ºÝºÝߣ

Editor's Notes

• #3: Important to emphasise that this is a course on FIRST PRINCIPLES but should NOT be considered as BASIC. The message is that if we approach the process via first principles, they can be applied to all assessments, be they general, generic or highly specific. By the end of the workshop, delegates should understand why they do risk assessments and how to approach them.
• #4: This provides the legal background to the duty to make risk assessments (and could be the only slide about the law). Opportunity to introduce the thought that if you start from the ‘top’ on a task by task basis, before applying specific regulations for certain assessments (e.g. manual handling), rather than using the Management regulations to ‘plug the gaps’, then key areas that do not fit neatly into specific slots will not be missed. Key example – Slips, trips and falls
• #5: You may wish to hand out the HSE ‘five steps’ leaflet to delegates. Whether you do or not, this slide turns the steps into questions. The steps are introduced first and in this way, to ensure that delegates learn first that risk assessment is a logical exercise with a meaningful outcome. Where to start the process and clarifying definitions are dealt with in the following slides. Not too long need be spent on each step as long as people remember What hazards?Who is possibly exposed?How big is the risk?What can we do about it?How do we check it is working (including compliance)?
• #6: Aim: to get people to start with the question ‘What am I trying to do/achieve?’ before they start looking at the hazards. Can go on to propose splitting up the task into steps if necessary.
• #7: Examples can be put onto a flip chart for future reference. If no, or limited, examples are given? You can draw from this list or use your own examples Data entry (DSE/ergonomics) Unloading a vehicle (Manual handling) Driving from A to B on work business Travelling to a conference Moving offices Working in the community Working in a laboratory
• #8: Important to agree definitions. The definitions used in this slide have been used in the MRC over time, are sound, and are in line with HSE definitions. It may be opportune to point out that if delegates are involved in corporate business risk management, the definitions are not the same – which is in some ways unfortunate. Very important to stress that these are health and safety definitions. Useful, to call for examples: e.g. a car (Stationary car usually not a hazard – but what about parking on a hill? Moving car a hazard; risk of injury to driver, to other drivers, pedestrians. Each of these potential sets of people carries its own risks of injury. To be meaningful, risk has to connected to a task, e.g., crossing the road, driving on a journey and considering self, pedestrians and other vehicles. Whose risk is it?)
• #9: Identifying hazards. This introduces concept of ‘competence’ in the second question. Discussion can be around ‘who does the assessment?’ and ‘who is responsible for it?’. Main answer should be that person doing the work should do assessment (shouldn’t be doing it if they do not know what they are doing) with team leader/PI/functional manager retaining overall responsibility). This also introduces link to hierarchy of control (two blue bullets) but mainly dwells on the duty to ask the two last questions.
• #10: Key issue: No such thing as a ‘normal’ person. However many risk assessments can be properly made that apply to the majority of people. Even so, individual characteristics do affect the level of risk, on the ‘severity’ or ‘consequence’ spectrum. Each should be discussed briefly. When considering disability, emphasise ‘inclusivity’ and the MRC aim of enabling as many people with disabilities to work in as many areas as possible. Duty to adjust. In all groups (e.g. cleaners as well as own employees) communication is important so language skills can be important.
• #11: This is the first of a series of slides looking at Step 3: evaluation of risk. In the series of slides we look at: The 2 parameters of consequence and likelihood Translating the two factors into a graph with ‘risk’ assessed as the area under the graph (simple product) Understanding the limits we have on controlling ‘severity’ in some situations and ‘likelihood’ in others Translating a graph into a numerical matrix Adding words to the matrix that determine actions Defining those actions
• #12: Most of this series of slides should be viewed as a slideshow while reading these notes to enhance the points made. Here we introduce ‘How likely’ on the ‘y’ axis, explaining that likelihood could in some circumstances relate to ‘how many times it is done’ but also can relate to the human factors set out in previous slides (Experience, etc.) ‘How bad’ places severity on the ‘x’ axis, with the explanation that this could range from a slight injury to possible fatality.
• #13: MRC operates using a 4 x 4 matrix, so we are introducing an example model of a 4 x 4. In our model we are dividing the ‘y’ and ‘x’ axes each into 4 distinct steps. It can be emphasised that matrices vary in the number or options and the wording also varies, but our model ranges from something that is very unlikely to happen to near certainty and from slight harm to possible fatality. Delegates should be encouraged to keep the printed slides as reference during these slides.
• #14: View the slide presentation first. Matrix created by multiplying the 2 axes values. Highest number at top right equals highest risk. Arrow flying in from top right indicates direction we would ideally like our risk to go once controls applied Arrow from right is to demonstrate that we cannot always control how many times a task is performed, or the number of people performing it, so we will focus on reducing the potential severity, or consequences Arrow from top indicates that sometimes we cannot change the potential severity of an event, so we reduce the chances of it happening (or the likelihood). An example would be the need to fly by aeroplane. We can reduce the chance of a plane crashing through good construction, maintenance and training, since we cannot influence the outcome to any significant extent.
• #15: Once again run through this first. The main point is that in our workplace we rarely if at all work with hazards where the risks are toward the top tight of the matrix. Using the printed overheads for reference we can suggest that our range is usually from value ‘9’ downwards, which translates as an outcome of ‘quite likely there is a serious injury’. An example could be the risk of injuring a back sufficiently to be away from work for more than 3 days through attempting to lift or move heavy objects. In case the question arises, the point can be made that the very nature of using probabilities means that a person can do a task badly several times without apparent injury and then get injured on the next occasion without warning. Sometimes previous statistics can be a help and the risk properly calculated, but on other occasions we have to use our skills, knowledge and experience to anticipate problems.
• #16: We can now make an attempt to add meaningful words to our matrix. We can try these words and see if they work. Thus we are saying that 10 or over is unacceptable. This includes ‘very likely serious injury’ and ‘quite likely possible fatality’ the category seems sensible 7-9 is significant. This includes ‘very likely injury affecting work’ through to ‘possibly a possible fatality’ Again this works. 4-6 is tolerable. This might include ‘very likely risk of slight harm’, via a ‘possible injury affecting work’ through to a ‘very unlikely risk of possible fatality’. Again this works, with all others rated at 1-3 regarded as insignificant.
• #17: But the ‘acceptance level’ is only worthwhile if it is connected to an action plan. In this slide we place actions against each category from the matrix. Each establishment can make their own judgement on acceptance of risk which may be related to the skills, knowledge and experience of individuals for a wide range of tasks (can refer back to first example slide). Important that all assessors are aware of local standards.
• #18: Aspects of controlling risk – introduced as ‘What can we do to remove or reduce risk?’ are discussed in Presentation 2. This slide just sets the scene on what needs to be done as Step 4.
• #19: Step 5 is the need to monitor the risk assessment in action. Can take the opportunity to differentiate between monitoring and reviewing, with the message that they are really two arms of the same process – to ensure risk assessments remain live. Regular monitoring of a risk assessment may lead to changes being made to procedures (changing the risk control) Regular review of procedures may lead to changes made to assessments (and sometimes back to the procedures again).