Monitoring and Review Flashcards

What is a 'competent person' in the context of conducting health and safety audits?

Answer: A person with sufficient training, experience, knowledge, and independence to effectively evaluate the health and safety management system and make sound judgements

A competent auditor needs a combination of relevant training in audit techniques, practical experience, knowledge of relevant legislation and standards, understanding of the industry, and sufficient independence from the area being audited to maintain objectivity. No single qualification automatically confers competence.

Why is it important to include worker consultation in the monitoring and review process?

Answer: Because workers have direct experience of workplace hazards and controls in practice, their involvement improves the quality of monitoring, increases ownership of safety, and is a legal requirement under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977

Worker consultation brings practical workplace knowledge that management may lack. Workers experience hazards and controls daily and can identify practical problems that desk-based reviews miss. Their involvement also builds ownership and commitment to safety improvements. It is both good practice and a legal requirement under consultation regulations.

What is the relationship between monitoring activities and the 'Plan-Do-Check-Act' cycle?

Answer: Monitoring forms the 'Check' stage — it provides the data and evidence needed to evaluate whether the 'Plan' and 'Do' stages are working, which then informs the 'Act' stage where improvements are made

Monitoring is central to the 'Check' stage of PDCA. It collects data through inspections, audits, sampling, and incident analysis to evaluate whether plans have been implemented (Do) and whether they are achieving objectives (Plan). The findings then drive the 'Act' stage — reviewing performance and making improvements, which feeds back into revised planning.

How does benchmarking differ from auditing in health and safety performance measurement?

Answer: Benchmarking compares performance levels against external standards or peers, while auditing evaluates the internal management system against its own criteria and standards for compliance

Benchmarking is comparative — it measures performance against external reference points such as industry averages, best practice organisations, or previous performance. Auditing is evaluative — it checks whether the organisation's own management system meets its stated policies, procedures, and legal requirements. They are complementary but distinct activities.

What is a non-conformance in the context of a health and safety audit?

Answer: A finding where actual practice or conditions do not meet the requirements of the standard, procedure, or legal requirement being audited against

A non-conformance (or non-conformity) is identified when auditors find that actual practice, documentation, or conditions fail to meet the requirements being audited against — whether that is an ISO standard, the organisation's own procedures, or legal requirements. Non-conformances are graded (major/minor) and require corrective action.

An organisation notices that its accident incidence rate has decreased but the severity rate has increased. What might this indicate?

Answer: While fewer accidents are occurring, the ones that do happen are more serious — suggesting that controls may be preventing minor incidents but failing to address the root causes of major ones

This pattern suggests that while the frequency of incidents has reduced (possibly through better housekeeping, minor hazard control, or improved reporting thresholds), the underlying major hazards are not being adequately controlled. The organisation needs to investigate what types of incidents are becoming more severe and whether major risk controls need strengthening.