Archived decisions

Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority Item 8

Human Resources Committee

15/03/200529 November 2005

Error! Bookmark not defined.Establishment

Report by the Chief Officer

Contact: Jennifer McNeill Telephone : 023 80 644 000 EXT 2348 Email : [email protected]


1	Summary
	Attached to this report are the proposals that were recently submitted to and approved by the Service Management Team (SMT). These are now submitted for approval by the Human Resources Committee and include increased administrative support for retained stations; a review of the roles, responsibilities and reporting lines of the posts in the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Unit, and an increase in posts in the Equality and Diversity Team.

2	RecommendationError! Bookmark not defined.(s)

a	That the Reports attached as appendices to this report be noted.

b	That approval be given to the posts outlined in the Appendices with funding, as appropriate, to be met from growth in the 2006/07 Budget.

3	Introduction Error! Bookmark not defined.and Background

3.1	During the year, a number of proposals to increase the establishment have been approved by SMT. Posts relating to: Additional Administrative Support for Retained Stations (see Appendix 1); Changes to the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Unit (see Appendix 2) - this includes moving the Occupational Health posts and management of external contracts back to the Human Resources function and retaining the Health and Safety posts within the Safety and Risk Management function; A summary of what was agreed by the Equality and Diversity Project Board (see Appendix 3) these are essential to meet the actions defined within our Comprehensive Equality Policy. Where additional expenditure has been identified, this will be the subject of a separate growth bid to the Fire Authority. Approval for the changes to, or increase in posts are now submitted for approval by the HR Committee.

3.2	Due to the urgency of the need to make progress in these two areas, plans are in place to recruit three of the Station Support staff and the two Health and Safety staff in the new year with the funding being met from efficiency savings. However, future funding will be the subject of a growth bid for 2006/07.

4	Contribution to Corporate Aims and Objectives

4.1	This contributes to our workforce planning to meet our corporate aims and objectives

5	Risk Analysis

5.1	The risk analysis relating to administrative support for retained stations and occupational health, safety and welfare are contained separately within the reports in Appendices 1 and 2. Whilst funding has been found from within existing resources to commence the high level of initiatives identified in our Corporate Equality Policy and Action Plan, we will be unable to continue to maintain these if the additional resources are not supported longer term.

6	Resource Implications

6.1	These are identified separately in Appendices 1,2 and 3.

7	Equality Impact Assessment

7.1	The proposals within this report are considered compatible with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.


Background Information (Section 100D of Local Government Act 1972)

The following documents disclose the facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of the report: HFRS Corporate Equality Policy HFRS Race Equality Scheme Note: The list excludes: (1) published works; and (2) documents that disclose exempt or confidential information defined in the Act.

Attached appendices:

Appendix 1 - Administrative Support for Retained Stations

Appendix 2 - A Review of the Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Unit

Appendix 3 - Equality and Diversity Team Review

Secretarial/WP/Corporate/HFRA/HR CommitteeError! Bookmark not defined. 29 November 2005/Establishment JMC/17 November 2005

Appendix 1

Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service

Service Management Team

Monday 3 October 2005

Administrative Support for Retained Stations

Report by: Maureen Matthews Station Support Manager

Contact: Maureen Matthews [email protected] 07810 378247

Summary

To look at the requirement to provide administrative support to the Retained Fire Stations within Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service (HFRS).

The purpose of this project was to look at the best way of introducing and providing administration support at retained fire stations that is well organised, useful, practical and workable for all concerned to achieve a solution that benefits all.

As a result of previous research of workloads and the associated issues administrative support has been introduced at all wholetime and day-crewed stations. This has been positively received.

Further research has shown that additional support is needed to assist the retained units. The additional workload issues have been identified by means of consultation, a questionnaire and personal interviews.

Results concluded that there were administration tasks that could be relinquished to an administrator and this was already happening in some group location, but the research identified that this was limited due to the time that the Group/Station Administrator had available to offer, as they too found their workload ever increasing.

HFRS is an organisation that provides a service that is vital to the community it serves there has been tremendous change in the way the business operates which has impacted on the way fire stations operate. The introduction of administration support at wholetime and day-crewed has been invaluable in allowing the firefighter to undertake a proactive role within the community that HFRS serves and this same level of support now needs to be provided to the retained units'.

2 Recommendation(s)

2.1 That administrative support should be provided for the Retained Fire Stations within HFRS.

2.2 The requirement is for 8 Station Support Administrators to work with the existing

Group/Station Administrators to provide support wherever it is needed.

2.3 To provide immediate support in the most hard pressed areas to appoint 3

administrators as soon as possible and the remaining 5 with effect 1 April 2006.

3 Introduction and Background

3.1 As a result of various focus group meetings held for officers, wholetime junior officers, retained and green book staff to look at workloads and the associated issues a request was put forward to provide administrative support to stations. During 2004 administrative support has been introduced to all wholetime and day crewed stations and this has been positively received. with the ever increasing workloads being placed upon us all, the next step is to examine how to provide administrative support to the retained.

3.2.1 In addition to looking at the issues raised at the focus group meetings it was necessary to speak to the personnel who currently carry out this work and identify the administrative tasks that could be carried out more effectively by administrative support , and the ones that cannot. this was achieved by asking the officers in charge of retained stations to complete a questionnaire. In addition the Group/station administrators were also asked to complete the questionnaire identifying what administrative support they were offering to the retained stations within their group.

40 out of a possible 46 returns were received from retained units and all 10 Group/Station administrators submitted a return.

Currently the officer in charge of a retained station is able to claim and be paid for three hours for carrying out administrative duties or two hours for retained sections at wholetime/day-crewed/nucleus stations. It was very apparent from the returns received that the officer in charge or in some cases a delegated member of the unit, was spending considerably more time dealing with administrative tasks.

3.2.2 There are 46 retained units: 37 purely retained and 9 on wholetime/day-crewed/nucleus stations. This equates to 129 hours per week being paid to personnel to carry out administrative tasks. This compares with the evidence from the completed questionnaires that the actual number of hours being spent on administrative tasks was in fact 167 hours per week; a difference of some 38 hours that were not being paid for. See Appendix A

3.2.3 Since the questionnaires were completed at the beginning of 2005 there has been a further increase in the administrative workload at retained stations with the introduction of the Retained Management System (RMS) and the Home Fire Safety Checks (HFSC) at certain stations which were not accounted for in the returns.

3.2.4 In addition the Group/Station administrators have been providing support to the retained units within their group, this varies from group to group depending on what time they have available to offer, as they have all found that their workloads increasing; HFSC being the main area of growth and also taking on more tasks from the operational personnel, as a result there is no capacity to take on further work.

3.2.5 The returns from the Group/Station administrators showed that the total number of hours they spend supporting the retained units is 50 hours a week. This shows that the introduction of Group/Station administrators has already been of benefit to the retained stations but there is still the need fro more support to these stations, as the disparity between the hours they claim for and the hours they are doing clearly shows.

3.2 Analysis of Questionnaires and Interviews

From the initial meetings with individuals and the completed questionnaires from the OIC's and the Group/Station administrators, subsequent meetings with a few of the OIC's where they are already seeing the benefit of administrative support, the following information has been extracted and is detailed below:

3.3.1 What admin tasks are being carried out.

What can be relinquished to an administrator	What cannot
Telephone calls	Accident investigations
Petty Cash	Programming Training Needs
Fire call entries	Station Management
Defects - appliance/equipment	Fire reports
Update and maintain service forms	PPE Logs
Maintenance of station diary	Kit checks
Mail sorting	Accident Book
CFS visits to schools and other organisations
Ordering stationery/consumables
Premises Inspection cards and updates
Familiarisation visits to premises within station ground
Maintain Service Orders, Equipment, Data Sheets and other bulletins
Maintenance of all station files to ensure up to date
Contacting/liasing with Ops department and group trainers for training sessions/drills
Maintain station records and archive as necessary
Absence paperwork i.e. sickness
Property defects and follow ups
Log book checks
Overdrive receipts
Indents for equipment & uniform
Assist OIC with initial 2-year Taps Planner and updating Taps Tracker
HFSC
Course Nomination Administration
RMS system
Recording A/L for personnel
Processing all claims from station personnel
Dealing with contractors/visitors at station
Reporting/resolving and chasing computer problems

3.3.2 How long is spent on admin and when

It was necessary to look at the hours that the OIC's were spending carrying out administrative duties and when these duties were being done. The questionnaire asked them to identify when they were carrying out administrative duties the options being Daytime; Evening; Weekends or Drill Nights. The hours spent weekly by each OIC carrying out administrative tasks varied from station to station as did when these duties were being carried out. These are included as Appendix A.

Further information garnered from the returns identified that many of the OIC's were carrying out their administrative duties during the day because they were either shift workers or were employed by HFRS in a full-time capacity either as a wholetime firefighter or in a support role within the organisation.

Analysis of the aforementioned questionnaires completed by the OIC's showed that there was the need for these duties to be carried out during the day as a large amount of their workload was dependant on supplying to or gathering of information from the various functions at headquarters to fulfil their role as OIC. In the main these functions worked "9 to 5" Monday to Friday. Some OIC's were unable because of their work, to spend time during the weekdays carrying out administrative duties and found this to be very much a frustration in not being able to talk to someone directly to obtain answers. The hours that the Group/Station administrator spent offering support to the retained stations also varied depending on the hours they worked and as to the number of retained stations within their group, and as to what "spare" hours they had.

3.3.3 Other admin issues

Notwithstanding the increased use of IT as a means of communicating, problems with the "slowness" of the system did not enhance their eagerness to use this as a means of obtaining the information required, their preferred option was still talking to someone! The introduction of Group/Station administrators has alleviated this to a degree as the OIC's are using this resource as their "one stop shop" which is working well.

3 Contribution too Corporate Aims and Objectives

Mission of Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service is to Make Hampshire Safer

In line with the National Framework for modernisation the role of the service provided is widening to help achieve the mission. The primary aim is to protect people, property, the environment by preventing fires and other emergencies, responding to environmental emergencies , terrorist attacks and major flooding incidents, as well as fires.

The provision of administrative support contributes to this aim by releasing the operational personnel with the administration tasks, allowing them more time to:

4.1 Undertake the proactive role dealing with increased Community Fire Safety workload, in particular HFSC.

3.2 Undertake additional training in the use of new equipment to gain expertise to deal with the varied incidents that HFRS respond to, and maintain core competencies.

3.3 Plan to deal effectively with tasks that cannot be given to an administrator, rather than reacting to other functions priorities.

5 Risk Analysis

5.1 Having already introduced administration support at fire stations, and identified that this is not sufficient to meet the needs at all stations, in particular retained stations the next stage is to put forward solutions/options to overcome this problem and implement the best solution that meets the needs and expectations of all HFRS stakeholders, whilst maintaining and delivering the most cost effective fire and rescue service.

Main stakeholders include the following:

· the public both as taxpayers and users/customers of the services

· industry and commerce as clients and customers of the services

· partners and collaborators: local councils, district councils in Hampshire, other fire authorities and other emergency services and agencies

· external audit and inspection bodies including ODPM

· HFRS staff that are responsible for managing and delivering HFRS services to the

public

5.2 From the investigations there are different options/solutions available to overcome this problem. These must be evaluated against the findings within HFRS as to what they require to arrive at what is considered to be the best solution, and the most practicable for all concerned. Listed below are the options to be considered.

5.2.1 Option 1: No change

This is a possible solution. However, a previous investigation that identified increased workload at fire stations resulted in the introduction of administration support at fire stations. The level of admin support is insufficient to meet the increased burden of workloads or to help retained so this option does not address the problem.

5.2.2 Option 2: Provide administration support for retained stations only

This would provide support to the retained stations/units but as it would not address the workload of existing Group/Station administrators who already provide support to the retained units it would not be effective or efficient.

5.2.3 Option 3: Provide additional administration support at Group/station location

This would give the much needed support to meet the ever changing business needs of HFRS with particular emphasis being on support to the retained units whilst at the same time providing additional support , where identified to the existing Group/Station administrators thus providing full benefit to address the workload issues.

5.3 Having identified the options these now need to be evaluated, the initial evaluation consists of looking at each option and applying a weighted score to measure its benefit/success in achieving the areas that need to be improved as a result of the research that has taken place.


Success/Benefit factors	Weighting	Option 1 No Change		Option 2 Provide Administration Support for Retained Units only		Option 3 Provide Additional Administration Support at Group/Station location
Proactive role Increase in Community Safety	30	0	0	4	120	4	120
Increase in Training and maintaining core competencies	20	0	0	2	40	3	60
Standardisation of procedures	10	0	0	3	30	3	30
Cost effectiveness	10	1	10	2	20	2	20
Job Role/Satisfaction	10	2	20	2	20	4	40
Stakeholders expectations	20	2	40	2	40	3	60
TOTAL			70		270		330

Table 1 Calculations of weighted scores to measure benefit/success factors

NOTE:

The benefit/success is scored out of 100, and the option scored from 0 to 5, with 0 being of the least benefit.

Evaluation of Options

5.3.1 Option 1 No change

· Does not free up the time spent on paperwork/administration to undertake a more proactive role dealing with Community Fire Safety.

· Does not allow for additional training in the use of new equipment to gain the expertise to deal with the varied incidents that HFRS respond to

· Continued lack of standardisation of procedures would result in continued confusion and lack of efficiency for all concerned.

· As to cost effectiveness, in real terms no increase in budget needed. However, using the retained OIC as an administrator is not best use of a trained specialist resource.

· The expectation of the stakeholders, both internal and external would still be met but at the cost of the people that provide it, as these people would be taking on too much in their roles.

· This has the least score on the success/benefit chart and so therefore justifies the decision that this was not an option to choose.

5.3.2 Option 2 Administration Support for retained units only

This option would achieve the following:

· Does free up time spent dealing with the administration tasks that can be passed to an administrator and then this "spare" time can be used to:

· Undertake the proactive role with the increased Community Fire Safety workload - introduction of HFSC at retained units

· Give potential for additional training in the use of new equipment to gain the expertise to deal with the varied incidents that HFRS responds to. this is in addition to the training required to maintain core competencies.

· Standardise procedures resulting in less confusion and increased efficiency for all. From a practical angle it would be easier to introduce with a small team of administration staff as opposed to the 46 retained OIC's and other station personnel who deal with the administration workload.

· Does have an impact on the budget. However firefighters do not join the fire service to deal with administration/paperwork and using the retained OIC as an administrator is not best use of a trained specialist resource.

· As for job satisfaction it has already been identified that there are many hours that the retained OUC spends carrying out administrative tasks that he is not paid for, and has been identified as a burden placed upon them and this in turn will affect morale of all personnel on the station. This would have the potential to reduce and ultimately alleviate these hours that are worked but not paid for.

· By having administration support the expectations and needs of the stakeholders, both internal and external will be met. HFRS will be maintaining a cost effective fire and rescue service and will also be in a position to be available to meet and respond to any changes that may be introduced in the future.

· There is the potential by only having administration support for retained units, that it could demoralise the existing Group/Station administrators. They may perceive that the work that they already do for the retained units is not valued.

· This has the second highest score on the success/benefit chart so would not be an option to consider.

5.3.3 Provide additional administration support at Group/Station location

This option would achieve the following:

· Does free up time spent dealing with the administration tasks that can be passed to an administrator and then this "spare" time can be used to:

· Undertake the proactive role with the increased Community Fire Safety workload - introduction of HFSC at retained units

· As for job satisfaction it has already been identified that there are many hours that the retained OIC spends carrying out administrative tasks that he is not paid for, and has been identified as a burden placed upon them and this in turn will affect morale of all personnel on the station. This would have the potential to reduce and ultimately alleviate these hours that are worked and not paid for. In addition as there are already Group/Station administrators providing additional support to the retained units, dependant on time they have available, this recognises and appreciates the work they are doing and offers help to their ever increasing workloads, rather than introduce a resource just to deal with the retained workloads.

· Has the highest score on the success/benefit chart so thus would be the best option to consider.

5.3 Another tool that can be used in the valuation process is to conduct a risk analysis of the options. This gives an important measure of its acceptability within the organisation. Group/Station administrators has been introduced to all wholetime and day-crewed stations within HFRS and has been positively received, by providing further support will be acceptable as shown below:


Options	Critical Success Factors
	Proactive Role	Increase in Training	Standardisation of Procedures	Cost Effectiveness	Job Satisfaction	Stakeholders Expectations
Option 1 no change	High	High	Medium	Medium	High	Medium
Option 2 provide support for retained only	Low	Low	Medium	Medium	Medium	Low
Option 3 additional support at Group/Station location	Low	Low	Low	Medium	Low	Low

The option with the low to medium risk is identified as Option 3 additional support at Group/Station location.

5 Resource/Financial Implications

6.1 Human Resource

Additional posts required as shown below:

No of posts	Hours per post	Grade	Essential User
8	37	D	YES

6.2 Financial Resources


Group/Station Administrators x 8 posts
Cost	Amount per post	Total Amount
Salary (including on costs)	£20000.00	£160000.00
Essential user lump sum	£ 900.00	£ 7200.00
Mileage approx. usage	£ 1100.00	£ 8800.00
TOTAL		£176000.00

Physical Resources

All posts will be located at fire stations so realistically there should be minimal costs, apart from office furniture.

5.3 Information and Communications Technology Resources

Cost	Amount
HFRS Basic Desktop Service	£1000.00 per annum
Mobile Telephone	£ 300.00 per annum
TOTAL	£1300.00 per annum

Cost	Amount
Additional IT socket	£150.00
Additional telephone point	£150.00
TOTAL	£300.00

6 Equality Impact Assessment

7.1 Recruitment: posts will be open to all. There may be the need for changes to fire stations to ensure that they are geared to employing anyone with a disability.

7 Consultation

To obtain the information to complete this report the following methods were used:

· Questionnaires

· Interviews with retained OIC's, Group/Station Administrators, Function heads

· Unison

A questionnaire was sent to all retained OIC's and all Group/Station administrators at the 10 group locations.

8 Conclusion

In conclusion , the introduction of additional administration at Group/Station location can be shown to be the best solution to provide much needed support to the retained units and also to assist with the increasing workloads of existing Group/Station administrators. The proposed locations are included as Appendix B

W/Corporate/SMT/AdminSupportRetained.oct05

19 September 2005

APPENDIX A

The table below shows the findings from the completed questionnaires as to when the administrative duties were carried out in percentage terms:

Option	Hours	Percentage
Daytime	17	12.5%
Daytime & evening	11	5%
Daytime, evening & weekend	38	17.5%
Daytime & weekend	20	10%
Daytime, evening & drill night	3	5%
Daytime, weekend & drill night	4	2.5%
Daytime & drill night	5	7.5%
Evening & weekend	4	2.5%
Evening, weekend & drill night	10	5%
Weekend & drill night	2	2.5%
Daytime, evening, weekend & drill night	53	30%
TOTAL	167	100%

From the returns if the allocation of time was only apportioned to Daytime; Evening, Weekend and Drill Night the results would be as below:

Option	Percentage
Daytime	84%
Evening	65%
Weekend	70%
Drill Night	50%

These returns showed in percentage terms when during the week the administrative duties were being carried out:

1. Daytime

2. Weekend

3. Evening

4. Drill Night

APPENDIX B

From current investigations these would be the preferred locations, notwithstanding these can be changed if the business need so dictates:

· Rushmoor

· Fareham

· Waterlooville

· Eastleigh

· New Forest (station to be decided)

From the information garnered from my investigations these would be the locations:

· Basingstoke

· Alton

· Lyndhurst

By providing additional posts at Basingstoke and Alton the following retained stations or units will receive additional administrative support which ultimately will release the retained OIC of tasks that he is currently doing and not being paid for.

Basingstoke and Deane	Rushmoor and Hart	East Hampshire
Basingstoke	Rushmoor	Bordon
Whitchurch	Fleet	Alton
Kingsclere	Hartley Witney	Grayshott
Overton	Odiham	Liphook
Tadley	Yately	Horndean
		Petersfield

By providing an additional post at Lyndhurst the following retained stations will receive additional administrative support currently the support they receive is from the Group/Station Administrator who in the hours that they work are limited as to what support they can offer to these stations , which ultimately will release the retained OIC of tasks that he is currently doing and not being paid for.

New Forest South	New Forest North
Lymington	Ringwood
Hythe	Totton
Beaulieu	Fordingbridge
Brockenhurst	Lyndhurst
New Milton	Burley
Hardley

Appendix 2

Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service

Safety and Risk Management Function

1 August 2005

A Review of the Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Unit

Report by SDO C House

Contact:


1	Summary

1.1	This report has been prepared in recognition of the vulnerability of the service to legal sanction or challenge through a failure to address significant hazards to our employees and those effected by our work.

1.2	The report will identify specific areas of need and the method to achieve compliance. It will also consider the overall provision of Occupational Health; Health and Safety and Welfare facilities and the most effective method of optimising those resources.

2	RecommendationError! Bookmark not defined.(s)

2.1	The Health and Safety Adviser should be supported in his role through the addition of two additional post to allow developmental work to be undertaken and allow a proper response to significant events that occur in the Service.

2.2	The Health and Safety Adviser post should be reviewed and salary adjusted accordingly.

2.3	The Occupational Health facility should remain `in house' and be staffed by a Senior OHA, a Screening Nurse and a clinical assistant.

2.4	The role and responsibilities of the Welfare Adviser should be reviewed and salary adjusted in accordance with the review.

2.5	That the role of the Service Fitness Adviser is reviewed and the salary is adjusted appropriately.

2.6	Counsellors in the Community contracts should be maintained to supplement welfare facilities.

2.7	The Occupational Health Physician (OHP) contract should be continued and expanded to allow for, up to, an additional 12 days per year.

2.8	The fast-track physiotherapist contract should become an established budget need.

2.9	That the name be changed from Occupational Health Safety and Welfare (OHSW) Unit to OHSW Department.

2.10	Local line management of the department should cease on implementation of recommendations.

2.11	Line management of OH and Welfare services, within the department, should be managed by the HR function.

2.12	Line management of Health and Safety services, within the department, should be managed by the Safety and Risk Management function.

3	Introduction Error! Bookmark not defined.and Background

3.1	Following the retirement of the, green book, manager of the OHSW in September 2004 a grey book manager was put into post to consider the overall structure of the unit, the need for an integrated unit as existing and the vulnerabilities of the Service through sickness absence and health and safety litigation.

3.2	Through the efforts and knowledge of previous, unit, management the Service has been encouraged to embraced the philosophy of Health and Safety and has been innovative in the acquisition of specific skills to protects employees and the Service. However, as the pressure of burgeoning legislation and individual knowledge increases our opportunity to progress has stalled and is in danger of reversing without adequate skilled resources. Our approach to Health and Safety has been to enable managers at all levels of the organisation through the application of training appropriate to need. This has the advantage of also creating or building the Health and Safety culture within the organisation, which should lead to a reducing incidence of safety events. If our own technology and that of our customers had remained static through the last decade this would almost certainly be true, it is therefore the pace of change that not only prevents us from continuous improvement but is causing the service to be at risk. Pace of change for service delivery functions has seen health and safety, as a specific driver in those functions, relegated to a lower priority in favour of other pro-active initiatives.

3.3	As an integrated OHSW department we have, until recently, been unique, now other services are copying our example as this model is recognised as innovative and best practice and provides a very effective, specialist support to the service. Whilst management changes, as recommended, may be seen as divisive to this model the opportunity for integrated working will continue through, maintaining the department in one location and a revised meeting structure.

4	Details

4.1	Health and Safety

4.1.1	The role of the Health and Safety Adviser is the most vulnerable, personally and corporately in the department. The current situation with only one adviser is a burgeoning workload caused by several factors including, emerging legislation, pressure on other managers and increased employee awareness.

4.1.2	There is no capacity to develop health and safety pro-actively within HFRS or to fully participate in regional or national partnership initiatives.

4.1.3	A number of interventions have only been identified and responded to by chance encounter: · Unguarded workshop machinery · Failure to test/identify a damaged safety harness used for working aloft · Failure to risk assess a young person (under 18 years) working for HFRS · Failure to carry out a risk assessment on equipment used in a safety critical drill · Health and Safety inspections of workplaces in HFRS stopped following restructure due simply to the administration no longer taking place

4.1.4	Each one of the above examples could have led to death or serious injury to an employee or a member of the public. If the failure had been reported to or identified by an HSE inspector it would have led to serious sanctions being applied, including a prohibition order, which in turn would have caused a loss of public confidence in the service.

4.1.5	Several areas still require urgent development work to protect employees, functions and the service from injury, litigation or HSE sanction: · Development and population of a risk assessment database · Accident investigation protocol, training and involvement · Workplace inspection and audit policy development and review · Development and maintenance of a Health and Safety Risk Register · Safety critical event reporting and investigation · Safe systems of work and permits to work policy (contractors) · Timely information to service management · Environmental protection · Web Site development · Noise assessment

4.1.6	In the main all of these points require proactive development that cannot be achieved due to the amount of reactive work received daily. Much of the reactive work could be achieved by a health and safety practitioner of a lower qualification and most could be completed if this person had an assistant of NEBOSH certificate level. This would allow the Health and Safety Adviser to manage the staff and develop systems for the longer term safety of the service. A grey book employee in one of the subordinate H and S roles would enhance the department and function through more intimate knowledge of the operational role and duties.

4.1.7	It is recommended that: 1 The grading of the Health and Safety Adviser post is reviewed 2 An experienced Health and Safety Practitioner is recruited 3 A grey book employee with a NEBOSH qualification is seconded to H and S

4.2	Welfare Service

4.2.1	The role of Welfare Adviser (WA) has developed in accordance with service needs since the role was introduced in late 2001. A recent review of the role through job evaluation has substantiated and confirmed service need.

4.2.2	In an effort to create some policy development and review opportunities the WA clinical schedule was amended, which has produced positive results for the role. The role is already pro-active in support of management and employees. Further integrative relationships are being explored in the department to develop the referral processes and to identify both reactive and proactive initiatives to prevent or repair welfare issues.

4.2.3	Stress in the workplace has become a major cause of concern for the Health and Safety Executive and employers due to the number of days of sickness absence and the amount of litigious claims against employers. At least one large public service employer has been issued an improvement notice by the HSE for failing to carry out stress risk assessments and having insufficient policy to deal with stress in the workplace. Our current service provision of WA and PPC and their respective levels of ability, is satisfactory as a defence against normal litigation and HSE sanction. However, it is imperative that time is given to complete a `workplace stress risk assessment survey' (WPSRA) as currently the WA is only able to act reactively to employee needs. Completion of the WPSRA will allow proactive measures to be conducted to prevent damage to employees, relationships and public perception. WPSRA will also provide the core information for much needed manager training on the recognition of workplace stress and the appropriate actions to be taken to combat.

4.2.4	It is recommended that: the role of the WA should be confirmed in accordance with the job evaluation and review. The job description should be amended to reflect the required deliverables. In view of the revised responsibilities and associated salary, it would be appropriate for the position to be made responsible for the PPC contract and liaison, this would release some time for the HR person currently responsible and avoid duplication which currently occurs. There should also be some clear directions and policy developed for the management of mental health budget allowance.

4.3	Occupational Health

4.3.1	The present Occupational Health (OH) structure has created turmoil and discord in the department over many months and has confirmed weaknesses in the staff and the structure itself. The current situation, with one member of staff resigned, presents an opportunity to redesign the structure which would not have been possible earlier.

4.3.2	Following retirement of Doctor Lavanchy OH moved to a nurse led service strategy, which provides better value and is more efficient and effective for service need, it also allows more productive use of the contracted OH physician.

4.3.3	To continue with this form of service and permit development the service needs a person at an advisory level to review and develop OH policy for approval. The role would also require established management competencies to deal with staff carrying out the clinical role as well as the contracted doctor and physiotherapist. The person recruited must have the ability to work with other professional in health and safety and welfare to assist in developing an integrated approach to the department. This would be a senior OH Adviser (SOHA) in the RCN (Royal College of Nursing) scales, dependant on skill and experience.

4.3.4	Recent experience with agency nursing staff and advice from external health professionals clearly indicates that the majority of clinical services can be carried out by an RGN (Registered General Nurse) with relevant OH experience. This should be considered as a development position on a lower pay grade than currently used.

4.3.5	To allow the SOHA to develop initiatives and not become too involved in daily clinical tasks it will be necessary to create a new role of clinical assistant. This new role will also support current department administrative staff in clerical duties as well as the following basic health screening tasks, analysis of the results will not be part of the role: · Blood pressure · Height · Weight · Body mass index · Urine testing · Drug testing · Lung function · Audiometry · Vision screening

4.4	Options

4.4.1	1 Both the SOHA and the RGN positions could be outsourced to either our current OH Physician provider (Adastral) or another provider. Costs for this option will be in the region of £100k for both positions. Expert opinion suggests that many outsourcing providers of OH services nationally are failing to recruit to contracts due to lack of staff.

	2 Advertise and recruit to both position as part of the establishment. (Note: Other HR factors may require the RGN position to be agency outsourced).

	It is recommended that option 2 is adopted.

4.5	Service Fitness

4.5.1	The current role and job description for the Service Fitness Adviser (SFA) should be reviewed and developed in line with experience and the needs of the service. The current salary provision for this post is substantially above national market levels and is not providing best value.

4.5.2	Annual fitness assessments for all grey book employees and some green book employees (by request) is a `platinum standard', proactive initiative that has a limited value for reducing sickness absence and to fulfil HFRS duty of care.

4.5.3	The principle of having a SFA is sound and will fulfil the following core objectives: · Maintenance of core physical training standards for all uniformed employees · Central motivating force to drive up fitness levels and ensure successful employee health assessments, therefore ensure employees in work · To bridge the gap between 3 yearly health assessments to maintain a healthy workforce

4.5.4	As an adviser to the service this role should sample the fitness of employees directly or through the use of the trained resources of watch fitness training instructors. Policy should be developed and reviewed in accordance with the presenting need.

4.5.5	It is recommended that: the position of SFA should remain aligned to the OHSW department with management by the Senior Occupational Health Adviser. A full review of the role and responsibilities should be carried out and salary adjusted accordingly.

4.6	Contracted Services

4.6.1	OHSW department contract for two counsellors in the community, who deal with welfare issues by referral from the Welfare Adviser. Although a contractual agreement is held between each of the contractors and HFRS payment is only made when the services are used. It is recommended that this level of service is maintained.

4.6.2	The Occupational Health Physician (OHP) is contracted from Adastral Health Ltd, who service the OH industry. Adastral Health has recently been bought out by HSA , a health insurance company without effect on the contract, which is established for 3 years from September 2004. The current contract costs the service £36,400 pa for 52 days per year and is inadequate to deal with all the issues that require OHP time, both clinically and administratively for HR issues, which largely centre around the Disability Discrimination Act at this time. It is recommended that a flexible arrangement, for up to 12 additional days per year is agreed with Adastral Health Ltd. This will also permit some development work.

4.6.3	A physiotherapist is also contracted to the service at a cost of £20,000 pa for 52 days per year. The role of the physiotherapist is to expedite the early return to work of employees reporting sick who are injured in the course of their duties or during their personal life. For those employees with more severe injuries, early intervention will bridge the gap between injury and an NHS referral from the primary carer, which has proved to speed recovery. It is not possible to accurately establish how many employee hours have been saved as the result of HFRS physiotherapy and other interventions developed collaboratively but it is believed and confirmed by external health professionals that it is likely to be significant. I therefore recommend that this service is maintained.

4.7	Department Management

4.7.1	Drivers for change exist separately for each of the specialist roles within the department which require specific management direction by the function to which the roles are most clearly aligned. If all recommendations of this report are adopted each of the principal advisory roles will be changed significantly and it is important that these changes are managed according to service needs.

4.7.2	The current manager of the department developed, with staff, an integrated and cohesive approach to the task of working pro-actively for the service and it vital that the close liaison and working relationships are not lost simply by a new management structure. This will be achieved in two ways, one informal and one formal. The informal process will be maintained by accommodating the department together, as existing, so that the change is seamless for the service as a whole and mature, meaningful dialogue between specialist roles can continue. The formal process would see the existing Health Safety and Welfare meeting structure amended to accommodate all specialist advisory roles at the working group level, under the chair of Human Resources. This will draw together proposals to remove conflict and duplication and ensure the most effective service is delivered.

4.7.3	The intention would be to task the existing Group Manager, OHSW, to develop protocols for recruitment activity in collaboration with HR and to review roles identified earlier in this report. The Group Manager should remain in post until all recommendations have been implemented or until such a time as agreed between myself and the Group Manager.

4.7.4	It is recommended that: 1 The specialist services of Occupational Health and Welfare should be managed by Human Resources function. 2 The specialist service of Health and Safety should be managed by the Safety and Risk Management Function. 3 All three specialist services of OH, W and HS should be standing members of the Health, Safety and Welfare working group. The group to be chaired by HR function.

5	Contribution to Corporate Aims and Objectives

5.1	Adoption of this report and its recommendations will clearly allow the OHSW objective to be achieved - "Health Safety and Welfare will continue to identify health and safety risks and develop proactive health safety and welfare initiatives". It will also assist all other functions to achieve their own objectives by ensuring that greater numbers of employees are in work and by the reduction of sickness absence.

5.2	This will also provide the opportunity to support other functions in developing their own risk assessments and in carrying out professional and competent investigations when required, in accordance with legislation.

6	Risk Analysis

6.1	The risk assessment of our current position is articulated in this report and clearly shows that the service is vulnerable to HSE sanctions and that our employees are potentially at risk of harm.

6.2	Applying the service 8 x 8 risk matrix it may be seen that failures or lack of action in health and safety issues raised will give a severity rating of 5 or 6 (serious or severe injury) and a likelihood rating of 5 or 6. At best this puts the issues in the "urgent action required" high rating and at worst "immediate action", which is unacceptable.

6.3	Our welfare service clearly highlights the risk of failing to carry out Workplace Stress Risk Assessments on staff and workplaces. Aside from the physical damage to employees and worktime lost, there is the potential for loss of public confidence, litigation against the service and HSE sanction. Protection is currently being made through reactive work.

6.4	The Occupational Health provision is struggling to cope with changing demand and the need to interpret some challenging `guidance', most notably the Disability Discrimination Act. The revised structure would see staff at the right level for advising the service about the legal obligations.

7	Resource Implications

7.1	Human Resources

	The following additional or changed posts should be created for this proposal: _ Health and safety Adviser to be regarded - a higher grade than existing _ A health and safety practitioner, subordinate to the advisor, of NEBOSH level and with a minimum period of experience, who may be working towards Diploma level - green book _ A health and safety assistant, subordinate to the advisor, with a NEBOSH certificate, seconded from existing staff - grey book _ A Senior Occupational Health Adviser - higher grade than existing OHA _ A Registered General Nurse with relevant OH experience - a lower grade than existing OHA _ A Clinical/Clerical assistant. Current and expected workload indicates that this post would be required for three days per week. _ Welfare Adviser to be regarded - a higher grade than existing _ Service Fitness to be reviewed - a lower grade than existing _ Delete post of department manager _ Additional 12 days/year of doctor time required

7.2	Physical Resources

	Within this proposal and with the above new and revised resources one additional workstation will be required. One desk and one chair.

7.3	Information and Communications Technology Resources

	One additional computer terminal and telephone will be required hard wiring for these items is already installed. A mobile telephone is also likely to be required.

7.4	Financial Implications

	Please see financial appendix to this report.

8	Equality Impact Assessment

8.1	Not yet completed.

8.2	The proposals within this report are considered compatible with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

9	Consultation

9.1	In the commission of the report consultation has occurred with the Human Resources department, Head of Function and staff of the OHSW department. The latter were informed that a review of the department was taking place and were encouraged to provide appropriate suggestions for change. Welfare and Health and Safety Adviser were consulted directly about their roles.

9.2	We are grateful for the assistance given by; Gail Cotton, Head of Occupational Health Services for Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service, Dr Geoff Davies, MD Adastral Health Ltd and Dr Martin McGuire.

10	Conclusion

10.1	This report is not about the Occupational Health Safety and Welfare department or those who staff the department. Instead it is about the services that are delivered to the Service, its managers and employees. If the recommendations of this report are not supported Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service its managers and employees and the Fire Authority will remain `at risk' as identified in the report. Supporting the recommendations will not only significantly reduce the risk and in particular show a commitment to reduce the risk but it will allow the department to move forward and truly become an exemplar to other authorities and to look for beacon standard.

Background Information (Section 100D of Local Government Act 1972)

The following documents disclose the facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of the report: "None" Note: The list excludes: (1) published works; and (2) documents that disclose exempt or confidential information defined in the Act.

cehC/SMT/ReviewOHSW/25 July 2005

Appendix 3

Equality and Diversity Team Review

	The Equality and Diversity Project Board agreed to the temporary appointment (one year contract) of additional human resources, and the formation of an Equality and Diversity Team within the HR Function in January 2005. Funding to date for the new posts has been found from within existing resources and a growth bid has been submitted to the Finance and General Purpose Committee for permanent funding.

	The new Equality and Diversity Team consists of one Divisional Officer (temporary secondment to project from within existing establishment), one Equality and Diversity Advisor (existing established post), one Equality and Diversity Trainer, one Team Administrator and three Community Outreach Workers (one of whom is an existing seconded Firefighter). The additional human resources identified above are an essential component of the arrangements set out within the Comprehensive Equality Policy.

Sec/WP/Word/Corporate/HFRA HFRA HR 29 11 05 Establishment JMC/17/11/2005

This content is archived

Equality Impact Assessment

Summary

Details