How do your folks risk assess their practical lessons?

Discussion in 'Science Technicians - General Discussion' started by Julie Delaney, Feb 13, 2019.

  1. Are we meant to see them at all?
     
    Andrew Goloskof likes this.
  2. Julie Delaney

    Julie Delaney COMMITTEE

    I love it when you're all strong and masterful @Blackadder :cool::p:D
     
    Ophelia likes this.
  3. Hazcards and "PX" documents are quite clear about age suitabilities - they really are your best friend as far as stuff like this is concerned... :)
     
    Beaker, Ophelia and stelden like this.
  4. But we all want Lord Flashheart more!
     
    Ophelia likes this.
  5. Thanks Dave. I think I’ll just have to check them each time.
     
  6. Sorry, what is a PX document?
     
  7. Basically what used to be on the back of the old hazcards before the format change - specific practical info that there's no room for now. PX000 has the old ones that haven't been updated yet, and the others are the same number as the relevant hazcard - just starting PX rather than HC..... Just type PX in the search box on the CLEAPSS site and they come up..... ;) They're all in the "Practical Procedures" section too.
     
    Ophelia likes this.
  8. Oh those are so useful! I’ve never seen them before. Thank you!
     
  9. I have generic risk assessments for the GCSE RPs and for the Year 7/8/9 SOWs but it is the teacher's responsibility to adapt each time. There is a box on the req form that they are meant to confirm that they have done a risk assessment.

    Chemicals are provided with the hazcard reference on the label. The student safety sheets are in all labs. All teachers were provided with the CLEAPSS login details.

    I risk assess my own work based on CLEAPSS guidance. I annotate the recipe book if I do anything different from what it says.
     
  10. I wish I worked with you :)
     
  11. :oops:

    You don't - I'm a nightmare!

    If there is a risk I think they will have missed, eg 10 ohm resistors getting hot and causing burns, I remind them when I deliver the kit. I always say "Tell the students and then when they ignore the instructions and burn themselves it's their fault."

    Newbie teachers get less kit until I'm confident they know what they are doing. I don't train staff to use the radioactive sources until I'm sure I would be happy leaving the room while they were using them. (Judgement based on how safe or otherwise I think their other lessons are.) I also don't give them gas keys until I'm happy.
     
    Ophelia and PhysicsSimon like this.
  12. you can look at the cleapss template, you also need a RA for the chemical store.

    See the pages here.
    http://science.cleapss.org.uk/Resou...nts-for-laboratory-technician-activities.aspx
    http://science.cleapss.org.uk/Resource-Info/DLH7-Risk-assessment-for-chemical-storage.aspx

    but i'd say that is the senior techs responsibility,
     
    Ophelia likes this.
  13. In complete agreement @Blackadder. This thread seems to be getting bogged down with this idea that RAs need to be written on forms, which is simply untrue. As for teachers not asking for the folder in the prep room, they all have access to CLEAPSS themselves. How do you know they are not using the online version? I have them printed out for my use as I don't have IT in the prep room. If you check what CLEAPSS says in their literature about RA, it gives advice about good practice. Written RAs available to all teachers are the Hazcards and Supplementary Risk Assessments because we have adopted CLEAPSS as our expert advisor. Any changes from this such as how they are dispensed for given classes, whether they are demos instead of class practicals due to behaviour issues etc. are the teachers RA for that group - not ours.
     
    Beaker, Ophelia and Lesley Newcombe like this.
  14. I'll second that. We are responsible for Risk Assessing our own activities and they do not have to be on a written form which will most likely get filed away and never looked at again! We just have to be proactive in ensuring we follow the latest Cleapps advice and adapting our practices to local conditions. Risk assessing anything that happens in the classroom is the job of the teacher.
     
    Ophelia and Auds63 like this.
  15. Okay, new to Science Tech-ery, but not new to risk assessments. I am trying to persuade my lot to take me seriously when I say they should have either written, or assessed a generic one and have it stored/recorded. I disagree with the above, in that as far as I have read, the risk assessments DO need to be recorded in some way (does not have to be a form as such) - in fact, I have just copied and pasted this into an email today:-

    "The legislation Under various Regulations (e.g. COSHH, The Management of Health and Safety at Work, and others) the employer is required to undertake a risk assessment for activities done and materials used as part of the employer’s work.

    The significant findings of any risk assessment must be recorded and employees need to follow the conclusions.

    Communication is often by the employer providing the employee with a copy of the written risk assessment.

    An employer may provide model (or generic) risk assessments. "

    and then CLEAPSS has gone on with:-

    "Risk assessment describes a process and an outcome.

    • A thinking process

    At all stages individuals must consider the risk assessment and its implications. In science this may include trialing a procedure.

    The written record that comes from that process

    The written record is both for communicating the thinking to others and for an individual end-user to record the particular, and significant, outcomes of her/his own adaptations to a model risk assessment. This last point allows others to recognise that the thinking has taken place at a sufficiently specific level of detail."

    Or am I wrong? I am fighting for this at the moment - coming from a medical devices background, the level of RA needed here is piss-easy, so I didn't think there would be so much resistance over just looking up and sending me a copy for storage. Ah well.
     
  16. The examination boards provide risk assessments for all their practicals as do cleapss. All we do is copy and paste the RA onto the practical request form template - in our case we use a practical request application called lablogger. We have completed a template for every practical we do which has the risk assessment attached - all the teacher does is select the template and submit it as a request. The teacher has to click a tick box to indicate they have considered the RA when they submit the request. - when I print if off, it has the RA attached and it is placed in the tray of equipment.

    I know this is a good system because I was on a STEM technicians meeting the other week and we discussed lablogger - One delegate said that it had saved their skins because they have had an investigation after an accident - they were able to produce the lablogger document trail to prove that an RA was completed and complied with, including the timings of their actions and who did what.
     
    SeveralSandwiches likes this.
  17. I agree, that is super (and provides the records you need) - unfortunately we are a long way from there - I am currently collating standard experiments (vis CLEAPSS, RSC etc) with the standard RAs, so we have them on file and can refer to them in the requisition. The other technician says that basically I am re-creating what lablogger would do if we had it, but at the moment I can't push new software as I need commitment to *any* organised system of work flow that demonstrates the competency I know we have. Any. I am not fussy. :) ps is lablogger v expensive?
     
  18. £100 a year after an initial year for free (maybe £99)
     
    SeveralSandwiches likes this.
  19. Blimey. Is that all?? I was told it was refused when requested previously. Sigh. The OH is moaning about a doc management system that costs £10k. £100 is nothing :-( Thanks!
     
  20. Just before I left my last place we had an external H&S person come in and look at the whole school. When they came to look at physics all they were interested in was our radiation documentation. Which we new was fine since we had only just had a visit from our RPO. Who is also the person I would take advice from first, when it comes to anything radiation related.
    I could tell that the H&S person didn't really understand any of the radiation paper work and what really made me not trust anything else they had to comment on was they noticed in our Health and Safety folder there was a copy of the asbestos free certificate from our supplier of our new gauze's. They questioned this because they had no knowledge of the whole ordeal.
    This was a person who apparently mostly did H&S in industry, but I would has hoped they at least did their homework first.
     
    Beaker and Andrew Goloskof like this.