The identification of the criteria adopted for risk assessment (Article 28 of Legislative Decree 81/2008) through a description of the steps to be taken to identify the most appropriate means of eliminating risks or controlling them represents a basic and essential element of the DVR. The risk assessment must be carried out in collaboration with the SPP manager and after consultation with the Danish Working Environment Authority and the competent doctor.
The purpose of the risk assessment
The purpose of the risk assessment, which can be verified by scrolling through the excellent DVR from the “Antonio Pagano” Comprehensive Institute of Nicotera (VV), led by the school principal Prof. Giuseppe Sangeniti, is to provide the employer with the useful elements to take the measures that are actually necessary to protect the safety and health of workers.
The operational risk assessment intervention shall lead to:
- divide the activities in relation to the specific tasks performed in the different work environments
- identify risk factors (potential sources of danger)
- identify workers who are exposed to jobs
- quantify the risks (estimating the extent of the exposure and the severity of the effects);
- define the priorities for the necessary interventions
- identify, plan and implement the necessary prevention measures.
Identification of risk factors (potential sources of danger)
This phase, as specified in the DVR for the “Antonio Pagano” Comprehensive Institute of Nicotera (VV), must be carried out through the analysis of all the tasks performed by the staff of the institute: tasks defined otherwise by the current legislative framework and reviewed in the individual supplementary contracts of institutions. However, the assessment has verified the risks that are reasonably foreseeable. An initial overall assessment is needed to divide the risks into two categories: those that are well known, for which control measures can be easily identified, and those for which a more careful and detailed examination is required. The identification of risk factors is governed by the available knowledge of legal provisions and technical standards, by data obtained from experience and information collected, by contributions from those who in different characteristics contribute to the same assessment: responsible for the Prevention and Protection Service, workers’ safety representative, competent doctor, other persons who can be consulted about the benefits (teachers, non-teachers, laboratory managers, etc.). This procedure makes it possible to identify the hazards not only on the basis of generally known principles, but also on the basis of the existence of risk factors that are specific to the conditions under which the work activity takes place. We work to control the influence that the subjective risk perception may have on this identification, which can sometimes lead to underestimation or overestimation of a danger based on the risk habit or the excessive trust given to sensory impressions.
Identification of vulnerable workers
In relation to the dangerous situations highlighted by the first phase of the assessment, the number of workers who may be exposed to risk factors, individually or as a homogeneous group, was highlighted. It is necessary to avoid that the vulnerable workers are identified by name, but as homogeneous groups for planning subsequent information / training interventions: from this consideration, the classification of workers as a teaching area and service area (ATA) is derived. This phase is not separate from a method of participation of the workers in gathering the necessary information. The assessment must be carried out through a series of checklists, which are easy to complete both by the RSPP and as a field check in relation to consulting the workers.
Risk quantification (estimation of the extent of exposure and the severity of the effects)
The quantification of the risk stems from the possibility of defining the risk as a product of the probability (P) of the event and the severity of the expected damage (D):
R = P x D
The definition of Probability scale
The definition of the probability scale, can be read in the DVR of the “Antonio Pagano” Comprehensive Institute of Nicotera (VV), instructed by Prof. Giuseppe Sangeniti, mainly refers to the existence of a more or less direct connection between the found deficiency and the probability of , that the adverse event occurs, taking into account the frequency and duration of operations and / or processes involving risks to the health and safety of workers:
3 very likely
There is a direct link between the deficiency discovered and the occurrence of the hypothesis damage to the workers. Damage has already occurred due to the same defect found in the same company or in similar companies. The occurrence of the damage as a result of the discovered deficiency would come as no surprise.
The detected defect can cause damage, although not automatically and directly.
Some episodes are known where the deficiency was followed by injuries. The occurrence of the presumed injury would cause surprise.
The detected defect can only cause damage during unfortunate events. Only very rare episodes that have already occurred or no episodes at all are known. The occurrence of that hypothesis damage would arouse great surprise and disbelief.
The level of surprise
This assessment can be measured indirectly through the level of surprise that the event would cause, according to an interesting interpretive practice in use in Anglo-Saxon countries.
The definition of the severity of the injury
The definition of the severity of the injury mainly refers to the reversibility of the damage or not:
Injury or acute exposure episode with the consequences of total disability or even death.
Chronic exposure with completely or partially irreversible and disabling effects.
Injury or acute exposure episode with reversible disability. Chronic exposure with reversible effects.
Injury or acute exposure episode with rapidly reversible disability. Chronic exposure with rapidly reversible effects.
The accident with risk of fatal consequences
The accident with the risk of fatal consequences, although unlikely, according to the DVR of the “Antonio Pagano” Comprehensive Institute of Nicotera (VV), should be considered a priority in the planning of preventive measures. The most serious damage that may be associated with the risk in question must be taken into account: for this purpose, only the company’s statistical data showing a low number of accidents of this type can not be used: this data in itself does not authorize adoption. less restrictive security measures. Once the probability (P) and the severity of the damage (D) have been defined, the risk (R) is calculated with the formula R = P x D and can be represented in a matrix representation with the severity of the damage on the abscissa and on the ordinates The probability of its occurrence. In this matrix, the largest risks occupy the boxes at the top right, the smaller ones in the positions at the bottom right, with the whole range of intermediate provisions. Such representation is an important starting point for defining priorities and planning the prevention and protection measures to be adopted. The numerical and chromatic evaluation of the level of risk makes it possible to identify the priority of the interventions to be performed.
Instant corrective actions
- Corrective actions must be planned as soon as possible within 6 months
- Corrective / improvement measures must be planned in the short-medium term 1 school year.
Definition of the priorities for the necessary interventions
Based on the result of the classification of the risks and their quantification using the above method, the employer must establish a priority order in order to implement the preventive / protective measures identified for each risk. It is noted that this scale of prioritization is fundamental in complex situations in order to organize the planning of the necessary measures. The method used, as highlighted in the DVR from the “Antonio Pagano” Comprehensive Institute of Nicotera (VV), is a valid aid in trying to make the assessment of the various risks as objective as possible, as it divides the prioritization decision into a number of simpler ones. subsequent election. The inevitable subjectivity that will always remain in the choice of the scale of probability and severity of the injury can be remedied with the ongoing comparison with several operators, and with those who actually perform the various operations or use the various equipment. The order of priority of the measures to be implemented should disregard the economic discourse, but the economic constraints may of course indicate changes in the order resulting from the pure application of the method followed.