The Health and Safety Executive says that lone workers should not be more at risk than other employees. But most field service engineers who work by themselves will point out that the very fact that they have to work in isolation, without support or supervision, makes their job more hazardous.
Even simple situations become more dangerous when working alone. Kier Clayton, trade union Unite's health and safety officer
- who himself was a field service engineer - says: 'Even working off a ladder has extra problems if there is no-one underneath to hold it. There are many times I nearly got knocked to the ground fixing burglar alarms in busy high street locations'.
Every job has an element of risk attached to it. Office workers can suffer from ill health, but if someone has a heart attack in an office their colleagues will be on hand to summon an ambulance. The field engineer may have no-one who can do this. On top of this, the work of a service engineer can be stressful. This is partly caused by the isolation of the job. The work may also involve driving long distances. Those on call out can return home after a full day's work and then have to go out again to attend an emergency. Clayton says that the current trend is for companies to cut the number of field service engineers and that puts an increased strain on those who are left.
The other occupational hazard of working alone is the threat of violence. This can manifest itself in different forms. One of the most common involves domestic pets. Clayton says that twice he was attacked by dogs. But there is also the likelihood that engineers will receive threats from humans as well.
'Engineers need to think about the occasion. The customer often sees them as a front for the company and will see it as legitimate for them to take out their grievances against the company on the engineer. The problem gets worse in domestic premises if the customer has been drinking or taking drugs, especially if they have had a long wait for the engineer to turn up or the engineer fails to fix the equipment,' he adds.
The Health and Safety Executive, in a study looking at problems affecting British Gas's service engineers in Leeds and the North East, says that night working tends to be more dangerous, but the level of risk depends on location. The study highlights some extreme problems faced by engineers. These include the stoning of an engineer's car, threats with weapons such as iron bars, an attack by a member of the public wielding a baseball bat and one engineer being grabbed in a headlock while petrol was thrown over him.
Engineers also can carry expensive equipment, including laptops and mobile phones, and this makes them vulnerable to assault and, in some areas, the victims of organised theft.
Some lone worker jobs are more dangerous than others, with those most at risk being those working in health and social services and those whose job involves collecting money. However no lone worker is immune from risk and the field service manager should take every step possible to minimise this risk.
There are several key issues that should be considered. The first question that is generally asked is whether it is legal to work alone. The answer to this is usually yes, although there are certain exceptions. These include the right of an individual to refuse to work in an environment that they know to be dangerous.
The company must comply with the law. Lone workers are no different to any other form of workers and are covered by the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act and the 1999 Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations. These acts stipulate that the employer has a responsibility to ensure the health and safety of all those affected by the work, This responsibility cannot be transferred to those working alone. Employees must take reasonable care of themselves and to co-operate in meeting the employer's legal obligations.
The acts also call on the employer to carry out a risk assessment. For firms that employ more than five people this has to be in writing. The assessment should cover all items that could be at risk and the first question has to be: 'Can one person do the job or will it be necessary to employ more than one?' There are certain areas such as working in a confined space where it is essential that another person is present.

Working alone in safety
The Health and Safety Executive, in its guidance note Working Alone in Safety, also says the assessment should consider the following: 'Does the workplace present a special risk to the employee? Is there a safe way in and out for one person? Can things like ladders or trestles be safely handled by one person? Can all the plant and materials be handled by one person? Is there a risk of violence? Are women and or young workers especially at risk if they work alone?'
The HSE insists the employer should take further steps to ensure the safe working of lone workers. It should check out whether the operative has a medical condition that would put him or her at risk if they worked alone and it should assess what training is required - the HSE says that training may be critical to avoid panic situations in certain areas.
The employer should also work out how the field service engineer should be supervised. This supervision could take the form of regular site visits, regular contact between the supervisor and the operative or the provision of alarms.
So what can a company do to make working life for lone workers as safe as possible? Some solutions are very simple. Kier Clayton, for instance, advocates that engineers should ring ahead if possible and make sure that all dangerous animals are locked up before they visit the site.
Robbie Spencer, director of the British Association for Lone and Outreach Workers (BAFLOW) says: 'Once on a call the operatives should listen to their instincts, they very rarely let you down. They should always follow the customer through the front door and make sure that the door is not locked behind them. Once inside they should check out escape routes'.
Spencer, whose organisation provides lone worker training, also advocates that lone workers should be taught basic breakaway techniques and that they should gain an understanding of the legal standpoint of working alone and the use of force.

Double up in danger zones
Other steps the employer can take include doubling up on the number of engineers, even though the job might not warrant it, in areas and at times where it is likely to be dangerous. They should give operatives full training in customer service skills including the value of an apology, because an apology often diffuses the situation. They should develop a proper reporting structure so all incidents can be reported and they must give engineers the right to refuse to work in areas that they see as being dangerous. Firms should also be sensitive to the area and not send staff to an area that has a history of racially motivated attacks if they are likely to be attacked because of their race.
Field staff should also hide laptops under seats and not use them in dangerous areas. If confronted they should hand over the laptop rather than fight to protect it.
Robbie Spencer also adds that engineers should receive as much information as possible on the customer they are visiting. 'Very often customers have been fobbed off by customer service departments and may already be wound up before the engineer gets there,' he says.
Spencer advocates that operatives should also carry personal alarm systems. A typical system is manufactured by Argyll Telecoms. Its marketing executive Adrian Young explains what it does. 'We have been in business since 1998 and the market for safety devices has gown steadily. We offer two main services, those for low-risk clients and for those working in high-risk areas such as social workers, NHS staff and field engineers working in remote locations'.
'The system works with a mobile phone that includes a distress button. Pressing this button opens a voice channel to our control centre, which allows staff there to hear what is being said and to alert the necessary rescue services. We have a direct line to the safety services that works faster than a 999 call,' he says.
The advantage of opening up a voice channel is that the abuser does not know that help
has been summoned because with some alarm  systems the alarm call can make the aggressor even more violent.
Argyll's system includes GPS, which is accurate to 10m. It can even help locate people working underground, even though there is no signal underground, because it logs the point of entry making it easy to track the operative.
Another system is operated by Skyguard. This is a hand-held personal alarm system that provides 24-hour cover and emergency response. This response can either come from the emergency services, from Skyguard's 800 vehicle-plus national response team, or from anyone else the client stipulates.
'Health and safety legislation requires the employer to exercise a duty of care to their employees. This is not just advisable but is becoming essential in an increasingly unsafe and litigious environment,' says company spokesperson Helen Webb.
It can also be important not only to check the location of the engineer but also to track equipment. The Barcode Warehouse, using a barcoding and data capture system linked with GPS and GPRS, does both. Its marketing
communications manager Lee Coulson says: 'You are never going to be able to get round the fact that some people will be abusive or violent, but it is important to do everything that can be done to minimise the risk to the operator'.
Providing the best possible personal alarm systems and best working practices will go a long way to making lone workers safer, but there is still much to be done, not least in the education of staff. Several companies have provided personal alarms to their field engineers only to find that they are increasingly left in the office. This not only puts the operative in danger but also presents a grave insurance risk. SM

Case study: BT workers always within reach
BT Openreach is one of the largest employers of field service engineers in the country, with around 25,000 engineers on its books. Its health and safety team has been monitoring levels of abuse over the past 10 years with engineers logging incidents in an electronic accident book.
'This book has shown a year-on-year increase in reports of violent and abusive behaviour by members of the public, with the rise in road rage incidents and unprovoked threats in the street being the most worrying changes in the period,' says the Openreach safety manager Paul Hancock.
'There has also been the occasional serious assault where the engineer has visited the assailants at home or in their place of employment,' he adds.
The company has been running a duty of care system for some of its travelling workers since the mid 1990s, but four years ago this was extended to more of its field personnel and was accompanied by a nationwide roadshow campaign.
This campaign, run by Openreach security personnel, was aimed at increasing the awareness among all employees of personal security issues, including getting them to recognise and avoid potentially aggressive situations.
At the same time the company has developed a harassment and bullying policy to protect staff from employee on employee abusive or violent behaviour.
Now the health and safety team is working on an improved work-related violence policy. This uses records of past problems to warn of potential dangers, which are communicated to staff by the company's training units.
Openreach is also looking at its commercial relationships to try to develop an industry-wide deterrent to abuse and violence.
Paul Hancock says: 'We are further improving our duty of care system to make the monitoring more flexible, less intrusive and more effective. All our engineers have Openreach mobile phones so they can summon help. We also provide a counselling service to staff who have been affected by abusive or violent behaviour, and we are exploring the possibility of developing a company-wide advice service'.
But on the ground, nothing beats the practical advice Hancock provides: 'Generally we advise our people to assess the situation and, if there are perceived risks, not to begin work, or if they have started on a job, to get out as quickly as possible.'