IOSH visited Virgin Atlantic’s headquarters in Crawley, England in October to learn more about how the organisation is improving its workers’ awareness of safety and health through in-house delivery of IOSH’s Managing Safely course.

Managing Safely is the market-leading health and safety course for line managers, designed to integrate safety and health within an organisation by improving safety awareness and enhancing its reputation across its supply chain.

“Managing Safely has been fantastic for further embedding safety and health in Virgin,” said Matt Wells CMIOSH, who works in health and safety with Virgin Atlantic. “The course has raised awareness, provided workers with a broad understanding of why safety and health is important and has helped to drive up standards across the organisation.”

Rachel Luff, course delegate and workshop supervisor at Virgin Atlantic, said: “Managing Safely improved my understanding of safety and health. It opens your eyes and helps you to look at things a bit differently. The course encourages you to think about how you can manage the task safely every time you approach a job, how you can improve processes, and the importance of making sure yourself and colleagues are operating safely at all times.”

Watch a video about how Virgin Atlantic manages safely below:

IOSH

The HSE’s ability to bring prosecutions to a successful conclusion saw a noticeable downturn in 2018/19, as the total number of cases that resulted in a verdict – whether conviction or acquittal – dropped 23% from 509 in 2017/18 to just 393. That is one of a range of insights in the regulator’s annual statistical release, published last week (30 October).

The HSE’s reduced effectiveness in prosecuting cases also coincided with a rise in the number of fatalities, which reached 147 compared to 144 in 2017/18 and 135 in 2016/17; and a new all-time high in cases of work-related stress, anxiety and depression, which increased from 595,000 in 2017/18 to reach 602,000, a prevalence of 1,800 cases per 100,000.

Elsewhere, the statistics showed a fairly mixed picture, with self-reported levels of both musculoskeletal disorders (498,000 versus 469,000) and overall workplace related injuries (581,00 versus 555,000) both slightly higher than in 2017/18. On the other hand, reported cases of work-related ill-health fell slightly, standing at 497,000 in 2018/19 from 541,000 last year. 

The regulator itself admitting that it needs  “further work” to understand the reasons for the 23% fall-off in successful prosecutions, but offered three explanations: a larger than normal number of inspectors in training; HSE inspectors’ time being consumed by “dealing with challenges raised by defence solicitors”, and a greater number of Newton hearings, where a defendant enters a “guilty” plea but a hearing in front of a judge is still required.  

But there are also slightly fewer cases coming through the pipeline, with the number of enforcement notices standing at 8,777 in 2018/19 compared to 8,975 in 2017/8. That represents 4% fewer prohibition notices than 2017/18, and 1% fewer improvement notices. The decline is sharper compared with the five-year average of 9,066 notices (from 2014/15 to 2018/19).

The total fines level levied by the courts following HSE or COPFS prosecutions was £54.5 m in 2018/19, noticeably lower than the £71.6 m in 2017/18. However, the HSE points out that the average fine per case was £150,000, close to the preceding year’s £148,000, suggesting that the drop in the total fines is not due to any change in the judiciary’s application of the Sentencing Guideline, but arithmetically linked to the decrease in cases completed. 

As in previous years, the figures showed that self-employed workers had almost twice the fatality rate of those in employment. While the overall frequency per 100,000 workers was 0.45 (up from 0.44 recorded in 2017/18 and 0.42 in 2016/17), the rate for self-employed workers was 0.79 per 100,000, compared to 0.39 for those in employment. The industry with the highest fatality rate was agriculture, forestry and fisheries, at 9.21 per 100,000, while the waste management and water supply sector had a rate of 3.21.

The statistical compilation draws heavily on returns under the Labour Force Survey (LFS), under which 37,000 households complete detailed returns to the Office of National Statistics each quarter. The LFS returns show that the trend in self-reported cases of stress, anxiety and depression trend is clearly upwards, with the prevalence of 1,800 cases per 100,000 workers, significantly higher than the five-year average of 1,380. 

Work-related mental ill health accounted for 44% of all work-related ill health cases, and 54% of working days lost to ill health, the HSE reports, although the latter figure is lower than the 57% calculated in 2017/18. Prevalence peaked for white collar “professionals”, at 2,150 per 100,000 workers, while “managers, directors and senior officials” – who presumably have more autonomy at the top of organisational charts – saw a below-average rate of 1,260 cases. 

The LFS returns for self-reported work-related injuries reached 581,000 in 2018/19, up from 555,000 in 2017/18. These contrast with the actual RIDDOR figures for 2018/19, which are fairly static: 69,208 in 2018/19 and 71,062 in 2017/18. On the other hand, self-reported work-related ill health cases fell, standing at 497,000 in 2018/19 compared to 541,000 in 2017/18. 

Overall, the combination of self-reported injuries, and mental and physical health problems produced a lower estimate of the number of working days lost, standing at 28.2 m in 2018/19 compared to 30.7 m a year earlier.

Within this total, working days lost to stress anxiety and depression fell from 15.4 m last year to 12.8 m in 2018/19. The HSE gives no explanation for the figures – which it calculates from LFS data – but it possibly suggests that individuals making LFS returns feel less inclined, or less able, to take time off work to recover.   

IOSH

After transforming its safety culture, LBC Tank Terminals won a 2019 Verdantix EHS Innovation award for its surge in near miss reporting, amongst other EHS successes.

LBC Tank Terminals (LBC) is a global provider of responsible logistics solutions headquartered in Belgium. In 2017, the company fired up an innovative HSE technology project to complement its new integrated and holistic approach to Corporate Social Responsibility.

This new approach consisted of LBC’s five core values: responsibility, transparency, respect, integrity and empowerment. As a result, the mentality of addressing HSSEQ as a separate department was removed — safety is everyone’s responsibility, regardless of department.

Moreover, LBC shifted the focus to proactive reporting: capturing potential incidents alongside actual incidents.

“Always Safe Never Sorry”

LBC strives to provide the safest, most reliable and efficient tank storage possible, all while ensuring there is no such thing as a dangerous product under their care. It works hard to provide a safe working environment and a culture with safety at its core — reflected in its motto ‘Always Safe Never Sorry’.

A New Vision Needed New EHS Software

To help meet its new EHS goals, the company implemented new EHS software from Pro-Sapien. It replaced an ‘outdated’ Oracle-based system which required one FTE to administer and only three staff members per site were trained to use it.

Allison Volbeda-Newell, Group Corporate Social Responsibility Director at LBC, said: “LBC takes a holistic approach to risk management. We … have improved employee engagement [in safety] ever since. Not only that, we now proactively capture a broader spectrum of risks.”

The Results

Now, all LBC employees – regardless of department – can report incidents and near misses. Non-HSSEQ staff are comfortable reporting incidents, near misses and potentially unsafe conditions. So much so, incident reports by non-HSSEQ staff rose a massive 83%, and near misses and unsafe situations reports increased by 370%.

Further results include:

– One day each month saved in running HSSEQ reports;
– Faster responses to non-compliance issues;
– Site Managers running their own HSSEQ reports;
– Increased user engagement by aligning Incident Reporting with Safety Training.

In the future, LBC will continue to monitor and improve terminal performance. Allison said: “The focus on actively tracking proactive reporting and assigning risk treatment measures makes LBC an even safer and more rewarding place to work.”

SHP

The occupational safety and health implications of outsourcing across a range of sectors and ways in which this organisational change can impact safety management practices and procedures will be discussed as part of an upcoming round-table event on Tuesday 5 November at Cranfield University.

The event is organised by Drs Colin Pilbeam and David Denyer from Cranfield University and will see the two researchers discuss the findings of IOSH-funded research, scheduled for publication later this year.

The study has considered how occupational safety and health performance can be sustained or enhanced following outsourcing in a variety of sectors and how practices vary when working with different types of contractors.

Organisations interviewed as part of the study operate in three sectors – Manufacturing, Logistics and Pharmaceuticals, and outsource a wide variety of different tasks, including construction and facilities management as well as specialist activities.

The event will:

• Share findings from the project through case studies from well-known organisations
• Identify cross-sector applications for managing contractor health and safety
• Test the wider applicability of the models for engaging contractors safely
• Explore further opportunities for collaborative research in this area

Dr Pilbeam said: “Following the enthusiastic reception of the research at the IOSH 2019 Conference, where I presented on the research, I am excited by the opportunity to discuss the findings with practitioners on the 5^th November. There will no doubt be some fireworks!”

The event will be held at Cranfield University, School of Management, Cranfield Management Research Institute (CMRI) on Tuesday, 5 November 2019 from 10.00 to 16.00.

On the morning of 5 October 1999, two trains travelling at a combined speed of 130mph collided and crashed into each other, causing the death of 31 passengers at Ladbroke Grove, London.

32 candles were lit for each of the passengers that tragically died, and one more for those that survived the crash, followed by a minute silence, to mark 20 years since the tragedy on 5 October 2019.

Cressida Dick, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, attended the memorial as well as representatives from London Ambulance Service and London Fire Brigade.

The Thames Train service travelling from Paddington had gone through a red signal and crashed into a First Great Western train. 417 people were injured, and one carriage exploded into a fireball.

Michael Hodder, driver for the Thames Train and Brian Cooper, driver for the First Great Western, were both killed in the crash.

The Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry written by Lord Cullen and published by the Health and Safety Executive, scrutinised Railtrack, which was the company responsible for maintaining British railway now taken over by Network Rails, for numerous safety breeches including:

• Not providing adequate driver training and
• Questioned the response time of signallers, in Slough control box, in acting quicker to warn drivers of crash.

Five years before the horrific collision, drivers misinterpreted signals at least seven times and Railtrack were warned about it but, no adequate action was taken by the company according to Blackfriars Crown Court.

Consequently, Railtrack was liable for a “catalogue of failures” that led to the tragic accident.

Phil Chambers BSc, CMIOSH Strategic Safety Systems Ltd, applied the Paddington Rail Crash as a case study to the Heinrich’s Triangle, which shows that if you have enough safety breaches, it will eventually lead to a serious injury.

Lord Cullen described Thames Train’s safety culture as “less than adequate”. It was reported that the crash could have been prevented had there been a train protection in place.

Jonathan Duckworth, Chairman of the Paddington Survivors’ Group and a survivor of the tragic crash expressed: “Our crash and others happened because they took their eyes off safety. If they do that again more will be killed and more lives devastated.”

Since the crash, there has been a spotlight on safety on British rails, but criticisms are still high, according to the Office of Rail and Road, after five years of improvement, minor accidents have increased, three rail workers have been killed by trains in the last year and a total of 41 trains passed through red signals in July 2019, as noted by The Rail Safety and Standards Board, which was created in the aftermath of the Paddington Rail Crash.

SHP

Health and safety professionals and other business leaders within the food and drink industry have been challenged to consider if they are doing enough to tackle the exploitation of workers.

Mark Heath, deputy director of business change at the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, told delegates at the annual Food and Drink Manufacturing Health and Safety Conference they all have a role to play, by asking questions about work supply.

He said labour exploitation is “a lucrative business model” for criminals, adding that the food services industry – including catering and restaurants – and food packaging and processing are among the most high-risk areas.

“This is a business model that criminal entrepreneurs have identified and pursue,” he said. “There will always be demand for labour. There will be workers required to do whatever a business needs. So that means there is an opportunity for people to exploit that labour.

“Do we question who provides food for events like this? Do we question who cleans our hotel rooms? Society doesn’t ask enough questions in this area.”

The conference was co-organised by the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health’s (IOSH) Food and Drink Industries Group. It was held at the DoubleTree Forest Pines Resort, Lincolnshire, on 1-2 October.

Last month, IOSH launched a white paper, called Tackling modern slavery together, in which it urged governments, employers, professionals and the public to do more to fight modern slavery, which has 40.3 million victims worldwide.

Mr Heath said while criminal gangs often find it easy to infiltrate supply chains, and it can generally be difficult to identify victims of exploitation, they can be deterred and disrupted if people ask questions.

“That is why we have to ask questions and have that conversation,” he said. “We can encourage an environment where people are happy to talk about their circumstances.”

More than 100 people, health and safety professionals and others with a responsibility for looking after working people, attended the conference. They also heard from Dr John Rowe, head of the UK Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) Manufacturing and Utilities Unit, who explored some of the key issues affecting the food and drink industry, including musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), occupational lung disease and work-related stress.

Exposure to flour dust the second biggest cause of occupational asthma, said Dr Rowe. He said that while it is claimed bakers have a one in 270 chance of developing asthma, an issue with under-reporting meant it is likely to be closer to one in 100. Referring to MSDs, he said manual handling accounts for one in five injuries reported to the HSE.

“These are our main priorities,” he said. “And these priorities will not change until we have sorted them.”

Other key speakers at the conference included Richard Orton, Director of Strategy and Business Development at IOSH; Paul Davey, Group Executive Board Director at Samworth Brothers; and Zoe Pearson, Head of Health and Safety at Wilkinson.

Meanwhile, IOSH Vice-President Tim Eldridge gave an update on IOSH’s No Time to Lose occupational cancer campaign, and former soldier and charity worker Chris Moon recounted his experiences of being captured by Khmer Rouge guerrillas and blown up in a minefield explosion, losing an arm and leg.

Despite his injuries, he has gone on to complete the world’s toughest ultra-marathons. “The biggest limits are those imposed by thinking,” he told delegates.

IOSH

Sending men to the moon and back posed many medical challenges in 1969 – and not just for the health of the astronauts themselves. So how did NASA deal with fears about the astronauts bringing a ‘lunar plague’ back to Earth? And what other sorts of medical scrutiny did pioneering astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins face? Dr Laura Dawes explains

Would going to the moon spell the end of life on earth? That sounds far-fetched today with the benefit of what we now know, but in 1969 the answer was “unlikely, but maybe”. The question revolved around whether the moon harboured exotic microbes. If astronauts unwittingly brought germs back, and humans had no immunity to them, the result could be a pandemic as devastating as bubonic plague in 14th-century Europe or smallpox in the Americas in the 16th century. “We can conceive of no more tragically ironic consequence of our search for extra-terrestrial life,” concluded space scientists.

• Small steps: How NASA prepared for the first moonwalk
• The history of the moon landing: everything you need to know

Geologists, however, pointed out that the likelihood of lunar life was extremely low: the moon is washed with UV radiation and wafted with solar wind; it has no atmosphere, no water, and swings through extremes of temperature. “If you really wanted to try to design a sterile surface,” NASA geologist Elbert King said, “this was it.”

Nonetheless, “moon germs” couldn’t be ruled out and the consequences of a lunar plague were potentially disastrous. The combined might of the Public Health Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the rest of the world via the UN, demanded that Apollo 11 undertake strict quarantine precautions. It was imperative to avoid “adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extra-terrestrial matter,” as the UN Outer Space Treaty put it.

A three-week quarantine

Precautions kicked in as soon as the command module Columbia splashed down off the coast of Hawaii. The astronauts opened the hatch and a navy frogman dressed in a BIG – a full-body “biological isolation garment” with air-filtering mask – tossed in three more BIGs and then retreated upwind for the Apollo crew to get dressed. The crew then climbed into a life raft and washed down their BIGs with a solution of sodium hypochlorite. They sealed up Columbia’s hatch and cleaned that down as well, in case any moon germs had escaped.

Then the astronauts, still wearing their BIGs, were flown by helicopter to the aircraft carrier Hornet and ushered straight into what NASA termed a Mobile Quarantine Facility (MQF). This was, in fact, a converted Airstream campervan, with its wheels taken off and had a filtered air exchange. All the water and waste was also collected for special treatment. Safely inside the MQF, Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins were allowed to take off their BIGs, chat with President Nixon through the little back window of the campervan, and fill out their customs declaration forms. In answer to the question “Any other condition on board which may lead to the spread of disease?” the crew wrote “TO BE DETERMINED.”

The Airstream MQF was just the first part of an onerous three-week quarantine for the astronauts. Transferred back to Houston, they moved into the Lunar Receiving Laboratory (LRL). This was a more spacious facility than the campervan (it had a gym and a bar) but was still environmentally isolated. And it wasn’t just the three Apollo astronauts in there: they were joined in quarantine by the two doctors examining them, and the engineer who had fetched the data and the moon rocks from Columbia. He had also wiped the module clean with more biocide.

• 6 women in science history you (probably) didn’t know about
• Forgotten science: 7 of the strangest scientific theories in history

Part way through the 21 days, Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins had some surprise new housemates: geologists who had been working with the lunar rocks when their special vacuum-chamber gloves developed leaks. The rocks themselves were in quarantine too, kept at all times in a sterile vacuum chamber.

Everyone in the LRL was tested and watched closely for signs of exotic illness. Other than Neil Armstrong suffering a slight ear problem which cleared up by itself, the astronauts did not become sick. But the confinement, and being prodded and poked, and the endless games of cards, “quickly became oppressive”. The quarantine requirements were abandoned after the third lunar landing when it was clear that the geologists had been right: the moon was lifeless.

Apollo’s medical programme

There was certainly no love lost between the Apollo astronauts and the doctors: flight physicians had the power to ground an astronaut or have a mission aborted. And the health requirements were rigorous. They started even before the astronauts were recruited. Applicants to the space programme underwent a barrage of tests to ensure they were in peak condition and perfect health. If they were accepted into the programme, an astronaut repeated the tests every year in the month of his birthday. Before their mission, the Apollo 11 crew were extensively tested again four months out, with daily medical exams in the month before lift-off. Any illness or injury at any time had to be reported and astronauts couldn’t have dental work done in the three months before launch, in case air bubbles became trapped in the treated tooth and caused problems under pressure changes.

Medical scrutiny didn’t end with leaving earth either. During the mission, the astronauts wore a network of biosensors stuck to their skin. These constantly fed back information on heart rate and breathing to the flight physician. At the point when Armstrong radioed that “the Eagle has landed” (with only 20 seconds worth of fuel left in the tank), his heart rate was 150 beats per minute, compared with his normal rate of 75.

• Back on Planet Earth: what world did Neil Armstrong leave behind in 1969?
• From Sutton Hoo to Rosa Parks: 50 giant leaps in history

So Neil Armstrong’s heart rate is now public knowledge, but how much of an astronaut’s medical situation should be revealed to the public? The question of medical privacy had come to a head during the Apollo 8 flight, when the commander, Frank Borman, became very sick. His companions cleaned up globules of vomit and diarrhea floating through the cabin. (Pilot Bill Anders said that it reminded him of chasing butterflies.) Borman didn’t want to discuss his condition with mission control because everyone could listen in to the open channel: “I’ll be damned if I’m going to tell the whole world I had the flu,” he said. (He probably hadn’t got the flu but ‘space adaptation sickness’, a condition related to motion sickness and provoked by moving about when weightless. Borman was the first NASA astronaut to experience it, although cosmonauts were already familiar with the condition.) Only by noting his symptoms on the tape that recorded data when the spacecraft was on the far side of the moon could Borman get medical help without the world listening in. Subsequent Apollo missions, including Apollo 11, included a closed-loop communications channel for the flight surgeon to talk to the astronauts in private.

This closed-communication channel on the Apollo 11 mission has become fuel for conspiracy theorists who see it as evidence either that the moon landing was faked (the channel was how they organised the hoax) or, the moon landing was real (the channel was how Armstrong told mission control about meeting aliens!)

In fact, the channel was how Armstrong and Aldrin discussed taking anti-diarrheal Lomotil tablets during the moon landing so they wouldn’t have to defecate while in the Eagle. Defecating in Apollo spaceships was unpleasant, involving plastering a paper top-hat-shaped contraption to one’s rear and, in the absence of gravity, using one’s hand to assist the faeces away – no wonder the astronauts preferred to be ‘bunged up’.

The whole team also took motion sickness tablets (a combination of scopolamine and dextroamphetamine –the amphetamine countering the drowsy effect of the scopolamine) in preparation for splashdown. However, they mistakenly only took half the dose. Columbia landed upside down, and the crew were tossed around while the airbags inflated and turned them the right way up. All three had to fight against being sick when they eventually got out. As Aldrin explained: “It was one thing to land upside down… it would be quite another to scramble out of the spacecraft in front of television cameras, tossing our cookies all over the place.”

Risk of catastrophe

The mission, as the world knows, was a success – but Aldrin, Armstrong and Collins knew that there had been a real risk of catastrophe. Plans were made for that medical contingency as well. Michael Collins, circling the moon in Columbia, wrote that his “secret terror” was not a sudden explosion. It was that Armstrong and Aldrin would be stranded on the moon, either because the Eagle had been damaged on landing or because the ascent engine wouldn’t fire, and he would have to return to earth alone.

“If they fail to rise from the surface, or crash back into it, I am not going to commit suicide,” Collins wrote. “I am coming home, forthwith, but I will be a marred man for life and I know it. Almost better not to have the option I enjoy.”

• The Space Race: The Cold War rivalry that put humans on the Moon
• Did NASA really pick the brains of the Tower of London armoury when designing the first space suits?

NASA and the president’s office also made preparations for that nightmare scenario. On NASA’s advice, speechwriter William Safire prepared a speech for Nixon to give in the event that “fate has ordained that the men who went to the moon to explore in peace will stay on the moon to rest in peace”. NASA would close communications to the lander; the oxygen supply would run out and Aldrin and Armstrong would die. A clergyman would conduct the burial rites as per burial at sea, with the astronauts’ souls committed to “the deepest of the deep”. So when Armstrong radioed that “We’re off!”, the moment was one of profound relief for everyone. Nixon’s speech – “that there is some corner of another world that is forever mankind” – would never need to be said.

Dr Laura Dawes is an award-winning historian, author and broadcaster, with a speciality in the history of science and particularly the history of medicine.

History Extra

It is very common for employers to provide employees with a company lanyard, but many organisations are unaware of the safety risks it can potentially have on its employees.

Dorset Police issued a warning on social media announcing the harmful consequences that could come with driving with a lanyard on.

The statement detailed that “there have been a couple of serious traffic accidents of note (not within Dorset Police) where the wearing of identity lanyards around the drivers’ necks has exacerbated the severity of the injuries sustained. This type of accident is fortunately unlikely; however, staff, officers and volunteers should be aware of the hazard and how to avoid it”.

They also gave examples of two different case studies, the first case was a minor car accident, however the driver was left with serious injuries after the airbag was forced into his lanyard, puncturing his lung. The second case involved an NHS worker who wore a lanyard around their neck with locker keys attached to it. During the crash the airbag forced the keys attached to the lanyard into the driver’s bowels, leaving them hospitalised for six weeks and out of work for six months. In both cases, the drivers would have had very minor injuries had they not been wearing a lanyard.

Not only drivers, but employees that wear lanyards on their daily job can also be in risk of harm. For instance, retail workers are already exposed to customer abuse, wearing lanyards can increase the risk of physical abuse as it could be used as a weapon against them.

Though the likelihood is slim, the safety risk is still foreseeable and therefore employers should act to prevent such cases from happening. Employers can:

• Strongly advise that everyone removes their lanyards/staff passes when leaving the office for both safety and security reasons;
• Remind employees to not drive with lanyards on to and from work;
• Where possible, use breakaway lanyards that will unclip themselves if pulled, caught or stuck.

Legal information

Associate Solicitor in the Complex Injury department at Bolt Burdon Kemp, Ben Pepper, gave legal background on what companies will be held liable for should they have a compensation claim against them for providing unsafe lanyards.

Ben explained: “with the recent warning from the police, employers would be wise to take heed and make sure they are implementing appropriate measures to protect their employees.”

In a car collision, liability lies with the driver that caused the crash, that could be another road user or the employee themselves. Even in situations where the other driver was responsible, they could request the compensation be reduced by alleging that the employee who did not remove the lanyard while driving therefore brought about the severity of their injuries. However, in situations where the employee is responsible it would be hard to claim that the employer was liable due to the unanticipated result.

While a compensation claim is unlikely to be successful, due to the complexity in being able to establish whether an employer is liable due to the remoteness of the injury suffered, it is important that all employers uphold their duty of care and reduce any dangers for their employees as much as possible.

“Make sure to spread awareness amongst employees about the dangers posed by lanyards and ask that their lanyards be removed when travelling for work purposes (including to and from work). Cover this in health and safety training sessions, put warning stickers in company vehicles, update your best practice and communicate this via a company-wide email. Make sure these measures are enforced, within reason”.

SHP

Christina Fry, Chemical Engineer and UK/Ireland Environment Health & Safety Manager for Air Products, explores how a shift in approach could hold the key to safer and more productive working environments.

It’s not uncommon, even now, to hear people talk about making time for health and safety. What, you might ask, could possibly be wrong with that?

The idea of making time for anything suggests relegating the thing in question for consideration only at a certain time of day, for a certain amount of time. Ironically, the very things we seek to make time for are often the elements of our lives that get side-lined for seemingly bigger and more pressing priorities. We all know the drill – “I need to make more time for friends and family, but this work deadline (and the next) is just too pressing. I’ll spend time with them tomorrow”. And tomorrow never comes.

Arguably this is an unhealthy approach to life that ultimately results in emotional and physical imbalance. One thing is for certain however – ‘being safe’ simply doesn’t work like that. It can’t be put in a neat box, for consideration at the end of the day – it needs to be part of an inherent attitude and approach, a natural part of our day to day activity.

Perhaps one of the simplest examples of this in practice is the ‘Green Cross Code’. As adults, the simple, intuitive process of stopping, looking and listening before we cross the road is in-built. We don’t think about it, we don’t even recite it to ourselves, we just do it. But this wasn’t an innate ability we were born with, we had to learn it through repetition and practice, and I believe it is this process of re-training the brain that could be fundamental to both reducing accidents and improving productivity.

But how can this work in practice?

Mindfulness will be a recognised term to most of us, regardless of whether we value it as part of a personal well-being strategy or dismiss it as slightly too alternative or leftfield for our needs. In all the recent hype however, it can be easy to lose sight of what mindfulness actually is – and that’s, quite simply, paying attention to the present moment, and having a consciousness of what is going on inside and outside of ourselves right now.

We currently operate in an economic environment that sees all of us under pressure to deliver more, for less. But in a drive to boost profits and make efficiencies, senior management teams are often triggering behaviours that ultimately curb productivity. Rarely focused on the task in hand, our brains are constantly whirring, thinking about the next deadline, the next meeting or the next task we’ll need to deliver. ‘Rushing’ becomes a culture – and we are so caught up in our thoughts that we stop noticing the impact they are having on our emotions and our behaviour.

Interestingly, if you look at recordable or lost time injury accidents at work, they usually occur when we are completing a task that is familiar to us or just after we’ve finished concentrating on a challenging task and are moving on to the next thing. This might seem strange but in fact when we are doing something we have done a thousand times before, our body and brain tend to go on autopilot. The brain then uses its spare capacity to freewheel and plan ahead. While that might be okay if you are sitting in front of a phone or a computer, it’s not appropriate when you are getting out of a vehicle or driving, for example.

By introducing a culture of mindfulness into the workplace, we can directly affect change and encourage an environment where all of us see the present moment clearly and are alive to sights, sounds and sensations around us at any given time.

With this increased awareness of the here and now comes an acknowledgement of, and alertness to, possible risks and dangers and the ability to deal with them positively, and before they escalate. In other words, we’re working safely.  Indeed, there is growing evidence that using mindfulness at work can have several positive effects – boosting attention and concentration, and reducing stress. Think of it like training for the brain.

While young people are often open to this approach (perhaps familiar with it from their personal lives), older colleagues can remain resistant. Behaviours and attitudes can be more embedded, and mindfulness is often dismissed as ‘jargon’.

Getting all employees bought in is key to genuine cultural change and there are many examples of how this can work in practice. After all, mindfulness is just a word, a phrase. At its crux is the belief that we can and should empower individuals to take personal responsibility for their own health and safety.

I’ve previously supported an EIGA (European Industrial Gases Association) working group in creating ‘life-saving rules’. Since they were published, the focus within Air Products has been on moving the conversation from ‘rules’ to ‘behaviours’. We want to take the power play out of the equation and ensure that health and safety is less about doing what you are told and more about satisfying yourself, in that moment, that what you are doing is the right and safest course of action – and if it’s not, having the belief and confidence to press the pause button, to think and maybe, to say no. This is mindfulness at its very best – not a blind continuum but a personal awareness of your own and others’ safety.

But for mindfulness or – if you prefer – personal consciousness and responsibility, to sit at the heart of an improved health and safety culture, buy-in from senior management is critical. It’s important they understand that a culture where employees feel able and empowered to take time over each task, and push back where necessary, will result in a more productive and safer environment.

Of course, it’s fine to demand commitment and hard work but we need to move away from the attitude that rushing through tasks will boost delivery. Less haste, more speed, as the tortoise said to the hare.

My advice? Recognise that your thoughts are straying, refocus on the job in hand and make ‘thinking it through’ a whole step in its own right. It takes seconds and can literally save lives.

SHP

Research conducted by Specsavers Corporate Eyecare has revealed that only 42% of employers in the UK provide overhead earmuffs to its employees.

Businesses of all sizes across the UK took part in a survey to find out what type of hearing protection is provided for them. It looked at the types of hearing protection offered by companies in the UK. The findings were:

• Foam earplug 37%;
• Custom moulded earplug 26%;
• Ear canal caps 21%;
• Flanged earplug 20%;
• Integrated earmuff 18%;
• Banded earplug 17%.

Under the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005, it is the responsibility of employers to protect their employees from exposure to excessive noise and noise-induced hearing loss.

Professions such as aircraft ground control and construction workers are examples of jobs where employees are in risk of hearing damage/loss, if relevant protection is not provided. Noise above 85db (decibels) can cause permanent and disabling hearing damage, which cannot be reversed.

At a construction site, peak noise levels can reach 120db, for example a chainsaw’s average decibel can reach 106db-115db, which can significantly damage a construction worker’s hearing or permanently cause them hearing loss.

Jim Lythgow, Director of Strategic Alliances at Specsavers Corporate Eyecare, expressed that “employers themselves acknowledge that they are not providing the necessary hearing protection, and by failing to do so, they may be putting their employees’ hearing at risk.”

Ensuring that hearing protection is highlighted in Risk Assessments could save companies from getting a hefty fine if they also carry out what is stated.

Jim Lythgow said: ‘It is good to see that at least some hearing protection is being offered. Employers may feel that what they have provided is adequate, but it is important that needs and risks are fully assessed so that the most appropriate type of hearing protection is made available.’

According to the HSE, between 2015 and 2018, 23,000 workers suffered work related hearing problems, and insurance claims for workplace noise-induced hearing loss in the UK has increased 189% over the last three years.

SHP