March 2008
Examiners’ Report NEBOSH National Diploma in Occupational Health and Safety - Unit D
Examiners’ Report NEBOSH National Diploma in Occupational Health and Safety March 2008
UNIT D
© 2008 NEBOSH, Dominus Way, Meridian Business Park, Leicester LE19 1QW tel: 0116 263 4700
fax: 0116 282 4000
email:
[email protected]
website: www.nebosh.org.uk
The National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health is a registered charity, number 1010444 T(s):exreps/UnitD/UnitD-0803
JP/DA/REW
Introduction The submission date for the NEBOSH National Diploma Unit D workplace based assignment was Wednesday 12 March 2008. 255 candidates submitted their assignment and 189 passed giving a pass rate of 74%. The focus of the Unit D assignment should be the application of the knowledge and understanding developed in Units A, B and C of the National Diploma to a real workplace situation. It provides opportunities for the candidate to carry out research appropriate to a level 6 qualification. Candidates are required to demonstrate their ability to carry out a range of activities that would be expected of a health and safety practitioner. The aim of the assignment is to produce an overall review of the health and safety management system of an organisation and indicate, through the application of risk assessment, the priorities for the organisation for the future. Before attempting the Unit D assignment it is necessary for candidates to be fully conversant with key elements of the syllabus for Units A, B and C. To facilitate this formative learning process it is recommended that candidates hold regular discussions with their tutor(s) throughout the period of their studies, and complete the Assignment Log provided in the NEBOSH Unit D Candidate Guidance, which is available from the NEBOSH web-site. Candidates should visit www.nebosh.org.uk/students/currently_studying and then click on ‘2006 Specification’ before selecting the PDF document entitled ‘Unit D Candidate Guidance’. There is strong evidence to suggest that candidates who perform better in Unit D use the Assignment Log from the very beginning of their studies, and at appropriate points on their learning journey. Candidates who complete their Assignment Log retrospectively at the end of their studies will obtain little or no benefit, and may well struggle to perform well in Unit D. Course providers are advised to actively encourage candidates to use their Assignment Logs accordingly.
2
Assignment
Assignment Brief
The candidate is required to carry out a detailed review of the health and safety performance of a workplace or organisation and to produce a justified action plan to improve performance. The assignment will require the candidate to apply the knowledge and understanding gained from their studies of elements of Units A, B and C in a practical environment and to carry out critical analysis and evaluation of information gathered during the review. The level of work should be that expected of a competent occupational health and safety practitioner working within any organisation. The report should include: •
an introduction that sets the scene by stating clear aims and objectives and a description of the methodology employed to carry out the assignment;
•
a description of the chosen workplace/organisation to set a context for the assignment. The candidate will need to consider the legal framework within which the workplace / organisation operates;
•
an overview of the current health and safety management arrangements in which the candidate should critically review the health and safety management system;
•
a survey of a wide range of significant hazards within the workplace. The candidate should prioritise the identified hazards and, depending on the nature and extent of identified hazards, for each of two of the hazards, one physical and one appropriate to health and welfare, carry out a risk assessment. This should include an evaluation of the effectiveness of the organisation in controlling the risk arising from the hazards identified and proposals to further control the hazard(s) and reduce risks;
•
conclusions which summarise the main issues identified in the candidate’s work together with justified recommendations for improvement;
•
a costed and prioritised action plan for implementation of the candidate’s recommendations in each of the two areas;
•
an executive summary of the report.
3
Examiners’ Comments Those candidates who performed well in this assignment were evidently following the detailed guidance (in the Guide to the NEBOSH National Diploma in Occupational Health and Safety and on the NEBOSH website) very closely. It was clear that they were using the requirements of the guidance to structure their report, often using the guidance content to produce section headings in their work.
Introduction The introduction provides a foundation for the report and enables the reader to signpost the shape of their assignment. Most candidates provided a good or satisfactory introduction, however, some omitted clear stated aims and objectives and provided limited information on setting the scene. To set the scene Examiners were looking for a description of the chosen workplace/organisation and a brief description of the essential features of the legal environment within which the workplace/organisation operates. In some instances too much information on the chosen organisation was included – it is only necessary to set the scene and explain the key activities and processes. A brief description of the principal legal (statute, common, civil and criminal) and other requirements within which the organisation operates should be included. Some candidates produced a regurgitated list of various laws and regulations and only the better answers attempted to apply these legislative requirements to their chosen workplace as required. Candidates are required to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of relevant statutes, regulations, ACoPs, standards and guidance in the context of their chosen workplace. An exhaustive list of regulations, etc. was not expected, but when candidates are citing things it is important that they ensure the correct titles and dates are used – failing to do so indicates a lack of appropriate research. Many candidates outlined criminal law issues in the introduction, but those candidates who scored particularly well in this section also ensured that they gave time and effort to identifying and explaining the relevant civil cases, giving clear and accurate references to carefully selected case law. Better submissions painted a balanced picture of the criminal and civil organisational context. Better submissions showed evidence of candidates putting a lot of thought into developing a clear and concise aim – explaining and justifying the purpose of the report. They also developed a set of meaningful objectives for the report, which could be used throughout the writing / preparation of the report to ‘sense check’ their own progress. Those candidates who then went onto explain their chosen methods, explaining and justifying basic principles as they did so, achieved good marks in this area. Clear statements of what research had been carried out, which models had been chosen and why, were most useful and evident in better reports. It is a useful exercise to ask an independent individual (such as a friend, relative or colleague) whether they understand and/or could follow the methodology outlined.
Executive Summary The executive summary should provide a concise overview of the reason for the report, the key points covered and the main conclusions and recommendations arising. It should be possible to read the executive summary in a short time, while adequately informing a busy reader of the salient points. To achieve this, candidates should use the allowed one side of A4 using singlespaced Arial font (size 11) and 2cm print margins. Some candidates provided half page executive summaries which failed to provide the information required, while others provided too much detail over a number of pages. It is recommended that wherever possible candidates seek some guidance from a senior manager/director on the content and format of their executive summary. 4
If the senior manager/director can glean the key information quickly, and understand the purpose and main findings then the executive summary is doing its job. The executive summary should also have some persuasive impact as it will include some form of ‘call to action’, which should be phrased in terms of benefits to the business, and not be overly critical (or damning) of previous performance or prevailing conditions. Unfortunately too many summaries failed to emphasise the main system failures of the organisation or to identify the main failures in the management of the two most significant hazards. Very few made a case for implementing the findings of the report or emphasise how their recommendations could reduce the liabilities of the organisation. That said many of the executive summaries were generally completed to a reasonable standard - the highest marks being given to candidates who communicated the key points clearly and concisely. Exemplary reports structured executive summaries which were very persuasive and would have engaged the intended audience for such summaries – senior managers, directors, etc..
Review of the Health and Safety Management System Candidates were required to give a critical evaluation of the current health and safety management system in their chosen workplace/organisation. Most candidates outlined or described a recognised health and safety model (such as HSG65) without making any reference to their organisation’s own management system, and could not therefore produce the ‘gap analysis’ required. The brief required candidates to compare their current system with a recognised model and provide a clear systematic description of any gaps (across all areas of the management system) before identifying priorities for improvement. In some instances there was a poor understanding on HSG65 and course providers should do more to help candidates get to grips with the subtleties of this model and how it might be applied in the workplace. A number of candidates made use of Diagram 1 from HSG65 without citing where it had originated from, and without adequate description. Reports awarded the highest marks included sections which clearly demonstrated the writer’s understanding of their chosen model for health and safety management systems. Better reports outlined the selected model before explaining the relevance of the model’s elements to existing policy, arrangements, etc. A good working knowledge of HSG65 (or a similar model) is essential for those candidates wishing to perform well. The gap analysis section requires candidates to assess their chosen organisation’s health and safety management systems against a recognised model such as HSG65. Better submissions clearly identified shortcomings in the chosen health and safety management systems against such a standard, carrying forward these identified gaps into the recommendations and action plans required later in the report.
Hazards and Risk Assessments This is a fundamental section of the report and candidates are required to demonstrate their understanding of hazard identification and risk assessment principles. Few marks are awarded for collation and inclusion of risk assessments already completed within a chosen business, particularly where such risk assessments were completed some time prior to completion of the report. Candidates who performed well in this section approached the hazard identification and risk assessment processes with a fresh pair of eyes, and actually engaged themselves with the process.
5
Most candidates managed to outline the 15 different hazards required from across the syllabus, taking examples from both Unit B and Unit C. A few fell short, however, with some candidates only finding 11 or 12 hazards, or limiting the hazards identified to either Unit B (health and welfare hazards) or Unit C (physical hazards). In some instances candidates confused physical hazards with health and welfare hazards, which adversely impacted on their prioritisation of hazards and their subsequent risk assessments. For instance one candidate identified a particular hazardous substance as a physical fire hazard, but then concentrated on the toxic properties of the substance rather than its flammability. In effect the candidate submitted two risk assessments for health and welfare hazards, restricting the number of marks that were available in that section. It is recommended that candidates check the two hazards they are selecting for risk assessment against the syllabus before they start any work on the risk assessment to ensure that they have one from each Unit B and Unit C. If they are unsure they should seek guidance from their tutor(s). When identifying hazards some candidates merely produced hazard spotting/inspection forms without any validation or reference to other evidence available. Very few candidates mentioned the wide array of hazard information available from internal and external sources, which could have included some reference to accident/ill-health data, findings from previous active monitoring activities, established guidance, etc. The risk assessments were generally found to be satisfactory, but some candidates failed to describe their risk assessment methodology. Risk ranking/scoring models were sometimes included without adequate explanation of their meaning, interpretation or relevance. Candidates who scored well in this section often detailed their risk assessments in a tabular format. It is recommended that course providers give their candidates sufficient time to practice risk assessment exercises in small groups during the taught element of Unit A in preparation for what will be required in Unit D. Higher scoring reports were those where candidates demonstrated a clear understanding of the difference between the terms ‘hazard’ and ‘risk’. Better submissions took a methodical approach to breaking down and differentiating between work activities, hazards, risks and possible outcomes. Candidates must be able to demonstrate their understanding of risk assessment principles – they should clearly explain the risk assessment process being used, detailing how any ranking or scoring systems are used for comparison, prioritisation and consideration of improvements required. Great care is also to be taken so that candidates do not over complicate the risk assessment elements of the report. Some candidates tried to adopt a very demanding approach to certain risk assessments, with some of them confusing themselves in the process.
Conclusions Some candidates did not refer back to their own aims and objectives (as detailed in their introduction) when writing their conclusions. It is recommended that this is done in order to perform a ‘quality’ check on the work done. Candidates should critically appraise their own performance in writing the report – at this stage they should be asking themselves ‘Does the report do what it set out to do?’ and ‘Does the report meet the requirements of the brief?’. Better submissions ensured that gaps and areas for improvement identified in the main body of the report were carried forward into the final part of the report. The conclusions should refer to things identified in the main body, and recommendations should be similarly rooted in things discussed in the conclusion and earlier in the report. Recommendations should then be carried forward into the respective action plans, where consideration should also be given to priorities, costs, time scale and how and when progress against the plans would be reviewed.
6
Recommendations Recommendations were generally good, and followed on from main conclusions, but many candidates still fail to provide a comprehensive justification and cost / benefit to each recommendation. This is the point at which the case for implementation of the recommended improvement is to be made, and effort must be made in creating a robust argument for the allocation of time and resources to such changes. Action Plan 1 (improvements to the safety management system) and Action Plan 2 (improvements identified through risk assessments) were on the whole good, with most providing tabulated formats with all the relevant headings considered. Unfortunately there were still some candidates who chose not to use the suggested Action Plan tabular format given in the NEBOSH Unit D Candidate Guidance, leading to key elements being omitted. Care must be taken when identifying timescales for recommendations, as it is not justifiable to state that each and every recommendation needs to be implemented within ‘three months’ for example. Consideration should be given to complexity, cost and resource issues when suggesting timescales. It is important to remember that recommendations should be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely). Too many candidates still do not include any provision for the recommendations to be reviewed at some future time. References Bibliography and references still remain poorly produced and many still don’t indicate any evidence of sufficient research being done. It is recommended that candidates do not work solely from the handouts provided by their course provider – better reports showed evidence of further research and use of source documents. Candidates should use one of the approaches to referencing recommended in the NEBOSH Unit D Candidate Guidance. Free ‘Collaborative Encyclopaedia’ web-sites must not be considered as authoritative sources of information for use in the completion of a Unit D assignment, as they are written by on-line communities and their accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Closing Comments/Summary Generally the standard of reports was fair, some candidates’ reports were ‘let down’ by some simple omissions. The points outlined above should give some clear pointers to candidates and course providers regarding the completion of Unit D assignments - these complement the existing guidance from NEBOSH. Candidates are advised to complete the ‘top ten’ checklist set out below before submitting their assignments: 1. word count should be between 8000 and 12000 words; 2. generic and ‘non-original’ information should only appear in the appendices (if at all); 3. aim and objectives of the report should be clearly set out in the introduction; 4. description of the legal requirements should be linked to the workplace/environment; 5. gap analysis should be clear in identifying the main differences between the organisation’s safety management system and a recognised model such as HSG65; 6. main body findings (such as those identified in the gap analysis, hazards and risk assessments) should flow through into the conclusions and recommendations sections; 7. a risk assessment should be completed for the each of the 2 required hazard types (physical and health/wellbeing); 8. the approach to risk assessment should be adequately explained; 9. a review mechanism/deadline should be included in the action plans; 10. the executive summary should be concise in communicating the key findings and persuasive in its ‘call to action’. 7
The National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health Dominus Way Meridian Business Park Leicester LE19 1QW telephone +44 (0)116 2634700 fax +44 (0)116 2824000 email
[email protected] www.nebosh.org.uk
