Dynamic Risk Assessments

Dynamic Risk Assessments Guidance Could Affect Fire Fighters

Cautioning against an over-reliance on dynamic risk assessment to protect lone workers, Edmund Jacobs considers how organisations can effectively integrate dynamic risk assessment methodology into their risk-management processes.

In the UK, lone working is becoming increasingly common, with people employed in a wide range of situations – from home workers and shop workers in a fixed establishment to more itinerant individuals, such as social workers, home helps, truck drivers, and sales people.¹

The concept of dynamic risk assessment (DRA) first developed in the Fire Service to enable fire-fighters to operate safely in inherently dangerous and unpredictable environments. Now, many organisations whose staff work alone and without close or direct supervision view the environments in which their employees work as potentially dangerous and unpredictable. Consequently, they tend to sway towards the use of DRA as a means to ensure their workers’ safety.

Differing from predictive risk assessment, which is static in nature and allows risks to be assessed at leisure,² dynamic risk assessment is a term used when the situation in which the risk arises is deemed dynamic, rather than the risk itself. By its nature, DRA consists of on-the-spot decision-making and should be considered in terms of setting up risk-management systems for managing dynamic situations in which staff may find themselves.³
Legal requirements

The law requires employers and others to think about, and deal with, any health and safety risks before people should be allowed to work alone.4 The ‘Safe Person Concept’5 requires duty-holders (based on risk assessment) to provide appropriate:

• staff training;
• information;
• equipment;
• safe systems of work;
• instruction;
• supervision; and
• personal protection equipment.

However, organisations also need to be careful that DRA is not used as an excuse for not carrying out a job and becoming risk-averse. The risk-management framework needs to be supportive of service delivery while maintaining focus on making people safe, this will aid staff to make the right decisions in the field.

The ‘Safe Person Concept’ is also aimed at employees whose responsibilities include being:

• vigilant for his/her own safety, colleagues and others;
• able to recognise his/her abilities and limitations;
• competent to perform assigned tasks;
• an effective member of a team;
• self-disciplined to work within accepted systems of work; and
•  adaptable to changing circumstances.

Misconceptions

It is important that DRA is not seen as a substitute for the legal requirement to undertake a predictive risk assessment for lone-workers’ activities and that it is relied on in isolation. Duty-holders need to consider the risks carefully and identify proportionate controls prior to staff working in the field.⁴

In most cases, these risks should be reasonably predictable. For instance, if a lone worker’s job requires them to visit a client in their home, the employer may need to consider the following: the risk to the worker of being subjected to abuse or violence; the risks posed by an aggressive animal; measures to provide safe access and egress; whether any lifting requirements are necessary; whether any machinery can be operated safely by one person; etc.

In reality, there are very few unpredictable, truly leftfield situations outside of our knowledge and understanding. Thus, predictive risk assessments can be undertaken even when an event has not occurred, enabling you to implement proportionate controls and have in place contingencies and guidance that your staff can sensibly apply.
Management needs to assure themselves that lone workers can identify hazards, are involved in the risk assessment process, and are adequately trained and competent to discharge their duties effectively in accordance with the predictive risk assessment. For DRA to be effective, staff need to recognise when existing controls are inadequate and be able to modify the method of working accordingly. If additional controls are not reasonably practicable and the level of risk is unacceptable, staff need to know when and how to remove themselves from the situation and notify management.²

The success of DRA will also depend on how well it can be integrated within the health and safety management system. If the risk-management system is flawed, whether at the strategic level, systematic level or both, the DRA will be inflicted with latent shortcomings and may not be applied effectively.

Cultural influences

An organisation’s culture is a vital component in determining how effectively DRA can be integrated within its operational activities. Firstly, organisations that adopt DRA need to ensure that their principles are embedded within their overall risk-management processes. If these processes are not adequate, then the management of risk in dynamic situations will be equally inadequate. Therefore, line management needs to set the risk-based framework in which their staff can operate, and integrate this within the organisation’s wider risk-management system.

The principles of DRA also need to be shared and understood by the organisation and endorsed by senior management. An organisation’s core values define the boundaries in which its workers operate and, if fully embedded within the health and safety management system, can aid in providing a shared understanding of risk and expectations.

Avoid giving mixed messages

As with any operational goal, to meet objectives it is essential for any lone worker in the field to know what is required of them.³ If management has not articulated the attitudes and behaviours expected of staff then it is likely that this will lead to ambiguity.

The issues on which staff will be judged should not only be considered from a management point of view but also from the point of view of workers on the ground. If front-line staff believe they may be called into question for not meeting targets, they may, intentionally or unintentionally, omit safety from their considerations. Consequently, organisations need to strike the right balance between operational duties in delivering services and health and safety duties to ensure that risk-management processes are both sensible and proportionate.
 
Training

Staff not only need to be trained to a consistent and appropriate level, where they are competent to assess risks in the field, but they also need to be empowered to implement appropriate controls in the context of their level of responsibility and competence. An understanding of DRA, underpinned by training, is therefore necessary for lone workers, line managers and backroom staff who support front-line activities. This training should provide a link to the principles and practice of predictive risk-assessment training pertinent to the organisation’s activities, and to the health and safety management system. Managers and staff who have not received appropriate training in risk assessment and DRA methodology will not have sufficient knowledge or skills to contribute to predictive risk assessments, feedback, or debriefing sessions, or in applying DRA in the field.

Expect the unexpected

Before lone workers undertake their activities, they need to consider the risks in relation to the specific situation and make sure that the controls are in place to mitigate the risks that exist, e.g. do I need to attend with a colleague? Staff need to be aware of what to do if things go wrong, and this needs to be built into the procedures as part of contingency planning – for example, being able to sound the alarm without raising the suspicion of an individual by whom the lone worker is feeling threatened.

When lone workers are out in the field, it is also important that assumption and opinion does not creep into their practices, as this is counterproductive to effective risk management. There is generally a tendency for people to underestimate familiar risks and overestimate unfamiliar risk. Lone workers need to expect the unexpected, when undertaking routine tasks, be aware of the dangers of complacency, of making assumptions, and acting without gathering all the relevant information in the available timeframe.³

If staff believe that there is a routine pattern of events, the danger is that they may stop looking for new information. But the normal course of events can still change, and is therefore important that staff always think before they act.

Effective debrief and feedback

DRA is not about feeding every risk or situation back to the organisation, only those risks that are significant and new. Nevertheless, management needs to develop a system that enables the capture of relevant risk information after dynamic situations have occurred.

Debriefings and feedback should be undertaken at the earliest opportunity, while the information is still fresh in people’s minds. To this end, management should:

• provide clear guidelines for staff on what aspects are important to record and feed back to management and others;
• arrange meetings to find out what went well and what didn’t – sharing experiences as appropriate;
• record lessons learned in debriefings, so that others can learn from them, or formal risk assessment can be completed or reviewed;
• consider the review of risk assessment (in light of new and significant risks not previously identified) and, where appropriate, policies, procedures and guidance;
• communicate and disseminate relevant risk information across the organisation (as appropriate), as well as multiple agencies and shared workplaces;
• incorporate, where appropriate, lessons learned within staff training programmes; and
• ensure effective maintenance of relevant records before, during and after the activity.

Summary

Organisations adopting DRA methodology need to understand its relationship to predictive risk assessment and how it can be embedded within an integrated risk-management system. Achieving this requires a positive health and safety culture – one which is supported by senior management, and whose values and expectations are clearly understood across the workforce.

DRA training should be provided for lone workers, their line management and relevant backroom staff, and aligned to predictive risk-assessment training. Lone workers must be empowered to make risk-based decisions in the context of their level of responsibility. Managers, meanwhile, need to develop a post-incident process allowing feedback, learning and risk-assessment review, where appropriate.

References

1    Health and Safety Executive (2008): ‘Consulting employees on health and safety: A brief guide to the law’, INDG232 (rev1) – www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg232.pdf
2     Tissington, P and Flin, R (2005): ‘Assessing risk in dynamic situations: Lessons from Fire Service operations’, in Risk Management, vol.7, no.4, pp43-51
3    Spencer, D (2005): ‘Expect the unexpected’, Safety and Health Practitioner, vol.23, no.9
4    HSE (2009): ‘Working alone: Health and safety guidance on the risks of lone working’, INDG73 (rev2) – www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg73.pdf
5    Fire Service Examinations Board (2003): study note, LFFSEC4.1313, page 4 – www.fseb.gov.uk/hb/lff/parts/4_1313.pdf
6     HM Fire Service Inspectorate (1998): ‘Dynamic management of risk at operational incidents, Health and safety: Fire Service guide’, HMSO, ISBN 0 11 341221 5