FORTH and TAY DISTRICT

of

EDINBURGH BRANCH

21^st meeting

Perth & Kinross Business Gateway, The Atrium, 137, Glover Street, Perth

7:30pm Thursday 4^th November 2004.

Sederunt

D Devey D Mann  S Chisholm    K Paterson K McDonnell A Milne            J Gorgon J Walker P Szawcowski A Martin     R Martin            B Davies A Johnston                  G Sutherland T Mellon E Stobbie  D Morrison  B Stainton  G Dick                          B McDonnell J Anderson                        T Sayer               P McCusker A Pill W Reiche

Apologies

A Thomson J Little  R Lacey N Doherty E Cassidy

1.         Chairperson                 Kirsten Paterson

Kirsten opened the meeting at 7.30pm and welcomed all those present to the 21^st meeting of the District.  Members and guests were informed of the fire procedures and the toilet facilities.  Kirsten outlined that the format of the meeting would be the District business first, then coffee, followed by the speakers’ address.  She also informed everyone that a number of recent health and safety documents were available for perusal – but not removal please – to the rear of the meeting room. Kirsten emphasised how valuable it could be for people to take the opportunity to discuss health and safety issues with one another: if someone has a problem, someone else might have the answer!  Finally, the Chairperson reminded the assembly that the next meeting in February would be the Annual General Meeting (AGM) at which a new Committee would be chosen: volunteers for the Committee are needed to keep the District thriving.

2          Minutes of the previous meeting

The Chairperson asked the meeting if there were any comments regarding the Minutes of the 20^th meeting held on the 2^nd September: there were none.  Acceptance of the Minutes was proposed by Dick Mann and seconded by Barry Davies.

3.         Secretary’s statement

Dave Devey read out the names of those apologising for non-attendance that he had received and asked if there were other names to be recorded.  He also asked everyone to ensure that his or her details were properly entered on the Attendance Register.  Dave explained that the District had a “Certificate of Attendance” that could be provided to members as documentary proof for their CPD portfolios.

4.         Correspondence

Nil

5.         Branch Liaison                        Karen McDonnell

Karen briefed the meeting about changes to the IOSH membership structure that she had understood from the BEDA meeting held on the 30^th September 2004.

The aim is to assess knowledge, skills and experience (Competence) of all applicants wishing to become MIOSH.  Different routes to initial qualification are recognised and candidates’ “weak areas” can be addressed through benchmarking against ENTO Level IV (Occupational Health and Safety Practise).  The initial qualification routes are an IOSH accredited university qualification, NEBOSH Diploma or a cognate degree.

For those who wish to progress further (from MIOSH), Initial Professional Development – IPD – requirements dependant upon the initial qualification route may require candidates to take an open examination, portfolio building (CPD) or both.  Candidates will then be interviewed to determine their present work and that undertaken since their initial MIOSH qualification was obtained.  If all criteria are satisfied then candidates may be offered “Chartered” status – CMIOSH.  Continuing Professional Development (CPD) will be mandatory for Chartered Members.  If a candidate should be considered weak in certain aspects of their application for CMIOSH they may be permitted to “bank” the acceptable evidence whilst they work on necessary improvements.  There is likely to be a time limit for such improvement.  If all areas need to be improved, then a mentor will assist a candidate.

Karen finally reminded the meeting about the following relevant articles that had appeared in the Safety and Health Practitioner magazine – SHP – in 2004:

            May 2004          -           Transitional arrangements for existing MIOSH/FIOSH

            June 2004         -           Initial professional development – IPD

            July 2004          -           CPD, What’s it all about?

6          Any other competent business - AOCB

Nil

7.         Guest Speakers           - Mr David Cassells, Principal HSE Inspector, Edinburgh

                                                - Mr David Stephen, HSE Inspector, Edinburgh

Kirsten introduced both speakers.

David Cassells spoke first, explaining that he was briefly setting the scene for David Stephen and his topic “Improving health and safety through investigation”. 

David went on to remind the meeting about the recent background in relation to the targets set by John Prescott in 1999 for “Revitalising Health and Safety”. Typical figures are:

                        300 –350 deaths at work per year

                        160,000 non-fatal injuries reported

                        2.3 million people suffer ill health exacerbated by work

                        33 million working days productivity lost per annum.

David Cassells pointed out that the “targets” were not solely for the HSC/HSE, but also required efforts from:

                        Employers

                        Unions

                        Employees

                        Professional bodies (including IOSH)

Referring to the HSE Leaflet “Take a fresh look at health and safety” (INDG 385 published 04/04) David Cassells indicated HSE priorities for reducing accidents presently include falls from height, workplace transport, musculo-skeletal disorders, slips and trips and stress together with the threats to health caused by noise, hand arm vibration and asthma agents.

With the foregoing in mind, David Cassells then stated that properly investigating so-called “adverse events” at work could only be of benefit in improving health and safety performance in the workplace.

David Cassells then introduced David Stephen and his topic:

IMPROVING HEALTH AND SAFETY PERFORMANCE THROUGH INVESTIGATION.

David Stephen commenced by explaining adverse events to be;

• Accidents
• Cases of ill health
• Dangerous occurrences (RIDDOR reportable)
• Near Misses (maybe not RIDDOR reportable)
• Undesired circumstance (the potential to cause harm; egg. Untrained forklift drivers)

What is an Investigation?

• An open and honest analysis of all the available information
• The depth of the investigation should be related to the possible worst-case scenario.  What could have happened – not just what did!
• Should seek solutions to avoid the same event happening again.

The benefits of Investigating

• Prevent further accidents
• Ensure compliance with legal standards
• Prevent further loss
• Develop safety culture (Staff will appreciate efforts made to effect improvement)
• Develop managerial skills.

Which events should be investigated?

• Where possible consequences are unacceptable
• Where recurrence potential is high
• Where incident was entirely novel or unexpected
• Where the public or third parties are affected

David then introduced the HSE publication “Investigating Accidents and Incidents”  - HSG 245 – to the meeting.  He explained that this guidance complements and expands upon the accident procedures set out in HSG 65 “Successful Health and Safety Management”.

HSG 245 sets out the following four stages of accident investigation:

·        Stage 1             -           Gathering information

·        Stage 2 -           Analysing information

·        Stage 3             -           Identifying risk control measures

·        Stage 4             -           Risk control action plan

Stage 1 – Gathering information

• When / Where / Who?  (keep an open mind!)
• How did it happen?  (any unusual circumstances)
• What was being done at the time?

Stage 2 – Analysing information

• Causal factors  (Immediate – underlying – root)
• “Fault Tree” analysis
• Human error a likely factor?  (If so, be careful not to accuse.)
• “Human Factors” failure?  The Organisation  (culture, management, resources)

The Job  (tools, equipment, shift hours, supervision)

The Individual (competence, alertness, mistakes, violations)

Stage 3 – Identifying risk control measures

• List options
• Evaluate options
• Prioritise measures / options / actions
• Assign responsibilities
• Set timeframes for actions
• Controls to be “ So far as is reasonably practicable”

Consider wider implications for investigations and control

• Can lessons learned be applied elsewhere?
• Could similar events occur elsewhere?
• Have similar events already occurred?
• Would controls prevent similar “near misses”?

The General Hierarchy of Control

• Elimination
• Substitution
• Engineering controls
• Safer working methods (procedural controls)
• Personal protective equipment (PPE)

Stage 4 – Risk Control Action Plan

• What actions must be implemented immediately?
• Documentation of controls
• Priorities for implementation
• Setting control targets that are    -           specific             S

measurable       M

achievable         A

realistic             R

timescaled         T

“SMART”

• Measures to review assessments / procedures
• Procedures to communicate findings to staff