|
The
HSE is planning to reduce the numbers of reported
injuries and other incidents that its inspectors will
investigate, and reduce the time inspectors spend
on those investigations it does carry out. This will
go hand in hand with increasing the number of inpsections
and other preventative work.
These proposed changes - some of which are now in
force, and the rest of which have just started being
piloted in the North East of England - are set out
in a document titled "Improving Health &
Safety: Some Developments And New Approaches To Incident
Investigation Management And A Revision Of The Incident
Selection Criteria" which the HSE has given
to the CCA.
These
changes apply to Field Operations Directorate (FOD)
which is repsonsible for 90% of all of HSE's work.
There appear to be two contexts for these changes:
The
proposals are summarised and explained below. However
if you would like to download the actual document,
click
here. It is suggested that you read this summary
before downloading the document.
To
see CCA's Press Release on this, Click
Here
Summary
The HSE document states:
| "Time
spent on investigation work by FOD has risen substantially
since the revised criteria were introduced in
April 2001. With finite resources, this work has
been completed at the expense of preventive work.
|
| To
get a better balance FOD has looked at both its
management of investigations and the incident
selection criteria. FOD envisages an increase
in proactive activity to halfway between the current
position and that in 1995/96. This should still
meet the pressure to investigate a higher proportion
of reported injuries (than HSE did in the late
nineties) while restoring a largely preventive
focus." |
The
instruction to reduce time spent on investigations
is in force now throughout Britain. The plan to reduce
the number of investigations is being piloted in the
North West of England - though the intention is for
this to go Nationwide.
It
is not clear how many fewer investigations the HSE
would carry out if the new selection criteria was
nationwide. If the level was halfway between 1996/7
and 2000/01 levels, it is likely to mean that the
percentage of major injuries investigated would decrease
by around 5%, from 20% of the total to 15%. This will
mean about 1000 fewer major injuries will be investigated,
from about 4,300 (figures in 2000/01) to 3,300. However
the HSE are very cagey about the detailed impact of
the changes.
At the same time the HSE could increase the level
of inspections by around 20% from the current level.
This could mean an approximate increase in the number
of contacts involving inspections from 24,000, from
around 69,000 (figures in 2000/01) to about 93,000.
However the HSE plans to use inspectors to undertake
preventative work other than inspections as well
In the document, the HSE argues that:
| "A
reduction in reactive work would enable front-line
staff to increase time on activities that more
directly impact on the revitalising targets, e.g.: |
| (a) |
preventive
inspection targeted at organisations where the
priority topics are significant causes of injury
and ill health; |
| (b) |
in-depth
interventions with poorly performing large organisations
which have disproportionately high incidence rates;
and |
| (c) |
enforcement-led
initiatives based on analysis of reported incidents,
local knowledge or other intelligence, e.g. targeted
‘blitzes’ with a high enforcement content." |
|
The
CCA has obtained a copy of the standard letter
that the HSE will send out to injured workers
who complain their injury is not being investigated:
HSE’ss
Field Operations Directorate is undertaking
a major initiative to make the inspection
activity more efficient and effective. In
recent years investigation of accidents and
complaints has absorbed so much time that
inspectors have been able to do less work
aimed at preventing incidents before they
happen. The Health and Safety Commission has
agreed to a trial in the North West, which
will mean fewer accidents investigations.
The time saved will be spent on preventative
work. The most serious incidents will still
be investigated to ensure that the lessons
are learnt to prevent recurrences. We have
always had a policy of selecting only a proportion
of incidents for investigation in line with
the resources available to us.
Your accident is not being investigated as
a result of this trial of revised selection
criteria. I appreciate that this will concern
you personally, Please understand that this
will help us spend more time on prevention
to make sure accidents are less likely in
future. I can reassure you that whether or
not HSE investigated your accident has no
bearing on your right t o claim compensation
or your likelihood of any such claim being
successful.
The trial will run from June 2003 to March
2004. The impact of the revised criteria will
be monitored during the trial and changes
made if necessary. We will be evaluating the
effect of this and other changes after the
trial. Any changes shown to improve efficiency
and effectiveness will be adopted by HSE’s
Field Operations Directorate more widely."
|
Changes
in details
There are two types of changes being made by the HSE:
• one concerned with the management of investigations
• the other concerned with the investigation
criteria
The
management arrangements came into effect in May 2003
and are being used nationally. The proposed criteria
has just begun to be piloted in the HSE’s North-West
Region.
Management
arrangements.
The document states (paras 4 and 5):
| "We
have introduced some changes to our Quality Improvement
Procedure dealing with the management of investigations.
The changes introduce performance standards on
three issues: |
| (a) |
Inspectors
to maximise their investigation activities at
the first site visit and conclude investigations
as early as possible; |
| (b) |
Principal
Inspectors to manage the process, in particular
through a review with the investigator within
two weeks of the first site visit; |
| (c) |
Recording
of the outcome of first and subsequent reviews. |
| These
changes are intended to complement the sharpening
of the incident selection criteria described below
and to lead to significantly better impact and
use of resources. They will also assist FOD in
managing external expectations and pressures." |
In
seperate correspondance with the CCA (Letter from
Adrian Ellis, 6 August 2003), the HSE stated that:
A
review of the time we spent on investigations last
year showed that while the number of investigations
had dropped, the total time spent on them had remained
the same. To help to sharpen the focus of our investigation
effort and better manage investigations we revised
existing FOD wide performance standards and included
new criteria for concluding investigation. …
No estimate of the reduction in total time spent
on investigations was made at the time nor do we
intend to make any now. Time spent on each investigation
varies. We would not want to jeopardise the information
we gain from thm by setting a somewhat artificial
target on the time that should be spent on each
one.
| CCA
Comment: This new set of instructions is not
considered by the HSE to reflect any significant
change. It argues that the tighter managing of
investigations is good practice that already exists
within the HSE. There will be a concern, however
that the explicit instruction to "conclude
investigations as early as possible" could
result in inspectors feeling under pressure to
conclude an inquiry with undue haste when other
reasonable lines of enquiry could be made. Equally,
though, it is important that HSE inspectors do
not not cause any unecessary delays in their investigation |
Investigation
Criteria
To understand more easily the changes, it would first
be best to cast your eye over the current criteria
document. To see the current criteria, click
here.
The
Criteria document - which is now being piloted - has
the following changes
| • |
At
present, the document divides reportable incidents
into two types: those incidents that must
be investigated - deaths and certain kinds of
injuries - and those incidents for which HSE
inspectors have a discretion about whether
or not to investigate.
The
piloted document only has one category of incident
- those that are required to be investigated,
unless they fall within certain 'disqualifying'
criteria.
As a result, there will no longer be a discretion
on the part of inspectors to investigate an
injury or incident which falls outside the specified
criteria but which in their view, for example
are "likely to have been a serious breach
of health and safety law".
|
| • |
a
number of categories of injuries will no longer
require inspector scrutiny:
| - |
No
longer will, "all amputations of digit(s)
past the first joint" need to be investigated.
Now, only those amputations of digits past
the first joint "where the incident
involved potential for more than one finger
or for hand/arm amputation"; |
| - |
No
longer will there be a requirement to investigate
"serious multiple fractures (more than
one bone, not including wrist or ankle"
from whatever cause.
Now it will only be necessary to investigate
such injuries if they result from a "crush
injury" or they are associated with
"workplace transport" or "falls
from height". |
| - |
It
will no longer be necessary to investigate
"scalpings" |
| - |
it
will no longer be necessary to investigate
"any incident which arose out of working
in a confined space" - unless it resulted
in 'asphxiation' or other categories of
injuries that requires investigation. |
|
| |
There
are a number of new categories of reported incidents
that will nowrequire investigation:
| - |
any
"manual handling incidents resulting
in sprains and strains and requiring admittance
to hospital for more than 24 hours"
will now be required to be investigated. |
| - |
dangerous
occurrences with the potential for directly
causing a number of deaths or major injuries
or a large number of cases of occupational
disease, severe human infection or illness.
|
|
| |
There is a new set of 'disqualifying' conditions.
If any of the following conditions apply in relation
to any of the incidents that require investigation,
there will no longer be a requirement on the part
of an inspector to investigate the incident.
These are as follows:
| - |
if
there are "no reasonably practicable
precautions available for risk reduction" |
| - |
if
the "investigation is unlikely to achieve
results (e.g. significantly improve, or
secure sustained compliance)" |
| - |
if
it is a "work-related road traffic
incident where HSE has no investigation
role as set out in the document "OM
2000/124" |
In addition, if there has been an injury or
occupational disease suffered by a member of
the public, then an inspector will no longer
be required to investigate the incident in the
following circumstances:
| - |
if
Section 3 of the HSW Act cannot be applied;
|
| - |
if
there is another agency with adequate enforcement
powers to deal with the incident; |
| - |
if
the incident does not involve a topic or
sector falling within one or more of the
HSC Priority Programmes. |
In
addition, apart from where the incident is "likely
to give rise to serious public concern"
or where there has been a ‘dangerous occurrence
with the potential for causing a number of deaths
or major injuries, then an incident will be
disqualified from investigation if either:
| - |
"the
related breach of health and safety law
is unlikely to have been serious. (ie. where
the Enforcement Management Model national
enforcement expectation would not determine
a notice or a prosecution); |
| - |
investigation
is unlikely to achieve results (e.g.. significantly
improve, or secure sustained compliance);"
|
In
addition, if there are "inadequate resources
or other developing priorities" that "prevent
investigation" the incident must be "referred
to the Head of Operations" for him or her
to decide whether or not to investigate.
|
To
see the new piloted criteria, click
here;
To download a document that compares the two, click
here
It is intended for the new selection procedure to
be more simple to interpret, and the document states
that HSE administrative staff (band 6) will "filter
all notifications". They would then pass only
those injuries that meet the criteria to the principal
inspectors.
In
correspondance with the CCA (Letter from Adrian Ellis,
6 August 2003), the HSE stated that:
"This is a two stage process involving both
administrative starff and inspectors. Teh band 6
administrator carries out a pre-shift of all incidents,
passing only those that appear to meet the criteria,
or requiring expert judgment, to the band 2 inspector.
some level of judgment is needed by the band 6 to
be able to carry out the pre-sift, and the new ways
of working that are being piloted in the North West
have involved a significant amount of training for
all staff to ensure that are competant in their
new roles."
The
criteria are not yet in force nationally. They are
being piloted in the North West. The HSE document
states:
The
full effect of the revised criteria will only be
known once they are applied in practice. FOD will
monitor this carefully and make adjustments during
the course of the pilot if necessary. We will need
to run this trial for 6-9 months to be enable us
to capture sufficient data to allow a preliminary
evaluation of the benefits and consequences.
To
download the full "instruction' to HSE inspectors,
click Here
|
CCA
Comment: The HSE began the pilot in the
North West after their recent budget cuts and
so it appears that the change in criteria have
no rationale other than to save inspector time
that can be allocated elsewhere. Indeed the
HSE are pretty explicit about this.
The
lack of discretion is also of concern. No injury
or otehr reported incident that does not fall
within the specified categories can not be investigated
under the new criteria.
Obtaining the right balance between inspection
and investigation is also a thorny issue (see
below) particularly in the context of very
limited resources. There must be a concern that
the HSE has not, publicly anyway, set out its
rationale for a change away from investigation
towards inspection. It is the CCA's view that
both inspection and investigations have important
roles in prevention and accountablity - and
if the HSE intends to change the balance between
the two it needs to explain its reasoning.
In
addition, there must be some concern that the
initial filtering system is being undertaken
by administrative officers rather than trained
inspectors. This is is a significant change
from the current system - which is one where
inspectors apply the criteria. Whilst it might
be straightforward for the administrative officers
to determine whether an injury falls within
the categories that require investigation, it
seems difficult to see how they would be able
- even with significant trainining - to apply
the 'disqulifying criteria'.
|
Budget
In
December 2002 the Government announced that it was
giving the HSE an £10 million more over the
next three years that it gave in the previous three
years. This will result in HSE spending less money
in 2005/6 than it did in 2003/4.
In the last spending round in 2000, the Government
had allowed the HSE to spend £252 million this
year (2002/3). If the Government had allowed the HSE
to increase its budget by 2.5% for each of the following
three years – simply to allow for inflation –
the HSE would have been able to spend £274 million
in 2005/6. Instead, the Government’s recent announcement
will mean that the HSE can only spend £260 million
– £12 million less than what a simple inflation
increase would have given.
To
read more about this, click
here and go to 'budget cut' in the index
Back
to top
Balance
As an organisation, the HSE has historically focused
on ‘prevention’ and in undertaking ‘preventative
inspections’ rather than reactive investigations.
In 1999, the CCA presented evidence to a Parliamentary
Select Committee that the HSE was only investigating
10% of major injuries. To see documents relating to
this, click
here.
To see what the Select Committee said on: (a) the
appropriate balance between inspection and investigation
(b) the need for investigation criteria, click
here.
In 2001, the HSE produced a incident selection procedure
– which set out the criteria that the HSE should
use when deciding to investigate reported incidents.
To see this click here
In July 2003, the CCA and UNISON published an audit
of the activities of the HSE. It discovered that in
the five years between 1996/2001, it had increased
the level of investigation into major injuries from
10% to 20% - a significant rise – but that this
had been at the expense of the number of preventative
inspections undertaken by the HSE which had reduced
by 41%
To see details of this research, click
here.
To read more about the issue of balancing inspection
and investigation, click
here.
Back
to top
|
