Posted By Penfold Please help. Before I re-invent the wheel, has anyone got a risk assessment for changing light bulbs in an office environment that I can use as a template. Thanks if anyone can help

Posted By Raymond Rapp Is this a Friday afternoon joke? I thought you were supposed to assess and record significant risks! Ray

Posted By Jez Corfield Sorry - unless the individual was a professional light bulb changer I wouldnt be bothering with a specific risk assessment, this kind of paperwork is just needless most of the time. Just make sure the supervisor has given it some thought (for about 3 seconds) to make sure there is a decent means of access and the individual can change a bulb OK. Jez

Posted By Pete48 Jez to use your phrase, "sorry but" we weren't asked whether we would do one, we were asked if any existed and if so would we share them. I did enjoy the job title "professional bulb changer" even though I couldn't see the logic of why that job would need a risk assessment but the office clerk wouldn't?

Posted By Jez Corfield Pete - I am well aware that Penfold is asking for a risk assessment for changing a bulb - in a manner that is quite common in discussion forum's, I'm making the point that he could well get away with having less paperwork and possibly doesnt need one. As for why a professional light bulb changer might need a risk assessment for his job there would be a whole load of extra risks present if you did this 'changing-a-light-bulb' activity 500 times a day instead of once a month, but then only if they were significant. Jez

Posted By Merv Newman Penfold, don't be offended. Some of us have had a hard week. Now if someone had started : 1. Take twelve Californians (or any other geographic location of your choice) 2. ...... then you would have realised we were letting our (remaining) hair down a bit. And yes, I do see the need for at least a generic RA for light bulb changing, to be adapted as circumstances dictate. Remember the church step-ladder ? And any sensible RA can offer a template for developing others. Merv (cmiosh)

Posted By Phil Rose Penfold - you might find this discussion of some use as well - it deals with access equipment to go under desks. http://www.iosh.co.uk/in...iew&forum=1&thread=45731

Posted By Raymond Rapp Well, Penfold, in my defence and not knowing from your posting whether you are a h&s practitioner, I thought it was a strange request. Hence the first part of my question was a genuine query. As for the second part - by all means ask for assistance, always glad to give it, but don't be offended if it's not in the shape or form you expected. :) Ray

Posted By Raymond Rapp Thanks Martin, glad you appreciated it. Ray

Posted By Graham Bullough Penfold – Your query isn’t as daft as it might seem to some forum users. Except for places with light fittings which can be suitably lowered, the changing of light bulbs constitutes work at height with some risk of a fall by the person doing the work. In the early 1990s a primary school headteacher (Howard) and I risk-assessed various activities at Howard’s school with the intention of making our findings available as generic assessments for consideration (and adaptation where appropriate) at my employer's other schools. We started by chatting to the school caretaker because his work inevitably involved a number of potentially hazardous activities. When we asked how and when he changed the bulbs and fluorescent tubes of lights in classrooms, etc. he told us that he used a pair of elderly stepladders and did the work at weekends when nobody else was around. Also, when dealing with higher than normal lights, he had no option but to stand on the top platform of the stepladders! Howard seemed alarmed by this information and responded with the intention of buying new stepladders of suitable height as soon as possible. Also, to his credit, Howard told the caretaker not to carry out the work again while alone in the school. Instead, he was empowered to ask any member of staff to assist him. No steadying of the stepladder would be required. The system devised was that the caretaker would ascend the stepladder, adopt a stable stance on it and then remove any lamp shade or diffuser before passing it down to the assistant. The same then happened with the old bulb or tube. The assistant would then pass up the replacement bulb or tube, and then any lampshade or diffuser. Thus, the caretaker only needed to do one trip up and later one trip down the stepladder, with both hands free on both occasions. Not only did this system make the task notably safer for the caretaker, it made it significantly quicker. Though devised for a school environment, the system is surely just as valid for offices and other similar environments. It remains one of the generic risk assessments for my employer’s schools. Also, it’s pertinent to add that though the assessment deals with an activity which potentially poses a significant risk of injury, it’s notably short and concise. Risk assessments do not need to be long or complicated to be effective. The scenario which led to the bulb changing assessment also demonstrates the need to talk to employees and find out how they perform tasks. What happens in practice may differ markedly from what management thinks is the case. A good example of this can be found in the article “Blood on the factory floor” by Helen Ibbotson in the latest (August) IOSH magazine. It describes how the actual overnight work of removing, carrying and cleaning extremely sharp blades from processing machines in a food factory bore little relationship to 1) how management thought the work was being done, and 2) the related safety training provided for new employees. Sadly the difference only came to light after a serious accident to a new young employee and then diligent investigation by Helen who was unwilling to accept management’s conclusion that the employee was to blame for ignoring the recent safety training.

Posted By MCK Oh my god! How many safety professionals does it take to change a light bulb? You have to laugh ;-)

Posted By GeoffB4 Ray and MCK - And put simply you and the others who sneer are wrong. The assessments we've carried out have resulted in a safer way of doing the work using better equipment, being more selective in who does the work, doing the work at less busy times, suitable footwear and so on. We have people of both sexes and a wide variety of ages changing lamps. To us, despite our cynical start, we saw the benefits and were able to see the advantages. A closed mind in H&S doesn't help anybody, does it?

Posted By Raymond Rapp Indeed Geoff, that was my point. What may at first appear to be a simple process can sometimes more complex. It is not a matter of 'burying heads in sand'. However, there are some who do make matters more complex than they need be and perhaps for their own vested interest. Peter, I try to promote the concept of sensible safety. That said, nothing is without some risk. I read a report some years ago that over a 100 people a year die from swallowing ball point pens in the USA. Not going to do a RA for the use of ball point pens are we? Ray

Posted By Peter Still Ray, Depends what you mean by a risk assessment - if I was tempted to poke a ballpoint pen into any bodily orifices (apologies to any readers who are eating!) I would understand the obvious dangers involved and would refrain. Tha's a risk assessment, same as we all do every time we cross a road, disagree with the wife, etc. I appreciate that in a construction environment changing a light bulb in a Portakabin might be a low risk compared to other site activities, but in an office environment it's one of the higher risk tasks. Peter

Posted By Adam Worth "How many safety professionals does it take to change a light bulb?" More importantly How many safety professionals does it take to risk assess changing a light bulb? Round and round we go... I'm still trying to work out how you swallow a whole ball point pen tho! This is such a classic IOSH forum thread - a few great answers that provided useful information that resulted in lots of material for the original poster and then Chaos theory wins as always :) Peter is spot on with his explanation - we all carry out RAs all the time! It's only the significant findings we need to record, significant varies depending on view point surely?

Posted By martinw Someone on this thread asked nearly a week ago if this was a Friday afternoon joke. Getting to be a two-Friday one if this goes on another day.

Posted By Ken M I agree Swis. Its about recording the findings and making them available to people carrying out the task. And as Peter said we do RAs every day. But do we really need to record for his task get suitable means of access, turn off light, make sure you have enough space. For an individual task I don't think so. Common sense must prevail. Everyone must know that you need a suitable set of steps/access to change a bulb. Standing on a chair or desk may well do until someone falls off, but even when the ambulance chasers come knocking the first question what we you stood on/fell from and the answer is an office swivel chair; no copy of a risk assessment should be required.

Posted By Raymond Rapp Not sure if this a an interesting or tedious thread but, I am determined to add this little gem before Friday arrives. Risk assessment does not have to be recorded agreed, but if we are talking about a significant risk, and some people are, then it does need recording etc. Moreover, working in a rail/construction environment, if I was to do a risk assessment for every damned task (including changing light bulbs) I would never get anything else done! I can see the headlines now...'safety manager ignored xxxxxx whilst doing risk assessments and leading to a fatality'. Ray

Posted By GeoffB4 ...alternatively, court heard 'safety manager sneered at doing a risk assessment and life lost'.

Posted By Pete48 Would the last person leaving the thread please turn off the lights! (sorry couldn't resist) I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to the question now being debated. It is just how you choose to cover those taks that you feel are "common sense". I tend to follow this path. Have we reviewed all our tasks, do we know how they are being done? Are we happy that we have done all we know how to suitably manage the risks identified? Are the controls or methods complex enough to need recording to minimise future confusions and to inform training, supervision and auditing standards? Is it so simple that anyone who has ever thought about the task would think it was common sense and would be able to repeat, without prompting and within repeatability tolerance, what we might write on an assessment? Are we happy that our risk controls, training programmes, records etc would stand scrutiny under examination? Do we need to record or not? Fact is that one possible outcome of working at height on high scaffold and changing a light bulb is the same...death. So simple significance feels a bit of red herring in deciding whether to record or not. It may be an important part of the decision but I doubt it is all.