It is estimated that around 60% of all accidents in the workplace are going unreported every year according to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents or RoSPA.

When an accident occurs in the workplace the employer is obliged by law to inform the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) so why do so many accidents remain unreported?

Slingsby, a workplace equipment provider, believes that many workplaces including, ironically, doctors’ surgeries, are unaware of the importance of keeping concise records of accidents when they occur and this worrying fact has prompted experts to inform healthcare professionals and GPs that they must keep an accurate log of all accidents.

Every company, by law, is required to keep documentation of accidents but perhaps another theory why this isn’t happening is because many workplace accidents lead to claims for personal injury and maybe employers are taking the view that out of sight is out of mind and, by not documenting an accident, are omitting the evidence needed for an individual to make a claim.

Minor injuries only need to be logged in the accident book but more serious injuries which prevent an individual from working for more than three days, such as diseases or bone fractures, have to also be reported to the Health and Safety Executive.

When an accident is logged the individual writing up the report should include the date and time that the accident occurred, the location in which the accident occurred, the extent of the injuries received, what caused the accident, whether there were any witnesses or other employees involved and the treatment required.

However, an accident book is not only required for documenting workplace accidents but can also act as a valuable tool for employers to get an understanding of the areas of the workplace which need improvement.

If there is a consistent stream of similar accidents which all occurred in the same location then the employer can clearly see that this particular area of the workplace needs serious improvement.

The annual statistics report for 2010-2011 from the Health and Safety Executive states that:

• 117 employees were killed in the workplace during this time period. This equates to a rate of 0.6 fatalities for every 100,000 employees.

• 200,000 injuries resulted in the employees being absent from the workplace for more than three days during this time period. This figure equates to a rate of 710 injuries for every 100,000 employees.

• A further 115,379 injuries which occurred in the workplace were reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations or RIDDOR. This figure equates to a rate of 462.1 injuries for every 100,000 employees.

• 1.2 million employees suffered from either a new illness or had an existing illness made worse as a result of their current or past employment.

• A further 700,000 former employees who hadn’t been in employment for 12 months or more suffered from illness either caused or made worse by their previous employment.

• 2321 individuals died in 2009 from Mesothelioma

• 22.1 million working days were lost due to work related ill health.

• 4.4 million working days were lost due to workplace injuries. These figures equate to an astonishing 26.4 million working days lost in total.

• Injuries and ill health caused by the workplace cost the economy approximately £14 billion (not including cancer).

• 551 employers were prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive.

• 129 employers were prosecuted by local authorities.

• 18,290 enforcement notices were issued.

If the 60% of currently unreported accidents and injuries in the workplace were to be reported could we expect to see these already frightening statistics double in size?

The other point about the figures is, are businesses ignoring their reporting obligation or do they simply not know about them ? The Government has accepted that there has been so much health and safety legislation in the last 10 years that many businesses, struggling to survive, simply don’t know about much of it or understand it. There are plans to simplify the system and law, and hopefully this will assist in sorting out genuine offenders from those who are ignorant. Always remember though that ignorance of the law is no defence in law.

What do you think and what are your experiences of health and safety compliance ?

What can the employer do?

Regulations necessitate employers to carry out risk assessments of the workstations their employees use. This assessment should cover the entirety of the work unit, including all equipment, furniture and the environment generally.

Employers have a responsibility to their employees to ensure their health and safety when using a computer and they are according to law required to:

• Ensure Visual Display Units (VDUs are more commonly known as monitors or screens) are safe e.g. use anti glare screens, separate base for the screen and a stable image;
• Make sure workstations are designed to reduce risk to the user e.g. adjustable chairs, tiltable screens and keyboards and foot support and leg room;
• Ensure workstations meet safety requirements e.g. no trailing wires or overloaded electrical sockets, good lighting and room temperatures;
• Plan the work so that employees take regular breaks by changing the type of work done;
• Arrange for an eye test if needed or requested; and
• Provide health and safety training information on the use of a computer e.g. the importance of breaks, good posture and health risks.

Whether an employee is working at home or at an office, if their work requires them to use a VDU for a long period of time, regulations must be complied with. If there is any cause for concern that the above is not being met, as an employee you should notify your employer or the safety representative at your company.

What can an employee do?

Employees must cooperate with their employers and be aware of the health risks and precautions they can take to reduce the risks associated with computer. They can take practical measures. Under law you have the right to take frequent breaks away from your workstation. These breaks are not necessarily for rest, but a change in the type of work you do.

Whilst sitting at the workstation, the most common error made by people is the way they sit. They have a tendency to adjust themselves to the workstation. Rather than doing that, you should adjust your chair, your monitor and your keyboard so that you are comfortable and holding a good posture. The screen should be at eye level for example.

Recent studies have shown the link between damaged eyesight and VDU use. If your eyes are tired, eyesight becomes blurry or you experience headaches, you should report it to your employer and book yourself in for an eye test. You have the right to a free eyesight test and if you are a wearer of glasses and require them to work, your employer should pay for a basic pair of spectacles for use at work.

As an employee you should also pay heed to health and safety rules regarding computers. If you feel your employer is not meeting standards, you should inform them.

What types of injuries can someone suffer from using computers?

There are several injuries that are caused by frequent use of computers; the recurrent problems are repetitive strain injury, eyestrain, back pain and musculoskeletal problems.

Many of the problems caused by regular computer usage are temporary and can resolved by simply implementing corrective action. Most problems can be prevented too. However, if you do experience or develop any problems, medical advice should be sought promptly.

Computer associated problems occur because of several reasons, for example you are sitting in the same position for too long, excessive use of the mouse, bad positioning of the wrist and hands in relation to the keyboard, inadequate back support or working at the computer for prolonged periods of time.

What about laptops?

Laptops probably cause more problems because of the size of the screen and the way the mouse and keyboard are inbuilt. Therefore it is advisable to use the laptop with a docking station, which allows you to use a separate keyboard and mouse. The same risks are associated and the same precautions can be taken with a laptop as you would with a computer.

What are Workplace Hazards?

A workplace hazard is anything within the workplace that could potentially harm an employee or customer by causing an injury or accident. Workplace hazards could include:

• Chemicals or other hazardous substances

• Exposure to harmful bacteria

• Live electrical wiring

• Slippery floors

• Exposure to asbestos

• Gas leaks

• Or even less obvious potential hazards such as noise, vibration and working in a confined area

Risk Assessment

All businesses should carry out a risk assessment of the workplace to establish where the risks lie and work towards either eliminating those risks or reducing them to a safer level.

• When carrying out a risk assessment all aspects of health and safety within the workplace should be considered and the severity of any potential risks should be evaluated.

• All hazards or possible hazards should be recorded and all employees potentially at risk from those hazards should be informed.

• Steps should then be taken to either eliminate or control the risks and this could include aspects such as

1. changing or replacing the equipment used within the workplace
2. Altering or improving the layout of the workplace
3. Adapting the work to better suit the employee
4. Providing employees with training and information to get a better understanding of how to avoid possible risks and carry out their daily routine safely
5. Ensuring that, where risks cannot be completely eliminated, staff take the appropriate measures to protect themselves such as wearing protective clothing, ensuring good ventilation when working with chemicals and making sure any spillages are cleared up immediately

Risk assessments should be reviewed on a yearly basis or more frequently if changes occur within the working environment.

Risk Assessment Legislation

In some circumstances there are specific health and safety legislation in place which should be adhered to when carrying out a risk assessment. These pieces of legislation include:

• Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH)

This piece of legislation involves:

• The identification of hazardous or toxic substances within the workplace
• The risks those substances present
• The specific employees at risk from those hazardous substances
• The legal obligation of the employer and employees with regard to those hazardous substances such as:

1. Ensuring the Maximum Exposure Limits (MELs) are not exceeded
2. Substituting a hazardous substance for a less hazardous substance where possible
3. Providing and utilising protective equipment
4. Adhering to stringent instruction
5. Implementing the appropriate emergency procedures

The Manual Handling Operations Regulations

This piece of legislation involves:

• Assessing the particular task to be carried out
• Assessing the employee who will be carrying out that task
• Assessing the type of load the employee will be required to move
• Assessing the environment in which the task will take place
• Adhering to the lifting and lowering weights guidelines
• Controlling manual handling where possible by implementing the use of lifting equipment and handling aids and making necessary changes to the working environment to reduce the risk of injury

The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations

This piece of legislation involves:

• Identifying the whereabouts of asbestos within the workplace
• Assessing the risks posed by the asbestos
• Reducing or removing those risks posed by the asbestos where possible or, if removal isn’t an option, making the area containing the asbestos as safe as possible
• Informing employees of the presence and whereabouts of the asbestos to avoid disturbance

Accidents in the Workplace

If an employee has an accident in the workplace the accident must be recorded in the company’s accident book and, if the accident is of a serious nature, the employer is required to report it to the Health and Safety Executive or HSE.

If the accident occurred due to a fault on the employer’s behalf then the employee who suffered the injury may be able to put in a claim for compensation.

The injured employee should seek the advice of a personal injury solicitor who will be able to establish whether the individual has a case and, if so, will put the case together ready to file with the court.

There is a much welcome trend towards a common sense approach by the Government towards simplifying health and safety law but it may take some time for big organizations to start adapting to this and relaxing what has become an overly cautious, knee jerk and bureaucratic approach.

It should never be forgotten that tragic situations arise from failure to deal appropriately with health and safety but such tragedies can also occur, it seems, from an approach based on rules and bureaucracy. This tends to happen when staff in the NHS are unable to assist patients in dire need of urgent help due to health and safety reasons. This is highlighted by the following case.

In January 2011,  14-year-old Shannon Powell collapsed on a cross country race course. She had suffered a violent fit. Due to health and safety reasons, including that one paramedic was concerned she might put her back out lifting the patient it took paramedics an hour to reach the young girl because conditions were muddy and tragically, Shannon died. The coroner found that the death may well have been averted if the paramedics had got to the girl earlier and that the reason why they hadn’t was health and safety related.

In  a recent survey of 1,000 members of the College of Paramedics over 70% said that they had experienced situations where they could not operate as they otherwise would due to health-and-safety regulations imposed by managers.

We realise this is a difficult balancing act, particularly in big business where the obligations will be more strictly applied, with the possibility of personal injury or other claims by staff, but the above story highlights that in some sectors and jobs, there are instances where the risk of inaction is as bad if not worse than the risk of action.

The accident in 2007 happened when the deceased, Richard Thornton was crushed under a 50-tonne crane because the crane was too far away from the steal column it was lifting. the preosecution of the company and director was on the grounds that :-

• the work had not been planned and carried out safely
• the crane had not been properly maintained – it’s alarm was not fit for purpose and, crucially, override switches were also faulty. Had such switch been working it would have prevented the lift in the first place due to the overload.

This is another tragic case and it clearly evidences that if not on conscience grounds, directors should be very aware that they can be hit very hard financially if they do not take health and safety seriously.

So, here goes. This link is to an excellent basic questionnaire about your business’ compliance or otherwise with health and safety. As so many small businesses find it so difficult to get a quick understanding of the basics, we think this questionnaire is really useful. Hope you do also.

The Government has accepted the recommendations made in the recent review, which means the following changes and simplifications are coming, which will be welcomed by most businesses :

• Most businesses will no longer need to deal with health and safety inspections. The emphasis will be on high-risk businesses, both due to risk levels and past conduct
• Business which do not take health & safety seriously will end up being liable for the costs of the investigation into their activities
• A voluntary Occupational Safety and Health Consultants Register (OSHCR) will be set up as a way of making it easier for a business seeking some health & safety guidance to find an accredited expert
• A review will be completed in the autumn to simplify health & safety regulations
• New sources of online guidance are available by the HSE.

Serious injuries and death are still, tragically, far from uncommon caused by working at height. Many of these serious injuries and deaths result from falls from 20-30 feet or less.

In a recent health & safety prosecution case relating to a Barnet wholesaler, an employee died due to a fall from a stepladder. It is all too easy to consider that such regular activities as work on ladders should not require consideration of safe systems of work, but as falls can have such devastating consequences, use of ladders and working at height are some of the most important things to be aware of.

In this case, the deceased was working as a handyman and was instructed to build some shelving in the storeroom by the site manager. He fell and upon inspection of the stepladder it was found to be in poor and inadequate condition. The wholesaler has been fined and the HSE state that this type of risk is clearly foreseeable, and a full site-specific risk assessment and plan should have been undertaken.

In addition to working on ladders, other types of tragic accidents at height commonly involve working on roofs, which can contain loose tiles and skylights which may not be immediately visible.

Breaching health & safety laws not only can result in horrific injuries to staff, significant fines which can run into the tens of thousands but potentially also now paying expensive costs of investigation.

There will be a 3 month consultation period on the possibility of charging time costs estimated at more than £130.00 per hour, together with the expense of any specialised investigation services. Under the proposals, invoices raised for these cost will need to be paid within 30 days and the HSE will be tasked with vigorously pursuing payment recovery.

A primary school has confiscated a tub of vaseline from a young girl, which she was using for dry lips, on the basis it created  a health and safety issue since at the time she brought it into school, it had not been prescribed as medicine but instead had simply been bought by her mother at the chemist.

The school and local authority took the line that it had clear rules on bringing non-prescribed substances into the school, and were not prepared to make any exception. We can understand this policy line to a extent but it isn’t really use of common sense.

The mother of the child in question was offered the choices of :-

• Coming into school herself with the Vaseline every day at certain times to apply it to her child
• Getting it prescribed by the GP

Not surprisingly, the mother opted for the second choice.