Medical/surgical consent forms have gone from the vague/general to the highly specific in the last couple of decades. They used to just contain the name of the procedure and of the doctor taking consent - ( not necessarily the one doing the procedure), the name of the patient, and the date. It was assumed all had been discussed - what was going to be done and the possible complications. Now, who is going to do what is written down, and complications that are discussed are listed - the common: infection/bruising/bleeding/DVT/a scar; the rare but serious: death/paraglegia for example; and those specific to the patient: an abdominal scar in a swim wear model for example. I am surprised that H+S documents have gone the other way. If asked in court why more was not included surely the answer "because it would be torn apart by any decent lawyer" would go down very badly.Originally Posted by Fellhound
Absolutely right (again). The FRA is going through this very process as we speak.
Just one small point: In H&S employment legislation there is a duty to carry out written risk assessments but there is no such duty in common law – so ROs don’t need to. Of course they must assess and control the risks but ROs and runners do that all the time. It’s not the same as a written document.
Ironically, a written document is often used against employers because of what it does NOT contain, and there is no written risk assessment that I’ve seen (and I’ve seen hundreds) that covers every possible scenario. Most race risk assessments I’ve seen are woefully lacking in that respect so it is actually better not to produce a written document but just to be able to say what steps you took to make the event safe ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’.
