March 2008 IDip Unit ID

8/9/2019 March 2008 IDip Unit ID

1/9

March 2008

Examiners Report NEBOSH NationalDiploma inOccupational Health

and Safety - Unit D


2/9

Examiners Repor t

N EB O S H N at i o n a l D i p l o m a i nOccupa t io na l Hea l th and Safe ty

March 2008

UNIT D

2008 NEBOSH, Dominus Way, Meridian Business Park, Leicester LE19 1QWtel: 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

T(s):exreps/UnitD/UnitD-0803 JP/DA/REW


3/9

Introduction

The submission date for the NEBOSH National Diploma Unit D workplace based assignment wasWednesday 12 March 2008. 255 candidates submitted their assignment and 189 passed giving a

pass rate of 74%.

The focus of the Unit D assignment should be the application of the knowledge and understandingdeveloped in Units A, B and C of the National Diploma to a real workplace situation. It providesopportunities for the candidate to carry out research appropriate to a level 6 qualification.Candidates are required to demonstrate their ability to carry out a range of activities that would beexpected of a health and safety practitioner.

The aim of the assignment is to produce an overall review of the health and safety managementsystem of an organisation and indicate, through the application of risk assessment, the priorities forthe organisation for the future.

Before attempting the Unit D assignment it is necessary for candidates to be fully conversant withkey elements of the syllabus for Units A, B and C. To facilitate this formative learning process it isrecommended that candidates hold regular discussions with their tutor(s) throughout the period oftheir studies, and complete the Assignment Log provided in the NEBOSH Unit D CandidateGuidance, which is available from the NEBOSH web-site. Candidates should visitwww.nebosh.org.uk/students/currently_studying and then click on 2006 Specification beforeselecting the PDF document entitled Unit D Candidate Guidance. There is strong evidence tosuggest that candidates who perform better in Unit D use the Assignment Log from the verybeginning of their studies, and at appropriate points on their learning journey. Candidates whocomplete their Assignment Log retrospectively at the end of their studies will obtain little or nobenefit, and may well struggle to perform well in Unit D. Course providers are advised to activelyencourage candidates to use their Assignment Logs accordingly.

2
http://www.nebosh.org.uk/students/currently_studyinghttp://www.nebosh.org.uk/students/currently_studying


4/9

Assignment

As signment Br ief

The candidate is required to carry out a detailed review of the health and safety performance of aworkplace or organisation and to produce a justified action plan to improve performance.

The assignment will require the candidate to apply the knowledge and understanding gained fromtheir studies of elements of Units A, B and C in a practical environment and to carry out criticalanalysis and evaluation of information gathered during the review. The level of work should be thatexpected of a competent occupational health and safety practitioner working within anyorganisation.

The report should include:

an introduction that sets the scene by stating clear aims and objectives and a description of

the methodology employed to carry out the assignment;

a description of the chosen workplace/organisation to set a context for the assignment. Thecandidate will need to consider the legal framework within which the workplace /organisation operates;

an overview of the current health and safety management arrangements in which thecandidate should critically review the health and safety management system;

a survey of a wide range of significant hazards within the workplace. The candidate shouldprioritise the identified hazards and, depending on the nature and extent of identifiedhazards, for each of two of the hazards, one physical and one appropriate to health andwelfare, carry out a risk assessment. This should include an evaluation of the effectivenessof the organisation in controlling the risk arising from the hazards identified and proposalsto further control the hazard(s) and reduce risks;

conclusions which summarise the main issues identified in the candidates work togetherwith justified recommendations for improvement;

a costed and prioritised action plan for implementation of the candidates recommendationsin each of the two areas;

an executive summary of the report.

3


5/9

Examiners Comments

Those candidates who performed well in this assignment were evidently following the detailedguidance (in the Guide to the NEBOSH National Diploma in Occupational Health and Safety and

on the NEBOSH website) very closely. It was clear that they were using the requirements of theguidance to structure their report, often using the guidance content to produce section headings intheir work.

Introduction

The introduction provides a foundation for the report and enables the reader to signpost the shapeof their assignment. Most candidates provided a good or satisfactory introduction, however, someomitted clear stated aims and objectives and provided limited information on setting the scene. Toset the scene Examiners were looking for a description of the chosen workplace/organisation anda brief description of the essential features of the legal environment within which the

workplace/organisation operates. In some instances too much information on the chosenorganisation was included it is only necessary to set the scene and explain the key activities andprocesses. A brief description of the principal legal (statute, common, civil and criminal) and otherrequirements within which the organisation operates should be included. Some candidatesproduced a regurgitated list of various laws and regulations and only the better answers attemptedto apply these legislative requirements to their chosen workplace as required. Candidates arerequired to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of relevant statutes, regulations,

ACoPs, standards and guidance in the context of their chosen workplace. An exhaustive list ofregulations, etc. was not expected, but when candidates are citing things it is important that theyensure the correct titles and dates are used failing to do so indicates a lack of appropriateresearch.

Many candidates outlined criminal law issues in the introduction, but those candidates who scoredparticularly well in this section also ensured that they gave time and effort to identifying andexplaining the relevant civil cases, giving clear and accurate references to carefully selected caselaw. Better submissions painted a balanced picture of the criminal and civil organisational context.

Better submissions showed evidence of candidates putting a lot of thought into developing a clearand concise aim explaining and justifying the purpose of the report. They also developed a setof meaningful objectives for the report, which could be used throughout the writing / preparation ofthe report to sense check their own progress.

Those candidates who then went onto explain their chosen methods, explaining and justifyingbasic principles as they did so, achieved good marks in this area. Clear statements of whatresearch had been carried out, which models had been chosen and why, were most useful andevident in better reports. It is a useful exercise to ask an independent individual (such as a friend,relative or colleague) whether they understand and/or could follow the methodology outlined.

Executive Summary

The executive summary should provide a concise overview of the reason for the report, the keypoints covered and the main conclusions and recommendations arising. It should be possible toread the executive summary in a short time, while adequately informing a busy reader of thesalient points. To achieve this, candidates should use the allowed one side of A4 using single-

spaced Arial font (size 11) and 2cm print margins. Some candidates provided half page executivesummaries which failed to provide the information required, while others provided too much detailover a number of pages. It is recommended that wherever possible candidates seek someguidance from a senior manager/director on the content and format of their executive summary.

4


6/9

If the senior manager/director can glean the key information quickly, and understand the purposeand main findings then the executive summary is doing its job. The executive summary should alsohave some persuasive impact as it will include some form of call to action, which should bephrased in terms of benefits to the business, and not be overly critical (or damning) of previousperformance or prevailing conditions.

Unfortunately too many summaries failed to emphasise the main system failures of the organisation

or to identify the main failures in the management of the two most significant hazards. Very fewmade a case for implementing the findings of the report or emphasise how their recommendationscould reduce the liabilities of the organisation. That said many of the executive summaries weregenerally completed to a reasonable standard - the highest marks being given to candidates whocommunicated the key points clearly and concisely. Exemplary reports structured executivesummaries which were very persuasive and would have engaged the intended audience for suchsummaries senior managers, directors, etc..

Review of the Health and Safety Management System

Candidates were required to give a critical evaluation of the current health and safety management

system in their chosen workplace/organisation. Most candidates outlined or described arecognised health and safety model (such as HSG65) without making any reference to theirorganisations own management system, and could not therefore produce the gap analysisrequired. The brief required candidates to compare their current system with a recognised modeland provide a clear systematic description of any gaps (across all areas of the managementsystem) before identifying priorities for improvement.

In some instances there was a poor understanding on HSG65 and course providers should domore to help candidates get to grips with the subtleties of this model and how it might be applied inthe workplace. A number of candidates made use of Diagram 1 from HSG65 without citing where ithad originated from, and without adequate description.

Reports awarded the highest marks included sections which clearly demonstrated the writersunderstanding of their chosen model for health and safety management systems. Better reportsoutlined the selected model before explaining the relevance of the models elements to existingpolicy, arrangements, etc. A good working knowledge of HSG65 (or a similar model) is essentialfor those candidates wishing to perform well.

The gap analysis section requires candidates to assess their chosen organisations health andsafety management systems against a recognised model such as HSG65. Better submissionsclearly identified shortcomings in the chosen health and safety management systems against sucha standard, carrying forward these identified gaps into the recommendations and action plansrequired later in the report.

Hazards and Risk Assessments

This is a fundamental section of the report and candidates are required to demonstrate theirunderstanding of hazard identification and risk assessment principles. Few marks are awarded forcollation and inclusion of risk assessments already completed within a chosen business,particularly where such risk assessments were completed some time prior to completion of thereport. Candidates who performed well in this section approached the hazard identification and riskassessment processes with a fresh pair of eyes, and actually engaged themselves with theprocess.

5


7/9

Most candidates managed to outline the 15 different hazards required from across the syllabus,taking examples from both Unit B and Unit C. A few fell short, however, with some candidates onlyfinding 11 or 12 hazards, or limiting the hazards identified to either Unit B (health and welfarehazards) or Unit C (physical hazards). In some instances candidates confused physical hazardswith health and welfare hazards, which adversely impacted on their prioritisation of hazards and theirsubsequent risk assessments. For instance one candidate identified a particular hazardoussubstance as a physical fire hazard, but then concentrated on the toxic properties of the substance

rather than its flammability. In effect the candidate submitted two risk assessments for health andwelfare hazards, restricting the number of marks that were available in that section.

It is recommended that candidates check the two hazards they are selecting for risk assessmentagainst the syllabus before they start any work on the risk assessment to ensure that they haveone from each Unit B and Unit C. If they are unsure they should seek guidance from their tutor(s).

When identifying hazards some candidates merely produced hazard spotting/inspection formswithout any validation or reference to other evidence available. Very few candidates mentioned thewide array of hazard information available from internal and external sources, which could haveincluded some reference to accident/ill-health data, findings from previous active monitoringactivities, established guidance, etc.

The risk assessments were generally found to be satisfactory, but some candidates failed todescribe their risk assessment methodology. Risk ranking/scoring models were sometimesincluded without adequate explanation of their meaning, interpretation or relevance. Candidateswho scored well in this section often detailed their risk assessments in a tabular format. It isrecommended that course providers give their candidates sufficient time to practice riskassessment exercises in small groups during the taught element of Unit A in preparation for whatwill be required in Unit D.

Higher scoring reports were those where candidates demonstrated a clear understanding of thedifference between the terms hazard and risk. Better submissions took a methodical approachto breaking down and differentiating between work activities, hazards, risks and possibleoutcomes. Candidates must be able to demonstrate their understanding of risk assessmentprinciples they should clearly explain the risk assessment process being used, detailing how anyranking or scoring systems are used for comparison, prioritisation and consideration ofimprovements required.

Great care is also to be taken so that candidates do not over complicate the risk assessmentelements of the report. Some candidates tried to adopt a very demanding approach to certain riskassessments, with some of them confusing themselves in the process.

Conclusions

Some candidates did not refer back to their own aims and objectives (as detailed in theirintroduction) when writing their conclusions. It is recommended that this is done in order to performa quality check on the work done. Candidates should critically appraise their own performance inwriting the report at this stage they should be asking themselves Does the report do what it setout to do? and Does the report meet the requirements of the brief?.

Better submissions ensured that gaps and areas for improvement identified in the main body of thereport were carried forward into the final part of the report. The conclusions should refer to thingsidentified in the main body, and recommendations should be similarly rooted in things discussed inthe conclusion and earlier in the report. Recommendations should then be carried forward into therespective action plans, where consideration should also be given to priorities, costs, time scale

and how and when progress against the plans would be reviewed.

6


8/9

Recommendations

Recommendations were generally good, and followed on from main conclusions, but manycandidates still fail to provide a comprehensive justification and cost / benefit to eachrecommendation. This is the point at which the case for implementation of the recommendedimprovement is to be made, and effort must be made in creating a robust argument for theallocation of time and resources to such changes.

Action Plan 1 (improvements to the safety management system) and Action Plan 2 (improvementsidentified through risk assessments) were on the whole good, with most providing tabulatedformats with all the relevant headings considered. Unfortunately there were still some candidateswho chose not to use the suggested Action Plan tabular format given in the NEBOSH Unit DCandidate Guidance, leading to key elements being omitted.

Care must be taken when identifying timescales for recommendations, as it is not justifiable tostate that each and every recommendation needs to be implemented within three months forexample. Consideration should be given to complexity, cost and resource issues when suggestingtimescales. It is important to remember that recommendations should be SMART (Specific,Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely). Too many candidates still do not include anyprovision for the recommendations to be reviewed at some future time.

References

Bibliography and references still remain poorly produced and many still dont indicate any evidenceof sufficient research being done. It is recommended that candidates do not work solely from thehandouts provided by their course provider better reports showed evidence of further researchand use of source documents. Candidates should use one of the approaches to referencingrecommended in the NEBOSH Unit D Candidate Guidance.

Free Collaborative Encyclopaedia web-sites must not be considered as authoritative sources ofinformation for use in the completion of a Unit D assignment, as they are written by on-line

communities and their accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Closing Comments/Summary

Generally the standard of reports was fair, some candidates reports were let down by somesimple omissions. The points outlined above should give some clear pointers to candidates andcourse providers regarding the completion of Unit D assignments - these complement the existingguidance from NEBOSH. Candidates are advised to complete the top ten checklist set out belowbefore submitting their assignments:

1. word count should be between 8000 and 12000 words;

2. generic and non-original information should only appear in the appendices (if at all);3. aim and objectives of the report should be clearly set out in the introduction;

4. description of the legal requirements should be linked to the workplace/environment;

5. gap analysis should be clear in identifying the main differences between the organisationssafety management system and a recognised model such as HSG65;

6. main body findings (such as those identified in the gap analysis, hazards and risk assessments)should flow through into the conclusions and recommendations sections;

7. a risk assessment should be completed for the each of the 2 required hazard types (physical andhealth/wellbeing);

8. the approach to risk assessment should be adequately explained;

9. a review mechanism/deadline should be included in the action plans;

10. the executive summary should be concise in communicating the key findings and persuasive inits call to action.

7


9/9

The National ExaminationBoard in OccupationalSafety and Health

Dominus WayMeridian Business ParkLeicester LE19 1QW

telephone +44 (0)116 2634700fax +44 (0)116 2824000email [email protected]

March 2008 IDip Unit ID

Documents

Transcript of March 2008 IDip Unit ID