Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By grumpy
We as a company are introdcuing a process of dynamic risk assess (DRA) for employees who work in the field.
Does the findings of the DRA need to be recorded by the person carrying it out ?????
What sort of info do they need to record and has anyone got a sample of what they use to record this .................
Thanks for your help
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Crim
Only "Significant findings" have to be recorded, therefore if there are none then don't record anything!
The only problems are when an accident/incident occurs and you have no written proof of carrying out the assessment, apart from maybe an entry in the diary to the effect that a risk assessment was carried out and there were no significant findings to record. (But that surely defeats the object?)
Also how can you prove the assessment was "suitable and sufficient" when something has gone wrong if there is no record?
I know this could be taken as a negative answer but we just need to cover ourselves with paper!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By CFT
Crim
Not negative; I find myself agreeing with you. Dynamic has it's place but to prove it was done how can you without it being documented in one way or another.
CFT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Crim
CFT
I onle meant having to record the fact that an assessment was carried out was the negative part.
Whatever happened to trust?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By CFT
I know, I was agreeing on that point. And I have no idea what happened to trust other than the blame culture and litigation!
CFT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rob T
Hi,
The main use of Dynamic RA's is for the unforeseen, emergency or "unknown" situations i.e.where it would be almost impossible to do a prior assessment.
I had to use this on one situation (I won't go into gory details), where there had been an explosion underground. No-one had a clue to the actual devestation involved or to ceilings collapsing or glass, body fluids etc. etc. without actually going in. It was therefore necessary to use the dynamic system. What I did do was record an RA after I came out and it was able to give at least a bit of guidance to other situations that were occurring.
If you are going to use a dynamic, make sure that the person doing it is competent to make those assessments but I wouldn't advise you to use this as a norm. If you do dynamics remember to record your SIGNIFICANT findings as soon as possible after the event!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Exdeeps
Mornin',
Just to put a spin on this, perhaps you should call the RA a Point of Work Risk Assessment (POWRA) rather than dynamic. In the industries I have experience of there is generally a generic RA for the work but the guys are required to conduct a POWRA on a small pad designed for the purpose of recording any local hazards specific to that job prior to commencing work. The POWRA can then be attached to any documents required after the job is done.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Remember also that DRA cannot replace a job specific risk assessment. They are intended to deal with the changes that can arise or the unexpected event when the task is carried out under the JSRA. They therefore do not need recording unless they have a significant effect on the continuing use of the job specific risk assessment.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Crim
Remember the original thread was for employees who work in the field.
Therefore they are probably arriving at a location to carry out work that is known, but the location and it's hazards are not familiar to them, am I right?
If so there is probably a generic assessment already but because it is impossible to foresee any issues the dynamic assessment is a requirement. It therefore will be a frequent task.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
All tasks with significant risk must have a job specific risk assessment. The dynamic assessment cannot replace that need.
I think that people often think that this need for a JSRA can be obviated by a DRA system - it cannot. DRAs are a beneficial adjunct to JSRAs not a replacement to plaster over a tricky situation.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By grumpy
Crim
Yes u r correct
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Glyn Atkinson
Our field engineers complete a simple one page live document based on production line assessment, but done at the site location of their work - so -
manual handling on uneven ground,
working at height without the fixed access platforms and how we get round that situation with scaffolds ordered in advance on remote sites,
how to work on customer premises trying to uphold the work practices used and defined on the production lines inside a factory,
differing PPE requirements because of need to work outside all year round,
etc.
Every job is referenced to a service order and a site risk assessment, and reviewed back at main site especially if problems arise and jobs could not be completed on the day for whatever reason.
These guys also have my mobile number for instant safety advice if required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mark Eden
I had DRA's drilled in to me when in the fire service (over umpteen years ago). I feel they are an essential tool of the emergency services not general working environment. They are are an on going assessment of an incident that can be ever changing.
The emergency services carry out risk assessments for every day activities such as training to help mitigate risks when they are at incidents, but for the unexpected they have DRA's to help reduce risks as they happen. This makes their working environment unique, unlike any other business and they are exempt from most safety regulations when carrying out work during an emergency incident.
So I feel the DRA is not a useful tool for every day work, be it away from a usual place of work or by mobile maintenance operatives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Mark
I am afraid that I must totally disagree with you. Any person undertaking a task is always faced with the unexpected and has to make decisions on how to proceed. The art of DRA is to monitor expected information against what is actually presented and adjust work methods accordingly.
It does not mean however that formalised training is not required - it very certainly is. But this is to get the best results from the process. Somebody in training started by terming it as "making it up as you go along". I suppose I can see this but it can and should be far more refined even if not recorded.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
All risk assessments should be dynamic! If not how can they have regard to the situation at hand.
There is no need to record dynamic risk assessments where the person is working alone on sight, where the employer employs less than 5 persons. Companies may do this to cover their posteriors but there is no legal reason to do and no practical reason to do as nobody else is affected by the findings, significant or not, of the risk assessment.
Regards Adrian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
All risk assessments should be dynamic! If not how can they have regard to the situation at hand.
There is no need to record dynamic risk assessments where the person is working alone on site, where the employer employs less than 5 persons. Companies may do this to cover their posteriors but there is no legal reason to do and no practical reason to do as nobody else is affected by the findings, significant or not, of the risk assessment.
Regards Adrian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48
I look at this as a series of individual but linked components of a safe system.
The starting point is of course the risk assessment that looks at the tasks being undertaken. This overarching assessment is recorded and contains all the expected bits and pieces. However, with field work, there is often the variability of such things for example as local conditions, working environments, the actual detail of the work required and risks arising from other activities in close proximity. This fact has to be recognised in the overarching assessment and means to properly assess the variability and apply relevant controls must be identified.
It is neither possible nor prudent to attempt to risk assess every location and work activity but rather to identify controls or approaches for identification and subsequent controls that will need to be applied by the field staff dependant on each job. These controls and approaches form the critical sections of staff training.
It is this site assessment that is often referred to as DRA, correctly or otherwise.
If this is indeed what the questioner has in mind then I would agree that keeping records of every such assessment is not required.
We once operated a system where a small white board was fixed inside the back door of the van where the engineer could complete an assessment for each job and then merely wiped it out when making his next assessment. That way there is a record on site for the duration of the work of the decisions taken to manage safety on the job. If the engineer considered no special conditions applied on a specific job then standard risk assessment applies was on the white board. The system developed as engineers identified key repeated controls that were added to the overarching assessment, and included in staff training so that the on site record did not become bogged down with constants. It keeps it "dynamic".
We were complimented on this approach by more than one inspecting officer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
This is where I have problems with standard/generic risk assessments. They rapidly become a replacement for the task risk assessment specific to the job, which is after all what the regs require. The issue I believe stems from the de-linkage that has occurred between standard and task risk assessment processes. The systems must be progressive such that the standard leads into the task in a seamless manner. At this point the operative can move to a task assessment on site, followed by DRA use during work, this is the real distinction between DRA and POWRA, point of work risk assessments.
Ideally the completed task assessment is left at the location for the next employee undertaking the task, or made available through some form of library system that is accessed when work is allocated. It can then be reviewed by the next employee and used unmodified or modified as required.
What we seem to forget in all this is that the generic/standard can never have all the answers and DRA is intended only as the final icing on the cake so to speak.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Crim
Once again I bring you all back to "for employees who work in the field".
Can I now ask if the "field" is a workplace that has previously been risk assessed for visitors, or is it a some place that has never previously been visited?
If it is a "workplace" chances are that risk assessments for visitors have been carried out which may take away the need for further risk assessment - dynamic or otherwise?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Except for the changes that have taken place since the last visit and anything that happens during the work! :-)
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Granville Jenkins
To my knowledge there are 3 forms of risk assessment that are in use - Generic, Specific and Dynamic!
In my experience generic risk assessments are provided by Contractors to support their Safe Systems of Work and for example would usually be provided to a client organisation who is considering the company for inclusion on an approved list of contracts - the problem with generic is that they presumably cover all ill's and sometimes have little relationship to the site specific nature of the work. Generic risk assessments are therefore more of a paper/desk based exercise.
When it comes to the actual project then the generic risk assessments need to be put to one side and the risk assessments need to go up a grade to that of 'specific' that is 'specific to the task' to be carried out and should cover all significant hazards (which could be the accumulation of a set of minor hazards).
For example, I recently received a set of documents from a contractor which covered risk assessments and safe systems of work for a project that has a number of highly significant hazards, regretfully the document was a set of 'generic' statements some of which were not relevant to the project. I have since requested that the contractor provide 'specific' risk assessments for the significant hazards, I also questioned the level of ppe to be used by operatives. The contractor has taken my comments on board and will be providing the 'specific' risk assessments as requested.
Going back to the original discussion thread I cannot help but wonder if the topic should be more to do with differentiating between 'generic' and 'specific' risk assessments rather than 'dynamic' - assuming operatives are competent there is no reason why they could not complete a 'specific' risk assessment in the field prior to any works taking place, if the risk assessment shows that the work should be aborted then so be it - at least at the return visit the operative should have all the resources to hand to carry out the task in a safe manner without putting themselves or others affected by their acts or omissions in harms way.
With respect to 'dynamic' risk assessments, I have never found any reason to use them, if contractors do not have specific risk assessments it is generally due to over reliance on 'generic' risk assessments or in some instances just a plain bit of [expletive deleted] poor planning.
Although I have never carried out a 'dynamic' risk assessment I am aware that 'dynamic' risk assessments are used from time to time, however, the only people that I know who have reason to use them are the emergency services who for reason's as commented by Rob T may not know the hazards that they are going to be confronted with.
The dynamic risk assessment being completed after the event rather than during, or prior to the task being carried out.
Bottom line - there is no reason why assuming that the operative is competent that task 'specific' risk assessments cannot be completed in the field prior to the task being carried out.
Dynamic (during/after the event) risk assessments should be treated as the exception rather than the rule.
Regards
Granville
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Granville
The latter comment is the only point where I part company with your views.
DRA is intended to be the final part of the process whereby the operatives monitor and react to the unexpected during work. No prior assessment, even the task specific, can hope to be fully able to identify all the posibble unkown unknowns so to speak. There are also the potential known unknowns that can suddenly arise to bite the operative.
We have become very hung up on the fact that DRA seems to provide a suitable mechanism for short, remote or fast moving jobs - It is not intended for this. It is an adjunct to proper task specific assessments.
After all we are simply expecting operatives to be aware of the task as it progresses.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48
Bob, agree everything you say in terms of definitions and objectives. In my experience however there is often a foreshortening of the task specific and dynamic elements.
Over arching assessment defines company systems and controls.
On site assessment defines controls specific to local conditions.
On going assessment defines changes due to changing circumstances as they develop.
I think the use of the word dynamic has been coined to drive home the point that risk assessment is not a static thing.
The output is of course a risk assessed task that identifies all factors specific to each individual task.
However if your systems are sound and the work is of a generally variable nature, the need to maintain a record every last task is I believe questionable. Horses for courses as ever but I do not see it as an unchallengable requirement.
Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Pete48
I agree that the Dynamic element should not be recorded unless there is something significant that does need to be added into the future task specific.
If the job movess forward in a controlled manner the task assessment will be be re-assessed continually and if the existing control measures are not suitable then cessation of work is a selectable option under the DRA scenario until further controls are identified. Some risks may simply require an adaption of work sequence or task method it is not a hard and fast situation.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.