Project to Reduce Ill Health in Paving Road and Highway Work
Steering Group 7th Meeting
Thursday 23rd April 2015
Rose Court, London
Attendees
Robert Ellis – Chair – HSE Occupational Hygiene Unit
Keith Harwood – Transport for London
Paul Bussey – Royal Institute of British Architects
Margaret Sackey – Institution of Civil Engineers
John Banks – Association for Project Safety
Peter Crosland – Civil Engineering Contractors Association
Clare Forshaw – Health and Safety Laboratory
Ian Strudley - HSE
Apologies
Ian Foster – National Joint Utilities Group
Mike Henderson – Highways Term Maintenance Association
Jeremy Bird – Highways Agency
Ian Evans – Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE)
1. Project Overview
A one page overview of the project was provided at the meeting for discussion (see annex 1). The paper was accepted as a concise overview of the project however there needs to be some additional information to signpost who the intended audience is and how the work will be evaluated. The document is not an executive summary of the work. This will be produced as part of a more detailed report.
A forward statement (Annex 2) was also tabled for discussion. This was welcomed as being concise and fit for purpose to be used with the projects outputs providing a connection with the project.
Action
Produce project report and update overview (R Ellis).
2. Project benefits realisation and communications
The Steering Group members were asked to give comment on what positive actions they can undertake to disseminate the outputs from the project. A request was also made for a meeting with the relevant part of their organisation to discuss the project in more detail. The following tentative suggestions were made:
TfL - Papers from the project and presentation materials could be issued to the supply chain through contractors’ senior management meetings. A proposal to place the project on the agenda for the safety and sustainability committee later in the year will be considered.
CECA - The CECA web site can be used to communicate information from the project. The work can also be promoted at committee meetings.
RIBA and DIOHAS - There is more of an interest in the paving sector. However, information can be disseminated through the organisations portal. Podcasts and video is probably the best format to use. The DIOHAS expert panel may also be useful.
ICE – A place may be offered to speak at the annual conference being held on 30th June. The organisations web site pages can be used along with links to other site information. A webinar meeting could be used and this would leave a lasting resource for others to access.
APS – Thought will be given to placing the project onto the agenda for the conference taking place towards the end of the year.
Attendees were asked to formally write in with offers to attend meetings and conferences. It was noted that the organisations not represented at the meeting will also be approached. It is likely that the project manager will attend these events although it will be discussed with HSE Construction Sector before a final decision is made.
Action
Steering Group members to e-mail Robert Ellis with their organisations commitments for disseminating the projects outputs and any offers to attend meetings and /or conferences to discuss the project outcomes in more detail (all).
3. Risk Matrix work final proposal
The final note of the Risk Matrix working group dated 5th February 2015 was circulated. The final output comprises the Health Hazard Identifier Tables (HHIT) Excel spread sheet and a guide for the production of Health Activity Risk Tables. The tool is described as an enabler that simplifies health risk management. The tool links with the CDM regulations and provides examples of how you can manage the risks.
The final output was to be a computer based visual tool and not intended as a book. Further work would be required to produce this computer based risk management tool. It was acknowledged in the discussion that the visual communication aspect would be a major challenge. A suitable organisation would need to be found to complete this work.
In general attendees would be content to circulate the HHIT. Some of the wording in the table requires attention and a user guide produced before it is circulated. It was emphasised that the table is a simple aid and no work had been done to look at legal aspects of the indication it provides on hazards and level of risks for the identified tasks.
The full Risk Matrix documentation was not considered suitable for circulation by the Steering Groups member organisations represented. However, some members indicated the material may be used to develop new information. A new case study had been received from Tameside MBC on the use of a Mutihog tool that reduces manual handling and vibration exposure compared with carrying out the task with hand operated machinery. This was seen as a good example of information that could be part of the risk matrix information.
Action
Produce a final version of the HHIT and upload on the web community site. Communicate the need for further development of the current Risk Matrix to organisations through invitations received as detailed in point 3 (R Ellis).
4. Health Surveillance and Monitoring work final proposal
A professionally edited version of the health surveillance and monitoring guide produced and branded by APS in preparation for publication on their web site was circulated for discussion. Attendees were asked to note that some errors had been introduced in making the changes and would need correcting. The document had been shared with HSE specialists for final comment. They made the following observations:
· Web links require updating.
· Biological monitoring is not included but cannot be described as ‘outside the body’.
· Care is needed that the guide does not imply the health surveillance and monitoring examples are legal requirements
The meeting was also asked to comment on whether the flow diagram is necessary.
The overall conclusion of the discussion is that the guide is very good and fills a gap in available guidance on health surveillance and monitoring. One member commented they found the flow diagram difficult to interpret. There was agreement that the forward needed some further wording on the purpose of the document, for example: to dispel myths about health surveillance and monitoring. On the points raised by the HSE specialist the document will be amended further as follows:
· Replace web links by signposting in a few words to further information available from the HSE website to help future proof the document.
· Make a statement that the guide excludes advice on biological monitoring and specialist advice should be sought for that subject.
The organisation logos in the draft are there for illustration. Steering Group organisations that want their logo on this version of the document must provide an e-mail stating this with a suitable electronic version of their organisations current logo. The publication will be placed on the APS website and the proposal is that other organisations can be linked to this through their web site. A basic version of the guide will be made available for organisations that wish to produce their own version.
Action
a. Produce a final version of the guidance with the support of APS (R Ellis).
b. Produce a basic version of the guide and upload on the web community site to assist others in producing their own guide (R Ellis).
c. Steering Group organisations wishing to add their organisations logo to the APS version
forward to write in with a request and current electronic version of logo in a suitable format (all).
5. Level Playing Field workshop outcomes
A summary document had been circulated ahead of the meeting and the Steering Group were given an overview of the workshops held in Tameside and London. Around 60 people from the construction supply chain attended the events. The outcomes of the discussions suggest there is no evidence that it is not a ‘level playing field’. However, it does suggest understanding and implementation of health risk management was poor. A number of points were identified to help raise those standards as follows:
· A defined standard
· Sharing good practice
· Performance indicators
· Enforcement and monitoring
· Grading/badge scheme
· Worker engagement
· Guidance/support/education driven rather than enforcement driven
· Not be a burden for the client
· Continual improvement
· Case studies recognising and rewarding good practice
· Track record supported by evidence
The key outcome was the need for a learning lifecycle that identifies what good looks like, provides evidence for this and leads to case studies to help others. The emphasis was on reward rather than enforcement led change. This fitted well with the development of the proposed badge and KPI scheme. A single document containing the summary and more detailed information will be made available. This can be used for conferences and committee discussions on health risk management.
There was some concern that the results implied exemption from enforcement of health risk management standards. It was also thought that the HSE guidance such as Construction Information Sheet CIS 36 Construction Dusts provides the necessary information on what good looks like.
Action
Produce document containing summary of the workshops along with more detailed overview and upload onto the web community (R Ellis).
6. Health risk management badge and key performance indicators proposal
The badge proposal was explained with the aid of a power point presentation. It was noted that the starting point for this work was competency requirements and the role of pre-qualification schemes. Discussions were held with groups representing:
· Pre-qualification schemes under SSIP
o CHAS
o Capita
o SafeContractor
· Client procurement and tender departments
· Contractors
A general conclusion was the need to raise the standards of health risk management as this was not being done through pre-qualification schemes or contractor and client audit processes. There was an identified lack of health risk management performance indicators for these activities. There was also reluctance to amend current pre-qualification and audit practices.
It had been noted that some client organisations are using reward schemes to improve health and safety standards. The working group concluded that a health based badge scheme appeared to be the best way to take this work forward and filled a missing gap. The badge scheme being proposed is based on evidence of current risk management practices based on the provision and use of the following indicators:
· Training and information
· Risk control tools and equipment
· Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
· Health surveillance and monitoring
· Risk elimination
The badge scheme would have levels that indicate sustainability of the organisations health risk management as follows:
Bronze - Availability and use
Silver - Suitability
Gold - Management arrangements
Organisations can only apply for a higher level badge if they hold the lower level badge. Information was needed from contractors to help refine the proposal. A Highways Agency contractor had provided information and a summary of this used with the Steering Group to help describe how the information may be used.
IOSH, RoSPA and Considerate Constructors scheme had been approached to discuss the potential for implementing the badge scheme. The responses have been positive and RoSPA have requested further discussion. It was also the intention to make an approach to the British Occupation Hygiene Society, SSIP and CITB.
The response to the proposal was mixed especially given the previous discussion on enforcement and the availability of existing guidance. However, there was some recognition that existing pre-qualification systems and badges are safety focused. It was emphasised that the badge is not a demonstration of legal compliance and that there would be a disclaimer to ensure that those who are not legally compliant cannot hold the badge. A comment was made that if a badge was established then it is likely that some client organisations will make it a pre-requirement for tender. There was also concern as to how SMEs would fair under the scheme. It was explained that there should be no difference between small or large contractors ability to achieve a badge. The badge rewards actions that are not dependant on financial or workforce resources. The evidence required is simply a demonstration of how health risks are managed:
Bronze – providing and maintaining training and tools and equipment to control risk
Silver – ensuring what is provided is suitable through worker engagement
Gold – management measures that will help sustain and improve health risk management
Using RPE provision as an example the bronze award is attained if the RPE provided is adequate and workers are fit tested and trained to fit the mask. A silver award would be demonstrated by worker engagement in helping decide on the type of RPE purchased and used. The gold would be acting on the lessons learned from the implementation of the RPE programme to sustain and achieve further improvements.
It was noted that as with the Freight Operators Recognition Scheme introducing the badge would not be straightforward. An e-mail has been received suggesting that an ICE H&S panel member from Glasgow University seek to pursue IOSH funding to take forward an evaluation of the project. Contact will be made with IOSH to see if this is possible.
Action
a. The badge scheme will be further discussed with the organisations detailed above (R Ellis).
b. Contact will be made with IOSH on the proposal for funding of an evaluation of the project (R Ellis).
7. Project evaluation and next steps
A logic model is required that identifies the project inputs and short, medium and long term outcomes to help evaluate the project impact. An evaluation based on the model would be conducted one year on from this final meeting. This would be similar to the RPE project logic model previously circulated. By example the health surveillance and monitoring guide would be a project input. Possible outcomes may be:
· Raising awareness and understanding of health surveillance and monitoring (short term).
· Discussion of health surveillance and monitoring requirements at management level (medium or long term).