Hi all,

I have been asked to be part of a risk assessment that is specifically to be used to allow the need to carry out refresher training for maintenance staff to be extended or dropped all together.

I have looked, and happy to be proven wrong, but I have not been able to find accurate information that states refresher training must be carried out annually, every two years etc. 

The proposal is that staff are already trained in COSHH, Asbestos, Electrical works etc. and therefore do not require refresher training as there has not been any significant change to the risk, no new technology and so on.

The bottom line is that this is potentially a massive cost saving exercise and it has been difficult to argue as the legislation just recommends refresher training.

I myself do not fully support this approach.

My concern is how the HSE would perceive that if an incident occurred.

Thanks in advance

What often makes refresher training pointless is that it is just a repeat of the original training at arbitrary intervals.  It's very hit and miss as to whether this has any value.  At most it will remind people of things they had forgotten or hadn't paid attention to the first time.  And that only if they can somehow be interested enough to pay attention when they have been through this before.

What can have value is a refresher that builds on the original training.  If someone has had training about the principles of COSHH, for example, there can be value in having a refresher which takes more of a discussion format, where examples of COSHH practice are explored from the trainees' own experience ("Have any of you dealt with a spill since the training?  How did that go?  How would the rest of you want to handle that?") or using a quiz format as a basis ("What does this hazard label mean?  OK you recognise that as corrosive.  What would you be concerned about with a corrosive substance?  Now what does this hazard label mean?  OK, so most of you don't recognise this one.  I'll explain it ...")

Not only is this more effective, it can also be cheaper as you can get an experienced person in-house to lead it instead of an accredited external trainer.

This type of refresher needn't be at arbitrary intervals, but could be when there have been some events that might make you think it would come in useful.  Not to blame the people involved in those events, but to use the events (such as spills in my example above) as a talking point to explore the issues.

John, whilst being strongly supportive of employee involvement in decision making AND the value of trade unions, I don't think employers should be acting to managing health and safety just to abide by what the emploees or their unions might think.

So, in the case you cite, it seems to me that the appropriate course would have been for NHS Managers to sit down with representatives of RCN and discuss the value of refresher training in manual handling and how this should be done - and for reasons already given by Kate, NOT simply repeating  what was done last time round.

Point taken John, but professional bodies sometimes get it all wrong!

However, perhaps currently is not the best time to for NHS managers (with hands tied by HMG) to negotiate with RCN, unless they can be persuaded that rethinking is not an excuse for cuts.

That said, nurses do all sorts of different tasks, some of which present manual handling risks which vary substantially. Surely most people would recognise that this means that their training needs are best met by tailoring them to what they are doing on a daily basis or are likely to be soon doing - if the case can be made in such a way as to minimise any likelihood of distrust.

Edited by user 12 November 2023 16:03:55(UTC)  | Reason: Do I need to do the IOSH training on full stops and commas?

Refresher going over what has happened before is pointless unless the message never landed in the first place.

As mentioned what has been "learned" does not get unlearned e.g. riding a bike, driving.

What becomes important is honing the skills and knowledge over time a bit like the professional CPD demanded in iosh membership.

That much miss-used term "competence" is just about to drift in to the wider construction arena in consequence of the Building Safety Act you can already hear the schemers planning their latest "card".

How many drivers do you know who would revert to driving correctly after being forced to take a driving lesson if this were required to maintain their licence?

Originally Posted by: O'Donnell54548

And how many drivers do you know who still drive like they were taught, or did on their driving test??? 

Thankfully NONE - if everyone were pegged at provisional level we would have serious issues on the road.

I do get your point that there are matters which will be forgotten over time such as parrot style repeating of wet and dry braking distances but in reality how valid is that information given all the potential variables with impact in the real world (mass of vehicle and type, temperature, tyre condition & type, driver reaction etc.)? This is where honing skills comes in to play getting to know and understand the vehicle, knowing your driving style and most importantly predicting what the other road user is likely to do.

So in the case of car driving in the UK society has not deemed it necessary to have mandatory periodical refresher training yet in the work environment we fall over ourselves to put FLT drivers to the test on a 3 yearly basis often despite driving with "no fault".

We are discussing demonstrating "competence" and currently fighting the suggestion that everyone should go through the business training packages designed for new starters on a three yearly cycle as employees would end up full time refresher and not contributing to business activity.

Further to AK's point at #12, I can see why student nurses should get training with content prescribed by the professional body in manual handling when e.g. doing a Uni course, but as soon as they start specialising their needs will vary dramatically.

So, then logic and legislation indicate that "refresher" or, perhaps more appropriately, "additional" manual handling training should surely be based on the product of a risk assessment of the role of the individual nurse or group of nurses.

With adoption of bariatric ambulances, wheelchairs, beds etc. should it still be manual handling?

Just looked at the original posting and from my experience the HSE does not care if you tick the boxes. They like to see systems that work.  Key to that is competence not the fact that people slept through a  training session.

So were the 2008 settled cases - untrained / not-refreshed / badly or illegally instructed or merely rubber desked?

https://resolution.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Did-you-know_Manual-Handling.pdf