Paving Road and Highways Supply Chain Project

Minutes of 1st Meeting of Health Surveillance (HS) & Exposure Monitoring (EM) Working Group

Held 19th March 2012 Rose Court, London

Present:

Ellen BirdKier Services

Phil BustLoughboroughUniversity

Laura StringerHILTI

Phil MistHire Trade Alliance

Nigel StricklandBrandon Hire

Clare ForshawHSE (Working Group Chair)

Rob EllisHSE (Project Manager)

  1. The meeting started with brief introductions and particular interests relevant to the working group. There followed a short presentation from HSE outlining the remit of the project and the management and oversight of the working groups.
  2. The key points from the draft brief for the health surveillance and exposure monitoring working group were presented and discussed briefly to gain agreement and finalisation. This included some definitions on the key terms relevant to the group. Comments were received on the definitions including the need to add a definition for exposure monitoring.
    ACTION: All to provide final additional comments on the brief by 11thMay 2012
  3. In considering the scope of the brief PM commented that of the health risks identified he felt dust and noise were the most important, adding that hand arm vibration (HAV) was somewhat of a ‘minefield’ with big issues even with the ‘basics’.
    NS added that manual handling issues could generally be addressed through training and available technical solutions.
  4. There followed a ‘brainstorm’ to consider key issues the group felt were important. The first point made was that there is a need to educate the supply chain that a health risk actually exists. EB felt health surveillance gave an opportunity to educate on health risks. The workplace was felt to be an appropriate venue for delivering messages, making it relevant to the job and the effect work has on others as well as the self. This plays to the ‘matey’ environment often found in construction. To promote use of health surveillance you could target employees to encourage supply based on demand.
  5. The discussions and thoughts are presented in figures 1 – 3.
  6. There was discussion on who to target in the supply chain. The general feel was major contractors had a good idea of what they should be doing, although this varied. For smaller, regional companies health surveillance does not exist. PB suggested local authorities (LA’s) and highways agency (HA) were key players to influence and suggested a possible case study from Leicester or Glasgow CC. The procurement centres within LAs would be important for health surveillance services. Construction safety groups within LA and HA are also relevant.
  7. On health surveillance EB felt there was still a lot of misunderstanding with employers only wanting a fit/not fit result – more related to task fitness rather than risk management.
  8. Tools suggested for promulgating messages were short video clips such as those produced by WorksafeBC. Health warnings placed on kit or materials provides a ‘trojan horse’ approach to getting messages through the supply chain. PB also suggested an occupational health toolkit would be a useful product from this working group.
  9. The proposal from the brief was that the group would deal with health surveillance (HS) in the first instance and address issues with exposure monitoring (EM) at a later date. This was agreed to in principle, although discussions highlighted many similarities in issues to address. EM was viewed as being appropriate at the initial risk assessment stage mainly and HS being at the other end of the spectrum following action upon the exposure data to check controls are working effectively and ill health IS being prevented. EM was viewed to be done to identify WHAT people were being exposed to and HS to CHECK that this is correct.
    It was suggested that if we took an holistic approach to dealing with EM and HS issues then we may wish to concentrate on one health risk. HAV was used as an example as there are valid EM and HS techniques available. However noise would also be appropriate in this case.
  10. For the next meeting it was suggested we may wish to invite a representative of the key players to be influenced by this working group. NS suggested REACTEC may have a case study they could share. PB has previously worked with insurers on health issues and we could explore this avenue?? There may also be an appropriate LA (Leicester, Glasgow?)
    ACTION: All to consider and make suggestions for a potential speaker for the next meeting to provide a case study on health surveillance/exposure monitoring in practice and/or to discuss their concerns and opinions on this. Feedback thoughts to CF by 11 May 2012
  11. The group was reminded that there was no need to make a rush decision about what ‘product(s)’ this group was going to deliver and were encouraged to think ‘outside the box’. The idea is that within supply chain projects an outcome from a working group does not necessarily have to be a tangible, discrete product but may be an ‘initiative’ or ‘trial’.
    ACTION: All to reflect on discussions outside the meeting and consider from experience what this group may wish to work towards. To share with the group by email or at next group meeting.
  12. Next meeting to be held w/c 18th or 25th June 2012
    ACTION: All to provide availability for a meeting over these weeks. Any offers of hosting would be gratefully received otherwise I will arrange to meet at HSE’s Rose Court

Figure 1.Brainstorm on issues around health surveillance and exposure monitoring for paving road and highways work

Figure 2. Brainstorm on who the working group may need to target

Figure 3. Ideas on Deliverables and other thoughts

  • Education of the workforce (and managers/supervisors)
  • Self awareness (self EM, HS?)
  • Tools and equipment narrow within PRH work
  • E.g. WorksafeBC
  • Rental Industry Guidance
  • Templates for EM and HS
  • Hazard data sheets for tools
  • Impact on tool service life
  • Cost effectiveness – CASE STUDIES
  • Database resource
  • Competence on HAV, Noise, Dust
  • E.g. German standards for dust monitoring
  • Guidance for those responsible for PRH workers (and workers)
  • Simple – what is EM, what is HS
  • What is appropriate for who

HAV as an example to demonstrate issues – opportunities and barriers;

  • Fears on compliance
  • Misunderstandings (technical)
  • Small businesses
  • Doesn’t kill!
  • Solvable – (manage exposure to vibrating tools!)
  • RIDDOR reportable
  • Simple exposure monitoring
  • Clear guidance on HS and a competency standard set

Simple Principles:

  • Risk based
  • Targeted (timely)
  • Feedback (appropriate, anonymised)
  • Action
  • Worker Involvement