Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Malcolm Greenhouse
I have inherited looking after the maintenance of patient lifting devices in an NHS trust. I have found that currently we have two different companies providing inspection reports for the patient hoists.
One is a patient lift company, Arjo, who are supplying LOLER certificates for the hoists ever six months. They are currently not inspecting the slings.The benefit of this inspection regime is that any minor faults are dealt with on the spot and only charges for spares made.
The other is an engineering inspection arm of an insurance company, Allianz. Again they are providing reports every six months. They are also performing inspections on the slings associated with the hoists. It is not part of an insurance cover as the NHS carries its own risk in this area. They do not carry out any repairs.
Risk management in the hospital have stated that the slings are an accessory and as such do not need to be inspected under statute. They also state that the hoists do not need inspecting under LOLER every 6 months as their risk assessment shows that they are not used under arduous conditions.
In am therefore being told to retreat to one inspection per year performed by Arjo and that risk have trained staff to self inspect slings before each use.
Anyone any thoughts on this approach?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ITK
Malcomn,
Hoists and accessories for lifting should be examined 6 monthly as per Regulation 9 of LOLER.
ITK
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Neil R
Haha who said NHS standards are in decline?, Wasnt a trust fined recently for the death of an elderly patient when a sling snapped.
As already stated regulation 9 of LOLER, Slings should be inspected every 6 months. Think whoever has decided on this non-compliant measure needs an operation on their brain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Malcolm Greenhouse
This is what is being quoted to me:-
"Section 9(3) of LOLER applies and says:
Thorough examination and inspection
9. - (1) Every employer shall ensure that before lifting equipment is put into service for the first time by him it is thoroughly examined for any defect unless either -
(a) the lifting equipment has not been used before; and
(b) in the case of lifting equipment for which an EC declaration of conformity could or (in the case of a declaration under the Lifts Regulations 1997) should have been drawn up, the employer has received such declaration made not more than 12 months before the lifting equipment is put into service;
or, if obtained from the undertaking of another person, it is accompanied by physical evidence referred to in paragraph (4).
(2) Every employer shall ensure that, where the safety of lifting equipment depends on the installation conditions, it is thoroughly examined -
(a) after installation and before being put into service for the first time; and
(b) after assembly and before being put into service at a new site or in a new location,
to ensure that it has been installed correctly and is safe to operate.
(3) Subject to paragraph (6), every employer shall ensure that lifting equipment which is exposed to conditions causing deterioration which is liable to result in dangerous situations is -
(a) thoroughly examined -
(i) in the case of lifting equipment for lifting persons or an accessory for lifting, at least every 6 months;
(ii) in the case of other lifting equipment, at least every 12 months; or
(iii) in either case, in accordance with an examination scheme; and
(iv) each time that exceptional circumstances which are liable to jeopardise the safety of the lifting equipment have occurred; and
(b) if appropriate for the purpose, is inspected by a competent person at suitable intervals between thorough examinations,
to ensure that health and safety conditions are maintained and that any deterioration can be detected and remedied in good time.
My interpretation is that the operation we have in Mersey Care does not expose equipment (which will include slings) to conditions causing deterioration. Most of our work is "dry sling activity" - that is to say, that we use canvas/polyester type slings to move people from one dry area to another e.g. bed to chair. If we were using wet (net) slings in a hydrotherapy pool, treated with chlorine, I would have a different view on deterioration and examination. On a practical note we could be talking about the inspection of up to 200 or so slings and we wouldn't be able to guarantee that we had examined all the slings as some may not be available e.g. at "off-site" laundry.
We do however include in our training and contained in the accompanying handout (page 12 - last page), instruction to staff to check a sling before use "
They say that the section which states "(3) Subject to paragraph (6), every employer shall ensure that lifting equipment which is exposed to conditions causing deterioration which is liable to result in dangerous situations is" They say that the conditions our patient hoists are exposed to is not causing deterioration which is liable to result in dangerous situations, hence the extension to 12 monthly checks.
All a matter of interpretation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MT What immediately strikes me is that you've said that Arjo and Allianz are involved and both are providing LOLER Certificates of Thorough Examination. Normally, you would find that Arjo would be employed to carry out servicing and maintenance and correct any defects. Allianz would be employed also, but to inspect the equipment and issue the 6 monthly Certificate of Thorough Examination required for equipment used by people. Although this deals with passenger lifts, it contains pertinent info on LOLER which might help you: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg339.pdfIf you wish to deviate from the 6 monthly inspection regime specified in LOLER then you would need to employe a competent person to draw up an Examination Scheme, detailing the reasons for the deviation and the preferred interval.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Malcolm Greenhouse
Thanks to all for contributions so far.
I have always assumed that any lifting equipment involving lifting people should be examined every 6 months but the actual regulations states, "(3) Subject to paragraph (6), every employer shall ensure that lifting equipment which is exposed to conditions causing deterioration which is liable to result in dangerous situations is -
(a) thoroughly examined -
(i) in the case of lifting equipment for lifting persons or an accessory for lifting, at least every 6 months;"
My risk managers are saying that the conditions in which we use the hoists are not exposed to conditions causing deteriation and as such we can extend the LOLER inspection interval to 12 months. With regard to slings they are quoting practibility in that they say that to find all the slings when a competent person visits is difficult and therefore the training regime for the staff using hoists includes how to examin before use and the instruction to so do before each use.
With regard to two contractors both producing LOLER certificates of inspection, I agree that on the face of it Allianz would appear to be more independant than the maintenance company but the regulations do not actual say that the inspection has to be independant merely competant.
Just for clarification I am a health and safety CMIOSH person working in a new job as an estates manager in an NHS trust and I think no one else as ever challenged the existing risk managers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Leadbetter
Malcolm
Can you really say that the hoists and slings are never going to wear out? Surely everything deteriorates, even if only slowly.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Neil R
"as such we can extend the LOLER inspection interval to 12 months."
Doesn't say you can do that in any regulation I know.
Is this risk manager above the law? No they're not, altering the regulations to suit your own status quo as far as i am concerned is un-acceptable.
These hoists and slings are designed to lift people! and of all things people in a possible fragile state.
Its up to you how you handle this now, you can either make written recomendations and keep them so if someone dies or is seriously injured due to a failure in the equipment you can place the blame squarely at the risk managers door, or take it higher up the chain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By DP
Malcolm - Reg 9 states 6 months for person, however, dependant on circumstances.
My understand is - It can be extended to 12 months but a competent person must produce the written examination scheme which would include why. Personally I'd stick with the 6 months!!!
I would advise you contact an LOLER expert from your insurers to confirm this as they will tell you at the drop of an hat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Amandac
Just to add my two pennyworth to the above.
Whilst the law give the basic requirements isn't it our aim to where possible improve on this? Given that these hoists are used for people who may not be as robust as the 'man in the street' shouldn't the moral argument be that you aim to ensure that the equipment being used is in the best condition. By testing every six months I think you will be discharging your duty and responsibility. I would not like to be the person making the decision to move away from the 6 monthly checks and having to justify that to a patients relative after the fact.
Good Luck
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mark H
Have to ask if the staff using them are trained to do pre-use checks and the procedure to follow when a fault is found as it will affect the formal inspection periods?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mark H
Apologies, jusr read all the way to the bottom of your post and spotted that staff are already trained in pre-use checks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By TT
Re: "they are quoting practibility in that they say that to find all the slings when a competent person visits is difficult"
That sets alarm bells ringing for me...especially if they also want to claim that the equipment is not being kept or used in conditions where it is likely to deteriorate. If the accessories are not under their control then how on earth can they make such a claim? I'd want them numbered and stored in a nice safe place where they weren't going to get damaged etc.
To me that means some of the slings are potentially never examined by an independent competent person and are still in use.
I'm with the rest of the forum that has their collective eyebrows raised at unjustifiably wandering away from 6 month frequency.
Nice one though Malcolm for being willing to challenge the status quo. One of the hardest things there probably is to do in our profession but potentially one of the most rewarding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
I suggest that you arrange for the Trust H&S Manager to meet with the Risk Management people. There is an obvious breach of stature and a serious competency issue here!
This really takes the biscuit - using risk assessment to "justify" not complying with a statutory requirement - quite bizarre!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Fornhelper
Malcolm
As previously mentioned the inspection can be extended to 12 months but a competent person must produce the written examination scheme which should include the reasons why they aren't inspecting every six months.
We did consider this option (residential care) and discussed it with ARJO but the savings were minimal when balanced against the time and effort that would go into a developing and maintaining a written scheme and the fact that ARJO also intimated that if they didn't have the 6 monthly visits then the costs for call outs, emergency repairs etc would be significantly higher.
I would suggest a couple of things;
Firstly ask 'risk management' to show you the written scheme and ensure it meets the regulatory requirements,
Secondly arrange an unscheduled inspection / audit, and check that the pre-use checks are being carried out and staff have been trained on what to look for - don't take their word for it - find the paper trail!! I would expect that these checks are recorded in some form or another.
Thirdly speak with the ARJO rep and ask him what the cost difference would be between the 6 and 12 monthly inspection - and if they can reduce call out / repair charges if you move to a more frequent inspection regime - it may surprise you how small the savings currently being made are.
One more thing!!! Keep a record of the communications between yourself and 'Risk' - you never know when that first sling is going to fail - hopefully without anyone being seriously hurt!!!
Regards
FH
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
The reality of regulation 9 is to require all lifting equipment for lifting persons must be subject to thorough examination AT LEAST every six months. A competent person assessment can reduce this but not increase - whatever a RA or guidance states.
The ability to assess different timescales via a competent person written scheme was intended to allow rarely used equipment to be tested only before use. Thus there was no breach if it was not tested and not in use. It was further intended to allow the competent person to define a SHORTER than standard thorough examination period.
There is far too much of this idea that we can change things to suit ourselves with a RAabout nowadays - very worrying.
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.