evidence – Page 133 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Workplaces are under-prepared for first aid incidents

The Australian Medical Association (AMA) has reported that

“Less than 10% of people are aware they need to cool burn wounds for 20 minutes in cool water as a first aid measure.”

Research* published in the AMA’s Medical Journal of Australia, in October 2011, found that

“Unprompted, 82% of (7320) respondents said they knew to cool the burn with cool or cold water but 41.5% said they didn’t know for how long cold running water should be applied.”

SafetyAtWorkBlog has followed the issue of first aid treatment for burns and the evidence for burn creams.

The application of the recommended treatment for burns continues to be a contentious issue in practice in Australian workplaces. Part of the reason could be that first aid treatment in many workplaces is seen as little more than a “bandaid treatment” because this is the first aid treatment most seen and most received. But this perception does not site well with the evidence for burn treatments.

The first aid (band aid) treatments in most workplace is quick and usually does not interrupt work. To properly treat a burn, a worker must stop work for twenty minutes. Most workplaces where burns are likely to occur, for instance, construction sites, manufacturing, food preparation, are unlikely to welcome a stoppage of one worker for twenty minutes. Can one imagine a burger flipper at a fast food restaurant standing with a hand under a running tap for twenty minutes? It would be unlikely that this absence could be covered. Continue reading “Workplaces are under-prepared for first aid incidents”

Weekly Times sets the tone for quad bike safety research

The Weekly Times newspaper continues to report on the changing attitudes to quad bike safety in Australia. In its 19 October 2011 edition it featured an article that for the first time in the Australian print media questions the US research statistics on quad bike safety on which motorcycle manufacturers have been relying for many years.

The research by Dynamic Research, predominantly undertaken by John Zellner, has been questioned before but the appearance of such an article in the mainstream, albeit rural, press indicates a degree of research maturity in this area in Australia. It also indicates the possibilities presented by the internet and social media for promoting change and questioning important matters that do not usually garner mainstream attention. Continue reading “Weekly Times sets the tone for quad bike safety research”

Look for evidence in online OHS content

In occupational health and safety, as with any profession, it is useful to ask for evidence. When on a work site, it is important to always ask “why?” Why do you do your work task that way? Why are you not wearing the PPE that everyone else is wearing? Why are you working such late hours?

But in the publishing and internet world it is equally important to ask for evidence from safety commentators. The SafetyAtWorkBlog has an editorial policy and practice of linking back to original material, articles or court cases, if they are available online, or providing some other references so that readers can source the original material, the evidence on which an article is based or a comment made. This type of editorial policy and practice is missing from many blogs leading, as a result, to the perception of a lack of authority. The latest example of this is the 30 Days of OHS campaign by the Safety Institute of Australia (SIA).

The 30 Days of OHS campaign is a new strategy for the SIA and it should be applauded for trying something new. But the initial editorial practice for the early campaign contributions is shaky. For instance, the 12 October 2011 article on resilience says

“..in a recent survey….” and

“..research has clearly shown…”

The author, Rhett Morris, has told SafetyAtWorkBlog that the survey mentioned was undertaken for a client. (Morris has provided a copy of the survey which is available HERE). When contacted by SafetyAtWorkBlog Morris had not been advised that the article had been accepted for the campaign let alone it being online. He also stressed that the article is a 400-word extract from a much longer article, a fact that the SIA should have included in order to provide a better context for the article. There is clearly more dialogue required between the SIA and contributors. Continue reading “Look for evidence in online OHS content”

Politicians are exploiting proposed OHS laws for their own benefit

South Australia’s Industrial Relations Minister, Rob Lucas, stated in the Adelaide Advertiser on 3 October 2011 that

“The Liberal Party has always supported strong work safety laws which protect workers at work sites.”

This may be the case within the limitations of that sentence but the conservative political parties have not always been supportive of the basis for safety management, the creation of evidence through authoritative research. According to a 2003 submission by the Australian Council of Trade Unions

“After the election of the Liberal/National Coalition in 1996, the Federal Government decided that:

the NOHSC budget must be cut by $5.9 million each year;

a further 5% cut was imposed across the board; and

redundancies had to be covered from within the NOHSC budget.

This represented a cut of $6.6 million (35-40%) to the NOHSC annual budget……

The April 1996 NOHSC decision on allocation of its $14 million budget cut OHS research and information, and education and training. National standards work was also decreased. These areas are central to a national approach to OHS.” [emphasis added]

Around the time of these severe budget cuts Australia had begun moving to a system of national uniformity in OHS. The impact of this political decision hamstrung the research efforts of NOHSC just as the uniformity momentum was increasing. As the National Research Centre for Occupational Health and Safety Regulation has written

“A notable development in standard setting in Australia during the 1990s was the movement towards national uniformity in standards in regulations and codes of practice. The process was overseen by the former NOHSC, which in 1991 established a tripartite National Uniformity Taskforce, which identified several key first order priorities for achieving national uniformity: plant, certification of users and operators of industrial equipment; workplace hazardous substances; occupational noise; manual handling; major hazardous facilities; and storage and handling of dangerous goods.

NOHSC developed standards in the first six of these areas, and the jurisdictions were well on the way towards adopting these standards by the end of 1996, although it should be noted that jurisdictions were quite inconsistent in their adoption, particular in choosing whether to implement the standards in regulations or codes of practice, in their drafting styles and, in some cases, the substance of provisions. The national uniformity process was not complete when the Howard government came to power in 1996, and that government first significantly down-sized and then abolished NOHSC, with the result that the move towards national uniformity slowed dramatically after mid-1996.”

Rob Lucas seems to ignore the history of his own party’s decision. Continue reading “Politicians are exploiting proposed OHS laws for their own benefit”

WorkSafe should explain its role in increasing a small business’ OHS penalty by $50k

In June 2010, SafetyAtWorkBlog discussed the case of company director Peter Angelico and why the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), following a request by WorkSafe Victoria, doubled the financial penalty over an OHS breach. Peter Angelico is currently working his way through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) trying to determine how the increased penalty can be justified as in “the public interest”.

The VCAT hearing is set for 7 October 2011 in Melbourne. Angelico, the proprietor of A Bending Company, is not contesting the original judgement for he says in his applicant statement, seen by SafetyAtWorkBlog, that:

“Releasing information that can help prevent a future accident is always in the public interest. There are no winners from workplace injuries and it is vital that companies are fully aware of their obligations and publishing safety information can only assist in this process.”

Angelico would argue that small business owners, like himself, should also be provided with a more accurate cost of non-compliance with OHS legislation. That would also be in the public interest. Continue reading “WorkSafe should explain its role in increasing a small business’ OHS penalty by $50k”

Helmet debate misses the point of safe design

Workplace safety is rarely simple or easy. It has become a standard recommendation in Australia recently for quad bike riders to wear helmets. Quad bike manufacturers recommend the wearing of helmets and some OHS regulators are making it mandatory but this should not be the end of the safety discussion. The Weekly Times newspaper on 21 September 2011 describes the current arguments occurring over the type of helmet to be worn.

It is common for workplaces to experience disputes or discussions over personal protective equipment (PPE). These discussions are necessary to ensure that the best, the most suitable, PPE is used to control a hazard. Sometimes safety eyewear can be heat-resistant sunglasses, sometimes this should be goggles. Sometime head protection comes from a hard hat, sometime from a bump cap. PPE should never generate new hazards when trying to control another.

The current discussion indicates has arisen over the wearing of motorcycle-style helmets while following a herd of dairy cows during an Australian summer. Dairy farmers say that the wearing of helmets in these conditions is absurd and farmers will choose to ride quad bikes un-helmeted instead. Continue reading “Helmet debate misses the point of safe design”

Work Health and Safety Regulation Impact Statement could do better

[Originally submitted as a comment to a “safety costs” article]

I’ve spent a coupla hours dipping into what looked to me like the important bits of the WHS reg RIS, and I gotta say it don’t add up. I’d also say that the RIS does, in general terms, do what it should do, in terms of making the reasoning processes it uses relatively clear. The merit of the conclusions is up for debate of course, but at least the RIS seems to have made a fair fist of explaining how the conclusions were reached.

For mine there are 2 key flaws.

1. The options to the proposed reg (chapter 4 pg. 19) are just not sufficient. I don’t think it’s at all reasonable to provide 2 “options” which are: do nothing or make the regs. Roger, it might be reasonable to conclude that a big public consultation exercise has happened with the WHS Act, so why revisit a lot of other options? But the fact is the COAG RIS guidelines say a “range of options” should be included, and it’s common practice in RISs to at least have a few genuine alternatives to consider. (See link to the guidelines: ).

The agreement (as it is) by jurisdictions to put the WHS Act into operation doesn’t come with an all-or-nothing conclusion that the WHS regulations is the only option. We have to acknowledge that when it comes to Regulations, we are getting down to tin-tacks when it comes to statutory obligations; it’s that thing about Regulations “giving practical effect to an Act.” That means a big effort is needed to get it right as far as options go. Continue reading “Work Health and Safety Regulation Impact Statement could do better”

Category: evidence

Workplaces are under-prepared for first aid incidents

Like this:

Weekly Times sets the tone for quad bike safety research

Like this:

Look for evidence in online OHS content

Like this:

Politicians are exploiting proposed OHS laws for their own benefit

Like this:

WorkSafe should explain its role in increasing a small business’ OHS penalty by $50k

Like this:

Helmet debate misses the point of safe design

Like this:

Work Health and Safety Regulation Impact Statement could do better

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: