Yes, it's been like that for a few years. Unlike first aid training, there is no defined refresher period for many industrial training courses - this is ultimately up to the training provider to express their recommended 'refresher' time.

Of course, though, the business seeking training for their staff can choose to send them to a course sooner.

@MattD2 I believe if you interpret it in the way of the hierarchy of controls, then it starts to make sense to people. Offering 'controls' for various at height activities could be a good place to start.

Substitute - a chair for a ladder, or a plank of wood and sawhorse for a podium
Isolate the hazard - scaffolding, edge protection
Engineering - permanent ladders, railing, and stairs. EWP
Admin - training, instruction, supervision etc
PPE - harness safety systems
All of these still expose someone to height. The hazard still exists unless we eliminate the work or are far enough away from an edge for the hazard to no longer present any risk.

Classic example is workers following the company rules/policies to wear a harnesses when working at height, only to find that on the job that harnesses are either attached to unsuitable anchor points (or not at all) or that the workers would hit the ground before the harness stopped them falling — MattD2

Unfortunately working at height courses tend to only deliver training around harness safety systems, which then somewhat implies that all work at height requires a harness. You can buy a 15m extension ladder and a 9m fixed portable ladder - that's a long way to fall! - but when does a course actually discuss, train or assess ladder safety. Should that be covered on a course, or is that up to the employer to train in house?

As a trainer for working at height, a text book answer would be "Anywhere you could injure yourself if you fell from one level to another. This could be above or below ground"

To my knowledge, this is what most training providers use to define work at height, and NZQA unit standard assessments are unlikely to stray far from that definition... (having also been involved in that process).

From my experience, giving examples alongside the definition is the best way for people to understand what it means in an everyday work context. E.g.
- using a ladder, podium, and temporary work platform
- working on scaffolding
- using an EWP
- standing on a chair/desk to change a light bulb
- working on a flat deck - trailer, ute, etc
- standing at the top/edge of a bluff/cliff/pit

We may see a different and/or legislated definition with the soon to be released Plant, Structures and Work at Height Regs..

Hi jess - I'd recommend Peak Safety for your training scenario.

They service the whole country and specialize in Emergency Management and First Aid, amongst many other things.

To give a different perspective but along the same lines, we have LPG in various amounts in different locations on our worksite. We have a Location Certificate for each location that contains more than 100kg of LPG - as required by the regulations. We don't have a Location Certificate for the worksite as a whole because that is not achievable, however we do have some areas where we store LPG in less than 100kg quantities. This is below the threshold and therefore does not require a Location Certificate.

Hi Lucille,

Our workplace has been in a similar position, albeit with more difficult terrain and a much larger pool of drivers. We decided to put two of us (myself included) though a 2 day LUV course as we were delivering the training internally and then signing off others with in the company if they were deemed competent.

We completed a 2 day micro-credential for operating a LUV (UTV/side by side etc) and found it to be a complete waste of time. We didn't learn anything and spent 70% of the course 'copying' material out of manual and writing it into x5 unit standard assessments. To make it worse, the main tutor was out with covid so we had a fill-in that had never delivered the course before... We also came from a background of operating quads, snowmobiles, and other similar plant, so it's likely experience played a big part there.

You could ask yourself these questions:
What is the task? (terrain, environment, distance, passengers, towing or not,)
What is the vehicle being used?
What are the hazards?
What could go wrong (risks)?
What training have the drivers received in the past?
What is the experience of the drivers?
How can I assess if they are competent? Would a drivers license suffice?
What controls are reasonably practicable for managing the risks?
Who's delivering the training internally?
What is their experience, training, and competency? Can you verify that?

We have an SOP, a 10 question quiz, and a practical assessment in place that covers two different levels of operation. We consider this to be reasonably practicable based on us answering the questions above.

In contrast, the agriculture industry had 11 fatalities last year, of which 6 involved a vehicle. There might be data somewhere to give context to those incidents.

I'm sure there are some great external training providers out there; unfortunately our experience was disappointing.

I think this is where industry has shot itself in to foot! If you speak to NZQA, they will state that refresher training should be in no way linked to a unit standard, unless that unit standard is being re-reported, which is unnecessary because unit standards stay on your record of learning forever.

It could easily be argued that a worker performing a task once a week is much more likely to be competent in that task than a worker who does the task once every six months. This, therefore, could be used as part of your assessment as to the frequency of (refresher) training.

Personally, I'm all for non-unit standard based training! And in my opinion, as long as the internal training and assessment has been documented, it is far more suitable for workplaces to have work/task/site specific training, rather than some unit standard that has no bearing to what actually occurs in the workplace.

Hi Don,

I work for a PTE and this is an interesting grey area! First Aid, like you said is regulated by the NZRESUS Council. No other course, that we are aware of (unless there is some international requirement), has a specified time-frame/refresher period.

Industry may unofficially stipulate 2-3 years, but ultimately this comes down to each individual workplace. A PTE may decide to specify an end date on the certificate, but this doesn't necessarily have a lot of weight behind it.

Alex

I think you'd be best to seek on advice from Medsafe on that one. Administering medications in the workplace is a massive grey area, and one that has never been tested in court. Essentially it should be up to the individual to read the packet and make their own decision as to whether or not it is suitable for them.

I come from workplace that carries and administers a variety of different medications, including pain relief and NSAID's. The authorization to administer these medications comes for a doctor (medical advisor) who provides a standing order, training, and then assesses whether an individual should carry and administer these medications. From the doctor's perspective, as long as the patient doesn't have any contraindications that match that specific medication and the medication is indicated for use, then it is ok to administer.

With pain relief, like anything else, there are maximum safe dosages, and this is obviously noted on the packet. Still, it would take a very large dose of ibuprofen or paracetamol (pain killers) to put someone in hospital.

From the doctors I work under and after speaking to others in healthcare, the benefits from pain relief far out way the risk.

You can find an extensive list on Ototoxic Medications here.

I think you're definitely right to have reservations. At face value, the auditor/audit body is satisfied that the organsation meets that particular audit requirement - in this case, the trial evacuations. As an auditor myself (in the adventure tourism industry), it seems odd to me that this auditor sees this outcome as a reflection of what 'has' occurred across every branch.

If I was auditing numerous sites or operations, I would ask to see evidence from across the board (i.e. pick several sites/operations at random) to see if it meets the requirement. Just in the same way an audit of a first aid kit or fire extinguisher doesn't tell you the condition of those same resources on other areas of the site.

One of the issues I see with external audits is that organisations are notified that an audit is taking place in these areas of their operations, so they then get time to organise, or even falsify in some cases, areas that have typically been lagging or neglected. In some ways this encourages the organisation to up their game, but often only for a short while.

, here is the link to the Risk Disclosure Template.

One of the adventure activity auditing bodies, in conjunction with a legal expert, recently provided some guidance on this. I'll see if I can find it and email it to you @Riki Brown

The term 'waiver' was (and still is) commonly used by operators and implied that they could 'waive' their obligations/duties under the HSWA, which clients took at face value. This is obviously not the case, so there is a push by these audit bodies to use the term 'disclaimer'.

Perhaps it is a small detail in the grand scheme of things, but terminology is key and operators should be getting it right and not provide detail that is misleading. My understanding is that any operator being audited and using the term waiver would then be issued a minor non-conformity.

Hey Riki,

PPE for working at height and rope access is usually classed as anything that the user wears (harness, helmet, gloves etc) and anything that would connect that user to a structure or anchor point (lanyards, rope, devices, carabiners, etc).

If it's worn and used by the user as a means to keep them personally protected, it would likely fall into PPE. In this Abseiling ASG, there are references to personal equipment that would protect the user. It's not an extensive list though - I'm not sure if that exists.

There's PPE guidance from WorkSafe here.

Alex

Hi Sandra,

To answer you manual vs system question, how big is the organisation? My thoughts are that it is not uncommon for larger organisations to have a H&S System and as well as department specific H&S Manuals (also referred to as a Policy and Procedures manual). For smaller organisations, it may be a bit unnecessary to have both. Also, to some extent, it may be down to semantics in terminology.

All the best.
Alex

Hi Sherralynne,

To answer you question, it sounds like it would be unlikely. However, you could get in touch with Careerforce as that is the ITO that my Mum is an assessor/moderator for. You can find out more here.

By the sounds of it, the training for the role you are looking at used to be carried at out a specialist audiology practice (?) in Auckland, however this training no longer takes place here (as you know) and she isn't aware of any organisations currently offering the training in NZ.

All the best.

Alex

Hi Sherralynne,

My Mum is a hearing and visual technician for young children and is an assessor for technicians in training. While it's obviously not occupational health, she may have an answer to your question, or at least be able to provide some guidance.

Let me know if you're interested and I can find out more.

Alex

Not sure about plant and machinery but for height:-

As of last year, there is now a new standard for Rope Access - AS/NZS ISO 22846.1:2020 and AS/NZS ISO 22846.2:2020. Part 2 is advertised by standards as a COP, but this isn't freely available to access - you have to pay - and most business wouldn't operate rope access systems for work at height as it is not necessary. Though, this could be the start of change for working at height activities and may soon lead to the current AS/NZS 1891.4:2009 being superseded or phased out.

All the working at height NZQA unit standards were due for review December 2019, however as nothing has changed here, perhaps they're waiting to see what comes of these new regulations and/or COP's.

Food for thought.

Hi Janet,

I teach pre-hospital emergency care and first aid to adults and, on some occasions, high school students and teachers. My experience with this is that each school seems to have a different policy around how they manage this. Outdoor Education Centers and adventure guiding operations are also quite similar in this regard, and they too manage this quite differently.

It is not uncommon for schools or other organisations to have a couple of spare epi-pens in the office as you can buy them online for about $120 without a prescription, though they do expire after about 18 months. The NZ Resus Council does encourage the administration of Adrenalin (through an epi-pen) as it is safe and effective - Resus council guideline here.

As far as I am aware, provided the school is made aware of a student or teacher allergy, there should be reasonable steps taken to manage this, in which there are many ways. You can purchase training epi-pens online from here. These are a great tool for training others in the administration.

Hope that helps!

Speaking from my experience working in the ski industry where there is tracked machinery (groomer/snow cats and excavators) and loaders, staff have always gone through an internal pre-season training and competency assessment, even if they worked back to back winters between hemispheres. Same thing with snowmobiles.

A risk assessment, identifying the frequency of work, machine, terrain, operators etc should assist with developing a training and competency plan. We implement something similar with our utv training plan and we do that all internally, as per the risk assessment of activities.

I have wheel and track endorsements, and the last time I operated anything remotely close to one of those machines was 5 years ago... I would hope to be trained and assessed before operating one of those machines again, despite having an endorsement that says I'm ok to do so.

My partners workplace (essential service) is looking at implementing this with no consideration to the health and safety of the person doing checks. They're already doing this at other plants of theirs.

- She has consulted health professionals who strongly discourage the idea of temperature testing
- The workplace in question can't get the appropriate PPE. Face masks, face shield, gowns, coveralls - of which all medical professionals are currently wearing when testing
- They have no process in place for dealing with someone who may present a high temp
- Temperature alone (greater than 38 degrees) is no longer seen as a reliable symptom. People can still be carriers without this

The workpalce have been told that other workplaces around the country are presently doing this and she is absolutely gutted that they are pursing this!
We sought advice from WorkSafe, who said to contact MoH.

It sounds like medical professionals are strongly advising against workplace temp check, unless they are qualified, have the appropriate PPE and have processes in place for dealing with workers who present symptoms.