Helping the Health & Safety Managers

I've attended a number of conferences and events over the past month, it seems to be that time of year. All of them, pleasingly have had a serious focus on lone working and the regular stuff about the risks that such workers face. The audience at a couple of these events were the usual mix of Health & Safety professionals and those responsible for business risks. What was interesting to me though was that there seemed to be a marked change in what they were all there to learn.

In the past, the audience would have been content to learn about risks, the definition of lone working and the types of techniques and technologies that can be deployed to assist. This time though they seemed quite disinterested in this material and there was a definate 'we know all that' type feeling in the air. Talking to people, it seemed to me that the main thing that they wanted to now know about was 'how do I effect change in my organisation'. It was if they felt frustration that they knew what they need to do to improve their lone worker safety but that they were hampered by disinterested departmental and line managers around them.

Some benefitted from having a board member or members who appreciated the importance (often driven by a fear of corporate manslaughter) but even with this, in today's complex and multi-tiered organisations, gripped with a desire to improve revenues and save costs it is often extremely difficult to gain traction and to communicate the benefits effectively.

Those clients we work with know the benefits not just of the solutions we deliver but also of having a consistant and cohesive message that runs throughout their business. The simple fact is that better lone worker safety can lead to improved revenue streams and reduced costs. It also leads to a more productive work force.

I've always maintained that in what Connexion2 does, we should look at things from three perspectives, that of the lone worker, the employer and the Police. I think that in 2010, there is a fourth perspective that we will add that is equally as important and that's the perspective of the manager.

UPDATE: So what's new with ACPO and BS8484?

I've talked previously about the very specific perspective that the Police have in respect of lone worker security solutions and the potential changes that may be coming along. As the UK market for lone worker solutions starts to accelerate, so does the need for the Police to have agreed parameters for when (or if) they will respond to a genuine lone worker alarm.

I thought it worth updating the picture as a number of key factors that will impact this important matter are just around the corner...

BS8484: The long awaited standard (although it will operate as a code of practice for the first 12months) is due for publication at the end of this month (September 2009). This important step forward will outline the basic requirements for any credible lone worker solution and specifically the device that a worker uses and the alarm receiving centre (ARC) that is connects to. It remains to be seen what the final draft details but it will call for credible devices (i.e. not mobile phones) and credible ARC providers.

ACPO Policy: I've talked before about the inevitable step towards a more formalised process of URN (unique reference number) allocation for lone worker alarms. This process is already in widespread use by all 43 Police forces in England & Wales (and by forces in Scotland and N. Ireland) for many other types of alarms such as those for buildings and vehicles. Their application to lone worker alarms is, in my view, long overdue as its important that an employer of lone workers knows if the Police will involve themselves or not.

ACPO are looking to implement a process for URN allocation by Q1 2010 and generally this is being supported by credible industry ARC providers. One thing that is clear already is that ACPO policy will advise foreces to only provide URNs to ARC operators who meet BS5979 Cat II and who plan to conform with BS8484.

So what does this mean? Well in short, unless your lone worker alarms utilise credible, fit for purpose devices such as Identicom and are filtered by a BS5979 Cat II ARC you wont be gurenteed a Police response!

Thats all for now, its a moving picture at the moment but I will update as we get more details.

NHS lone workers to finally benefit

As the saying goes, 'the devil is always in the detail'. This can certainly be said for the NHS in the UK who have fianlly completed a year long tender process in choosing a supplier of a solution for their lone working staff. On the 27th April 2009 a deal was signed that will see Reliance Security and Connexion2 work with the NHS on rolling out over 30,000 Identicom lone worker devices to key staff at risk. The hope is that this marks the start of a wider implementation to all NHS staff in the community or other locations where specific risks are identified.

The NHS are often critisised for many things but on selecting to roll out in this fashion they have proven themselves to be sensitive to the issue, detailed in their selection and thorough. They have also ended up with an excellent solution at a price point that should benefit not only NHS workers but the wider UK public sector.

The market for lone worker solutions is clearly growing and the number of options available to employers is growing. This for some might make chosing a solutiuon confusing but you couldn't do better than the NHS for carrying out full due diligence. Keeping an eye on delivering a solution that is both simple, effective and discreet for the worker is key. The implementation of a solution shouldn't just be about the device the user carries but it is important that the device works and works well from the user's perspective. Selection of the right alarm receiving centre was equally important for the NHS and the need to ensure security of user data featured high on their list.

Using a BS5979 Cat II ARC has become a must rather than a luxury, especially if you want the Police to respond to a genuine alert.

For further information on how to learn more of the NHS roll out please follow this link. For more details from Reliance follow this link

The pro's and con's of GPS in lone worker applications

For a long time, our company resisted the temptation to build GPS based devcies for lone worker applications. Our primary concerns were a mix of technical challenges and thinking about the impact on the user. For example:

Technical challenge 1 - How to introduce GPS technology without making the Identicom form factor less discreet? All of our users appreciate the discreet ID card form factor that is Identicom. They feel safe knowing that if they need to raise an alert because of an abusive client or intruder then they can do this without giving the game away. Introducing GPS would have been easy but would have introduced an unsightly antenna in the Identicom which in turn would make the unit more 'techie' and obvious. Not good.

User challenge 1 - In reality, does GPS make much difference given that many users (certainly in the UK) spend large amounts of time indoors and therefore potentially out of range of satallites? How do we best manage the expectations of the user in this respect and also convince them that their lone worker devcie hasn't now become a covert tracking device?

After much hard development work and discussion with users and employers Connexion2 has now created versions of its award winning Identicom with imbedded GPS. Challenges like those above have been resolved and the devices maintain their original, slim ID card form factor and thus remain discreet to wear and to operate.

Interestingly enough, those customers who are now choosing the GPS variants are those where workers are more outdoor based or who face risk whilst moving. Those customers who have trialed GPS units for workers who are more 'indoor' tend to prefer the original models because no significnat benefit is added.

If you have questions about GPS in lone worker devcies or Identicom specifically then please drop me a line.

Update on BS8484

I'm often being asked by customers questions about BS8484 and feedback indicates that there is a level of misinformation in the market.

BS8484 is an important and wide ranging draft code of practice that, until its ratification and introduction, provides an opportunity for a small number of companies or customers to misinterpret or misrepresent elements of its content.

These are the facts as they stand:
BS8484 is now a code of practice (COP) and is still in draft format, currently on its second version for public comment. BSI have issued a clear warning (as they do with all draft standards and COP's) that it is a draft and must not be regarded or used as a British Standard. The current draft calls for comments on its content to be received by 31st January 2009. The current draft is noted by BSI as not being current beyond this date.

Connexion2’s position:
It is Connexion2’s desire and intent to be compliant with any and all relative legislation and/or standards that apply to its business and customers and this will include BS8484. We do not however see any logic at this stage in being drawn on specific elements of this or any other standard until published. To do so would be folly as they are subject to comment and change before being published.

Please note:
Significant input into BS8484 is being made by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), the British Security Industry Association (BSIA) and the NHS. The latter’s involvement is in part because they are the UK’s largest employer of lone workers but in part to ensure parity with their own expectations and requirements of a lone worker solution. Connexion2 works in partnership with all of these bodies, has been a BSIA member for more than 2 years and has achieved ACPO ‘Secured By Design’ status for its Identicom range of lone worker devices. We have worked with the NHS and other such interested stakeholders for more than 5 years and continue to meet their exacting requirements.

Connexion2 is committed to helping achieve a credible standard is set and will continue to contribute feedback on BS8484 to the BSI via the BSIA.

If you have a view on BS8484 or a question you'd like my view on then please drop me a line

A Police perspective

In June I reported on the work we have done with ACPO (Association of Cheif Police Officers) and the subsequent commendation received. Three months on and I wanted to write an update, specifically following further discussions held.

The police are very keen to see credible alarms raised and persued but are clearly concerned by the risk of false alarms and their ability to assist an employer when it comes to taking action against those being agressive towards lone workers.

As well as focusing on the method and technology used to raise an alarm, ACPO are also looking at the need for credible, reliable and resiliant escalation paths to be defined, managed and maintained. In the same way as commercial and domestic building alarms are closely regulared and audited if a police response is required, the same will shortly apply to alarming systems for lone workers. The police will want to start to allocate a Unique Reference Number (URN) to such alarm systems.

So what should you be looking for when chosing a system. Well, you should ensure that alarms are routed and managed by a credible alarm receiving centre, ideally one that meets BS5979 Cat II. This standard will ensure that your alarms are managed in a closely controlled environment and that your data (e.g. audio recordings, user info etc..) is kept safely in in such as a way as it remain evidentially intact. It is highly likely that before too long the Police will only respond to alarms that are routed through a BS5979 receiving centre and that have been qualified as being genuine. This is the same model that exists for building and vehicle alarms today.

The alarm receiving centre should also be able to prove to you that it regularly handles alerts coming from people and is qualified to assess the severity of a situation before deciding upon a proportional and appropriate escalation. Any credible centre will also offer to provide you with regular reporting on activity so that users can be further trained or assessed when required.

If you need any assistance in selecting an alarm receiving centre then please let me know, I'd be very happy to help.

Corporate Manslaughter Act 2007

By the skin of its teeth, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 was granted royal assent last Thursday having been accepted by the House of Lords. It has been a long, long time in coming as it was first suggested in 1987 after the P&O Zebrugge ferry disaster. Finally, though it becomes law...

...So what does it mean?

Many aspects of the bill will need to wait for actual case law to occur before we know how the finer points will be interpreted by courts, lawyers etc.. What we do know though is that it will require a gross breach in an organisations duty of care to apply. Wording in the act suggests:

‘a breach of a duty of care by an organisation is a gross breach if the conduct alleged to amount to a breach of that duty falls far below what can reasonably be expected of the organisation in the circumstances’

The law will also seek to single out 'senior managers' involved. The act defines senior management as the persons who play a significant role in making decisions about how the whole or a substantial part of its activities are organised. Or, the actual managing of the whole or substantial part of its activities. It can therefore be said that the Act applies not only to a company’s directors but also to departmental or sector managers.

The bill should also herald in new, higher levels of fines and provides the courts with the power to insist on any sucessful conviction being made publically known. Whilst the bill itself doesn't cover specific action against individuals involved it will identify any deliquent managers. All of the lawyers I have spoken to feel that this will in turn lead to more civil suits being pursued against named managers following a sucessful conviction.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the first few cases, expectations are that high fine levels will be levied to set the bar...

Download a copy of the full Act or a summary of FAQs relating to the bill here.

The importance of credible evidence..

I was pleased to see the RCN's General Secretary on BBC Breakfast news yesterday morning talking about the need for better evidence to be captured whenever a verbal or physical assault occurs. He was talking in the main about a new survey conducted by the RCN which finds a simply staggering 35% of lone working nurses having been subjected to physical attack or abuse.

It is my experience also that the Police and the courts are powerless to act unless credible evidence exists. Writing a report on an incident, particular a verbal incident is not enough to enable action to be taken. The Police need hard evidence.

The NHS Counter Fraud & Security Management Service also talk about the need for more and better reporting of incidents and the evidence required to enable them to support an NHS Trust in taking action.

Connexion2 and its Identicom won the first ever ACPO sponsored award at the recent IFSEC 2007 event in Birmingham because of the work we have done to ensure Identicom meets and exceeds ACPO guidelines on mobile panic alarms. Part of this was the use of discreet audio from the Identicom which is captured by a monitoring centre specifically to provide credible evidence in support of the worker and their employer. NOW, with such credible evidence action can be taken against those being verbally or physically abusive.

I would urge all employers reading this to consider the benefits of capturing credible audio evidence. Not only will it improve your lone worker's life but put you in a better position to take positive action and improve your relationship with the Police. Ultimately, this will all save you costs and reduce your lone worker risks.