Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

IOSH Forums are closing 

The IOSH Forums will close on 5 January 2026 as part of a move to a new, more secure online community platform.

All IOSH members will be invited to join the new platform following the launch of a new member database in the New Year. You can continue to access this website until the closure date. 

For more information, please visit the IOSH website.

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 : 21 December 2007 08:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By MS
Morning
I am investigating an accident where a trainer gave manual handling training but only in the form of a Powerpoint presentation. There was no physical demonstration and assessment to ensure the delegates had received the information and could actually manual handle their workplace loads safely.

Who is at fault? Employer for not ensuring that the trainer/training was adequate, bearing in mind you are paying a reputable company for their expert advice.

Or the trainer for not carrying out training to an adequate standard?

Many thanks

Mark
Admin  
#2 Posted : 21 December 2007 08:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jimmy R
Hi and Merry Christmas,

What type of work was involved when the accident took place?

Staff in an office environment may not require practical training and a simple presentation may be sufficient. On the other hand if the job involves MH on a regular basis I would feel that the employer would be responsible for ensuring the trainer was competent and the subject matter on the training course was adequate.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 21 December 2007 08:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By LJ
MS,
As an employer it is your responsibility to ensure 'the provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees' Section 2 HASAWA.

By carrying out risk assessments you would identify training needs i.e. manual handling training,
you would then identify training objectives i.e. what do I want the training to achieve -employees to be able to lift,move items safely,
what methods is the training provider going to use to achieve these objectives- will these methods help me meet my objectives- in this case no.
Finally you should evaluate effectiveness of that training.

LJ
Admin  
#4 Posted : 21 December 2007 09:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By David Whaley
MS,

All of what LJ has written is true. I carry out MH training in our own company and I find that 90% of the people already know how to lift correctly, they need to be taught to think before they lift.

Training only works for a short time because without adequate supervision people slip back into their old ways

It should also be remembered that wherever possible manual handling should be eliminated or reduced.

David

Admin  
#5 Posted : 21 December 2007 09:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Merchant
Unless the trainer supplied you with a course outline and then didn't follow it, the "fault" is entirely with the employer. Even if they did deviate from their pre-arranged course it's solely a matter of contract law and not of H+S; as the employer you're responsible as LJ has indicated.

It's worth remembering that manual handling is one of those topics where 'training' is not an absolute standard - there's no approved syllabus or BS, so some people use practical demos and some don't, but the effectiveness of the training can be equally good. It's down to the trainer's ability to make people remember things, as there's absolutely no difference in terms of skills transfer between seeing a slideshow of someone lifting a box, seeing an instructor lift a box or being asked to lift one yourself. The accidents come when delegates forget (or decide not to bother with) the things they've been taught, and that's down to the employer's SSOW and supervision measures.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 21 December 2007 11:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Andrew W
Just to play devils advocate imagine this...

The instructor gets a delegate to lift an empty box or some other object to demonstrate lifting techniques. The delegates back 'goes' whilst carrying out the demo. Who's at fault?

On my MH instructors course I was advised against getting delegates to lift items unless medical information informing of fitness to carry out task was available.

Andy
Admin  
#7 Posted : 21 December 2007 11:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Merchant
That sort of thing happens on occasion, but shouldn't. If the course does include delegates doing practical exercises then the items being lifted should be light - as with handling of a more personal nature it's about technique not strength. An empty box is just as good as a full one if all you're trying to do is keep your ass under your head. The only place I can see full-weight training being required is in patient handling where the techniques need the right momentum.

The problem of the instructor putting their back out carrying their paperwork, laptop and projector half a mile from the car park is another issue entirely!
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.