is on the right lines in my opinion as the company I work for use a "work face hazard assessment", to identify not only changes that apply to the initial risk assessment or method statement but to the hazards and the control measures needed at that work face. This also helps with identifying the individuals perception of hazards at the work face and any training or shortfalls in the companies procedures.

Posted By Dan dan
Basically the guys should be completing a basic risk assessment to prove that they have thought about the risks associciated with their particular task, other than that specified within their generic assessments which they should have a copy of.

Again the guys would need to go through an induction process on completing the risk assessment

A lot of firms use a tick box (check list as prompts) if the prompt identifies that a more in depth risk assessment is required this can be umdertaken on a specific document that you have manufactured. Beware that tick boxes though can become just that with no thought of the risk.

Bigger jobs will need a pre site survey with a bit of luck teh guy carrying out the task and those planning the works so between them a suitable risk assessment can be undertaken to accommodate that specific task

Posted By Kevin Bray
Thanks David

It has been suggested that we attach something like what you describe, to our job tickets.

I would be interested in an example.

Kevin

Posted By Jim Mc Nally
Kevin

We have a pre-job briefing instruction which we get our guys to go through before they start their work. We call it the step back 5x5 process which you may be familiar with. I wanted to ensure that we simply formalied what the guys would do anyway before they start working, which is checking that things are in place before just simply rushing into a job. I deliberately set it up so that it doesn't take any more than a few minutes. My view is that if it takes longer it won't get done. The process which we have in place is that the employee carries out this pre-job brief before he begins. If there is anything which is outwith his agreed safe system of work (new hazards etc) then they stop the job and carry out a JHA which is then documented. Note that the pre-job briefing isn't recorded.
The process has worked very well. I have introduced it into a number of facilities from 500+. It just needs to be worked at to get it embedded into the way people work.

Posted By Merv Newman
what an amusing little thread (welcome to the madhouse Rees. And I like the phrase "work face assessment. Thanks. Reminded me of my Uranium mining days)

As it happens, I've just got back to the office after auditing the safety management systems of a French engineering company.

And then we got to the "Risk Assessment" bit.

In 2005 French legislation on RAs for employees came into force. (for contractors it has existed since about 1993) Requirement was for a complete set of RAs for all possibly dangerous jobs undertaken by all employees. Obviously most assessments were generic with a few specifics. No-one has even heard about "dynamics"

Most companies who had heard about the legislation did it once and then forgot about it. Others just do an annual update. if they remember.

This week's lot (500 employees) had started but never finished. And the maintenance had avoided it completely.

So I sort of threatened them with "le systeme anglais d'evaluation des risques"

Look, I said, (in French of course)if you get contractors in to shift a bit of furniture, you will do a risk assessment and a safe system of work. Shouldn't you do the same if it is a couple of employees shifting furniture ? The English do. I said.

Choc ! Horreur ! Et si on fait une petite pause café Merv ? (fag break to you lot)(outside the building, of course. (safety manager smokes her own roll-ups but has refused to consider installing smoking shelters))

You lot don't know when you are well-off. At least your managers have heard of RAs and are prepared to go along most of the time.

Oh well. It all makes work for the working man to do. (reference for my older readers)

Merv

Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear All,

There are a number of important issues here. Risk assessments cannot be anything other than specific, if they are to be suitable and sufficient!

The inspector is absolutely right in suggesting that your workforce go through a thought process to identify any risks which are not included in our general arrangements (unusual or additional risks) including site wide risks (not just activity based risks).

However, you do not need to write these down. Risk assessments must be written where there are 5 or more employees, not when or if, but where!

The way to deal with this issue is to have your general, not generic, risk assessments detail when and where they don't apply and what checks and precautions the worker must take to be safe out on site to work safely! The worker can then take those precautions.

For example if a person is inspecting cranes out on site the general risk does not have to cover all makes of cranes but has to tell the inspector what he should check to work safely.

The important thing to remember is that we're not here to increase to value of stocks and shares in paper companies but to make workers safe!

Regards Adrian

Posted By Merv Newman
Elgan,

As you say, generics will probably cover the majority of house maintenance work but I still want the plumber, builder or carpenter to develop an awareness of what could be different and maybe more dangerous on today's job.

just a couple of seconds to have a look around and tick the "no other safety problems noticed"

Someone once did a generic risk assessment on the risks for pedestrians crossing a busy high street. The control measure retained was to limit the crossing activity to certain well sign posted places. And to put the priority of crossing pedestrians higher than that of on-coming vehicles.

On a pedestrian crossing today we all have the absolute right to cross with our eyes shut and without looking for oncoming traffic. But we do look, don't we ?

Dynamic Risk Assessment.

Even though few of us keep written records.

Merv

Posted By elgan
Good point Merv, and I would not have any objection to a (very) few tick boxes on a card perhaps, but real life experience tells me that this would not necesarilly get completed 'on the job' if you now what I mean.

Added to this I would like to think that competence of craftsmen was such that all reasonably expected hazards/risks were already taken into account in respect of their particular line of skill/work environment and they had already looked at and assessed the 'other' items likely to effect their safety (or the safety of others) and if only this was the case we would all live in a very safe place...

I think that in the crcumstances though, and whilst the tick boxes are nice, will this really benefit anything other than having a tick to show someone when needed!! Will this add value to the process of assessment and more importantly safety on site, alas I think it will offer little real added value and may only be considered a bit more to do on a sheet of paper.

We al live in hope though...

Have a good weekend Merv....

Elgan

Posted By Kevin Bray
All

Thanks for the responses!

Adrian

The health and safety of the workforce is important but without a healthy, viable business we won't have a workforce to make safe.

Merv

Great first response but didn't get it (me not you).

Elgan

I agree and my concern is that this will be more than a tick to show someone when needed!!

I too am not convinced that it will offer real value and will only get a tick in the box.

I want to design our safety management system around competent people but fear that we are trying to design a system for incompetent people.

We are good at stating WHAT but what I am looking for is HOW!

Regards

Kevin