Health and Safety Executive/Local Authorities Enforcement Liaison Committee (HELA)

Incident Selection Criteria Guidance

1.0 Purpose

This document is to be used by all local authorities for the selection of RIDDOR notifications. It provides a common proportionate, transparent and targeted approach for the selection and investigation of accidents and incidents and will form part of the Section 18 Standard – “Make it Happen.” Those who do not choose to adopt the procedure should have in place, an equivalent procedure, which mirrors or enhances the selection criteria below.  The procedure aims to provide consistency across local authorities and HSE FOD and does not aim to increase the number of investigations local authorities conduct but to reflect their local circumstances. Local Authorities may use alternative reactive recording mechanisms but in doing so, the principles of this document must be adhered to e.g. the use of a Decision Recording Form signed off by senior management.      

2.0 Scope

The policy covers the handling of all notified incidents received by the local authority whether reportable or not.

The scope of the procedure does not extend to circumstances where local authorities in another regulatory capacity e.g. planning, highways, are best placed to deal with breaches of the law.

3.0 Statement of Policy

3.1 Incidents should be selected for investigation with consideration of the Health and Safety Executive’s Enforcement Policy Statement (EPS). When deciding which incidents to investigate and the level of resource to be allocated to the investigation, account should be taken of the:

• Severity and scale of potential or actual harm;
• seriousness of any potential breach of the law;
• duty holder’s known past health and safety performance;
• enforcement priorities;
• practicality of achieving results
• wider relevance of the event including serious public concern.

3.2. In certain cases the local authority may decide not to investigate an incident in the Mandatory category where -

• there are no reasonably practicable precautions or;
• it is impracticable to investigate or follow up.

3.3. The local authority will in accordance with its duty under Section 18,  allocate sufficient time and resources for reactive work to investigate accidents, dangerous occurrences and causes of occupational ill health (see capacity tool kit – link).

3.4 In the event there are inadequate resources to investigate or follow up.

The Head of Service should be involved in any decision with the team leader or other senior manager.  This should be recorded, justified and authorised as stated on the Decision Recording Form (DRF) a copy of which is shown in Appendix A.

3.5 Not every incident reported to the local authority will require investigation after further initial enquiries have been made.  The criteria for selecting incidents suitable for further investigation are detailed in the following sections 6.0 and 7.0.

4.0. Procedure following notified incident

4.1 Incidents relating to accidents, dangerous occurrences and occupational ill health will come to the local authority’s attention either formally through the Reporting of Injuries, Deaths and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) procedures or informally through complaints, Officer visits or enquiries from Solicitors acting on behalf of an injured party etc. See Investigation Selection Process Flow Chart (Appendix B) to clarify.   

4.2 Where the Incident Control Centre (ICC) is used:-

• check the ICC daily reports regularly and accept correctly allocated incidents or reallocate as appropriate using the relevant enforcing authority guidance
• redirect to the ICC RIDDOR notifications received by post or fax which are normally handled by the ICC but which have been erroneously sent directly to the local authority.

4.3 Where the ICC is not used ensure that the incident is dealt with by the appropriate  enforcing authority by:-

•  checking, if necessary, the Enforcing Authority Regulations 1998.
• checking the incident occurred within the area of the local authority.
• passing the incident, where appropriate, to another enforcing authority.
• considering any flexible warranting arrangements or transfer arrangements that maybe in place which may allow flexibility during the initial investigation.

N.B

LAs should ensure they report all incidents reported directly to them to the ICC via telephone, e-mail or fax. 

4.4 Not every notification made to a local authority will require investigation. The criteria for selecting incidents for investigation should target effort at the more significant events, but not so as to distort the overall balance of resources between preventative and reactive work.

4.5. All incidents received should be considered by the Team Leader (Senior\Principal EHO or a competent nominated person) responsible for allocation. They will decide what incidents are investigated based on the criteria outlined in Sections 6.0 and 7.0. In this way, incidents will be allocated to appropriate field staff for investigation or initial enquiries made prior to investigation.

4.6 It is recommended that all administrative staff who may initially handle these notifications are familiarised with the key aspects of this policy so that urgent notifications such as fatalities and multiple serious injuries are brought to the Team Leader’s attention as a matter of priority or the nominated competent person referred to in Para 4.5 above. 

4.7 If the Incident is selected for investigation the Team Leader (or nominated competent person) should record the decision and allocate the investigation to an appropriate field officer. An Investigation Selection Recording Form is attached at Appendix A (Section A) for this purpose and should be attached to the RIDDOR report and related paperwork before being passed to the Investigating Officer. 

4.8  If further information is required in order to effectively investigate the injured party/employer/member of the public can be contacted using the Standard Letters attached at Appendix C.

5.0 Mandatory investigations

The following defined major incidents should always be investigated:

5.1 Fatal Accidents

All fatalities as a result of an accident arising out of or in connection with work activities, whether it is to an employee or a member of the public. This excludes suicides or deaths from natural causes.

5.2 Major Injuries

The following RIDDOR defined major injuries to all persons including non-employees, irrespective of the cause

• All amputations of digit(s) past the first joint;
• Amputation of hand/arm or foot/leg;
• Serious multiple fractures (more than one bone, not including wrist and ankle);
• Crush injuries leading to major organ damage
• Head injuries involving loss of consciousness
• Burns and scalds greater than 10% of the surface area of the body;
• Permanent blinding of one or both eyes;
• Any degree of scalping
• Asphyxiations

5.3 Occupational Diseases

All reports of cases of occupational disease, which meet the criteria of reportability under RIDDOR, except those arising from circumstances/ have already been investigated.

5.4 Major RIDDOR injuries highlighted by Programmed Directed Inspections (Strategic Priorities) as set out by the HSE Board or local evidence based preventative interventions. The current 2009/2010 can be found in Appendix D.

5.5 Where a serious non-compliance appears to be the cause of an incident. Where a serious non-compliance appears to be the cause of the incident and is likely to have involved a serious breach of health and safety law. A serious breach of the law is one where the enforcement expectation using the Enforcement Management Module (EMM) would determine as requiring a Notice or Prosecution;

5.6 All incidents likely to give rise to serious concern. This reflects the views of the public at large not just those of an individual. Consider in particular:

• Incidents involving children, vulnerable adults and multiple casualties where the outcome or potential outcome is serious.
• Dangerous Occurrences with the potential for directly causing the death of anyone or major injuries to a number of people.

6.0 Non–investigation of a mandatory incident

6.1 For any mandatory investigation that is not investigated, a Decision Recording Form (DRF) (Appendix B, Section B) must be filled out and counter signed by a senior manager explaining the reasons for non-investigation 

6.2 The grounds for not investigating incidents that would normally be investigated may include:

• Those incidents reported that do not meet the criteria for investigation as detailed above in 6.0 and 7.0.
• Where an investigation is impractical, e.g. unavailability of key witness(es), key evidence is no longer available.
• No reasonably practicable precautions available to prevent the incident\accident or its recurrence;
• Investigating the accident will mean the Local Authority will be acting ultra vires.
• There is a conflict of interest between the LA as a regulator and duty holder, in which the appropriate enforcing authority should be notified.
• Inadequate resources due to other priorities.

7.0 Discretionary investigations

Those incidents not falling into the above criteria for mandatory investigation may be investigated at the local authority’s discretion when taking into account the following factors:

Any other incident which relates to the Health and Safety Executive’s current Strategic Priorities (Appendix D) which has not caused a RIDDOR defined major injury, or one which arises from a specific health and safety initiative that may be contained within the Local Authorities Service Plan or Local Area Agreement.

• The poor health and safety track record of the duty holder and whether or not there has been a history of similar events;
• The incident has the potential for high public profile\media attention or has received considerable media attention leading to reputational risk through inaction\perceived inaction. 
• The incident may give rise to complaint (s). Depending on the circumstances, this should be dealt with as a normal complaint procedure and not necessarily require a full incident investigation unless found to be appropriate.
• Any incident that has been identified as being useful for -
  • enhancing sector good practice\technical knowledge or
  • training and developing staff as recognised from any Regulators’ Development Needs Analysis (DNA) Tool discussions.

• Download Appendix A - D