Oct2014
This Newsletter contains updates on Health and Safety issues relevant to schools which are also discussed at HCC’s Education Health & Safety committee.
Key Pointsin this issue1. Grid Updates
1.1 Electrically powered gates
1.2 Asbestos in 1st world war helmets
1.3Safety checklists
1.4 Model H&S policy
1.5 Maintenance requirements
1.6Training matrix
2. Newpublications
2.1DfE and DoH guidance
Supporting pupils with medical conditions
Emergency Asthma inhalers
Infection control in schools
2.2 HSE report on asbestos management in schools
2.3 Recent HSE myths
3. Recent incidents in schools
3.1 Site staff use of equipment
3.2 science practicals
4. Safety in Short
4.1 Supervision ratios
4.2 Foxes
5. In the courts
5.1 Asbestos removal
5.2 Electronic Gates
5.3Staircases
Ask the Editor…
If you have any suggestions for improvement or information you wish to include in any future editions please contact: . / 1. Grid Updates
1.1 Electrically powered gates
Revised guidancein order to update links to advice from the door and hardware federation, school’s to ensure that these are regularly maintained and that the maintenance company measure the moving force of the gate at each maintenance visit.
1.2 Asbestos in First world war Army helmets
Following the advice last year regarding 2nd World war gas masks, the HSE have also issued a warning that the majority of the British Army (‘Brodie’) helmets, issued during the First World War, contain chrysotile (white) asbestos in the helmet liner. As a result the advice in relation to these items is the same as for gas masks - it is not appropriate for children or teachers to wear or handle any artefacts that potentially contain asbestos.Replica gas masks and ‘Brodie’ Helmets that do not contain asbestos are available as teaching aids. Please ensure that these important messages are shared within your school.
1.3 Safety checklists
Revised versions of school site and Governor / SLT H&S checklists are now available.
These are designed to assist school’s when monitoring existing systems, these are not exhaustive, and should be customised to fit individual circumstances as required.
1.4 Model H&S policy
Revised model policy for adoption / adaptation by schools, this revision consists of relatively minor changes to wording and updated hyperlinks.
The local arrangements for asbestos and legionella management provide
additional detail on required operational controls.
A summary of changes from the previous version is provided as an annex.
1.5 Maintenance and inspection requirements
Revised version listing key areas for cyclical testing / inspection of plant and equipment within school premises.
1.6 Training Matrix
Identifies possible Health and Safety training needs, refresher training periods etc. Also provides a sample worksheet where H&S training could be recorded / monitored.
2. New publications
2.1 DfE and DoH guidance
Supporting pupils at school with medical conditions
As detailed in May this came into force on 1st September 2014 the DfE site includes templates to aid in managing this. H&S audits would already expect that these procedures were in place (these were all previously detailed in the previous guidance ‘Managing Medicines in schools and Early Years Settings)’ in order that medical conditions are properly supported. The only additional requirement would be to ensure the school has developed a policy for supporting pupils with medical conditions.
Emergency asthma inhalers for use in schools
From 1st October 2014 the Human Medicines (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2014 allows schools to buy salbutamol inhalers, without a prescription, for use in emergencies. E.g. If the pupil’s prescribed inhaler is unavailable, broken, or empty.
This is entirely discretionary- schools are not required to hold an emergency inhaler. If schools do choose to keep an emergency inhaler then a protocol for use based on the DoH guidance should be developed.
The guidance includes a consent form and letter to inform parents of its use.
Guidance on infection control in schools
The document provides guidance for schools and other childcare settings, such as nurseries, on infection control issues. It is an updated version of guidance that was produced in 2010.
2.2HSE inspections on asbestos management
The results of the HSE’s inspection initiative on asbestos management within non LA controlled schools were published on the 23rd of June.
The HSE inspected a sampleof 153 non-local authority schools between April 2013 and January 2014, which included independent, voluntary aided and foundation schools, free schools and academies.
29% (44 schools) received written advice from HSE, 13% (20 schools) were subject to enforcement action, in the form of improvement notices.
The HSE report suggests compliance with the Control of Asbestos showed an overall improvement compared with that found in a similar survey and inspection programme of 164 schools outside local authority control in 2010/11 where 41 improvement notices were served on 28 schools.
The HSE suggest that school’s had a good awareness of their legal duties but they have highlighted some key lessons for school’s.
- Up to date records – not all management surveys were up to date or included all buildings, after refurbishment work had been undertaken the asbestos register did not always reflect that information.
- Site specific asbestos management plan to be in place
- In house staff to have received information , instruction and training in particular to in house maintenance staff
- Robust use of permission to work only 54% of schools were deemed to have a comprehensive system in place
2.3Recent HSE Myths
Case 282School garden bans cane supports for plants due to health and safety
There is no health and safety law which specifies cane toppers as a requirement but the Royal Horticultural Society guidance recommends their use on canes which are lower than 1.8 metres high to avoid the risk of eye injuries
Case 287 - Fabric store could not employ work experience pupil due to scissors being around
There is no reason at all why a young person could not take up a work experience placement in an environment simply because scissors are present. Employers’ liability insurance policies would cover work placements. Any H&S checks should be are proportionate to the environment:
Case 292 Pre-school staff were asked to remove flower and vegetable pots from a garden
A pre-school which used a garden managed by the local parish council were told that they could not leave pots of flowers and vegetables grown by the children in the garden as someone may trip over the pots and sue the parish council.
These are simply everyday ‘social’ risks and the parish council appears to be risk-averse in case they are sued.
Case 299 Can teachers remove a child’s splinter?
Given that most schools will have competent, qualified first aiders, there is no reason at all why they should not remove splinters, if they are partly exposed and easily removed with tweezers. If splinters are deeply embedded then parents should be consulted and professional medical help sought.
Case 302 Primary school not allowed ladders
There is nothing in health and safety law that prevents primary schools from using step ladders in classrooms.
A properly designed stepstool or stepladder is often going to be the sensible and practical option for carrying out tasks that involve working at height for a short time –it’s certainly a better option than standing on a chair.
3. Recent incidents in schools
3.1 Site staff use of equipment
A member of site staff was planning wood on a bench mounted planer when the workpiece slipped causing his finger to come into contact with the rotating blade. On investigation the blade was exposed across its entire length with no guarding in place.
The supplier confirmed this model would have been supplied with a guard. (staff were unaware of any guard having been fitted / used in the past)
The risk of this incident occurring from an unguarded machine should have been obvious. Issues arising:
- No documented risk assessment in place for the use of such equipment by site staff.
- No recorded formal maintenance schedule was in place other than PAT testing.
- No formal evidence of competency, whilst this can be evidenced by knowledge and experience rather than simply attendance on training courses. The operative did also utilise hand fed woodworking equipment in the DT workshop. (DATA training for the relevant equipment should have been undertaken as would be expected for members of the DT department)
Students were carrying out an A-level chemistry practical to synthesise and purify aspirin when an unexpected reaction led to the contents of the flask being propelled out into the face of a student. The student was wearing safety glasses at the time and lab coat.
Despite attempts to replicate the conditions of the accident (under controlled conditions) the exact cause of the reaction has not been determined.
Whilst a risk assessment had been conducted identifying relevant CLEAPSS hazcards and safety measures (such as the decanting of Ethanoic Anhydride only in a fume cupboard and the use of goggles) these were not then implemented.
The risk assessment in this case had become a stand alone document and was largely a box ticking exercise.
Issues arising:
1. Risk assessments to beeffectively embedded in daily use texts, links to CLEAPSS model assessments and adaptation of these if required should be made as part of a school's scheme of work.
2.This should then be integrated with the requisition process / form, providing an opportunity for the teacher to identify key risks / controls and Hazcard links and any specific considerations with group / space etc.
3. This can then be checked by the Technician as a 'safety net' giving another opportunity to highlight any other considerations. Further prompts could be provided for teaching staff for example by issuing the relevant hazcard with the experiment and highlighting specific key words. i.e. Goggles / fumecupboard etc.
4. The Head of Dept could then monitor the requisition process / approve these.
In that way the assessment hopefully becomes more embedded in daily use rather than a stand alone document.
4. Safety in short
4.1 Is there a specific ratio for supervision of pupils during play?
There’s no prescribed ratio as this is so dependent on individual site issues – lines of site, any specific bits of outdoor play equipment that need supervision, group dynamic and behaviour etc.
Most case law simply expects ‘reasonable’ care so whilst it’s typically regarded as a policy of perfection to supervise every student at all times, there’s a need for a common sense approach including a risk assessment of supervision levels.
There has certainly been 1 case where a lunchtime supervisor was responsible for 200-300 students, 11-15 and an older student was hit in the eye with a stone thrown by another. The supervisor was concentrating on younger students with an ‘occasional’ glance at older students. The court of appeal held in this case that if there had been proper supervision no stone would have been thrown; that one person supervising such a large number was negligent at a management level etc.
4.2We’ve a fox on our grounds does this present a risk to pupils?
The risk posed by foxes is very low and the media focus on 1 or 2 very isolated incidents does not alter that fact. Any action taken to remove foxes is normally due to damage caused by them rather than any risk to people.
Foxes are not considered as vermin (and therefore there is no legal obligation to act against them) there are plenty of pest control companies who will remove. But in removing one fox there's nothing to say another won't simply take the territory over……
5. In the Courts
5.1 Asbestos removal and demolition
An asbestos removal company has been fined after it exposed workers to dangerous fibres during demolition of a former school building in Lincoln, during March 2012.
Angus Group Ltd were sub-contracted to carry out the asbestos removal work on behalf of the contractors demolishing the school, owned by Lincolnshire County Council.
Before work began, an asbestos survey (refurbishment and demolition survey) was carried out to identify the areas in the building containing asbestos, and recommending how this was to be treated to ensure safe removal.
However the findings of this survey were ignored resulting in asbestos spray coating on the main hall walls being chiseled off using power tools with no suitable controls.
5.2Electric Gates
A Leicester company has been prosecuted for failing to install adequate guarding on an electric gate that trapped a young child at a primary school in Stourbridge.
An eight-year-old boy was injured when his head became trapped between the edge of the closing gate and the gate post. When the gate had been the company had failed to fit suitable guarding.The company had identified the need for the guarding but not fitted it because the gate, which had been manufactured by a different company, was not the exact style expected and the guarding would not fit.
5.3Staircases
A Derbyshire school has been prosecuted for safety failings after a pupil’s grandmother fell off the side of an unguarded staircase.She had gone to the pavilion for refreshments with the rest of her family but on leaving the building by the outside steps, she lost her balance when she moved from a wooden staircase to a stone one, falling two metres and fracturing three bones in her neck.
The HSE investigation found whilst there were handrails fitted to the wooden the stone staircase had a 40 centimetre-high parapet running along the edge of the stairs but no handrail.
The School was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £534 in costs.
The school has since fitted wooden rails to the previously unguarded edge, but it should have done this before someone suffered a painful injury.
Page 1 of 6