Category: consultation

“Best Practice…First Aid”? – not sure

First aid is one of the most neglected areas of workplace health and safety but, when required , vital.  The neglect comes from it rarely being integrated into the safety management system and on relying of the advice from first aid training and equipment suppliers.  “Why shouldn’t it be relied on?  They’re the experts.”

In a previous career I worked for a first aid equipment and training provider in various roles.  A major task was to visit workplaces and assist them in determining their first aid needs.  Over the years that I undertook this role I came to the general conclusion that first aid kits were almost always over stocked in comparison to what was needed. (Assessing the first aid needs of 28 McDonalds restaurants in 2 days was fun, at first)

In relation to first training, most companies had insufficient first aiders and those they had were trained fair beyond the needs of their workplaces.

Granted most of these workplaces were not high risk organisations or in isolated locations,  mostly they were in urbanised areas.  But it was also this fact that generated most of the oversupply of equipment.

I was reminded of my many years in that role in the 1990s when SafeWork SA announced the release of its “Approved Code of Practice for First Aid”. (The Code will be available on the SafeWork SA website in a couple of days, and I will review it then)  This Code comes into effect on 10 December 2010 which means a busy 12 months for most South Australian OHS professionals.

According to SafeWork SA’s media statement, the new Code:

  • provides a more contemporary and best-practice approach to first aid
  • gives workplaces more flexibility to tailor their first aid arrangements to suit their type of business
  • better aligns South Australia with provisions interstate.

SafeWork SA’s Executive Director, Michele Patterson, says

“An extensive two-year consultation by SafeWork SA revealed that existing workplace first aid kits were often too big, not relevant to the individual workplace needs, and resulted in considerable wastage……”Under the new Code, first aid kits can be smaller, will cover more types of injuries and should reduce wastage.”

The capacity for tailoring first aid kits to the needs of the workplace has been allowed in Victoria for almost twenty years.  New packaging and configurations were designed by suppliers,  – cloth pouches, wall-mounted plastic boxes, back packs…   But the contents and packaging was determined in relation to the manufacturers costs, more than the needs of the client.

Here is my first aid kit.  A pair of disposable gloves, a disposable resuscitation faceshield, a ziplock bag to keep them in and a mobile phone.  Everything else should be determined by need.

If you don’t remember that first aid is “emergency medical treatment”, you will be ripped off by equipment providers.

Of course it is possible to provide first aid without even this amount of equipment.  The above package is purely personal protective equipment to stop infectious liquid passing between the injured and the first aider.  There are plenty of cases of people who have no access to this PPE still saving lives.

Patterson says that a benefit of the Code is that it brings South Australia’s first aid training levels up to the standards of the other States.  This is relevant for some workplaces but most will wait to see what the national OHS harmonisation process produces and then apply that.

But Patterson says something that holds more wisdom than she expected.

“The more people trained in basic first aid who may be able to keep a person alive until an ambulance arrives – the safer both our workplace and communities will be.”

Here is the core of first aid.  The skills are basic, usually stop the bleeding and keep someone breathing.  I used to refer to this as “plug them and puff them”.  If a first aider achieves these two aims on an injured person until an ambulance arrives, they are fulfilling their tasks.

The other vital element is “until an ambulance arrives”.  Most workplaces are in urbanised locations with good emergency response.  Victoria has a targeted ambulance response time of around 15 minutes and over the last couple of decades the ambulance service has been supplemented by emergency medical services from the fire brigade.

Too many workplace first aid courses teach people how to immobilise a broken leg.  In most circumstances, a broken leg will be treated by ambulance officers.  Only yesterday a high school student attending an end-of-school function broke their nose.  The supervising teacher did the correct action and called an ambulance.  I am sure the boy’s parents also supported the decision.

Companies may consider the skills gained from a five-day first aid training course to be worthwhile for those employees who have children or bushwalk but in relation to workplace first aid, they were overtrained.  First aid courses have been trimmed from the standard workplace first aid course of fifteen years ago but as long as one signs up to an off-the-shelf training course, there will be training elements that are not required.

The last nugget of wisdom from Michele Patterson’s statement above is that the more people trained the better.  Imagine if everyone on one office floor were training in basic first aid.  There would always be a first aider present in the workplace, regardless of the hours of work.  No juggling of this level first aider and that level, or training additional people to cover the absences of the designated first aiders.  The emergency first aid response would the fastest possible and therefore the survival rate would be the best achievable.

Teach everyone in the workplace to “plug them and puff them” and you will be looking after your own health too.  For if you keel over and stop breathing, you will have at least one first aider at your side within a minute.  More likely you’ll have more than one and two-person CPR is very effective.  In this circumstance “reasonably practicable” may increase the level of first aid response rather than diminish OHS standards as it usually does.

It is also worth considering what provides the best first aid coverage in your workplace one first aider trained to a high level (who may be away on the day they’re most needed) or five first aiders trained only in CPR.  The cost would be about the same but which scenario provides the better emergency response and which scenario is more likely to provide compliance.

Kevin Jones

UPDATE – 11 December 2009

SafeWorkSA has identified the August 2009 First Aid Code of Practice on its website as the version which will apply from 10 December 2010.

Managerial federalism?

There are some OHS professionals in Australia who follow the harmonisation of the country’s OHS laws closely.  The current status is that the various public submissions are being analysed and discussed by the Government.

But for those who are hankering for some pre-Christmas reading the New South Wales Parliament has released a report called “Managerial Federalism – COAG and the States” written by Gareth Griffith.  This is not a report about OHS, although the topic does get a brief mention on page 25.

OHS harmonisation is perhaps one of the simpler reform processes compared with tax or the legal sector.

The report provides a very good summary of the various consultative structures that the Federal and State Governments operate within as the country changes to a process of “managerial federalism”.  The report summary defines “managerial federalism” as

“…defined to be administrative in its mode of operation, pragmatic in orientation, concerned with the effective and rational management of human and other resources, and rich in policy goals and objectives.  The States play a creative and proactive part but are, to a substantial degree, service providers whose performance is subject to continuous scrutiny and oversight.”

(“Rational management”?  Has everyone in the Australian government been told to read the book by Kepner and Tregoe?  Let’s hope it’s not the 1965 edition.)

Being familiar with some of the concepts and rationales in the report may help those lucky enough to be consulted on government decision-making to know their place in the wild scheme of bureaucratic policy-making.  It may even prove invaluable if you are the safety coordinator on one of the Governments’ many infrastructure projects.

Kevin Jones

Tripartism and new/old politics

The future of Australian OHS legislation relies on tripatism, discussion and, hopefully, consensus.  In early December 2009, the most recent Liberal Party leader, Tony Abbott, appointed Eric Abetz to the opposition portfolio of workplace relations.  According to a media statement released on 8 December 2009,

“Employment is a vital social and economic portfolio area. Balancing the competing interests to ensure maximum employment levels with acceptable working conditions, is always the challenge”.

“The Coalition fully accepts the verdict of the Australian people at the last election that WorkChoices is dead.  However, in defeating WorkChoices, the Australian people did not vote to reinstate the extremism of some in the Union movement”.

“Labor has deliberately strengthened the hand of Trade Union officials as a clear payback for bank rolling Labor’s election campaign”.

Yes, Abetz and the Liberal Party are not in power at the moment and the political pundits say this may not occur for some years.  But the hard attitude toward the union movement is not likely to help the development of OHS legislative reforms whether in power or opposition.

Kevin Jones

The relevance of the international Risk Management Standard

It is impossible to review the new international risk management standard as such a standard is a curious beast.

The ISO31000 Risk Management Standard sets down the principles that can apply in a range of industries including, from SafetyAtWorkBlog’s perspective, occupational health and safety.

Australia recently released a draft of a model OHS Act that the government wants to use as a template for uniform OHS laws.  That draft Act included a clause on risk management.  It said under “The principle of risk management”

“A duty imposed on a person to ensure health or safety requires the person:

(a) to eliminate hazards, and risks to health and safety, so far as is reasonably practicable; and

(b) if it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate hazards and risks to health and safety, to minimise those hazards and risks so far as is reasonably practicable.”

It is likely that those business owners who read the legislation (very few) or the OHS professionals who do (slightly more) will interpret this as having to fix the workplace or, at least, try to make sure no one gets hurt at work.  They may continue the risk management line and look to the Risk Management Standard which will clarify the principles of risk management, as below in slightly edited form,

“Risk management:

  • Creates and protects value
  • Is an integral part of all organisations processes
  • Is part of decision-making
  • Explicitly addresses uncertainty
  • Is systematic, structured and timely
  • Is based on the best available information
  • Is tailored
  • Takes human and cultural factors into account
  • Is transparent and inclusive
  • Is dynamic, iterative and responsive to change
  • Facilitates continual improvement of the organisation”

This is slightly more helpful but still requires translation.  (Even the previous risk management standard needed translation with SAI Global going all-out with at least eight handbooks and a CD explaining the standard.) Below is SafetyAtWorkBlog’s plain English attempt:

  • Get rid of all the safety risks in your workplace or make them safer.
  • Have a documented plan for this and do not take too long.
  • Research the hazards so that you are making the best decision on the best information.
  • Do not cut and paste from somewhere else.
  • Make sure ALL your work colleagues know what you are doing.
  • Make sure that you revisit your plan to see if it is working

These points are based only on the principles. The Standard goes into more detail on each of these elements or principles but it is important to remember that this standard only shows one way of making decisions.  This standard is also only a guideline, even though some of the text talks about “complying”.

A couple of comments on an OHS discussion forum about the risk management standard described it as being irrelevant to workplace safety, boring and “causing eyes to glaze over”.  One suggested that the focus needs to be on establishing a suitable organisational culture.  There is a lot to learn from the Standard but perhaps for the OHS professional more so than the client. Perhaps it is best to limit this standard to establishing the decision-making process itself and to leave the application of the decisions to others.

When the Australian risk management standard was first introduced, the narrow application was useful and appropriate but then the commercial possibilities became apparent and SAI Global capitalised on the Standard and tried to make it all things to all people.

The idea of keeping decision-making simple is always relevant but it seems to operate in a cycle from simple to increasingly complex to deconstruction back to simple.  Maybe we are at the start of the next cycle.

Kevin Jones

Grass Roots Safety

For over 40 years, the Australian State of Victoria has had several safety organisations that exist under the radar.  In the 1960s the Department of Labour & Industries supported the generation of safety groups but many groups simply appeared.

These groups are, what in contemporary times would be referred to as, networking groups.  The members were from a range of industries, often from a particularly industrial part of Melbourne of regional areas.  The groups met usually once a month sometimes in a factory canteen to talk about safety and to see if any members could suggestion solutions to particular problems.

One group, the Western Safety Group encompasses the western suburbs of Melbourne, a zone of concentrated manufacturing plants and one which includes a major zone of chemical production.  (In my youth I would try to catch lizards in the buffer zones around the plants)

A risk with any grass roots association is to reach a level of sustainability without becoming a commercial entity.  WSG and  the Central Safety Group have achieved this in different ways.  In each WSG meeting, which usually runs for around one hour during the day, there is a 10 to 15 minute window for sellers of new OHS products and services to sell their wares.  This is a pragmatic solution to the reality that an OHS network’s membership list could be lucrative.

The Central Safety Group has a different approach because it has developed a different character.  The CSG, of which I am a Life Member, has conducted its meetings in the centre of Melbourne and with the decline of manufacturing and industry in the city and inner suburbs, the membership has moved from an industrial to managerial approach.

CSG does not allow for the promotion of OHS services and products and is much the better for it.  Allowing commercialism into a community or networking group makes it a trade show or exhibition and defeats the purpose.

These two groups, and there are others, have had a fluid membership that has probably topped no more than about 80 members at a time but this is an advantage.  Members appreciate the face-to-face discussion.  Meetings have minimal formality and foster camaraderie even amongst industrial competitors.

Mostly the safety groups that have lasted have done so by maintaining an independence from the OHS regulator although most groups have at least one member who works with WorkSafe Victoria.  Although some of the groups have existed for decades, there is no mention of them on the WorkSafe website although WorkSafe has made several attempts to create a safety group directory and a meeting of Safety Group secretaries almost 10 years ago began discussions with WorkSafe to establish a single webpage listing.

The groups are also, largely, independent from the larger safety organisations although those safety organisations have made moves to support safety groups.  Moves that have been mostly rebuffed.

Over the last few year the Western and the Central Safety Groups have established websites (CSG’s will be functioning in December 2009) as the most efficient way to communicate with members in between the monthly meetings.

Such networking groups have huge advantages over professional associations who have such a broad range of issues to consider.  The safety group “model” talks about safety and funds itself from annual membership fees of much less than $A100 in most circumstances.

In some circumstance “small is beautiful”, welcoming, professionally satisfying and productive.  Victoria’s safety groups are a good example of groups of like-minded OHS professional helping each other out rather than trying to climb the greasy pole.

Kevin Jones

Public Comments vs Petition – modern lobbying required

Recently SafetyAtWorkBlog noted that almost one quarter of the submission to the government on its proposed national model OHS law were from individuals and confidential.  There was a suspicion of bulk proforma submissions.

One example that is available through the publicly accessible submissions is a letter to the Minister, Julia Gillard, from the Dr Sharann Johnson, President of the Australian lnstitute of Occupational Hygienists.  The letter raises concerns over the omission of “suitably qualified” from the legislation.  It concludes

“I strongly implore you to reconsider your decision not to include a requirement for the providers of Occupational Health and Safety advice and services to be “suitably qualified” in the national new model OHS legislation.  lt would be disappointing to see this amalgamation of legislation miss the opportunity to make a significant impact on the standard of OHS advice provided to Australian industry and ultimately improve our health and safety performance at a national level.”

Similar concerns to Dr Johnson’s have been discussed elsewhere in  SafetyAtWorkBlog but on the issue of proforma submissions it is noted that three other submissions, Kevin Hedges, Gavin Irving and a personal submission by Dr Johnson, contain almost exactly the same text.

What these and other proforma submitters are producing is not a response to a draft document or a submission but a petition.  Petitions have existed for centuries and carry considerable political clout but putting in a cut-and-paste submission is unhelpful.  It signifies a united position but is not constructive.  A petition to the Government or specific ministers on a single issue, such as “suitably qualified”, may have had more influence if it included an influential number of signatories and was lodged at the appropriate time, in response to outrage over the particular matter.

There is no criticism of the content of the AIOH letters only of the method of delivery and strategy.  There are many more confidential submissions that have also applied a similar strategy.

SafetyAtWorkBlog contacted Safe Work Australia over the issue  and asked “How many proformas were used and who were they by?”  A spokesperson responded

“Of the 480 submissions received, just over 200 standard form submissions were received from union members, in five different proformas.  Each of the five forms contained similar comments.  In addition, we identified a small number of standard form submissions from one professional association.”

In developing better legislation, the influence on the process from “weight of numbers” is likely to be far less in this circumstance than would be gained through constructive and innovative suggestions.

As Australia is likely to go through similar public comment phases on a raft of OHS regulations and documents over the next 12 months, assuming the Government does not shelve the project.  It is important for the proforma submitters to review their strategies and, perhaps, establish more direct contact through lobbying the relevant Ministers in each State and Federally, on behalf of their large (?) membership. In this way the Government would be familiar with the various organisations, would understand the background to those organisations’ arguments, and would then anticipate the innovative solutions that OHS organisations, professionals and experts, would put forward.

This strategy has worked for the unions and business groups for decades.  It may be time for a new strategy for some groups that combines reliable techniques like petitions with personal contact to be followed up by a knock-out submission at the right time, perhaps supported by a broadly distributed media statement.

Kevin Jones

The “suitably qualified” challenge on OHS

A quick survey of some of the public submissions on the development of Australia’s model OHS Act illustrates the challenges facing the government after it decided not to include a requirement for only people who are “suitably qualified” in OHS to provide advice to business on workplace safety.

Organisations across the political spectrum have spoken in favour of including “suitably qualified” but “suitably qualified” is in the eye of the beholder.  Several labour and trade union organisations believe that health and safety representatives (HSRs) are “suitably qualified” or “suitable qualified” people should assist HSRs in their work.

The Queensland Council of Unions says

“The WRMC [Workplace Relations Ministers Council] committed itself to a Model Act of the highest possible standards. In order to achieve this, the appointment of suitably qualified persons based on the Queensland model should be reconsidered and the recommendations of the Review implemented.”

Queensland’s OHS legislation had a system of Workplace Health and Safety Officers who were required by every company that had over 30 employees.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions said a PCBU [person conducting a business or undertaking] should

“…employ or engage persons who are suitably qualified in relation to occupational health and safety to provide advice to the PCBU concerning the health and safety of workers of the PCBU.”

The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union says there should be an “employer obligation to engage a suitably qualified person to assist in H&S”.

Others see “suitably qualified” as a criterion that limits who would qualify for an OHS Entry Permit and what their powers can be.  Wesfarmers Industrial Safety wrote:

“We contend that OHS Permit Holders must be competent to provide OHS advice and must provide a valid reason to justify entry, the only valid entry criteria being to assist the resolution of a reasonably suspected, specified contravention of the Health and Safety Act.   To be effective they must comply with and support site/organisational procedures to enhance site health and safety outcomes and must not intentionally and unreasonably hinder or obstruct any business/undertaking or intentionally intimidate or threaten any business/undertaking or employee.

Suitably qualified in this context must also contemplate that they must not disclose information obtained in accordance with the OHS permit for any purpose other than to assist the resolution of the suspected contravention and must not take copies of documents: if serious concerns exist the Regulator can be requested to attend the site, they will request copies of relevant documents if required.

Additionally, the OHS permit holder and any organisation they represent must be held accountable for the actions taken by the OHS Permit holder.”

There are several challenges for the Australian Government on this issue of “suitably qualified”.  Firstly, it needs to decide whether it can reverse its decision not to include a “suitably qualified” element into the legislation.  To do this it would need to acknowledge that the reasons for exclusion do not match the sensitivities of the community.  This could be embarrassing but also indicate a flexibility and capacity to respond to community concerns.

The government also needs to determine where “suitably qualified” fits.  Should and HSR be suitably qualified or should this only reflect the OHS professionals?  In both cases it puts the governmental up against the commercial training organisations and the university educators (the OHS professional associations have far less clout).

Some academics see the lack of the inclusion of “suitably qualified” as providing a lower level of workplace safety.  Many of these submissions see “suitably qualified” as existing well above the level of HSRs to the professional level.

Professor Mike Capra of the University of Queensland, and other tertiary educators made the following plea:

“We the undersigned Professors of Occupational Health and Safety strongly recommend that the words “suitably qualified”* be inserted as appropriate in the model legislation in relation to the acquisition of advice regarding the health and safety of workers.

Our recommendation is based on the continuing high cost to the community in dollar terms and human suffering in relation to both work place (sic) injury and workplace induced illness which often has long latency and serious medical consequences.

Addressing such serious issues requires properly qualified professionals. The professional practice of OHS management requires skilled professionals with a sound foundation in the physical and health sciences as well as a strong knowledge base in the core OHS areas of health, safety, ergonomics, law, hygiene and toxicology and OHS management systems.

The universities across the country are offering professional entry programs at undergraduate and post graduate levels that are developing the OHS workforce. To sustain this workforce and ensure continued reduction in the societal cost of workplace injury, illness and death there must be recognition of the professional basis of OHS practice and it is imperative that this recognition is reflected in the harmonised legislation.

* Suitably qualified to be determined, as in other professions, by the relevant professional association and industry standards.”

Mike is very committed to improving health and safety of the Australian workforce and it is clear that the moral imperative is king.  But it must also be noted that education thrives on the recognition of qualifications and a legislative requirement for suitably qualified OHS professionals would strengthen the case for the viability of tertiary OHS courses which, according to some sources, are in a perilous state.

One submission questioned the sense or practicality of having an HSR trained in safety beyond the skills of the PCBU.  Shaw Idea wrote

“….the Model Act should require PCBUs to obtain advice from suitably qualified advisers. It is inconsistent to require HSRs to be trained, but not require PCBUs to either be trained or be advised by those with competence in relevant areas. The OHS consequences of incompetent or ill-informed actions by employers are far greater than the consequences of HSR actions.”

The OHS training industry has done themselves a disservice for decades by not having a formal OHS management course for safety or business managers.  There is a big difference between training an HSR to manage upward to the employer and training a manager to manage the safety of a workforce.  Leaving executive training to the tertiary sector has exposed a large vocational hole in business management of workplace safety.

It must also be stated that the editor of SafetyAtWorkBlog also made a submission to the Australian Government in which “suitably qualified” was discussed.  Below is the relevant section:

“Many safety professionals are concerned that “suitably qualified” has been omitted for the proposed legislation.  I think the reason given for its omission is poor but I do not support those who advocate the inclusion of the concept.  The push has been particularly strong from Victoria and through a couple of OHS professional associations.  No evidence has been made publicly available for the need for such a concept.  It is something Victoria has had and it is loathe (sic) to relinquish. Good OHS advice is available from good OHS advisers and caveat emptor should apply on OHS advice as with any other.

The “suitably qualified” advocates like to compare themselves to other professions like medicine yet it is recommended even from within the medical profession that second opinions be sought.  The safety profession does not advocate this very sensible suggestion.”

Kevin Jones

© Workplace Safety Services P/L (ABN: 68091088621) and SafetyAtWorkBlog, 2008-2025. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Kevin Jones and SafetyAtWorkBlog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Concatenate Web Development
© Designed and developed by Concatenate Aust Pty Ltd