Health & Safety
How parenting helps you manage workplace health and safety
Parenting is “risky” business. So is managing health and safety in the workplace. Apply what you know as a parent and you’ll be on course to health and safety in the workplace.
Similarities
Risk-management is ordinary
We want our kids to be happy and thrive so we let them take chances, make mistakes. We let them climb the highest tree, take a high skate ramp or bike jump even though “secretly” it may scare us to death.
Healthy risk-taking helps kids become resilient. Also important are caring & supportive relationships, coping skills, encouraging kids to problem-solve and letting them make mistakes to learn. Rather than say no to our kids risk-taking, we prepare them, inform and equip them, support them through the challenges and mishaps.
Risk-taking is also an inevitable part of business. It goes with employing staff; working with people; living with climate change and prospects of natural disasters etc. Preventing and dealing with risks therefore, needs to be BAU in terms of workplace culture, staff and client relationships, policies and procedures and decision-making processes.
Guided by a risk appetite
Sometimes we have to say “no” to our kids’ options for fun. But more often we don’t. Our response depends on our “risk appetite” – the level and nature of risk that we will accept given the likely benefits of the activity (eg can I live with the consequence of torn clothing, damage, a broken bone if the risk eventuates?).
Similarly, as managers, governors and staff, faced with choices that carry risks, we will consider what level and types of risks we can live with and manage. We communicate and engage with staff and others around what risks we’re comfortable with through our policies and procedures, when assessing risks and adequacy of controls.
Fair response
As a parent and as a manager, our response to risk(s) will depend on how severe we think the consequence will be and how likely it is. Our response should be proportionate, reasonable and ideally, particular to the risk(s).
Risk scenarios involving the most severe consequences should be prioritised and receive the most intense response.
Differences
Regulations
Regulations require workplace health and safety to be front and centre for workplaces. The job of a parent is less regulated with laws applying only in specific circumstances (eg riding with a helmet, use of child restraints, criminal offences).
This difference has important consequences. For example, organisations face sanctions if they don’t comply with legal requirements. More positively, a business or organisation can gain from the ready-made guidance provided by regulations.
Disclosure
As parents, we’re not usually obligated to talk to our child(ren) about risks. By contrast, full and transparent disclosure of information about risks is necessary in the workplace. Staff, clients and visitors to the workplace have a right to be fully informed about of risks to their safety and to make decisions about their safety based on that.
Gut versus informed
As a parent, we’ll often act on our “gut” about risks. Sometimes, we might do extra homework to get better informed about the real picture but it’s not required.
A more systematic and thorough approach is however expected of management. A manager must take reasonable steps to keep themselves informed about risks and put effective safety controls in place. Managers should therefore be aware of relevant data from industry and elsewhere about risks and effective safety controls (eg protective equipment; MoH guidelines).
Participation
The extent to which we talk to our children about risks and safety will depend on their age, our parenting style and preferences etc.
As managers, though, the law is clear that we must engage and allow staff to participate in health and safety decision making in the workplace. It makes sense too if we want to ensure that we are over the risks and taking all due care about the health and safety of those in our workforce.
Conclusion
Our health and safety responsibilities can sometimes feel overwhelming. Now, more than ever, health and safety must be front and centre for organisations.
If you’re into DIY policies and procedures, remember you’ve got a lot to practical experience of managing risk to draw on if you’ve been or are a parent.
But if you’re not into DIY and want the convenience and relief of having someone else take care of your agency’s policies and procedures, contact us. Our online policy and procedure service, accessible 24/7, includes health and safety policies that we can customise to you.
Let us look after your policy and procedure needs so you have more time to focus on your work and whānau.
Contact us NOW!
“Upping the Ante” with workplace health & safety
With workplace injury still so prevalent and always a possibility, is there something more we should and can be doing to safeguard the health and wellbeing/hauora of staff?
Mahi/work in the social, community, health and justice sectors is “risky”. Hazards for workers may be physical, environmental, social, psychological and client-related. There are consequent risks to physical, mental and spiritual health and wellbeing for staff and volunteers.
Always review
Questioning and reviewing our health and safety practices is a good starting point. In fact, readiness to question is integral to a good health and safety response.
Hazards and risks are dynamic and change. Checking and reviewing them is a must as is reviewing and checking the efficacy of safety controls.
What about policies and procedures?
Policies and procedures are the bricks and mortar of a positive health and safety culture in the workplace.
Policies should address issues such as:
- health and safety responsibilities (eg who has health and safety officer responsibilities?)
- responses to safety incidents and adverse events
- identification of hazards and management of risks and controls
- prioritising safety responses
- recording of risks and controls (hazard and risk register)
- worksite checks
- bullying and harassment
- training and supervision requirements
- emergency and disaster preparedness
A dynamic response
But policies and procedures are not the whole answer. Risks are not static. They are dynamic and likely to change. This should be allowed for in policies, the way policies are implemented and in the safety measures established to minimise risks.
There must be mechanisms to:
- gather and use data to help identify hazards (eg complaints data, rates of staff absenteeism, weather reports for outdoor activities) and assess and review levels and likelihood of risk
- monitor and keep track of higher risk situations (eg as high complex needs; multi-disciplinary team;
- keep people informed about the risks and respect their right to give/refuse informed consent
- escalate or increase safeguards as needed in order to reduce the level and/or likelihood of risk of harm (eg use of protective gear; re-schedule appointments; cancellation or postponement being monitored.
Case study
A Policy Place subscriber runs group activities for young people. Some of the activities are outside and adventuresome. Before and throughout the adventure activities, the organisation’s policies now provide for:
- data about outside conditions (eg weather) to be closely monitored
- preparedness to respond to escalated risk
- decision-making when risks can’t be adequately managed.
Case study
The staff of a Policy Place subscriber travel a lot to see clients. Sometimes, they are travelling to remote locations. Sometimes they are transporting clients who have histories that indicate risk. We drafted their health and safety policies to comply with the remote work provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016. We also drafted a Transporting clients policy and procedure to provide for risks to be assessed and escalation of safety measures when risk heightens.
Conclusion
The health and safety of everyone in the workplace should always be a priority. Policies and procedures are a good start but we can never be complacent about risk. Question, monitor, check and review risks and adjust and update safety measures regularly. Be safe, stay well!
Learning from the Waitangi Tribunal Māori health report
The first report from the Waitangi Tribunal of its Kaupapa Inquiry into Māori health – Hauora – was released this month. It concluded that our primary health care system has failed to achieve Māori health equity; that New Zealand’s legislative, policy and administrative framework is not, in fact, fit to achieve this outcome.
News reports have highlighted the Tribunal’s findings of institutional racism. Here, we discuss some other aspects of the Tribunal’s report to help agencies give effect to some of the gems in the report (eg in their policies and practices).
We look first at the Tribunal’s approach to the Crown’s 3 Ps Treaty framework. We then look at new Treaty principles proposed by the Tribunal. Later, at some strategies for reflecting these principles.
The “3 Ps” – out with the old
The “3 Ps” comprise the well-established Crown Treaty framework – the principles of partnership, participation and protection. They came out of the Royal Commission on Social Policy in 1986.
The Tribunal described these principles as outdated and the Crown accepted that they reflect a “reductionist view” of the Treaty (Hauora, p79).
Thirty years on, with a lot more Treaty jurisprudence and Treaty settlements under our national belt, there’s clearly room to do better. The Tribunal proposes a new set of Treaty principles for New Zealand’s primary health care framework.
They are principles the Tribunal has relied on in a number of key reports (eg Te Whānau o Waipereira Report; The Napier Hospital and Health Services Report; Tū Mai Te Rangi! Report on the Crown and Disproportionate Reoffending Rates.) They are relevant to all sectors. We briefly outline them below by reference to the articles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Tribunal treaty principles
Principle 1: Recognition and protection of tino rangatiratanga
This is guaranteed under Article 2 of Te Tiriti. It means that the right of Māori to organise in whatever way they choose – whānau, hapū, iwi or other form of organisation and to exercise autonomy and self-determination to the greatest extent must be recognised and protected.
Principle 2: Equity
This is an Article 3 Treaty commitment. It’s also about acting in good faith as a Treaty partner.
Equity is not just about allowing equal access to healthcare or other services for all. The Waitangi Tribunal highlighted that equity is also not just about reducing disparities. It involves the bigger goal of equitable outcomes for Māori.
The Tribunal approved the World Health Organisation’s definition “Equity is the absence of avoidable or remediable differences among groups of people, whether those groups are defined socially, economically, demographically or geographically.” (Hauora, p67)
Principle 3: Active protection
This principle is all about action and leadership. Devolution and permissive arrangements without Treaty leadership are not sufficient. Provision for equal opportunity or a “one-size fits all” approach also falls short.
The Crown must actively pursue and do whatever is reasonable and necessary to ensure the right to tino rangatiratanga and to achieve equitable health and social outcomes for Māori.
Principle 4: Partnership
Yes, this “P” remains. Its meaning reflects an interplay of articles 1 and 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
For the Crown to be a good governor it must recognise and respect the status and authority of Māori to be self-determining in relation to resources, people, language and culture (ie tino rangatiratanga). It must involve Māori at all levels of decision making.
Both the Treaty parties must act reasonably and in good faith towards each other.
Principle 5: Options
This principle is about giving real and practical effect to the principles of tino rangatiratanga and equity; articles 2 and 3 of Te Tiriti. Where kaupapa Māori services exist, Māori should have the option of accessing them as well as culturally appropriate mainstream services. They should not be disadvantaged by their choice.
It’s the job of the Crown to ensure each option is viable and sustainable by providing sufficient financial and logistical support, strong leadership and effective monitoring.
Report findings
The Tribunal concluded that the Crown had breached the Treaty in a number of ways. It found that from inception Māori primary health care organisations have been significantly underfunded, leading to a decline in the number of services. Whereas at a peak there were 14 Māori primary health organisations in the country, there are now only four (Hauora,p156).
A similar story of unrealised potential and breaches of the partnership and tino rangatiratanga obligations can undoubtedly be told in other sectors. For example, Iwi Social Services and Maatua Whangai were incorporated into the Childrens Young Persons and their Families Act (ie Oranga Tamariki Act) in 1989. They were established to play a key role in the statutory care system in response to Puao-Te-Ata-tu. However, they were undermined by a lack of resourcing and support (eg Shane Walker, Maatua Whangai o Otepoti Reflections -ANZASW).
The Tribunal report makes a number of recommendations. This includes two interim recommendations, that:
- an independent Māori statutory authority be explored
- the Crown and claimants work on a way of assessing the extent of underfunding of Māori primary health organisations and providers.
The parties must report back to the Tribunal on progress with these after 7 months.
Some learnings
There’s some great learning in the Tribunal report about giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Some key points for organisations’ policies and practice are that:
- agencies should have a strong leadership focus on fulfilling Treaty obligations and achieving equitable outcomes for Māori
- feedback and data should be gathered about access and outcomes for Māori. It should be regularly reviewed, evaluated and used to support continuous improvement
- if you’re not making progress be wary of attributing blame to clients. Instead, consider different ways of delivering your service
- avoid deficit language “hard to reach”, “vulnerable children” that tend to individualise what are often structural or system issues
- consider and invest time, good faith and energy into building constructive treaty partnerships (with mana whenua, local Māori, tau iwi agencies)
- the Crown must ensure funding of kaupapa Māori services is sufficient for their viability and that mainstream services it funds are competent to provide services to Māori (ie staff and board are culturally competent)
- Māori are engaged at all levels of social and health sector decision-making from governance through to service delivery.
More to come
There’s more in this and other Waitangi Tribunal reports to learn from. Like other Tribunal reports its rich in opportunities to learn about Treaty compliance.
In another blog we’ll take a look at how the Social Sector Accreditation Standards- Level 2 and Core Health and Disability Standards line up with the Tribunal’s approach.
Get in touch with us if you’re wanting help with your policies and procedures. We love to hear from you.
Renovation and policy review
If you like DIY renovating then policy review can be fun! The two jobs have a lot in common.
They can be more fun and effective when people are involved. Just like the room being renovated, the review process is improved by getting a diversity of views, feedback and data on what’s working, not working and needs to change.
Consider the broader context. When you paint a room, it needs to fit with the overall scheme of the house. Likewise, when reviewing your policy, consider your organisation’s kaupapa, vision and strategic plan.
Get updated about trends, what works best etc. When renovating a room or a policy, it’s a good idea to look at current trends, learn from new information and ideas.
Standards, laws, regulations and practice may well have changed since the last policy review and if relevant, should be addressed in the renovated policy.
Think about options for now and the future. You want to build in a good capacity for wear and tear when you’re renovating.
Likewise, changes you make from a policy review need to be workable and sustainable.
Identify options. Only decide on which one after scoping and planning for the practicalities eg the costs, the resources and actions needed to do the job properly and for any changes to endure.
Celebrate. Don’t we all love the feeling of satisfaction we get from a successful renovation? A celebration at the end is even better!
Or, from another perspective, it’s a great start to the next phase of implementing the policy.
See here if you want some ideas about effective implementation strategies.