Telecare offers potential benefits for individual users, including safety and independence. However, telecare also has the potential to threaten individual users' privacy, autonomy and control.
Social care and health professionals need to consider a range of ethical issues when supporting an individual in deciding whether to use telecare. These issues need to be considered not only before but also during and after the installation of a telecare service.
Reports show that using Telecare can reduce NHS cost substantially. Telecare can reduce Accident and Emergency attendance by 43%.
Thursday, 30 September 2010
Wednesday, 29 September 2010
Health and Safety at Work - Consequences
Two companies have been fined a total of £243,750 following an accident that led to an offshore worker having a leg amputated.
Aberdeen Sheriff Court heard that oil and gas operator Talisman Energy (UK) had contracted Scaldis Salvage and Marine Contractors N.V to install two wind-turbine generators on the Beatrice AP Oil Platform, which is 20 kilometres offshore in Moray Firth.
On 25 August 2006, Alexander Murray, 48, an agency worker employed by Talisman Energy, was standing on a partly-completed structure while another section was lowered into place by a heavy lift vessel, during the construction of Beatrice Windfarm Turbine B. As the part was swung into position it struck Mr Murray and crushed his leg. He was airlifted to hospital where doctors were forced to amputate his leg. He is still unable to return to work owing to his injuries.
A Prohibition Notice was issued on 12 December 2006, which ordered work to stop until a safe lifting plan had been created.
HSE Principal Inspector, Marc Nunn, said: “Mr Murray lost his leg in this avoidable incident, which could have easily had far worse consequences. “The case demonstrates the importance of adequately planning and assessing the risks, and implementing sensible management controls, for all lifting activities. “Both Talisman and Scaldis should reasonably have foreseen the potential for the load to move, and taken measures to prevent their personnel being exposed to the hazards of a swinging load.”
Talisman Energy appeared in court on 23 September and pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974 and was fined £225,000. Scaldis pleaded guilty to the same breach and was fined £18,750. No costs are awarded in Scotland.
In mitigation, Scaldis said it had no previous convictions and had complied with the Prohibition Notice. The work was completed safely after it installed a hanging basket for workers to stand inside when the parts were lowered into place.
After the hearing, a Talisman spokesman said: “We deeply regret the injury and distress suffered by Mr Murray as a result of the accident, which occurred during the installation of the Beatrice Windfarm.
“Mr Murray is highly regarded by Talisman, and we were mindful that, as an agency worker, he was effectively self-employed. We take the health, safety and welfare of all our people very seriously and took steps to assist Mr Murray in a variety of ways, including financially, reflecting the nature of his injury and the impact on his life.
“The company acknowledges the comments made by the Sheriff and fully accepts his judgment and the fine imposed. The incident was the subject of a full investigation and lessons learned were incorporated into our safety management systems.”
Talisman had never been prosecuted by the HSE prior to the accident, but on 6 January 2007 a worker was killed and another injured in a poorly-managed lifting operation on the Bleo Holm support vessel in the North Sea, north-east of Aberdeen.
The incident saw Talisman Energy appear at Aberdeen Sheriff Court on 9 October 2008, where it was fined £600,000 after pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974, by failing to ensure the safety of non-employees.
Aberdeen Sheriff Court heard that oil and gas operator Talisman Energy (UK) had contracted Scaldis Salvage and Marine Contractors N.V to install two wind-turbine generators on the Beatrice AP Oil Platform, which is 20 kilometres offshore in Moray Firth.
On 25 August 2006, Alexander Murray, 48, an agency worker employed by Talisman Energy, was standing on a partly-completed structure while another section was lowered into place by a heavy lift vessel, during the construction of Beatrice Windfarm Turbine B. As the part was swung into position it struck Mr Murray and crushed his leg. He was airlifted to hospital where doctors were forced to amputate his leg. He is still unable to return to work owing to his injuries.
A Prohibition Notice was issued on 12 December 2006, which ordered work to stop until a safe lifting plan had been created.
HSE Principal Inspector, Marc Nunn, said: “Mr Murray lost his leg in this avoidable incident, which could have easily had far worse consequences. “The case demonstrates the importance of adequately planning and assessing the risks, and implementing sensible management controls, for all lifting activities. “Both Talisman and Scaldis should reasonably have foreseen the potential for the load to move, and taken measures to prevent their personnel being exposed to the hazards of a swinging load.”
Talisman Energy appeared in court on 23 September and pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974 and was fined £225,000. Scaldis pleaded guilty to the same breach and was fined £18,750. No costs are awarded in Scotland.
In mitigation, Scaldis said it had no previous convictions and had complied with the Prohibition Notice. The work was completed safely after it installed a hanging basket for workers to stand inside when the parts were lowered into place.
After the hearing, a Talisman spokesman said: “We deeply regret the injury and distress suffered by Mr Murray as a result of the accident, which occurred during the installation of the Beatrice Windfarm.
“Mr Murray is highly regarded by Talisman, and we were mindful that, as an agency worker, he was effectively self-employed. We take the health, safety and welfare of all our people very seriously and took steps to assist Mr Murray in a variety of ways, including financially, reflecting the nature of his injury and the impact on his life.
“The company acknowledges the comments made by the Sheriff and fully accepts his judgment and the fine imposed. The incident was the subject of a full investigation and lessons learned were incorporated into our safety management systems.”
Talisman had never been prosecuted by the HSE prior to the accident, but on 6 January 2007 a worker was killed and another injured in a poorly-managed lifting operation on the Bleo Holm support vessel in the North Sea, north-east of Aberdeen.
The incident saw Talisman Energy appear at Aberdeen Sheriff Court on 9 October 2008, where it was fined £600,000 after pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974, by failing to ensure the safety of non-employees.
Thursday, 23 September 2010
Health and Safety at Work - Responsibilities
Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, it is the employers’ duty to assess risks of the job to their employees and take steps to avoid or control risks associated with the job. Employees have the responsibility to avoid risk wherever possible and cooperate with their employer to enable them to meet their legal obligations by wearing appropriate protective clothing and adhering to safe systems of working. Lone working is commonplace and legally acceptable providing the necessary Risk Assessments are conducted for a potentially large range of duties that has to be covered under the above Act and Regulation, including:
Identifying the hazards (Something that can cause someone harm)
Assessing the risks (The chance, high or low, that harm can be caused by a hazard)
Putting measures into place in order to reduce the risks posed to individuals’ health.
Lone working appears in a variety of industries including factory and warehouse workers and those working in unsociable hours like office cleaners or security officers as well as drivers, engineers and sales representatives. Alongside this employers are required to be aware of any specific risks posed to lone workers that apply in their industry sector in order to establish safe working arrangements for their employees and to establish if the person is medically fit to carry out work on their own.
Risk assessments should be carried out and managed in much the same way as for any other work situation.
It’s important to consult workers whenever you undertake risk assessments but this is never more important than when assessing lone workers. After all, by definition, they may well be aware of issues that are not obvious to anyone else.
Lone workers are often employed on the premises of other organisations. Where this is the case, the other employer has a duty to inform the worker’s employer about any risks that are present and the control measures that are in place. It is worth double checking that such information has, in fact, been provided and is included in risk assessments.
In addition to regular health and safety legislation, there are laws that control lone working in particular industries, such as diving operations or scaffolding. Clearly you need to take them into account in your risk assessments.
It’s important to consult workers whenever you undertake risk assessments but this is never more important than when assessing lone workers. After all, by definition, they may well be aware of issues that are not obvious to anyone else.
Lone workers are often employed on the premises of other organisations. Where this is the case, the other employer has a duty to inform the worker’s employer about any risks that are present and the control measures that are in place. It is worth double checking that such information has, in fact, been provided and is included in risk assessments.
In addition to regular health and safety legislation, there are laws that control lone working in particular industries, such as diving operations or scaffolding. Clearly you need to take them into account in your risk assessments.
Wednesday, 22 September 2010
The Cost of Lone Worker Protection
Businesses have to be aware that Lone Working can often be regarded as very expensive or a Y2K issue, that is to say a lot of hype and not much substance. I believe that the truth is somewhere in between. Let's be clear though, Lone working is here and it is gaining momentum in the courts. The truth of the matter for the average business is that they may well have a percentage of genuine lone workers but very few would have a high percentage.
There are also businesses that need to offer simple protection to their staff and stakeholders who would not be lone workers but for whom safety may generally be an issue. For example, a Magistrate leaving work.
I often have to slow down clients who see their need at a far greater level that actually exists. Dispelling the myth, applying common sense and some sound business logic, a business can often look at each genuine Lone worker and justify some spend to protect them.
So what are these myths? Well they do not just apply to who the lone worker is. They also apply to the types of technology applied in the products you may or may not use. For example, GPS (Global Positioning) is a requirement of BS8484 but what if you don't want to meet the standard? What does the law say? Is it compulsory to mitigate potential future liability that you have GPS in the device. The answer is no. How would a GPS feature protect an indoor worker who falls down a flight of stairs or in to a vat?. Is it recommended you get GPS on a device in case of an incident occurs outside? The answer is yes, but subject to cost and can that cost be justified. If you had a worker who is largely outside, GPS should probably be considered as a substantial element of what you should search for. I will touch on why later.
Other myths...
So many companies have Lone workers who spend the majority of their time outdoors; these could be engineers or bailiffs. What happens to them if they are alone and get into any trouble that requires help? What if they fall down become unconscious, get into a threatening situation or have a car accident.
Using GPS devices which have Motion sensor capability and SOS function can help in all these situations.
The user has a direct SOS link to a nominated Alarm receiving centre or Operations team, the alarm is raised and the user information with all relevant location data is sent to the operator to take action. You have to remember that under the BS8484 only compliant Alarm receiving centres can contact the emergency services direct. So an employer needs to consider what action and support they need for their lone workers.
In a serious situation every second counts, the lone worker wants and needs the quickest response and support available. Working with an accredited Alarm receiving centre will certainly speed that process up, as they can go direct to the emergency services and have to adhere to certain response times.
What happens if your lone worker is indoors when an emergency or man down event is raised will the GPS positioning help the lone worker, simply yes it will, while GPS can not be guaranteed to work indoors, you have devices that allow you to do GPS health check calls, or check in calls, so you will always have the latest location data available, something being used now more and more extensively in the care sector. Not only can you provide the latest data if an incident occurs indoors, but you can use the data to confirm the employees status, how long they stayed on site, were they on site.
So while some consider Lone worker protection as expensive, used in the right way the employer can cover their duty of care, health and safety as well as improving productivity.
Companies should speak with their insurance companies and legal teams, you will find your insurance company should reduce the premiums if lone worker protection is used for the employees, while legal departments will advise you need some form of protection in place, its then over to the employer to make the right, informed decision.
There are also businesses that need to offer simple protection to their staff and stakeholders who would not be lone workers but for whom safety may generally be an issue. For example, a Magistrate leaving work.
I often have to slow down clients who see their need at a far greater level that actually exists. Dispelling the myth, applying common sense and some sound business logic, a business can often look at each genuine Lone worker and justify some spend to protect them.
So what are these myths? Well they do not just apply to who the lone worker is. They also apply to the types of technology applied in the products you may or may not use. For example, GPS (Global Positioning) is a requirement of BS8484 but what if you don't want to meet the standard? What does the law say? Is it compulsory to mitigate potential future liability that you have GPS in the device. The answer is no. How would a GPS feature protect an indoor worker who falls down a flight of stairs or in to a vat?. Is it recommended you get GPS on a device in case of an incident occurs outside? The answer is yes, but subject to cost and can that cost be justified. If you had a worker who is largely outside, GPS should probably be considered as a substantial element of what you should search for. I will touch on why later.
Other myths...
So many companies have Lone workers who spend the majority of their time outdoors; these could be engineers or bailiffs. What happens to them if they are alone and get into any trouble that requires help? What if they fall down become unconscious, get into a threatening situation or have a car accident.
Using GPS devices which have Motion sensor capability and SOS function can help in all these situations.
The user has a direct SOS link to a nominated Alarm receiving centre or Operations team, the alarm is raised and the user information with all relevant location data is sent to the operator to take action. You have to remember that under the BS8484 only compliant Alarm receiving centres can contact the emergency services direct. So an employer needs to consider what action and support they need for their lone workers.
In a serious situation every second counts, the lone worker wants and needs the quickest response and support available. Working with an accredited Alarm receiving centre will certainly speed that process up, as they can go direct to the emergency services and have to adhere to certain response times.
What happens if your lone worker is indoors when an emergency or man down event is raised will the GPS positioning help the lone worker, simply yes it will, while GPS can not be guaranteed to work indoors, you have devices that allow you to do GPS health check calls, or check in calls, so you will always have the latest location data available, something being used now more and more extensively in the care sector. Not only can you provide the latest data if an incident occurs indoors, but you can use the data to confirm the employees status, how long they stayed on site, were they on site.
So while some consider Lone worker protection as expensive, used in the right way the employer can cover their duty of care, health and safety as well as improving productivity.
Companies should speak with their insurance companies and legal teams, you will find your insurance company should reduce the premiums if lone worker protection is used for the employees, while legal departments will advise you need some form of protection in place, its then over to the employer to make the right, informed decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)