Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 01 October 2001 15:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Allen A client of mine with offshore operations has noted an increase in the number of cases where an injury has been sustained and the cause has been identified as a pre-existing injury. In some cases the accident investigation has identified an improvement in the plant, equipment or system of work that could have been made so that it is arguable that even a fully fit person might have been injured. However in at least two cases there was no identifiable preventive measure and the examining doctor has stated that the injury could not have occurred to someone who was not carrying a pre-existing injury. I am sure our industry is not alone in having this problem. It is my experience that people want to work and will claim to be fit even if they are not. A medical examination is essential for work offshore however a large part of it consists of a questionnaire. If the answer to a particular question is no the Doctor is unlikely to take it further unless symptoms are obvious. An off the job injury can occur between medicals. In the offshore industry we also have an ageing workforce (average late 40s and rising) so the problem is likely to get worse in future. Until now the client has reported these under Riddor and within his internal reporting system. I am beginning to come to the view that the injury and its consequences should be allocated to the original incident even if that occurred while at a previous employer, but what about an off the job injury which recurs at work? In the offshore industry we report “domestic accidents” (such as slips in the shower) which occur on the installation but when the person is off duty. Where do we draw the line? I don’t expect hard and fast answers to these questions, I just wonder if others have had the same problem and if so what philosophy they have adopted?
Admin  
#2 Posted : 01 October 2001 19:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Peter J Harvey My own feelings might not be totally my employers but I think there is merit in taking a positive approach to this. I would like to think that employees would be open about injury sustained away from the workplace. At the end of the day most people would rather be at work than laid up at home or sat watching the box (after a week or two). If an employer takes a pro-active approach the odds are that with some occupational treatment you can keep people in work and save a huge amount of expense. An open approach also means that injury no matter where sustained can be treated early and the greatest benefit gained. So does it really matter where the injury was sustained, a positive attitude to treatment and keeping experience in the job has got to benefit all.
Users browsing this topic
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.