march 2009 idip unit id

8/9/2019 March 2009 IDip Unit ID

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/march-2009-idip-unit-id 1/9

March 2009

Examiners’ Report NEBOSH NationalDiploma inOccupational Health

and Safety - Unit D



Examiners’ Report

NEBOSH LEVEL 6 DIPLOMA IN

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Unit D Assignment

MARCH 2009

CONTENTS

Introduction 2

General Comments 3

Unit D Assignment 4

© 2009 NEBOSH, Dominus Way, Meridian Business Park, Leicester LE19 1QW

tel: 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, number1010444

T(s):exreps/UnitD/UnitD-0903 JP/DA/REW



Introduction

NEBOSH (The National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health) was formed in 1979 asan independent examining board and awarding body with charitable status. We offer a comprehensive

range of globally-recognised, vocationally-related qualifications designed to meet the health, safety,environmental and risk management needs of all places of work in both the private and public sectors.Courses leading to NEBOSH qualifications attract over 25,000 candidates annually and are offered byover 400 course providers in 65 countries around the world. Our qualifications are recognised by therelevant professional membership bodies including the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health(IOSH) and the International Institute of Risk and Safety Management (IIRSM).

NEBOSH is an awarding body recognised and regulated by the UK regulatory authorities:

• The Office of the Qualifications and Examinations Regulator (Ofqual) in England

• The Department for Children, Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills (DCELLS) in Wales

• The Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) in Northern Ireland

NEBOSH follows the “GCSE, GCE, VCE, GNVQ and AEA Code of Practice 2007/8” published by theregulatory authorities in relation to examination setting and marking (available at the Ofqual websitewww.ofqual.gov.uk). While not obliged to adhere to this code, NEBOSH regards it as best practice todo so.

Candidates’ scripts are marked by a team of Examiners appointed by NEBOSH on the basis of theirqualifications and experience. The standard of the qualification is determined by NEBOSH, which isoverseen by the NEBOSH Council comprising nominees from, amongst others, the Health and SafetyExecutive (HSE), the Department for Education and Skills (Df ES), the Confederation of BritishIndustry (CBI), the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and the Institution of Occupational Safety andHealth (IOSH). Representatives of course providers, from both the public and private sectors, areelected to the NEBOSH Council.

This report on the Examination provides information on the performance of candidates which it ishoped will be useful to candidates and tutors in preparation for future examinations. It is intended tobe constructive and informative and to promote better understanding of the syllabus content and theapplication of assessment criteria.

© NEBOSH 2009

Any enquiries about this report publication should be addressed to:

NEBOSHDominus WayMeridian Business Park

LeicesterLE10 1QW

Tel: 0116 263 4700Fax: 0116 282 4000Email: [email protected]

2

http://www.ofqual.gov.uk/

http://www.ofqual.gov.uk/



General comments

The submission date for the NEBOSH National Diploma Unit D workplace based assignmentwas 11 March 2009. 473 candidates submitted their assignment and 357 passed giving a

pass rate of 75%.

The focus of the Unit D assignment should be the application of the knowledge andunderstanding developed in Units A, B and C 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 thatwould be expected of a health and safety practitioner.

The aim of the assignment is to produce an overall review of the health and safetymanagement system of an organisation and indicate, through the application of riskassessment, the priorities for the organisation for the future.

Before attempting the Unit D assignment it is necessary for candidates to be fully conversantwith key elements of the syllabus for Units A, B and C. To facilitate this formative learningprocess it is essential that candidates hold regular discussions with their tutor(s) throughoutthe period of their studies, and complete the Assignment Log provided in the NEBOSH UnitD Candidate Guidance, which is available from the NEBOSH web-site. Candidates shouldvisit www.nebosh.org.uk/students/currently_studying and then click on ‘2006 Specification’before selecting the PDF document entitled ‘Unit D Candidate Guidance’. There is strongevidence to suggest that candidates who perform better in Unit D use the Assignment Logfrom the very beginning of their studies, and at appropriate points on their learning journey.Candidates who complete their Assignment Log retrospectively at the end of their studies willobtain little or no benefit, and may well struggle to perform well in Unit D. Course providers

are requested to ensure that candidates use their Assignment Logs accordingly.

3

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

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



Assignment

Assignment Br ief

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

The assignment will require the candidate to apply the knowledge and understanding gainedfrom their studies of elements of Units A, B and C in a practical environment and to carry outcritical analysis and evaluation of information gathered during the review. The level of workshould be that expected of a competent occupational health and safety practitioner workingwithin an organisation.

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 theassignment. The candidate will need to consider the legal framework within which theworkplace / 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 candidateshould prioritise the identified hazards and, depending on the nature and extent ofidentified hazards, for each of two of the hazards, one physical and one appropriate

to health and welfare, carry out a risk assessment. This should include an evaluationof the effectiveness of the organisation in controlling the risk arising from the hazardsidentified and proposals to further control the hazard(s) and reduce risks;

• conclusions which summarise the main issues identified in the candidate’s worktogether with justified recommendations for improvement;

• a costed and prioritised action plan for implementation of the candidate’srecommendations in each of the two areas;

• an executive summary of the report.

4



Examiners’ Comments

Those candidates who performed well in this assignment were evidently following the detailedguidance (provided 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 thesaid guidance to structure their report, often using the guidance content to produce section headings intheir work. It is essential that course providers direct their candidates toward the available guidance,and structure training/coaching sessions around this guidance. Course providers should ensure thatcandidates dedicate sufficient time to preparing their assignments throughout their Diploma studiesand that the correct amount of planning is applied to what is a challenging piece of work.

Introduction

The introduction provides a foundation for the report and enables the reader to place the informationand judgements to follow in context. Most candidates provided a good or satisfactory introduction,however, some omitted clearly stated aims and objectives and provided limited information on settingthe scene. To set the scene Examiners were looking for a description of the chosen

workplace/organisation and a brief description of the essential features of the legal environment withinwhich the workplace/organisation operates. A brief description of the principal civil and criminal legalimplications for the chosen organisation should be included. Some candidates produced a generic listof various laws and regulations and only the better answers attempted to apply these legislativerequirements to their workplace as required. Candidates are required to demonstrate their knowledgeand understanding of relevant statutes, regulations, ACOPs, standards and guidance and to put thesein the context of the development of an effective health and safety management programme. Only asmall number of exemplar candidates provided a useful summary of the civil law implications, withthose who did not cover this topic area losing marks as a result.

Better submissions showed evidence of candidates putting a lot of thought into developing a clear andconcise aim – explaining and justifying the purpose of the report. They also developed a set ofmeaningful objectives for the report, which could be used throughout the writing / preparation of the

report to ‘sense check’ their own progress.

Those candidates who then went onto explain their chosen methods, explaining and justifying basicprinciples as they did so, achieved good marks in this area. Clear statements of what research hadbeen carried out, which models had been chosen and why, were most useful and evident in betterreports.

Executive Summary

The executive summary should provide a concise overview of the important points arising from thework and summarise the main conclusions and recommendations. It should be possible for theintended recipients (managers and directors) to read an executive summary in a short period of time,while still being able to establish the main points covered in the full report. It should contain a clear ‘call

to action’ supported by a concise and persuasive business case – candidates should include referenceto humane, economic and legal reasons for their key recommendations being implemented.

Candidates should use the allowed one side of A4 using single-spaced Arial font (size 11) and 2cmprint margins. Some candidates provided half page executive summaries which failed to provide thecomprehensive content required of findings or a summary of the main conclusions andrecommendations. At least one full page is required to do this section of the report justice.

Executive summaries were generally well done, although the highest marks were given to candidateswho gave a clear and concise overview of the report and its conclusions and recommendations, justifying such recommendations in business terms. Exemplary reports contained structured executivesummaries which were very persuasive and would have engaged the intended audience for suchsummaries.

5



Review of the Health and Safety Management System

Candidates were required to give a critical overview of the state of current health and safetymanagement system (HSMS) in their chosen workplace/organisation. Some candidates merelyprovided an outline of a recognised health and safety model (such as HSG65) without relating theirchosen organisation’s HSMS to such a model. Candidates should outline the chosen model before

providing an overview of the existing HSMS. At this point it would be possible for candidates tocompare the current system with the recognised model and provide a clear systematic description ofgaps and areas for improvement.

Reports awarded the highest marks included sections which clearly demonstrated the writer’sunderstanding of chosen models for health and safety management systems. Better reports outlinedthe selected model before explaining the relevance of the models’ elements to existing policy,arrangements, etc. A good working knowledge of HSG65 (or a similar model) is essential for thosecandidates wishing to perform well.

The gap analysis section requires candidates to assess their chosen organisation’s health and safetymanagement systems against a recognised model. Better submissions clearly identified shortcomings(often in a tabular format) in the chosen health and safety management systems against such astandard, carrying forward these identified gaps into the recommendations and action plans requiredlater in the report.

Hazards and Risk Assessments

Most candidates managed to outline 15 difference hazards or more, with a few falling short and onlyfinding 11 – 12. Several had 15 under each category – ‘Physical’ and ‘Health and Welfare’. There is aneed for candidates to ensure that they do not confuse ‘hazards’ with ‘risks’ or ‘activities’. Care shouldbe taken when describing the hazards identified.

It is essential that candidates ensure that they select one ‘Physical hazard’ and one ‘Health hazard’ forcloser assessment using a recognised risk assessment approach. Some candidates failed to scoremarks due to the selection of two Physical or two Health hazards rather than one of each. It is

recommended that candidates check their chosen hazards against the syllabus content for ‘Health andWelfare’ (Unit B) and ‘Physical’ (Unit C).

On the whole Risk Assessments were found to be satisfactory, but some candidates still fail todescribe their chosen risk assessment methodology. Risk assessment techniques and riskquantification models were often included without adequate explanation of their meaning,interpretation or relevance.

Higher scoring reports were those where candidates demonstrated a clear understanding of thedifference between the terms ‘hazard’ and ‘risk’. Better submissions took a methodical approach tobreaking down and differentiating between work activities, hazards, risks and possible outcomes.Candidates must be able to demonstrate their understanding of risk assessment principles – theyshould clearly explain the risk assessment process being used, detailing how any ranking or scoringsystems are used for comparison, prioritisation and consideration of improvements required.

Better submissions included new and original risk assessments for the purposes of the assignmentand did not copy existing risk assessments from their existing ‘bank’ or manual of risk assessments.

Risk assessments need not be overly long or complex. Some candidates unnecessarily included largeunwieldy risk assessments in the appendicess. Generally use of appendices should be discouragedunless the content is absolutely necessary to support points clearly made in the main body of thereport.

While for some risks the use of something as simple as the ‘5 steps’ approach would have beensufficient, this approach is clearly not suitable for other risks. Where there was a need for specificassessments (such as CoSHH, Manual Handling, DSE, Noise, etc) then the ‘5 steps’ would be

inadequate. Better submissions included use of other assessment tools relevant to the risks identified.

6



Following on from this there is often not enough demonstration of understanding of how riskassessment should be used to inform management decision making. The additional controls identifiedas being necessary at this stage should be clearly visible in the conclusion, recommendations andactions plans – and should be mentioned in the executive summary.

Conclusions

Some candidates did not refer back to aims and objectives when writing their conclusions. Many didn’tinclude their findings and failed to summarise them whilst many others included recommendations andother suggestion for improvements in their conclusions.

‘Quality’ checks on the work done should be made, including some reference back to the aims andobjectives identified in the introduction and a critical appraisal of their performance against those intheir conclusion.

Better submissions ensured that gaps and areas for improvement from the main body of the reportwere carried forward into the final part of the report. The conclusions should refer to things identifiedin the main body, and recommendations should be similarly rooted in things discussed earlier in thereport. Recommendations should then be carried forward into the respective action plans, where

consideration should also be given to priorities, costs, timescale and how and when progress againstthe plans would be reviewed.

Recommendations

Recommendations were generally good, and followed on from main conclusions, but many candidatesstill fail to provide a comprehensive justification and cost / benefit to each recommendation.

Action plans 1 and 2 are on the whole good, with most providing tabulated formats with all the relevantheadings considered. Too many still do not include any provisions for review.

Bibliography and references still remain poorly produced and many still don’t indicate any evidence of

research done.

Generally the standard of reports was fair, some candidates’ reports were ‘let down’ by some simpleomissions. The points outlined above should give some clear pointers to candidates and courseproviders regarding the completion of Unit D assignments which complement published guidance fromNEBOSH.

7



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 2009 idip unit id

Documents