Slips Trips and Falls

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Slips Trips and Falls"

Leon Daniels
6 years ago
Views:

Slips Trips and Falls Better information = Fewer accidents SLIC Eu workshop January 2014 www.hsl.

1 Slips Trips and Falls Better information = Fewer accidents SLIC Eu workshop January An An Agency Agency of the Health and of Safety the Executive Health and Safety Executive

2 Slips, trips and falls 2012/13p Falls from height were the most common cause of fatalities (31%) (RIDDOR) Slips and trips were the most common cause of major injuries to employees, with falls from height the next most common (RIDDOR) Slips, trips and falls were responsible for more than half of all major (56%) and almost a third of over seven day (31%)

3 Slips and falls Use risk assessment Do them first Must be based on reliable information

4 Slip Potential Cleaning

5 Friction requirements Risk, 1 in Straight walking on the level 1,000, , PTV 36 and above low slip potential PTV moderate slip potential PTV 24 and below high slip potential 5

6 Friction requirements Requirements higher if moving quickly, turning, carrying, pushing, pulling. For slopes and ramps add the tangent of the angle e.g. 2 degree ramp Tan 2 = = 0.40 Design out ramped surfaces where possible Think about adjacencies 6

7 Pendulum test Imitates heel impact Produce correct fluid dynamics CoF measurement wet and dry HSE/HSL preferred method BS ,2,3 : A UKSRG Guidelines V4 2011

8 Pendulum test Slider 96 for shod areas Slider 55 for barefoot area Use both in dual use areas Profiled surfaces may require additional testing Use same classifications for all test data

9 Other CoF Test Methods Sled Tests Classical physics Wrong fluid dynamics Misleading in wet conditions Not accepted by HSE / HSL Limitations acknowledged in the UK 9

10 DIN Ramp Test DIN Shod test with motor oil Reported as R9, R10, R11, R12, R13 Class Ramp angle CoF R R R R R

DIN Ramp Test DIN 51097 Barefoot test with soapy water Reported as A,

11 DIN Ramp Test DIN Barefoot test with soapy water Reported as A, B, C Class Ramp angle CoF A B C

12 HSL Ramp Test Shod Slider 96 footwear Potable water Barefoot Soapy water Two or more operators Reported as CoF

13 Surface Microroughness Useful complementary measurement Range of instruments Quick easy on site measurement Indicator, monitor Used by SAT, risk assessment process Useful on profiles, stairs and steps

14 Surface Microroughness Helps us understand the surface Not used in isolation Wouldn t specify on Rz Wouldn t go to court on Rz

15 Profiled surfaces Don t necessarily improve slip resistance Characterise with ramp or pendulum Roughness measurement useful Wear / change quickly

16 Grids and gratings Measure with the ramp Roughness measurement useful May wear / change quickly Slip resistance tends to reduce with wear Footwear will influence performance

17 Trip Hazards Waste packaging - shrink wrapping - banded strapping Holes, cracks, uneven surfaces Changes in level Pallets Trailing cables in walkways Electrical and phone socket outlets Fork lift truck forks

18 Poor housekeeping / maintenance

19 Can you spot the trip hazard?

20 Trips Solutions Establish a positive culture - keep tidy Eliminate holes and uneven surfaces Designate walkways, mark clearly Provide enough storage (peak times) Plan workflows Plan waste disposal Provide good lighting

21 Slip resistant footwear? European Standard EN 20345, Test method EN13287 Ceramic water SRA Heel 0.28 Flat 0.32 Steel glycerol SRB Heel 0.13 Flat 0.18 Achieve both SRC Tile contribution to SRA? Threshold for SRB? 21

22 HSL Ramp Test As a footwear test Steel water Ceramic glycerol Bespoke combinations Two or more operators Reported as CoF

23 Slip resistant footwear? HSL ramp test Sample Claim Steel - water Safety Boot (toe midsole) No 0.37 Safety Boot (toe midsole) No 0.37 Safety Boot (toe midsole) No 0.36 Wellington (toe midsole) Yes 0.25 Boot (toe) Yes 0.18 Clogs Yes

24 Footwear Effective footwear available What does safety footwear mean? Validity of EN test method? (EN13287) HSL Ramp method is a valid test Trial a range of footwear in workplace Use peer group information Involve staff, comfort, fit e mail HSL for specific advice Footwear costs less than accidents 24

25 Recent Case Study Peripatetic workforce Last year, 70 lost time accidents (48%) Footwear trial This year, 1 lost time accident Footwear selection was not price sensitive Standard did not help

26 Steps and Stairs Do people slip on stairs? Consistency of dimension Going and rise Shape of nosing Position of nosing strip Visibility of nosing strip Slip resistance of nosing strip

27 Steps and Stairs Handrails height, position, shape, clearance Guarding Lighting Design out single steps BS5395, 2010 HSL Stair tool HSL Training course available

28 Steps and Stairs The edge is key Wear Require maintenance 28

Steps on vehicles Step Dimensions: 1 st Step 340

29 Steps on vehicles Step Dimensions: 1 st Step mm 4 of 48 Cabs consistent 340mm 330mm 330mm 29

30 Cleaning Provide the manufacturers instructions Consider the floor, the contaminant and equipment required Training, supervision, manage the process Storage for equipment Adjacent power points Adjacent water and drain HSE Guidance 30

31 Cleaning Correct detergent Concentration very important Contact time most important Solution must be removed Rinse with clean water Mops only effective on smooth floors

32 Cleaning 100 Residual coverage following floor cleaning (Field conditions vs. Two-steps at 24 C) Field (FQT, DM at C and T) 80 Optimal (FQT, 2SM at Rec. And 24 C) RC (%) K3 (0.07, 72) K16 (0.05, 36) LIFT (0.33, 52) FLASH (0.17, 33) FLASH (0.20, 15) FLASH (0.51, 58) DASH (1.22, 22) HSDC (0.11, 10) ULTRA (0.10, 19) OXYGEL (0.11, 54)

33 Roving cleaner to monitor spills

34 How effective?

35 Half and half cleaning

36 Half and half cleaning gone wrong

37 Entrances Think about entrances as a system Location, Orientation, External surfaces, Canopy, Doors, Thresholds, Matting, Lighting, Heating, Ventilation Adjacencies Treat other interfaces similarly HSE Hierarchy of control 37

38 Threshold 38

39 Canopy 39

40 Canopy 40

41 Canopy 41

42 Drain and gulley 42

43 Drain and gulley 43

44 Matting 44

45 Matting 45

46 Slips Trips and Falls Success stories from HSL work An An Agency Agency of the Health and of Safety the Executive Health and Safety Executive

47 Food sector Abattoir Year No. of slips No. of claims Cost , , ,000 47

48 How was this achieved? HSE Guidance, UKSRG Guidelines Clear floor specification, new areas and repairs, Matched footwear to floor, contamination Monitor wear Reviewed cleaning regimes Rolling programme to remove chequer plate Yield monitoring, link to staff bonus 48

49 Food sector Meat processing New factory built 2001 Epoxy floor, rough texture PTV 48 wet (manufacturers) low slip potential. HSL (on site) confirm low slip potential maintained. Deep cleaning issues identified during HSL visit. 49

50 HSL Pendulum data Area Wet, as found Wet, cleaned Low traffic Boning line Cutting line Cleaning very important 50

Food sector Sausage factory Slips costing 2500+ per month Company considering

51 Food sector Sausage factory Slips costing per month Company considering new floor Inspector not convinced Gross contamination Poor cleaning Poor footwear 51

52 Recommendations Changes to cleaning regime Improved footwear Changed system of work Floor now OK Slips cost less than 300 pm 52

53 Flooring: Office entrance Floor slippery on wet days Procured slip-resistant floor following HSE guidelines Larger entrance matting Looks good Easy to maintain NO SLIPS 53

54 Footwear: pet food factory Many slips despite safety boots 6 month trial new footwear No slip accidents 12,000 saved Now adopted for all workers 54

55 Footwear: local authority kitchen 450 kitchens 1500 workers 317 slipping accidents in 4 years Trial new footwear no slips Slip resistant overshoes provided for all Big reduction in accidents 55

56 Cleaning: Fast food chain Pendulum measurements Better understanding of mop wet floor Reviewed and revised cleaning regimes Added drying cycle to cleaning regime Modified procedure for dealing with local spills 57% reduction in accidents 56

57 Fast food chain Flooring New ceramic safety tile Cleaning Double mopping to clear grease Footwear Trial slip resistant footwear Now adopted Big reduction in accidents 57

58 HSL offer Site and laboratory testing Audits Accident review Bespoke training Review of plans / designs Expert witness steve.thorpe@hsl.gsi.gov.uk

59 HSE Tools Slips assessment tool SAT Slips and trips e learning package STEP Flooring selection tool FST HSE Guidance

60 Conclusions Better specification Design not compromised Fewer accidents Saves money All facilitated by better information 60

61 Questions?

Trip and slip Hazard policy

Trip and slip Hazard policy Issue No.: 01 Issue Date: February 2012 Version: 05 Reason for version change: Review July 2015 by AR Authorised by: WM Date: 22 nd July 2016 Document Number: STAN0022012 Originator: