Moving & Handling Instructors Ltd. Manual Handling Risk Assessments. Analysis of

Transcription

1 Moving & Handling Instructors Ltd in association with Manual Handling Risk Assessments Analysis of Manual Handling Assessment Form as produced by Mr ***** ********* (Site Manager) of ******** Ltd by Gavin Wright EMT MHID D32/33 CEO Moving & Handling Instructors Ltd

2 Contents Initial Details & Boundaries... 3 Analysis Justifications... 4 Task Differs from Risk Assessment... 5 More detailed understanding of risk assessment required... 6 Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix

3 Initial Details & Boundaries Report Author: Mr. Gavin Wright, EMT MHID D32/33 Plaintiff: Mr. **** * *** Defendant: Plaintiffs solicitor: Commissioned by: Abbreviations used: **** ******* Ltd ************ Ltd The Plaintiff EMT (Emergency Medical Technician) MHID (Moving & Handling Instructors Diploma (OCR)) MHRA (Manual Handling Risk Assessment) TILE(O)(Task, Individual Capabilities, Load, Environment & Other Factors) MHSWR (Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999) MHOR (Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1999 (as amended)) HSE (Health & Safety Executive) REBA (Rapid Entire Body Assessment) Boundaries: This report is in response to the Manual Handling Risk Assessment Form as submitted by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs solicitor. It also follows consultation with the plaintiff but not the defendant therefore may present a biased understanding of events.

4 Analysis The first that is noted is that the incident occurred on the 24 th July However the risk assessment as submitted is dated 18 th September 2015, exactly 8 weeks to the day after the incident. Therefore it is assumed that the risk assessment had not been done previous to this date and that the Defendant was in breach of Section 3(1) of the MHSWR, in that, employers are required to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health and safety of their employees while at work. The rest of this report therefore is speculative, inasmuch that the report s author will pen the report as if a similar Manual Handling Risk Assessment Form had been available prior to the incident occurring. The Defendant acknowledges that a significant risk of injury is involved in the operations being carried out by the Plaintiff. Therefore in accordance with the above mentioned section at first glance it appears that the Defendant attempted to conduct a more detailed assessment. The question therefore is, Is this assessment truly Suitable and Sufficient?. The reports author claims not. The defendant has used the tried and tested method of TILE(O) in their assessment. However, it is the authors belief that closer analysis of the MHRA indicates that it was completed by a noncompetent person in breach of Section 4(1)(b)(i)of the MHOR. 8 Justifications The justification for this statement is multifactorial. 1. There are only three risk factors identified (High, Medium & Low). The HSE s basic guidance which is freely available for download from the HSE s own website identifies four risk factors. Although there is no legal requirement to use this specific form or even method of assessment (it is unsuitable for some tasks but ideal for the Defendants business), it is a brave person who would make their own system up that has not been peer reviewed and generally accepted in industry. 2. With one exception, every risk rating has been marked as Medium. For instance, the Defendant has recognised Twisting as being a significant risk of injury to the Plaintiff. It is highlighted as a medium risk. Likewise, repetitive handling and stooping are identified as a medium risks. These are nothing more than the assessors opinion. Where is the proof. It is not the place of the risk assessment form to furnish the proof, however, the fact that everything has the same risk factor indicates that the assessor is unaware of biomechanics. 3. In the Tasks section the Defendant has indicated that there is No significant risk of injury caused by the work rate imposed on the Plaintiff and yet has indicated that this, nonexistent risk, carries a medium risk factor with it. 4. Also in the Tasks section, the Defendant indicates that the load is not held away from the trunk. The HSE has clear guidance as to what this means. The pictures published by the HSE ( show that the upper arm should be inline with the spine for this to be the case. However, the Defendant also acknowledges that the Manual Handling Tasks involve reaching upwards which is a biological impossibility while holding the load close to the trunk.

5 5. The control measures that are identified as a risk reduction exercise are woefully inadequate. They comprise a DVD (which the Plaintiff has not seen) which the Defendant claims to be adequate training for the Plaintiff. Even if this was the case, the Guidance Notes paragraph 190 to Section 4(3)( c) of MHOR indicate that training alone is not adequate. Follow up assessment in the workplace is good custom and practice to ensure that the student has carried over what is taught in the classroom to the working environment. It is imperative that a student has the opportunity to ask questions of their trainer to ensure understanding of a subject. A DVD cannot be asked questions. The control measures also mention a daily check sheet. However the Defendant has not included an example for the report authors consideration. 6. The load section indicates that the Plaintiff is expected to carry heavy loads. However, nowhere in the assessment is the typical weight highlighted. Indeed, the manner of training is in breach of Regulation 4(1)(b)(iii) of MHOR in that, as paragraph 173 of the guidance explains, The requirement to provide general indications of the weight and nature of the loads to be handled should form part of any basic training, so that employees have sufficient information to carry out the operations they are likely to be asked to do. Unless the DVD was made specifically with this task in mind, it will fail to do this. 7. If a load is heavy it may have a medium risk factor for one person but a high risk factor for a different individual. Therefore, it is accepted practice that the risk factor given will be where the majority of people would be, should they undertake the task. If the assessor cannot or has difficulty gauging this, they could use a Likert approach. 8. In the Working environment section, the defendant has claimed that there are no constraints on posture. However, the Defendant has already highlighted that the tasks involve twisting, stooping, reaching upwards, large vertical movements and repetitive handling, all of which place constraints on posture varying in amount according to an individual s capabilities and height etc. Task Differs from Risk Assessment Interestingly, the task that was being undertaken at the most likely time of injury is not mentioned in the risk assessment. The Plaintiff was asked to lift boxes similar to those shown in appendix 2 for the purpose of de-labelling the boxes. The estimated weight of these boxes are 40Kg. The method used was to tip the stack of boxes away from the plaintiff, place his foot underneath the boxes and lift them from the pallet using his foot while steadying the load with his outstretched arms. If a correct TILE assessment had been conducted the assessor would have noticed that this task requires the plaintiffs arms to be outstretched, in direct conflict with the statement made in the assessment. Furthermore, there is no reference to differences in Individual capabilities. The only minor reference the author can find is that being pregnant would make no difference to the risk outcomes. However, this is not the case. A heavily pregnant person for instance, would not be able to get as close to the load as they previously could and would therefore need to extend their arms further than usual.

6 More detailed understanding of risk assessment required A More detailed understanding of risk assessment would have shown the level of risk the Plaintiff was exposed to. A simple Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) would have shown the assessor that the individual (the I part of TILE, in this case the plaintiff) was in the Very High risk category and not Medium as indicated by the guess work of the Defendants assessor. For a brief overview of REBA please see appendix 1. Appendix 3 is the written evidence for the REBA score of 11 (Very High) for the task mentioned above. This being the case, there should be written evidence that this task was stopped while further assessment was conducted. If this additional assessment showed that there was no safer solution, all employees should have given workplace training to ensure the safest possible outcomes. Appendix 4 shows that according to the HSE the Plaintiff should not have lifted more than 5Kg without an assessment in place. Although there is no legal restriction on lifting more than 5Kg, the estimation of 40Kg is at least 8 times the amount where the Defendant should have considered a risk assessment. Lifting 40Kg with the foot can cause an inguinal hernia as a result of stretching the muscles around the inguinal canal. This is the injury that the plaintiff has presented with.

7 Appendix 1 REBA is a very useful postural analysis tool. It is the acronym for Rapid Entire Body Assessment. The purpose is to quickly ascertain the risk factor of workers when carrying out manual handling tasks. Rather than focussing on the task itself, it gives attention to the person carrying out the procedure; that is to say, provides evidence towards the fact that the I in TILE(O) has been considered. It is a research based means of quantifying risk. REBA was brought into existence back in 2000 by Dr Sue Hignet and Dr Lynn MacAtamney of Loughborough and Nottingham Universities. In 2005 it was given formal approval in official Manual Handling Guidelines in the form of the Guide to the Handling of People 5 th edition with the 6 th edition continuing its growing acceptance. It has also been used in a variety of other industry guidelines and has become a standard means of assessment in healthcare. It can be used provide the evidence needed when drawing up plans as to the value, or need, of extra equipment or training that maybe perceived to be required. Due to its nature, it should be used as a complimentary tool where a generic assessment tool such as MAC or ART have indicated a risk to the individual. Therefore, key workers, assessors and supervisors should be trained in its use, the general workforce may simply be informed of its existence. There are 6 key body parts which are assessed by REBA as well as, how the individual is coupled to the load and the force exerted by the individual during the task. Although the score given ranges from 1 15, there are five possible risk factors the individual could fall into. These are: 1 = Negligible 2-3 = Low 4-7 = Medium 8-10 = High 11-15= Very High Each factor caries its own recommendation. However, it is noted that if the score is 11-15, the task must cease until a safer solution can be found. Where this is not possible, the task may resume, but not until all options have been explored and dismissed, the management have agreed to accept the level of risk and the workers have been given suitable and sufficient training along with follow up assessment in the workplace to ensure they understand the risk. They must also be allowed rotation of duties and options for alternative tasks should they feel unable to manage the task at any given time. It should be very unusual for a task to remain in the Very High factor if the assessment is appropriate.

8 Appendix 2

9 Appendix 3 Rapid Entire Body Assessment Task: Lifting boxes from pallet Date: 6/July/2016 Location: Mock-up Group A Group B Neck score 2 Lower arm score 2 Trunk score 3 Upper arm score 4 Leg score 3 Wrist score 2 Table A = 6 Table B = 6 Load/Force = 3 Coupling = 2 Score A = 9 Score B = 9 Table C = 11 Activity Score = 0 REBA Score = 11 Score Risk factor Action 1 Negligible No need for any action 2-3 Low Action has probably already been taken to get to this level 4-7 Medium Further consideration should be given as how risk can be lowered 8-10 High Action needs to taken very soon Very High Work must cease until a safer solution can be found Adapted from Hignet & McAtmney 2000

10 Appendix 4 Box Zones (filter system) Female Male 10 Kg 5 Kg Shoulder Shoulder 3 Kg 7 Kg Elbow 7 Kg 13 Kg 20 Kg 10 Kg Elbow Knuckle 10 Kg 16 Kg 25 Kg 15 Kg Knuckle Mid lower leg 7 Kg 13 Kg 20 Kg 10 Kg Mi d lower leg Floor 3 Kg 7 Kg 10 Kg 5 Kg Floor The above weight limits are on the assumption that the person carrying out the lift has no fitness issues to deal with. It also is on the understanding that they have both feet firmly on the floor (which the plaintiff doesn t) with a good base area. It also assumes that the person can take a firm and proper grasp of the object to be lifted (which the plaintiff cannot) and that they can release their grip in similar circumstances.