Just want to throw this out there and get some feedback, ive worked at several companies and they have all done it differntly, what do you think? is it better being person specific or a generic risk assessment?

I know which i prefer 

Tim, I would prefer one then the other.

There should be some generic rules of thumb but then treat each person as an individual.

That way you protect them whilst at the same time avoiding inappropriate discrimination - "ooh, you're pregnant, we can't let you do that".

P

I use a similar approach to some of the other comments. My risk assessments tend to role/task based – so as in doing them I say to myself “what is it about this task/role that could harm a pregnant worker or their child?” So as others have said it could chemical use, or it might be manual handling etc. So this is in my assessment BEFORE someone tells me they are pregnant. If I have a specific hazard (e.g. a chemical they should not be using) they are immediately removed from that role – for other hazards I discuss with them how the feel about the task – and we keep this under rive with the individual amending task/role as needed.

I have see so many organisations get themselves ties in knots with this when they only start to consider the hazards AFTER pregnancy is announced – with things like chemicals it is important that lady’s of child bearing age know the hazards so they can inform you quickly.

I use a similar approach for my young persons.

One of the issues with pregnancy is that for a variety of reasons a woman may not want to disclose it an an early stage.  But they still need to know whether the tasks they are doing are a risk in pregnancy, and if they know that there is a risk there is a chance of getting them out of that situation.