January 2014
Examiners’ Examine rs’ Repor Reportt NEBOSH National Diploma in Occupational Health and Safety - Unit A
Examiners’ Report NEBOSH NATIONAL DIPLOMA IN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY Unit A: Managing health and safety JANUARY 2014
CONTENTS
Introduction
2
General comments
3
Comments on individual questions
4
2014 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
Introduction
NEBOSH (The National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health) was formed in 1979 as an independent examining board and awarding body with charitable status. We offer a comprehensive range of globally-recognised, vocationally-related qualifications designed to meet the health, safety, environmental and risk management needs of all places of work in both the private and public sectors. Courses leading to NEBOSH qualifications attract around 35,000 candidates annually and are offered by over 500 course providers, with exams taken in over 100 countries around the world. Our qualifications are recognised by the relevant professional membership bodies including the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) and the International Institute of Risk and Safety Management (IIRSM). NEBOSH is an awarding body to be recognised and regulated by the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA). Where appropriate, NEBOSH follows the latest version of the “GCSE, GCE, Principal Learning and Project Code of Practice” published by the regulatory authorities in relation to examination setting and marking. While not obliged to adhere to this code, NEBOSH regards it as best practice to do so. Candidates’ scripts are marked by a team of Examiners appointed by NEBOSH on the basis of their qualifications and experience. The standard of the qualification is determined by NEBOSH, which is overseen by the NEBOSH Council comprising nominees from, amongst others, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH). Representatives of course providers, from both the public and private sectors, are elected to the NEBOSH Council. This report on the examination provides information on the performance of candidates which it is hoped will be useful to candidates and tutors in preparation for future examinations. It is intended to be constructive and informative and to promote better understanding of the syllabus content and the application of assessment criteria. © NEBOSH 2014
Any enquiries about this report publication should be addressed to: NEBOSH Dominus Way Meridian Business Park Leicester LE19 1QW tel: 0116 263 4700 fax: 0116 282 4000 email:
[email protected]
2
General comment s
Those candidates who prepare diligently for this unit assessment can provide comprehensive and relevant answers in response to the demands of the question paper. This includes the ability to demonstrate understanding of knowledge by applying it to workplace situations, which is an express requirement of the syllabus. There are always some candidates, however, who appear to be unprepared for the unit assessment and who show both a lack of knowledge of the syllabus content and a lack of understanding of how key concepts should be applied to workplace situations. In order to meet the pass standard for this assessment, it is essential that candidates acquire a high degree of knowledge and understanding right across the Unit A syllabus. Candidates then need to demonstrate that they have developed the necessary standard of knowledge and understanding by answering the questions in an appropriate and relevant way, which frequently requires the application of principles to new situations. Referral of candidates in this unit is invariably because they are unable to write a full, well-informed answer to one or more of the questions asked. Some candidates find it difficult to relate their learning to the questions and as a result offer responses reliant on recalled knowledge and conjecture and fail to demonstrate a sufficient degree of understanding. In other words, some candidates lack the ability to apply what they have learned in a way that would be useful in real-world situations. Candidates should prepare themselves for this vocational examination by ensuring that they understand the numerous interrelationships that exist between syllabus concepts, such that they can recognise important and relevant issues and then draw upon this knowledge to give a well-rounded, comprehensive answer at a professional standard. It is not acceptable to attempt any examination at this level by rote-learning pre-prepared answers. Candidates should note that Examiners’ Reports are no t written to provide ‘sample answers’ but to give examples of what Examiners were expecting and more specifically to highlight areas of under performance. Common pitfalls
It is recognised that many candidates are well prepared for their assessments. However, recurrent issues, as outlined below, continue to prevent some candidates reaching their full potential in the assessment. −
Many candidates fail to apply the basic principles of examination technique (e.g. time management) and for some candidates this means the difference between a pass and a referral.
−
In some instances, candidates do not attempt all the required questions or are failing to provide complete answers (e.g. only giving a single page answer to a 20 mark essay style question). Candidates are advised to always attempt an answer to a compulsory question, even when the mind goes blank; applying basic health and safety management principles can generate credit worthy points.
−
Some candidates fail to answer the question that was set and instead provide information that may be relevant to the topic in general terms but is irrelevant to the question that was asked and so they cannot be awarded marks.
−
Many candidates fail to apply the command words (also known as action verbs, e.g. describe, outline, etc). Command words are the instructions that guide the candidate on the depth of answer required. If, for instance, a question asks the candidate to ‘describe’ something, then few marks will be awarded to an answer that is an outline. Similarly the command word ‘identify’ requires more information than a ‘list’.
−
Some candidates fail to separate their answers into the different sub-sections of the questions. These candidates could gain marks for the different sections if they clearly indicated which part of the question they were answering (by using the numbering from the question in their
3
answer, for example). Structuring their answers to address the different parts of the question can also help in logically drawing out the points to be made in response. −
Candidates need to plan their time effectively. Some candidates fail to make good use of their time and give excessive detail in some answers leaving insufficient time to address all of the questions.
−
Candidates should also be aware that Examiners cannot award marks if handwriting is illegible.
−
Candidates should note that it is not necessary to start a new page in their answer booklet for each section of a question.
4
UNIT A – Managing h ealt h and s afety
Section A – all questions c ompulsory
Question 1
(a)
(b)
Outline potential costs to an organisation if a health and safety management system is not implemented effectively.
(7)
Outline the meaning of the terms ‘insured’ AND ‘uninsured’ costs of accidents, clearly showing the relative size of these two costs as demonstrated by accident costing studies.
(3)
This question related to Element 1 of the syllabus and assessed candidates’ knowledge of learning outcome 1.1: “Explain the moral, legal and economic reasons for the effective management of health and safety.” Many candidates were able to achieve good marks, particularly on the first part of the question. Answers to the second part (the meaning of ‘insured’ and ‘uninsured’ costs) varied in quality, with many candidates demonstrating a lack of knowledge of these terms. It was also evident that many candidates seemed unaware of the findings of the numerous accident costing studies that have been conducted over the years, any one of which would have satisfactorily answered this part of the question. Most of the responses were in an appropriate amount of detail for an ‘outline’, 10 mark question. However, there were still those candidates who opted to give less than the required amount of information and simply provided lists of information, leading to lower than expected marks in some cases. Some candidates failed to say anything at all about the relative size of insured and uninsured costs, possibly because they may have failed to read the entire question. Candidates should ensure that they are familiar with the basic principles and arguments for good standards of safety management and that they ‘read around’ the topic in order to broaden their understanding.
Question 2
Witness interviews are an important part of the information-gathering process of an accident investigation. Describe the requirements of an interview process that would help to obtain the best quality of information from witnesses.
(10)
This question related to Element 2 of the syllabus and assessed candidates’ knowledge of learning outcome 2.4: “Explain loss investigations; the requirements, benefits, the procedures, the documentation, and the involvement of and communication with relevant staff and representatives”, specifically “Investigation procedures and methodologies.” This question sought to assess candidates’ knowledge of how to conduct a witness interview as part of an accident investigation, which is an essential skill for all health and safety practitioners. Many candidates were able to give good answers that achieved correspondingly high marks.
5
Although points could have been taken in any order, candidates that adopted a chronological approach appeared to do better than those who took a less structured approach, with less evidence of duplication and sidetracking into irrelevant areas being noted. Some candidates wrote at length on one or two points (e.g. establishing rapport) and were duly awarded credit for these where the points they made were relevant; however, candidates that only wrote about a small number of issues will not have gained high marks on this question. This is clearly an area that many candidates know well and as such the question yielded a relatively high average mark. Candidates should ensure that they focus on what is being asked by the question (in this case the requirements of an interview process) so that they do not wander into associated areas such as the generalities of accident investigation, rendering assistance etc, which were not signposted in the question and therefore carried no marks.
Question 3
In relation to European Union law: (a)
outline the implications of a European Directive as it applies to Member States;
(2)
(b)
identify key functions of the European Commission;
(3)
(c)
outline reasons why the government cannot easily revoke health and safety regulations based on European Directives.
(5)
This question related to Element 8 of the syllabus and assessed candidates’ knowledge of learning outcome 8.3: “Outline the influence and role of the European Union on UK health and safety legislation”. Of particular relevance to this question was knowledge of the status of European directives and of the role of one of the EU’s main institutions – the European Commission. Candidates had to show an understanding of the underpinning principles in order to achieve good marks but it was apparent from the limited quality of most answers that this area of the syllabus is not well understood. Part (a) was the best answered of the three parts of this question, with many candidates showing an understanding that Directives are binding as to the result to be achieved. Despite only being asked to ‘identify’, few candidates were able to demonstrate knowledge of the functions of the European Commission in answer to part (b). It was therefore clear that this part of the syllabus was less well understood. Part (c) was not well answered. Considering current activity by the UK Government and publicity surrounding deregulation, it was felt that candidates might have been more aware of the associated issues. Candidates who were able to say in answer to part (a) that Directives bind Member States and who were able to say in answer to part (b) that the Commission can institute proceedings against Member States for violations of EU obligations, could have used that knowledge to answer this part. Questions on European law are consistently limited, despite being regularly questioned. Candidates should seek to ensure that all areas of the syllabus receive attention during the revision phase.
6
Question 4
Outline a range of factors to be considered in selecting the optimum solution for the control of risk following a risk assessment. An outline of the ‘hierarchy of controls’ is no t required.
(10)
This question related to Element 5 of the syllabus and assessed candidates’ knowledge of learning outcomes 5.1 and 5.2: “Outline common risk management strategies” and “Outline factors to be taken into account when selecting risk controls”. The wording of the question was almost identical to the wording of the second point under learning outcome 5.1 - “Factors to be considered in the selection of an optimum solution based on relevant risk data”. Also of relevance was the part of learning outcome 5.2 beginning “Factors affecting choice of controls…” This question sought to assess understanding of the thought process involved in selecting risk controls. The question required candidates to think carefully about the real life issues faced by those whose responsibility it is to select and implement control measures - a skill that all health and safety practitioners must master if they are to be effective in practice. Those candidates who had prepared well for the examination will have developed a good understanding of the criteria that are normally employed when selecting the optimum solution for the control of risk, and will, for example, have understood the implications of managing risks ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’. Such answers gained relatively good marks. In other cases despite a specific direction not to do so, many candidates opted to give a certificate level outline of the hierarchy of controls, which gained little credit. The answers to this question raise two issues. First, some candidates appear unfamiliar with the requirements of the syllabus, as evidenced by those responses that seemed unable to go beyond the basic hierarchy of controls. Second, a number of candidates failed to observe the clear directions given in the question, leading to answers that failed to address the question that was set. Becoming familiar with the syllabus content will help to address the first point, while taking full advantage of the 10 minutes of reading time to note specific instructions in the questions should help to address the second.
Question 5
Outline issues that should be considered when planning a health and safety inspection programme. Information on specific workplace conditions or behaviours that might be covered in an inspection is no t required.
(10)
This question related to Element 3 of the syllabus and assessed candidates’ knowledge of learning outcome 3.3: “Describe the variety of monitoring and measurement techniques”, and specifically, “ The key elements and features of health and safety audits, workplace inspections, safety tours, safety sampling, and safety surveys”. This was a practical question, which focussed candidates’ attention on the planning of inspections rather than on their specific content. In so doing, the question evaluated understanding of the practical considerations to be borne in mind when developing a programme of health and safety inspections.
7
This question yielded high marks. It was clear from a number of answers that personal experience of planning health and safety inspection programmes was being used, which often helped provide a logical approach to the answer, thus yielding good marks. Most candidates gave a good range of points and took notice of the clear instruction not to give information on specific workplace conditions. However, there were some candidates who fared less well, either because they provided too narrow a range of issues or because they ignored the italicised instruction that followed the question. Some candidates confused inspections with audits. Candidates should ensure that they follow all directions given in the question. When preparing for the examination, candidates should ensure that they understand the differences between different monitoring techniques so that they do not confuse them.
Question 6
With reference to the Hale and Glendon model of human performance, explain why people sometimes fail to take effective action to avoid danger at work.
(10)
This question related to Element 7 of the syllabus and assessed candidates’ knowledge of learning outcome 7.2: “Explain the nature of the perception of risk and its relationship to performance in the workplace” and specifically “Individual behaviour in the face of danger, principles of the Hale & Glendon model”. This question required a general knowledge of the principles of the Hale and Glendon model which deals with behaviour in the face of danger. The Hale and Glendon model has featured in the diploma syllabus for a number of years and so it was not unreasonable to expect a fair level of understanding of its application. Answers to this question were limited, showing that this area of the syllabus is not well understood. Several answers made reference to the Hale and Hale model or to the generalities of HSG 48, both have which have featured in past papers, but neither of which was relevant on this occasion. Candidates are reminded that all areas of the syllabus are liable to be assessed and so they should use the syllabus as a guide to their revision. Course providers may wish to check that this model receives an appropriate amount of coverage in their study material.
8
Section B – three from five question s to be attempted
Question 7
An organisation proposes to build a new gas compression installation to provide energy for its manufacturing processes. An explosion in the installation could affect the public and a nearby railway line. In view of this, the organisation has been told that a qualitative risk assessment for the new installation may not be adequate and that some aspects of the risk assessment require a quantitative risk assessment. (a)
(b)
(c)
Explain the terms ‘qualitative risk assessment’ AND ‘quantitative risk assessment’.
(5)
Identify external sources of information and advice that the organisation could refer to when deciding whether the risk from the new installation is acceptable.
(5)
As a preliminary part of the risk assessment process, a hazard and operability study is to be carried out. Describe the principles and methodology of a hazard and operability (HAZOP) study.
(10)
This question related to Element 4 of the syllabus and assessed candidates’ knowledge of learning outcomes 4.1 “Describe how to use internal and external sources of information in the identification of hazards and assessment of risk”, 4.3 “Explain how to assess and evaluate risk and to implement a risk assessment programme” and 4.4 “Explain the principles and techniques of failure tracing methodologies with the use of calculations”. This was a popular question attempted by most candidates although very few managed to gain more than half the available marks. Answers to part (a) often failed to differentiate clearly between the two assessment types with many candidates mixing the two up. In other instances candidates stated that ‘qualitative’ only related to words such as high, medium and low whilst ‘quantitative’ related only to numbers on 1-5 matrix without due consideration of many other principles. Part (b) appeared problematic for many candidates, who often gave a standard listing of all sources of information rather than tailoring their responses to the scenario. This part of the question only required candidates to ‘identify’ and so those candidates who gave a good range of relevant external sources were able to gain good marks. There were some encouraging answers to part (c), although a good number were comparatively limited, with some candidates obviously being unfamiliar with the HAZOP process, indicating that they had chosen this question as a ‘least worst’ option. Some candidates described the FMEA process instead of HAZOPs.
9
Question 8
(a)
(b)
(c)
Compare AND contrast the functions, rights and entitlements of Safety Representatives appointed under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977, with those of Representatives of Employee Safety elected in accordance with the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996.
(10)
Identify the five topics on which employees or their representatives must be consulted.
(5)
Identify the circumstances under which the employer is not obliged to disclose information to employees or their representatives.
(5)
This question related to Element 6 of the syllabus and assessed candidates’ knowledge of learning outcome 6.4: “Explain the role, influences on and procedures for formal and informal consultation with employees in the workplace.” This question focused on the functions, rights and entitlements of those tasked with representing employees in consultation with the employer. Few candidates attempted this question, which may indicate a general lack of knowledge and understanding of the role and function of representatives. The major requirement for part (a) was to clearly differentiate between the two types of representative. Although some candidates did outline some rights and functions of the two types of ‘Rep’, few actually followed the instruction in the question and made an effort to ‘Compare and contrast’, meaning that few marks could be awarded. Those who chose to present their answer in a tabular format were more successful in drawing comparisons between the two, although this could also have been achieved by writing a careful narrative that compared the two types of representative so as to highlight similarities and contrasted them so as to show the differences. Parts (b) and (c) were better answered with candidates in most cases being able to identify a reasonable range of points, although few candidates were able to recall all relevant points. Detailed knowledge of the functions, rights and entitlements of ‘representatives’ was required in order to gain a good mark on this question. Candidates should therefore focus not only on simply learning about the two types of ‘Rep as separate entities, but could also usefully consider the differences and similarities in order to develop a better understanding.
Question 9
A machinery accident at work has resulted in a fatality. Following an initial investigation into the fatal accident, an enforcing authority inspector decides to make a further visit so that statements can be taken from witnesses and others, including the Managing Director, under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The Managing Director, who was controlling work at the scene when the accident occurred, has refused permission for the inspector to make a further visit and to take statements. (a)
Identify the authorities that might be involved in investigating the accident or initiating and/or conducting criminal prosecutions AND outline the involvement of EACH authority in these circumstances.
10
(5)
(b)
(c)
Outline the specific powers of inspectors that are relevant to this issue AND outline the possible courses of action that the inspector may pursue.
(9)
Outline the legal criteria that must be satisfied to obtain a conviction under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.
(6)
This question related to Element 9 of the syllabus and assessed candidates’ knowledge of learning outcome 9.3: “Explain the responsibilities and powers of enforcing authorities and officers and the range of options related to enforcement action, their implications and appeal procedures.” This was a very popular question, although few candidates managed to obtain more than half the marks that were available. In answer to part (a), many candidates managed to identify at least some of the authorities that might be involved and outline their involvement in the investigation. However, many answers were limited to mere mention of the HSE, with few candidates recognising the role of the Police, Crown Prosecution Service (Procurator Fiscal in Scotland) or Coroner. In part (b) many candidates failed to read the question with sufficient care and so failed to note that this was a ‘further’ visit to the premises. Many of the answers that were provided gave a generic outline of inspector’s powers, some of which were not necessarily of relevance to the scenario. Some candidates lost their way and delved too deeply into topics such as enforcement notices, with some even quoting sections from the Health and Safety at Work Act in an apparent attempt to gain some marks. Part (c) answers were limited. A number of candidates made irrelevant reference to s37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, whilst many still clearly think that the 2007 Act carries personal liability for manslaughter – something that course providers may wish to address.
Question 10
An employee suffered a fractured skull when he fell 3 metres from storage racking as he was loading cartons on to a pallet held on the forks of a lift truck. An investigation revealed that, despite a safe system of work having been written and provided to employees some months previously, it had become common practice for employees to be lifted up on the forks and for them to climb up the outside of the racking. Employees stated that they could not understand the written safe system of work but admitted that they had not brought this to their employer’s attention. (a)
(b)
Outline possible relevant breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 AND the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. The injured employee intends to bring a negligence claim (delict in Scotland) against his employer. With reference to relevant case law, outline what the employee will need to show in order for his claim to succeed.
(c)
(10)
Shortly after the injured employee brings his negligence claim, he is dismissed for a ‘serious breach of safety rules’. The injured employee considers this to be unfair and so decides to bring further proceedings, this time for unfair dismissal.
11
(6)
(i) Identify the body that would hear such a claim.
(1)
(ii) Outline the orders that could be made if the injured employee wins his dismissal case.
(3)
This question related to Elements 8, 9 and 10 of the syllabus and assessed candidates’ knowledge of learning outcomes 8.5 Describe the structure and functions of courts and related institutions in the UK; 8.7 Explain the principles of employment and discrimination law as it affects health and safety issues”; 9.1 “Explain the key requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999”; and 10.1 “Explain the duties owed at common law”. This new question required practical application of knowledge of criminal and civil law to a realistic scenario. At this level of study, candidates are expected to have a comprehensive knowledge of the two statutes named in the question and should be able to apply this knowledge as required by the learning outcomes. In general, the question was fairly well answered, although marks were lost in the answer to part (a) in cases where candidates either failed to cover a sufficient range of possible breaches or where they failed to adequately identify the breaches (e.g. vaguely stating that “section 2” had been breached, which is unacceptable at this level). It would also seem that the 1999 Regulations are less understood than the 1974 Act. In some cases, candidates failed to write anything at all about the 1999 Regulations, perhaps because they had did not read the question, or possibly due to a lack of knowledge. Some candidates made reference to irrelevant law such as PUWER and LOLER – reading the question would have prevented this. Due to the fundamental nature of both the 1974 Act and the 1999 Regulations, a lack of knowledge of their requirements is of particular concern. Course providers may wish to note this weakness when delivering the topic in the future. In part (b), several candidates did not make reference to relevant case law, despite being asked to do so. Some candidates made irrelevant reference to claims under the now largely defunct tort of breach of statutory duty, which failed to gain marks. The standard of answers to part (c) (i) varied from very good to very limited, with some candidates making ‘guesses’ such as ‘county court’, ‘magistrates’ Court’ and ‘high Court’. Most candidates were able to outline at least two of the three possible orders in answer to part (c) (ii).
12
Question 11 (a)
Outline the meaning and relevance of the following terms in the context of controlling human error in the workplace:
(i)
ergonomics;
(ii)
anthropometry;
(iii)
task analysis.
(b)
Excluding ergonomic issues, outline ways in which human reliability in the workplace may be improved. In your answer, consider ‘individual’, ‘job’ and ‘organisational’ issues.
(6)
(14)
This question related to Element 7 of the syllabus and assessed candidates’ knowledge of learning outcome 7.6: “Explain how job factors could contribute to improving human reliability”. This question sought to assess candidates’ knowledge of the role of ergonomics, anthropometry and task analysis, as well as techniques for improving human reliability. Part (a) was not well answered, showing that the student body as a whole has a limited grasp of the meaning of these terms - something that course providers may wish to act to address. A mixed range of responses was seen in the answer to part (b), with a limited level of detail being evident in many answers. Despite the clear prompt in the question that candidates should consider ‘individual’, ‘job’ and ‘organisational’ issues, many failed to do so, meaning that answers frequently lacked structure and digressed into unrelated areas that failed to gain credit. Where the suggested headings were used, candidates invariably fared much better, with some good answers being provided. It was noted that some candidates gave relatively wordy answers to the three parts of part (a). While such answers will have been awarded due credit, candidates should note the number of marks available and provide proportionate answers so that they do not spend a disproportionate amount of time labouring for just two marks.
13
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
