Rank: Forum user 
|
I, like many of you, have received the HSE's latest RIDDOR guuidance on the reporting of COVID19 and reading through it, it doesnt make things any clearer .... or am I missing something?
It states that the "must be reasonable evidence linking the person's work with an increased risk of becoming exposed to coronavirus" Is that not all of us? Simply going to work increases that risk. I am mindful that the RIDDOR guidance is perhaps aimed at laboratories, hospitals etc where the nature of their work brings staff directly in contact with the virus. It mentions "exposure to a biological agent". Is this not the case with normal winter flu as well? Should someone in an office, factory or construction site, or working on public transport, where exposure to the virus is not part of the"normal" day's activities, contract the virus from another employee, is this reportable? https://www.hse.gov.uk/coronavirus/riddor/riddor-reporting-further-guidance.htm#disease-law suggests that this may be the case. It talks about the existance of effective control measures such as PPE and social distancing, but also whether there was an identifiable incident that led to increased exposure.
Essentially, the guidance, in my opinion, simply further muddys the muddy water. Perhaps through this forum we can establish some additonal clarity Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
This is written by our old friend Walter Easel! The HSE does not want to have anything to do with Covid 19. They are grown ups and understand that it its public health issue not an occupational health matter and that most employers can’t really do anything to control matters (CDM regs do not require a designer to posses the ability of hindsight so that they would realise that all of those open plan offices and socialising areas are not good for preventing the spread of covid 19) But they have been told to get on board and to contribute the pile of words that everybody from BoJo down, have been spewing for the past 9 months. We know that if some is infected at work due to their job its reportable eg some in a lab getting Hepatitis from blood samples or a someone working in a water course getting Weils disease. It is also the case (apart from oil and gas rigs) getting a general infection is not reportable- if Harry brings in his cold that has nothing to do with the way that the employer is running their business. On the other hand, if someone is working in an area where people have covid 19 eg a hospital or care home, goes down with the virus it should be reported. If Harry turns up with not a common cold (rhinovirus) but covid 19 is the employer liable if someone else catches it? Is it reportable under RIDDOR? If every case of workplace covid 19 was reported then the whole RIDDOR system would breakdown. It would also not contribute in anyway to dealing with the issue as currently you cannot blame employers and there is nothing they can do to stop it ( limit the spread, maybe but not stop it the way that you are expected to stop workplace injuries from WAH or due to chemical exposure) So, we have these weasel words. Read them but treat them with care.
|
 2 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Whatever the words can be interpreted / twisted / lawyered to mean if you pick over them with a fine-tooth comb, it seems clear that they don't want reports of coronavirus contracted as a result of the 'simply from going to work' case.
If they did, they'd be able to do a really easy bulletin - 'Remember to report every case of any worker who attended the workplace getting Covid.' The very fact that they have had to create this long and convoluted wording demonstrates that's not what they want.
It seems clear to me that they want reports only where someone contracts Covid from their job, where their job is working on or with Coronavirus, or people whose presence is specifically because they have (or suspect) Covid. They don't want reports of people who contract Covid from a coincidental exposure.
|
3 users thanked achrn for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Unlike other matters RIDDOR this update seems very straight forward with only three considerations: You should only make a report under RIDDOR when one of the following circumstances applies: - an accident or incident at work has, or could have, led to the release or escape of coronavirus. This must be reported as a dangerous occurrence
- a person at work (a worker) has been diagnosed as having COVID-19 attributed to an occupational exposure to coronavirus. This must be reported as a case of disease
- a worker dies as a result of occupational exposure to coronavirus. This must be reported as a work-related death due to exposure to a biological agent
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Unlike other matters RIDDOR this update seems very straight forward with only three considerations: You should only make a report under RIDDOR when one of the following circumstances applies: - an accident or incident at work has, or could have, led to the release or escape of coronavirus. This must be reported as a dangerous occurrence
- a person at work (a worker) has been diagnosed as having COVID-19 attributed to an occupational exposure to coronavirus. This must be reported as a case of disease
- a worker dies as a result of occupational exposure to coronavirus. This must be reported as a work-related death due to exposure to a biological agent
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
That was my take. It did seem straight forward. That section shows that is more to do with a laboratory release and the effects from there. However, by looking at the page "work related deaths from coronavirus: what the law says", it says "RIDDOR regulation 6 (2) requires responsible persons (usually employers) to report the death of any worker as a result of occupational exposure to a biological agent". "Exposure" here could mean any exposure, not necessarily a release from a lab or similar. But I agree from other respondants, the HSE wont want their systems clogged up with everyone entering RIDDOR reports for every incidence of COVID. It is pointless, especially as there are other organisations (PHE for example) who monitor and investigate outbreaks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
But "occupational exposure" doesn't mean any exposure, it means an exposure related to the work you do.
|
1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
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.