If a child has a collison with another child at school and the parent picks them up and takes them to the GP, rather than the hospital, would you deem this as not RIDDOR as definition is straight to hospital? 

Not reportable as peter says - it has to be hopsital.

But it may not be reporatble for a number of reasons.

Did the injury occur out of a work activity? (just because they were at school does not mean all accidents are reportable- in this instance what were they doing? should they have been supervised?)

Even if they go off to hospital they have to recieve Treatement - so if cehcked out by and found to be Ok still not reporatble.

Even if the GP sends them to thehospital for treatement - still not reporatble as the Regs say Directly from the accident to hospital.

Originally Posted by: Alan Haynes

This throws up a bit of ann anomaly. Staff member in GP practice sustains a work related injury. Boss (the GP) sends her to hospital as (say) the leg is broken. Not reportable????

I dont see an anomaly.

The direct to hospital for treatment only applies to non employees. So if an employee in a Dr Surgery it is reporable under the other categories. And in this case the person could go home as they may think its only a sprain (i was adamant my broken ankle – not work related – was ok for 8 hours after my slip) and then find out it’s a break – as long as a work related accident caused the break its still reportable as a major injury

Edited by user 17 June 2021 08:41:44(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Technically the Regultions don't use the word "directly" and I can't remember whether RIDDOR 1995 did.

RIDDOR 2013 says

Non-fatal injuries to non-workers

5.  Where any person not at work, as a result of a work-related accident, suffers—

(a)an injury, and that person is taken from the site of the accident to a hospital for treatment in respect of that injury

In the numerous threads about RIDDOR on these Forums over the years, there has been debate about whether an accident would be still reportable if the person who takes an injured person to hospital stops off somewhere en route. So, suggesting that there might be a get out if a driver stops off to pick up the victim's toothbrush!

Edited by user 17 June 2021 09:56:16(UTC)  | Reason: Typo

Brian, I think that somewhere, some time, the word "directly" was there.

Sometimes one is old enough and grey enough to have difficulty in distinguishing between what is in the current requirement and associated guidance and what was there before.

One of my former Principal Inspectors cautioned against binning guidance when it was superseded.......

"Ah, but the guidance is very new. We haven't had time to fully implement it."

"Yes, but on this topic, the previous guidance, published X years ago, recommended exactly the same. So, why are you not complying with THAT guidance?"

Extract from the old guidance L73 dated 2009. It does not say directly however it is sort of implied as you would not normally expect an ambulance to make a detour so they can get their PJ’s in case they have to stay in. It does say from the site to hospital. Otherwise, it would be from the GP to hospital or the persons home to hospital or just taken to hospital.

But this is old guidance, before the HSE improved it!

Chris

Injuries to people not at work

45 Any injury to a person who is not at work (eg a hotel or care home resident,

pupil or student, or a customer in a shop) must be reported if it:

(a) results from an accident arising out of or in connection with work; and

(b) results in them being taken from the premises where the accident occurred to

a hospital, by whatever means (for example by taxi, private car or ambulance).

46 The phrase in regulation 3(1)(c): ‘Taken from the site of the accident to hospital

for treatment’ describes a situation where someone is taken to hospital because it

appears that some medical attention may be necessary. There is no requirement to

check that treatment is actually administered by the hospital. The injury must still be

reported in cases where the person does not receive treatment.

Originally Posted by: peter gotch

One of my former Principal Inspectors cautioned against binning guidance when it was superseded.......

"Yes, but on this topic, the previous guidance, published X years ago, recommended exactly the same. So, why are you not complying with THAT guidance?"

I know from a firend in our local safety advisors group, there her employer recieved a FFI becuse they were not doing what was reasonably practicable because they were not following an HSE guidance note. When she tried to get a copy of the note it had been disconinued 5 years before she was employed and was unavialable. Whe she questioned the FFI she was told "it was so well known in that sector she should have had a copy". Thought it was a little harsh at the time - but your right a word of caution.

The two guidance/ACOPS i miss the most are the ones for RIDDOR and Management Regulations. Wish i had kept copys - but they were office documents and i have moved jobs.

The first mention of "not at work" seems to be from regulation 3 in S.I. 1995 No 3163 RIDDOR 1995

(c) any person not at work suffers an injury as a result of an accident arising out of or in connection with work and that person is taken from the site of the accident to a hospital for treatment in respect of that injury;

(d) any person not at work suffers a major injury as a result of an accident arising out of or in connection with work at a hospital

Which then becomes regulation 5 in S.I. 2013 No 1471 RIDDOR 2013

5.  Where any person not at work, as a result of a work-related accident, suffers—

(a) an injury, and that person is taken from the site of the accident to a hospital for treatment in respect of that injury; or

(b) a specified injury on hospital premises,