Anorak Liverpool City Council Health and Safety Unit Issue 4 Winter 2017/18 Health and Safety Unit, Cunard Building, Liverpool, L3 1AH Email: healthandsafetyunit@liverpool.gov.uk Telephone: Tel: 233 2446, 2832, 3129, 5436 SIL: What we offer / Partner Services / Health and Safety In this edition Spotlight Guidance Legal update In the know Training Occupational Health update Cold weather, combination and telescopic ladders, laser cutting equipment Ionising Radiation Regulations 2017 CLEAPSS update, failure to fit door guard, ladder falls, botched experiment, asbestos management prosecutions Ofsted's Chief Inspector on safety culture in schools, HSE case studies slips, trips and falls Health and safety training courses
Spotlight Occupational Health update During the last couple of months there have been a number of significant developments at the Council s Occupational Health Unit. In October a new Occupational Health Nurse, Alison Wood, was appointed. Alison is highly qualified specialist nurse who is able to deliver the full range of nursing services including management referrals, triage, health surveillance and screening. In November, the Unit secured new 3 year contracts with providers of specialist services. They are: Occupational Health Physicians Healthwork Limited, who will deal with complex management referrals as well as ill-health retirement and deferred benefits cases. Occupational Health Nurses Workplace OH Services Limited, who will run clinics to deal with the more standard management referrals and new employee assessments. Physiotherapy The Physiotherapy Centre, who will assess and treat suitable cases with aim of getting staff back to work sooner or, hopefully, preventing them from needing to take sick leave at all. Counselling Listening Ear, who have been providing counselling to our staff for the last couple of years. Eye and Eyesight Tests Specsavers, who have been providing eye and eyesight test for display screen equipment use for a number of years. The costs of these services are as follows: OH Physician appointment 145.00 OH Nurse appointment 72.00 Physiotherapy 164.50 for six therapy sessions Counselling 235.62 for an initial assessment and six therapy sessions Eye and eyesight test 41.00 which includes a free pair of glasses from their 45.00 range, if required. In the recent past, the Unit has experienced delays in providing appointments and reports but now that these new arrangements are in place the team will once again be able to deliver prompt and professional services at highly competitive rates. Any queries can be addressed to occupational.health@liverpool.gov.uk
Guidance Cold weather: minimising the risks from snow and ice The law The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 place a responsibility upon schools, so far as is reasonably practicable, to ensure a safe means of access and egress from its premises. The myth There is a myth that if an attempt is made to clear snow/ ice and someone slips, that schools are more likely to be subject to claims than if they did nothing at all. On the contrary, snow and ice are like any other significant hazard, and schools can be held liable for failing to act reasonably in order to prevent accidents. Who s responsible? Heads of establishments are responsible for ensuring that arrangements are in place to minimise the risks from snow and ice and a proportionate and prioritised approach should be taken to the clearance and treatment of routes within the school site. All reasonable efforts should be made to ensure that the school remains open in the event of severe weather. Risk assessment Head teachers must ensure that a suitable risk assessment and planned response are in place in advance of severe weather, prioritising which routes will be cleared / treated. A generic snow and ice risk assessment is available on the Health and Safety pages on the School Improvement Liverpool website. We recommend that you supplement your risk assessment with a simple site plan showing the priority areas to be treated. All staff should be aware of the risk assessment / plan in place for severe weather and take responsibility for ensuring designated paths and access routes are used.
Get organised All staff to be aware of their duties and responsibilities, it may be necessary for site staff to start work earlier on a particular day to commence a clearance / gritting plan. Ensure adequate equipment is available (including rock salt, sand/grit). Start snow clearance as early as possible before it becomes compacted by people walking over it. A route 1m wide should initially be cleared from the school gate to the main entrance. Once a path has been cleared rock salt should be used to assist with the prevention of ice (where temperatures remain below freezing treat cleared paths with a mixture of rock salt and grit/ sharp sand). As soon as practically possible clear and treat similar paths between the main school building and other blocks, mobiles etc. Other routes into the school may then be cleared and opened for use as and when possible. Paths should be regularly checked throughout the day to ensure their continued safety. Cleared paths should continue to be treated on a regular basis until the risk of ice has passed. Additional care should be taken with sloping pathways and steps. A mixture of salt and grit/ sharp sand should be used to treat such surfaces (if the area does freeze again, has the advantage of leaving a residue, which provides a grip on surfaces) Where the head teacher or premises manager has concerns over the safety of a particular route, playground etc, those areas may need to be taken out of use. If this is the case, this must be clearly communicated to all staff, pupils, parents and visitors (if necessary use signs/cones/tape to reinforce this.) Volunteers there are no health and safety reasons which would prevent schools from enlisting the help of volunteers to assist them in clearing routes to school following heavy snowfall. The school would have a basic co-ordination and supervision role, it would be for the individual volunteer to decide if they feel able to undertake the activity safely and ensure they wear suitable clothing and footwear. Outdoor play There is a balance to be struck between the risks and benefits of offering children play opportunities. Snowfall does not preclude pupils from playing outdoors. Sensible judgements by head teachers are all that is generally required in such circumstances to ensure pupils are not exposed to significant risk. For example schools may decide to stagger playtimes or increase levels of supervision, ensuring pupils are aware of any specific rules (e.g. no throwing of ice balls) and have appropriate clothing and footwear.
Safe use of ladders Combination ladders Following a recent fatal accident investigation, HSE is strongly advising all duty holders and users of combination ladders to ensure that they: carry out pre-use checks use them in accordance with instructions check the locking mechanism(s) Failure to do so could result in serious accidents. Telescopic ladders The use of telescopic ladders is growing more popular due to their ease of storage and convenience; however, there are numerous issues with many of these products due to the number of components involved and their construction. Namely: they are often rated for a lower load (person, tools and materials) the stiles are prone to greater bending they are prone to greater bending of the frame The issues are likely to increase with the height of the ladder. The situation is compounded by significant numbers of substandard products that are being made available on the UK market. These are often low cost products that are attractive and are imported from outside the EU. Some of these have been implicated in serious accidents, including fatalities. The relevant European Standard BS EN 131-6:2015 provides more information on the design requirements. See Guidance Note GN11 Working at Height
Duty holders and users should ensure that: pre-use checks on the ladders are thorough, checking the components and operation of each and every locking mechanism (often one or two per rung) and the associated release mechanism(s); the ladders are stored well, transported carefully and maintained (including cleaning) as dirt and grit etc. can affect locking mechanisms; they understand the limitations and likely performance of their ladder, e.g. strength, bending etc. HSE will be amending its ladder guidance INDG455: Safe use of ladders and stepladders: A brief guide http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg455.pdf to highlight these two issues. Safety alert Laser Cutting Equipment Nationally the HSE and Trading Standards officers have become aware of cheap laser cutters becoming available which are available from as little as 80 to 100, instead of the usual 000s. Which could potentially seem appealing for schools design & technology classrooms because of their cheap price. What is the hazard? The equipment does not comply with the Machinery Directive or The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008. The basic issues with these cheap laser cutters are as follows: Lack of function to extract fumes away from the area. No interlock function, which is essential for use in schools, so it s possible to put your hand in the way of the laser, the examples shown in photographs below don t even have a cover or lid system. The laser operates without a red dot so it s invisible so with the lack of interlock function could be left on inadvertently. The safety glasses they are supplied with are inadequate and won t offer any eye protection. There are also cheap glasses available via e-bay for as little as 99p. You should expect to pay at least 200 for decent protective glasses.
What you should do now If you have one of these cheap laser cutters, stop using it immediately. Clearly not all laser cutter machines are unsafe. There are legitimate brands and suppliers that comply with all relevant safety legislation. When purchasing Laser cutters do so from established tool suppliers ensuring the equipment has a CE mark and a marked classification to BS EN 60825. Further safety advice about this and other science and technology issues is available on the CLEAPSS website. http://www.cleapss.org.uk/secondary/secondary-dandt E.g. see model risk assessment 1.032 Laser Cutter
Legal update Radiation regulations update from CLEAPSS The regulations that control the use of radioactive materials are changing January 2018. The new regulations will be called the Ionising Radiation Regulations 2017 and will replace the present Ionising Radiation Regulations 1999 (IRR99). There is a change in the new regulations that will impact on you as school employers. It is called A Graded Approach. See http://www.hse.gov.uk/radiation/ionising/notificationprocess.htm The HSE has indicated the registration must be completed by 6th February 2018. The registration process is not yet in place, but the HSE says it will not onerous. It will be an on-line form that the HSE suggests will be no more than 10 questions, and there is no mention of any submission of documentary evidence. The HSE estimates it should take no longer than 20 minutes to complete the form. Registration applies to a practice'. For community schools, where the local authority (LA) is the employer, the LA only needs to complete one registration (and hence one charge) for the practice of using radioactive sources in teaching, even though various sources are used in the LA schools and at different sites. This is being coordinated by Derek Stanley, School Improvement Liverpool. For a multi-academy trust (MAT) where the trust is the employer, only one registration is needed. A self-governing establishment, such as an academy not within a MAT, a sixth form college, a voluntary-aided school or an independent school will need to complete one registration for their establishment because as employers, you need to complete the registration process. The charge for the registration is 25. It is a one-off charge. Action required 1. Someone from your MAT will need to complete the registration process if you have schools holding radioactive sources where the MAT is the employer. This must be completed by 6 February. The person can be the Health and Safety Adviser, or other senior person. It is not the role of the RPA to do this registration for you. 2. Keep the CLEAPSS and HSE websites under review for details of when you are able to undertake the registration. 3. If your MAT has some form of governance schedule of statutory notifications/returns etc., consider adding this registration requirement to it, and who completed the registration. CLEAPSS will be issuing information to schools in the January CLEAPSS Bulletin, and on their website. When the HSE releases the details of how undertake registration, the Health and Safety Unit will send details to the Radiation Protection Supervisor (schools).
Failure to fit door guard A Greater Manchester primary school s failure to fit a guard on a heavy door has landed its board of governors in court, after a four year old had the end of her finger amputated when it got trapped in its hinges. St Joseph s Roman Catholic Primary School s board of governors was fined 4000 on 14 November after HSE inspectors found that staff had previously warned the former head teacher about the door s weight. Manchester Magistrates Court heard that on 29 September 2016 the pupil, who had been at the school in Mossley, near Oldham, for just three weeks, was allowed to visit the girls' toilet alone. The girl, who was in reception class, was heard screaming by members of staff and she was found with her fingers trapped in the hinges of the toilet door. These injuries later resulted in partial amputation of her right middle finger. Inspectors found that a finger guard had not been fitted since the door was installed five years before the incident when the toilets were converted. The investigation also found the school, rated good in 2014 by Ofsted, had no system in place for checking and monitoring the door guards. Staff had also highlighted to the former head teacher that the door was too heavy for young children to open. The board of governors at St Joseph s RC Primary School, which is on Mossley s Market Street, admitted breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act. As well as the 4000 fine, it was ordered to pay 1751 in costs. West Lothian Council fined 10k after ladder fall West Lothian Council has been fined 10,000 after a worker was left with severe injuries following a fall from height. The council pleaded guilty at Livingston Sheriff Court to a single charge under the Work at Height Regulations 2005. The court heard how a ladder had slid from a wall while the painter was working on external window frames in the town of Bathgate in July 2013. As a result, he fell more than four metres to the ground, and suffered injuries to his hip and leg as well as eight fractures to his knee. Livingston Sheriff Court heard how either an alloy tower or podium steps should have been used due to the level of risk and the amount of time that employees were using the equipment. Other products that could have improved the safety of working at height, such as ladder mates to prevent slipping, and a limpet device to prevent lateral movement, were not supplied. The council accepted the findings and that it had failed to either properly plan or supervise the work. Following the incident, the local authority has overhauled its system for working at height.
Council fined after employee was injured from fall A Yorkshire council has been fined after an employee was injured when he fell from a ladder. Hull Magistrates Court heard how an employee of East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) fell from a ladder while descending from a porch roof which was being re-felted. He fell 2.4 metres and suffered two broken vertebrae. An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident which occurred on 23 April 2015 found that the ladder was not tied and there was no edge protection in place for the porch roof. The task had not been risk assessed and decisions regarding safety and equipment were left to the workers. East Riding of Yorkshire Council of County Hall, Beverley, Hull, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, and was fined 40,000 and ordered to pay costs of 664.00. Girls School fined after teacher seriously injured in fall from height Westminster Magistrates Court heard that on 9 May 2016 a teacher was conducting rigging and adjustments to spotlights and cabling in the school drama studio when he fell from a stepladder. A fellow teacher present in the room turned to find her colleague had fallen from the ladder and was unconscious on the drama studio floor having suffered multiple fractures to the skull, wrist and elbow as a result of the impact. The court also heard that the defendant, Queen Elizabeth s Girls School of Barnet, North London, had inadequately risk assessed work at height in its Drama Studio and had failed to provide the teachers conducting the work with sufficient training for work at height, despite these matters being requirements in its own health and safety policy, and despite the presence of a health and safety e-learning tool available for teachers and other staff to use, which included a module on work at height, but which was only made mandatory after the incident. Queen Elizabeth s Girls School, the legal entity controlling the Academy converter school, pleaded guilty to a breach of Regulation 6(3) of The Work at Height Regulations 2005, was fined 2000 and ordered to pay full prosecution costs. Speaking after the hearing HSE Inspector John Spence said: If the school had conducted a suitable and sufficient risk assessment of the light rigging task and ensured that employees undertook the appropriate information, training and instruction available this incident could have been prevented. University of Northumbria fined after botched experiment nearly kills students The University of Northumbria at Newcastle has been fined after two students fell seriously ill following a laboratory experiment. Newcastle Crown Court heard how students were learning about the effects of caffeine as part of a sports experiment. Part of the course included a practical exercise where volunteer students would take quantities of caffeine to demonstrate the impact. Two of the volunteer students drank a solution with 100 times the amount that should have been taken as part of the experiment. They immediately suffered from dizziness, blurred vision, vomiting, shaking and rapid heartbeat. They were rushed to hospital where their conditions were considered life threatening. Dialysis was required to rid their bodies of the excessive levels of caffeine.
Two of the volunteer students drank a solution with 100 times the amount that should have been taken as part of the experiment. They immediately suffered from dizziness, blurred vision, vomiting, shaking and rapid heartbeat. They were rushed to hospital where their conditions were considered life threatening. Dialysis was required to rid their bodies of the excessive levels of caffeine. An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive found that the protocols set out for the experiment were not followed. The instructions were to use 200mg tablets but as they were not available the students were provided with caffeine in a powered form. This created a situation where the students miscalculated the amount of powder to use and overdosed the two volunteers. University of Northumbria pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and were fined 400,000 and ordered to pay costs of 26,468.22. HSE inspector Cain Mitchell said: Procedures where students are given supplements to assess their effect on the body need to be stringent and subject to very careful control. Caffeine is most popularly known as a constituent of coffee but it can be very dangerous and life threatening where pure caffeine powder is consumed. The University completely failed to control the risks during these experiments and two young students were made seriously ill which resulted in intensive care treatment for a number of nights. In other reported cases people have died after taking doses which were less than those administered to these two students. All organisations who engage in experiments where people are given chemical substances should ensure that the risks are fully identified and strict procedures are devised and followed to ensure that the experiments can be undertaken safely. Council accepts blame for teacher s asbestos death A London council has accepted liability for the death of a teacher who was exposed to asbestos at a school in Mitcham. Kathleen Bennett, who died of the asbestos cancer mesothelioma aged 66 in May 2015, taught at the St Thomas of Canterbury Middle School during the 1970s and 80s. In 1985, a heating engineer alerted the school keeper to asbestos in the roof above the school hall and staff room. Removal work was scheduled for the summer of 1986, but it is not clear whether it took place. Electrical repairs began at the school in January 1987, but four months later a safety inspection identified asbestos dust in the air in the school. It is likely asbestos dust fell down from the ceiling. The work was immediately stopped and a clean-up operation ordered, but by this time Mrs Bennett had already been exposed. Merton Council was responsible for all maintenance at the school. In August 2016, the council admitted liability and breach of its duty of care to protect employees. Last month, the council agreed to pay a compensation settlement of 250,000. The court heard that the London Borough of Waltham Forest had a contract with NPS London Limited to manage development and refurbishment of its estate. At the time of the incident the Principal Contractor for the work was Mansell Construction Services (aka Balfour Beatty) and the subcontractor was Squibb Group Limited. A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that although an asbestos survey was completed, there were multiple caveats and disclaimers which were not appropriately checked. Balfour Beatty Regional Construction Limited (previously Mansell Construction Services Limited) of Canary Wharf, London was fined 500,000 and ordered to pay costs of 32,364.84 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
NPS London Limited, of Business Park Norwich, Norfolk was fined 370,000 and ordered to pay 32,364.84 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Squibb Group Limited, of Stanford Le Hope, Essex was fined 400,000 and ordered to pay costs of 175,000 after being found guilty after a trial of a breach of Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Speaking after the hearing the HSE inspector said: The principal contractor and contractors on site did not review the survey report in detail, and did not take into consideration the multitude of caveats. Therefore the work undertaken did not adopt the high standards of control expected for working where there was the potential to expose workers to asbestos. Council fined after sander removes schoolboy s finger Islington Borough Council has received a six figure fine after a schoolboy s finger was cut off by a sander. Southwark Crown Court heard that on 25 March 2014, the 12-year-old was in a design and technology class making animal shapes out of plywood. The class used hand saws and some pupils were using a belt sanding machine. The child who was injured was using the machine for the first time, along with fellow pupils. They were shown how to use it by another pupil, but none knew the purpose of the metal guard for the sanding belt, which was in a raised position. When the schoolboy put the shape to the belt, it flipped downwards into the gap, pulling his left hand forward and trapping it between the shape and the belt. The boy s left hand middle finger had to be amputated down to knuckle. He was absent from school for several weeks. A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found the teacher had not received adequate training to recognise that the machine was in an unsafe condition or to recognise the risk of allowing pupils to use the machinery unsupervised and without suitable training. The design and technology class had been without a technician for eight weeks prior to the incident. On the day the injury occurred, the teacher was supervising the class alone. Islington Council pleaded guilty to a criminal safety offence and was fined 200,000 and ordered to pay full costs of 19,865. The HSE inspector said: It is important to create a safe teaching environment for pupils where they can learn to appreciate and manage the risks they will face in life. If the teacher had been appropriately trained on how to use the equipment for the lesson, they would have been able to show the pupils how to properly use the sanding machine. Instead a young boy sustained an extremely painful injury that could have easily been avoided.
In the know Amanda Spielman encourages school leaders to make decisions based on their experienced judgement. In the run up to the summer holidays, the streets around Ofsted s offices were awash with eager young children on school trips. Like scores of children before them, they came into London to learn about their nation s capital. What marked these children out from the generations that preceded them were the hi-vis jackets they were sporting, now standard issue for many school trips, like troupes of tiny construction workers minus the hard hats. Now, I understand why schools might find it convenient to spot their pupils easily, but the message these jackets send about youngsters being at risk makes me uncomfortable and more than a little sad. Children around the country walk to school every day without hi-vis jackets. Why do they suddenly need them on a trip to the library, zoo or museum? And surely if every child in the street is wearing one they are less useful than a school uniform for keeping track of a group? These jackets are just one of the more visible examples of good intentions creating an unnecessarily riskaverse culture which does nothing for children s development and learning. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) does sterling work reviewing strange decisions made supposedly in the name of health and safety by over-protective schools. One school profiled by their myth busters panel was so fearful of the dangers of air-filled balloons at an event that they insisted they were all burst and thrown away. Another primary school cancelled its sports day because of that grave menace, dew on the grass. That strikes me as simply barmy. Schoolchildren have been sliding around on muddy fields for centuries, yet in this case they missed out on the end of term fun (and exercise) of sports day because of an overzealous approach to health and safety. Of course we need proper attention to safeguarding and to genuine health and safety risks. There are rules and processes that the Government rightly insists be followed. No one is suggesting ignoring fire safety or background checks on staff. But over the years an over-cautious culture has developed in our schools, one that too often tries to wrap children in cotton wool. It is, I am sad to say, a culture that deprives children of rewarding experiences, of the opportunity to develop resilience and grit, and which makes it hard for them to learn to cope with normal everyday risk. It s also undoubtedly a major factor in the growth of childhood inactivity, as children are deterred from more vigorous outdoor exercise in favour of safer indoor activity. Being honest, I have to admit that Ofsted hasn t always got this right. We know inspection has sometimes seemed too much about tick boxes and worrying about things like the proper height of school fences. Making sure children are safe at school is, of course, an important part of our work, but I want to be sure we look at the right things in the right way, without going overboard. I want Ofsted to make sure that schools are properly focusing on pupil safety, but that it doesn t come at the expense of opportunities to broaden and enrich young minds.
That is why new training later this summer will remind inspectors what safeguarding is really about. It will ask them to focus on what schools are doing to identify children potentially at risk of real harm; how these children are being helped; and how they manage accusations and other serious problems with staff. We want school leaders to make decisions based on their experienced judgement, rather than feeling the need to invent and then conform to overly prescriptive policies. This isn t just because we think a too-cautious approach to health and safety limits young people s experiences, but also because it can obscure real safety issues. Every minute spent enforcing a ban on conkers and yo-yos is a minute away from tackling the multitude of real issues we know schools face. So my message to schools is this: keeping children safe from harm should always be your overriding concern, but in doing so, make sure you distinguish between real and imagined risk. Trying to insulate your pupils from every bump, germ or bruise won t just drive you to distraction, it will short-change those pupils as well limiting their opportunity to fully take advantage of the freedom of childhood, and to explore the world around them. I look forward to seeing more eager young faces on school trips after September. I just hope fewer of them will be auditioning for Bob the Builder. This article was first published in the Sunday Telegraph on 6 August 2017 HSE case studies slips, trips and falls 1. Older floor causes slip accidents A dining room assistant working in a busy school canteen slipped on the wet floor in the servery area breaking her arm. Other workers claimed it was "an accident waiting to happen" as slips were frequent in this area. Although other floors in the canteen had been replaced, the original tiled servery floor had been in place for seventeen years. Testing revealed that it had very low slip resistance, much lower than the other restaurant floors. The school had a positive attitude to safety, provided workers with training and had good floor cleaning systems in place. But the nature of the business meant that the floor in the busy servery area became contaminated during normal use. The school's response to this had previously been to deploy wet floor signs. After trying out other solutions, such as non-slip overshoes, they decided to replace the floor with one that provided better grip, and did so at relatively small cost. Technical specifications were obtained to ensure that it was suitable for the purpose. A review showed that the slip accident rate had reduced by 70% since the replacement of the floor covering and that workers on site were much happier with the conditions.
2. Replacing signage with a low cost solution In a school canteen, signs were used routinely around the water fountain and the hot drinks machine to warn pupils and staff of the risk of slips. The signs were the same colour as the floor so not immediately visible to the eye and were always left out so frequently ignored. There were recurrent spills around both machines and the water supply at the rear of the hot drinks dispenser was leaking out. This meant liquid was getting onto the smooth floor making it slippery. Wet floor signs on a yellow floor and person wiping the floor with tissue The kitchen staff did what they could to seal off the leak, but were frequently having to clean up spills. In fact, they had been struggling with the problem for such a long time they had become blasé about the dangers and spills management had just become part of everyday life. An inspector on a routine visit was able to suggest some cheap, easy solutions, as a result the water fountain was moved to a covered outdoor location, the plastic cups removed and pupils encouraged to refill their lidded water bottles which could be safely carried to classes without the risk of spills. It also lowered the instances of children larking around chucking water at each other. Safety Alert Lifepak 1000 Defibrillators The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has issued an alert due to an identified fault affecting LIFEPAK 1000 devices manufactured by Physio-Control due to battery related problems. There is a risk of the device unexpectedly shutting down due to an intermittent connection between the battery and device contacts because of wear and corrosion. The manufacturer, Physio-Control, has sent a safety alert to those with the devices concerned, urging them to check the battery connection. Any users who had yet to receive the safety alert direct from the manufacturer should contact Physio-Control directly 0808 258 0094. Guidelines for recommended use say LIFEPAK 1000 batteries should be removed and reinstalled every week. For further details: https://www.gov.uk/drug-device-alerts/all-lifepak-1000-automatic-external-defibrillators-aeds-risk-of-deviceshutting-down-unexpectedly-during-patient-treatment-and-possible-failure-to-deliver-therapy
Urgent advice from RPII Outdoor Inspectors - Norleg Swing The RPII recommend that the main beam should be dismantled and inspected urgently, particularly if it is over 5 years old. One incident resulted a head injury to a child requiring 5 stitches; but the consequences could have been much more severe and potentially fatal. It would appear that rainwater runs down the main beam until it reaches a blockage created by a spacer post inserted between the two verticals, at which point it runs down the side and migrates along the thread and subsequently rots the timber from the inside. The inspection issue concerning this failure is that it is impossible to see as all is hidden behind the large vertical posts on either side. The only way to identify the rot would be by removing the beam in its entirety and making an assessment. Please contact your RPII Outdoor Inspector for advice or contact the RPII on 02476 693787 or https://www.playinspectors.com/ The Register of Play Inspectors International (RPII) is the official UK body for examining, accrediting and certificating inflatable, indoor and outdoor play inspectors.
Training courses academic year 2017/18 Course Date Duration Location Accident/incident reporting and investigation Health and safety for head teachers and senior leaders Managing hazardous substances in schools Work at height (ladders and stepladders) Manual handling of loads Health and safety for school governors Health and safety for school governors General contractor management and CDM 17 January 2018 9.00 12.30 Toxteth Annexe 25 January 2018 9.00 12.30 Toxteth Annexe 7 February 2018 9.00 12.30 Toxteth Annexe 20 February 2018 9.00 12.30 Toxteth Annexe 7 March 2018 9.00 12.30 Toxteth Annexe 13 March 2018 10.00 12.00 Toxteth Annexe 14 March 2018 18.30 20.30 Toxteth Annexe 20 March 2018 9.00 12.30 Toxteth Annexe Managing events 10 April 2018 9.00 12.30 Toxteth Annexe For further information on courses and prices, please see our training brochure on School Improvement Liverpool https://www.schoolimprovementliverpool.co.uk/ Or contact the Health and Safety Unit: healthandsafetyunit@liverpool.gov.uk