Risk Assessment: 5 Steps to Risk Assessment

There are two key definitions which are an important part of the risk assessment vocabulary.

A ‘hazard’ is something with the potential to cause harm (injury loss or damage)

A ‘risk’ is the potential for harm to be realised.  This is usually seen as a combination of likelihood and severity and which is detailed in step two below.

The key to risk assessment is recognising that whereas there are a great many things which are hazardous, it is the context in which they arise which dictates whether or not they are actually a risk.

The most widely accepted approach in the events industry is the five steps approach as follows:

Step 1: Identify the Hazard and who could be harmed

Step 2: Assess the risk

Step 3: Develop Controls

Step 4: Implement Controls

Step 5: Monitor and Review

This is the hardest part as it involves predicting everything that could reasonably foreseeably go wrong.  There are various approaches to this based on the type of hazard or the type of harm as follows:

Types of Harm

·        Hazards that cause injury, such as a broken bone

·        Hazards to health, such as noise

Type of Hazards

·        Physical e.g. a vehicle

·        Chemical e.g. carbon monoxide in exhaust fumes

·        Biological e.g. food poisoning

·        Ergonomic e.g. upper limb disorders from working at a key board

·        Psychosocial e.g. violence

It is important to consider the potential consequences and who could be harmed.  For example with an electrical fault the consequences are both potential injury from the shock or a fire. 

Back to Top

This depends on the complexity of the operation.  For simple processes it is often sufficient to award a straightforward:

·        Low

·        Medium

·        High

Most event risk assessments require more detail.  It is necessary to assess both the potential likelihood of an incident or accident and the potential severity if it does happen.  A widely used format is shown below.

The template shows that we assess risk both before and after controls are put into place.  Before controls, we are assessing what would happen if there were no controls.  It is important when considering severity to assess the most likely outcome.  For example, consider a rigging operative falling from 3m onto concrete.  The operative could be killed or they could get away with no injuries.  The most likely outcome however, would be a major injury such as a broken bone.

Back to Top

Having determined what the hazards are, and to what extent they pose a risk we now need to do something about it.  We are required by MHSWR to take a methodical approach which attempts to reduce risk at source.  This can be considered under the following headings:

·        Eliminate the risk at source.  There is a point at which any operation is simply too risky and you must consider this.  An alternative is to find a different approach.  A good example of eliminating risk at source is a mother grid.  It eliminates the risk of riggers falling from height by lowering the rig to the floor and carrying out a fix and hoist.

·        Substitute for a safer method or product.  A good example is the use of emulsion paints as a substitute for the more hazardous solvent paints in stand build, or at seated event substituting a glass bottle with a plastic bottle for drinks.

·        Reduce the risk in a quantifiable way. A good example is the prolific use of centre tapped earth transformers for temporary power (the yellow boxes).  This reduces the voltage risk from 230V to a safer 100V or below on the event floor.

·        Isolate from the hazard.  This is a common form of control at event build ups.  Workers are isolated from the risk of falling objects when raising a lighting rig by taping off the area under the rig to prevent access.

·        Control the risk.  All to often this is the start point in many poor risk assessments.  Notice how far down the order this is.  The most common form of control on the event floor is the use of security and floor management.  Another example is an agreed safe system for the lowering of stand panels (i.e. not just letting them fall!)

·        Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) are items such as hard hat and safety shoes.  They are only effective if something goes wrong.  A hard hat is only of use if something falls on your head.  It also only protects you and not the person next to you unless they are wearing one too.  Far better to prevent the object falling in the first place.

·        Discipline is also a method on which there is far too much reliance.  It is fairly self evident that simply telling people not to do things that are unsafe and then punishing them when they do, is not an effective way of controlling risk.

The example below shows the risk assessment of vehicle access.  With no controls it is assessed to be 8, which is HIGH and unacceptable.  After controls are put into place it is assessed to be 4, which is LOW and acceptable.

The MHSWR and associated guidance also requires that risks should be mitigated with a view to achieving maximum reduction in the level of risk within the bounds of what is reasonably practicable.  This means that the employer should do what is reasonable within the constraints of the available recourses in terms of time, money and personnel.  This is not a licence to do nothing on the basis that it is too expensive, but should be the result of careful consideration.  The key word here is ‘reasonable’.  The question to be asked is have you made reasonable provision to control the risks relative to the costs of controlling them?  For example, consider the requirement for floor managers in a large exhibition.  How many floor managers would provide just enough cover?  Let us say you decide that two would suffice.  Three would be better but how much would it achieve in risk reduction relative to the cost?  This is the line of logic which you need to follow.

This is the business of implementing controls on the event floor itself.  It is worthwhile considering all the practical implications of control measures before they are put into place.  For example you may decide on full bag searches as a security measure.  This may be easier said than done when you are expecting thousands of visitors!  If it must be done then you need to think of the practical application such as the space for bag searches and the number of security staff that you will need.

It is important to monitor the event floor to ensure that prescribed controls are actually in place. 

You also need a system of reviewing risk assessments.  Event risk assessments have a natural review cycle in that a new assessment is required for each event.  For routine operations every risk assessment should have a review date.  Other times when risk assessments need to be reviewed are:

• When there has been an accident or incident
• When there is a significant change in personnel or process
• When there is a change in the law
• When monitoring reveals problems.

Back to Top

Back