Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Trevor Anstey
It might be Friday afternoon but I need to clarify this..
We have a very good safety culture, very few RIDDOR accidents, effective near miss policy, great awareness, to the point where the most trivial of "incidents" are entered as accidents because people are told to report everything.
Example, yesterday a box of speakers was placed on a trolley next to the line when a member turned and their arm knocked against the box.
24 hours later they decide to see a first aider and report an accident.
My point being is there has been no loss, no time, no cut, no bruising The IP only reported after chatting to her mates the next day.
Im not against reporting this, but surely this is a near miss which helps to highlight that we are tight for space
By entering it as a B1 510 report there will now be management investigation, which I feel contributes to H&S being trivialised instead of targeting the significant risks
As usual your advice is appreciated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jane Blunt
Could I suggest that your culture is fine.
However, somewhere you have to put in a filter so that only significant things are investigated.
I would suggest that filter should be at the stage when the BI 510 is picked up.
In other words, let people report what they think they should, but react pragmatically when the report arrives on your desk.
Jane
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Leadbetter
There can't be many people in your enviable position, Trevor.
As you say, this was a near miss and, in my view, should not go in the BI510 as, from your description, it is clearly not going to result in a claim as no injury was sustained. However, I assume that you have a procedure for dealing with near misses which should be invoked in this case.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian G Hutchings
Hi Trevor
In some ways it sounds like you are in an enviable position. Many people strive to achieve the level of attention and reporting that you describe. However I do agree that there has to be a sensible and proportionate view.
I would suggest that the investigation needs to use risk assessment to foresee potential. The following investigation is then based on the potential for harm/damage, rather than the 'actual' outcome.
The area was tight for space? Why is this, is it because the companies change management process has gaps in it and the production line did not adequately foresee the space required? However trivial I think that robust root cause analysis will often throw up questions that would otherwise go ignored. What if the speaker was knocked off onto someones foot?
It sounds like the issue may be with what you do after the report, rather than the individuals reason for reporting. Keep encouraging it, whilst educating what should be reported and why.
I would like to add that, as you have alluded, that the business always needs to look at the big picture of risk in general and not just the production based hazards.
All the best
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By DRB
I think Jane Blunt answers your question more than adequately. Keep on encouraging the reports but you should be in the position to decide what needs further investigation and thereby ensure that H&S doesn't get trivalised
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kenneth Patrick
I would suggest that you do not have a good culture. If you had, this would have been reported sooner to line management as a near miss and discussion would have ensued about lack of space. This then would have been resolved without any intervention from H&S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48
Trevor, I am not sure that I recognise that your culture is that good yet. Whether it is a near miss or an accident it should be both reported and investigated. You say you have an effective policy for near miss reporting but your example suggests that its use may be less effective. Looking into why it was reported as it was may give you some pointers on what needs to be different next time.
Near miss events cannot be investigated any easier than accidents, although I accept that they may be less complex in many cases. However, as Ian has already pointed out they can carry lessons that are just as significant as accidents. After all, isn't that they are all about, gain without pain and all that?
And to answer your question; there is no such thing as a safety culture that is too good. It is what it is and if people think it is too good, then it is not good enough. (phew, that is a bit heavy for Friday afternoon but I hope you see what I mean.) It is your internal culture after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Trevor Anstey
Kenneth
I kind of agree, rarely is anything dealt with at supervision level & H&S are called at every opportunity.
Thanks to all that have responded so far & so quickly
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jay Joshi
Using the accident book for near miss reporting when there is no personal injury involved is not a good idea.
Yet, it is good practice to have a means of reporting of "near misses" and investigate/share the learnings in proportion to "potential harm" were the near miss to materialise into an actual injury.
You may need a seperate reporting format for that if you really want to encorage near miss reporting
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.