LOLER or not? Options  Watch this topic  Print this topic » Normal Threaded

Previous Topic Next Topic

firesafety101		#1 Posted : 19 May 2010 13:54:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		A rise and fall bed used for the medical care of a child at school, electrically operated, child sits on and the bed is raised to a suitable height. Care takes place then the bed is lowered to allow the child to dismount. Does it come under LOLER or something else?
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

TSC		#2 Posted : 19 May 2010 14:16:18(UTC)
Rank: Forum user		LOLER as it is lifting equipment, 6 monthly thorough test and examination by a competent person as used to lift persons. Regards
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Clairel		#3 Posted : 19 May 2010 14:37:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		TSC - can I ask is that your opinion or is that a fact? I just ask because operating tables in vets also technically lift but HSE have said they do not need LOLER checks (but do need PUWER checks) due to the low risk. Most hospital beds also raise and lower but I don't think they need LOLER checks do they? That would be a terrible financial burden on the NHS and not sure the risk would warrant it? IF TSC knows for sure (is there guidance somewhere?) then great but otherwise you may need to do some more investigation.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

firesafety101		#4 Posted : 19 May 2010 14:37:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		Thanks TSC, I was told it was not LOLER as it's primary use is not lifting?
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

HSSnail		#5 Posted : 19 May 2010 14:54:32(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		Chris I also thought it would be LOLER exempt because its primary use was not lifting, I thought I had read that in an HSE document but I cannot locate it at the moment. I am not saying TSC is wronge just take care with that interpritation. Brian
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

PhilBeale		#6 Posted : 19 May 2010 15:01:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		Slightly on a different note my local hairdressers has seats that lower and raise so they can be adjusted to suit the person cutting. Also most dentist chairs do the same as described in the original post. Phil
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

HSSnail		#7 Posted : 19 May 2010 15:15:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		Chris Don’t know if this link makes it any clearer http://www.hse.gov.uk/lau/lacs/90-4.htm#top This gives more guidance on when lifting equipment is not lifting equipment (if you know what I mean) I think it tend to support a bed is not lifting equipment because it prime use is not for lifting. It mentions a barber’s chair but not beds. This also supports PhilBeale's argument Hope it helps. Brian
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

firesafety101		#8 Posted : 19 May 2010 15:50:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		Thanks for the link Brian, The Regulations should not be applied where risks are low, for example raising someone in a barber's chair, (which, in any case, may be considered as a 'height adjustment' rather than a 'lifting operation'). That'll do for me, the person who told me it was not LOLER thinks it's because lifting is not it's primary function, (no mention of the risk). She is right it is not LOLER but her reason is incorrect. Thanks for all your help.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Heather Collins		#9 Posted : 19 May 2010 16:08:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		Chris - the person who told you that the reason was that lifting isn't the primary function is not wrong. She just took her information from a different source. Quoted from L113 (ACoP and Guidance for LOLER) "The Regulations do not define 'lifting equipment' and may therefore appear to cover a range of work equipment which perform a function involving an element of 'lifting'. In most cases LOLER will not apply to work equipment which does not have as its principal function a use for lifting or lowering of the type associated with 'traditional' lifting equipment such as cranes, fork-lift trucks or accessories such as chains or eyebolts."
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

firesafety101		#10 Posted : 19 May 2010 16:48:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		Heather - you did well there supporting the lady - I stand corrected. I wonder if humble pie tastes anything like chicken :-)
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

boblewis		#11 Posted : 19 May 2010 20:19:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		At the end of the day the PUWER inspection and test will closely mirror the LOLER inspection and test - the rest is documentation differences Bob
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

firesafety101		#12 Posted : 19 May 2010 21:00:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		I don't know about closely mirroring the LOLER 6 monthly inspection and test as they have an insurance company annual inspection. Large cost saving.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

IsafeUsafe		#13 Posted : 19 May 2010 22:01:01(UTC)
Rank: Forum user		So are they applying that to hand pallet trucks as well then? and drawbridges?
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

db		#14 Posted : 20 May 2010 13:17:07(UTC)
Rank: Forum user		Hi all, As a Lifting Equipment Examiner - I could inspect it if requested to by the owner of the equipment, but the report would reflect PUWER 98. Why not LOLER? - the operation of the equipment is to affect a change in height an adjustment if you will. A pallet truck is designed to be placed under a load and raise it up and move it around then lower it again - a lifting operation and function. I have been involved with a drawbridge type mechanisim before and beleive it or not it depends upon the design and mode of operation. In some cases there can be a windlass holding and raising/lowering a counterweight - so the deck is not the load per se the counterweight is. Confused yet? Yours aye Db
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Clairel		#15 Posted : 20 May 2010 17:13:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		Db, unless I've mis-read your post I'd like to point out that the HSE in fact do not include a pallet truck in items requiring LOLER examinations. They consider that the risk is too low to warrant it. Obviously many companies get them tested anyway but it's not required.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

firesafety101		#16 Posted : 20 May 2010 20:19:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		Isn't it amazing how a simple question can start a really interesting debate? I'm so glad I asked. Thanks to everyone.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

jwk		#17 Posted : 21 May 2010 09:18:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		We have almost 400 lifting and lowering beds; we do not regard them as relevant for the purposes of LOLER, and though we do maintain them the schedule is not based in any way on LOLER. I can point out that we currently under investigation by HSE for an incident involving one of our beds, and LOLER is not being considered; rather HSE is using PUWER, John
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

firesafety101		#18 Posted : 21 May 2010 13:53:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		jwk, Can you give further information about the incident, I have such a bed at home, is safety compromised in any way? Thanks
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

jwk		#19 Posted : 21 May 2010 15:39:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		Since the incident has been to inquest it is a matter of public record, but I don't want to say too much. The main issue was bed-rails, but the age, condition and nature of the bed itself were a precipitating factor in the incident, hence the applicability of PUWER, John
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Users browsing this topic

Guest