WATER QUALITY AND SAFETY
‘T3 blended tap’ is, nor what the following abbreviations stand for: DCV, N/A, HWS, PRU01, SLU, WAB, DCU, MSK, WAC, MCWS, LWH and ESHR.
n Several ‘Details of recommendations’ are statements without recommendations; a number are essentially identical, while recommendations have been made for assets that don’t actually exist.
n Lack of recommendation was noted for a potentially high-risk asset.
n Excess detail in the action tables, making them difficult to use. For example, a risk assessment company insisted that the defect for every location appear as a separate action.
n The assessor has prepared a written Scheme of Control (page 29), despite BS 8580-1 2019 stating that the risk assessment should not entail doing this.
‘Old’ templates Many audited Legionella risk assessments use old templates, which have not been updated, and in several cases the general quality was deemed ‘poor’. Often the dates provided did not indicate whether the assessment was undertaken, or the report completed, on the date given. The references cited as legal drivers for Legionella control and guidance are often incorrect, outdated, or related to withdrawn documents. Photographs on the LRA front covers are, in some cases, not of the assessed site. Document ‘Contents’ pages detail sections which do not appear, or are incorrectly referenced. Photographs are often not cross- referenced clearly to illustrate issues relevant to the assessor’s findings. Many assessors do not appear to be able to distinguish a deadleg from a dead end. Their definition is well documented in guidance, and their correct identification and management can have significant cost implications for clients.
A typical ‘deadleg’ – a length of water system pipework leading to a fitting through which water only passes infrequently when there is draw-off from the fitting.
We are still seeing LRA reports which miss out necessary information, and contain unnecessary information, resulting in a lack of clarity. With many either unclear or ambiguous in their findings/recommendations, it is not surprising that many LRAs are simply shelved and never fully reviewed.
Schematic diagrams Schematic diagrams need to be accurate, but simplified, illustrations of the configuration of water systems, which include all key components and relevant components, and omit everything not relevant. All should identify the date when they were last reviewed and updated, and record the name (initials) of the individual and their organisation. Where required, a legend detailing any symbols or abbreviations should be included. Comments from auditors include:
n A complete lack of correct schematic drawings, or very poorly priced ones.
n Schematic drawings – no sentinel points detailed, no deadlegs/dead ends identified, and no detailing of the Chlorine Dioxide dosing system.
n Many of the rooms/areas containing water assets described in the asset list do not align with those shown on the schematic diagram.
n Abbreviations documented in the diagram not described within the legend. Schematic diagrams should be designed to allow navigation of the water system, to enable the reader to clearly identify where assets and systems are located, and how they operate together. A lack of assets and their identification, lack of sentinel point
identification, and poor legends which should identify abbreviations, all contribute to the problem.
Reasons for issues with LRAs and improving the situation There are several reasons why we see issues, the majority being attributable to poor competency and cost. Many risk assessment provider companies employ very competent personnel at a high level, but unfortunately these are not often the individuals undertaking the LRA. The LRA provider companies will claim that their assessors have vast experience, that they always provide high quality such personnel, and that their organisation is a member of an industry body-accredited organisation. These are features that sales teams will promote, while such businesses’ websites will look fantastic, with badges and recommendations etc. It is key, however, to see through the sales pitch. Some of us have asked industry bodies to verify various risk assessment providers who claim to be members, or to be accredited by them, only to find the claims untrue. Several
February 2022 Health Estate Journal 41
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
