The Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (ECITB) has introduced two online courses addressing the risks created when personal protective equipment does not fit its wearer correctly. Developed with input from the Women’s Engineering Society (WES), the programme covers the use of protection during engineering construction activities and the decisions made by employers when choosing, purchasing and maintaining suitable equipment.
Available through the ECITB World learning platform, the two modules form a programme titled PPE: Right Fit. Real Protection. Each takes approximately ten minutes to complete and uses scenarios drawn from engineering construction workplaces. The training is initially available to employers within the ECITB’s scope, with wider industry access an aspiration for which no rollout date has yet been announced.
The first module, Wearing and using PPE, is intended for employees, technicians and operational supervisors who use protective equipment during their work. It examines fitting and compatibility, checks before use and the circumstances in which equipment may need replacement. Workers are encouraged to report damaged or unsuitable items so that the protection required by the workplace risk assessment remains available during the task.
Responsibility for resolving those reports often lies elsewhere in an organisation, which is addressed by the companion module, Providing and managing PPE. Managers, procurement teams, stores personnel and other staff involved in supply decisions are asked to consider product selection, stock availability and review arrangements. A worker may identify a poor fit immediately, while changing the available equipment can involve a purchasing specification, supplier choice or revised inventory.
Even when a product meets the relevant protective standard, its effectiveness depends on being suitable for the person wearing it and for the hazard involved. Loose clothing can create an entanglement risk around machinery, while gloves that restrict dexterity may interfere with safe tool handling. Poorly positioned eye protection may also leave part of the face exposed during movement, despite the equipment having the required protective properties when correctly fitted.
Engineering construction work brings these fit requirements into contact with lifting operations, hot processes, pressure systems, chemical exposure and moving equipment. Different tasks can require head, hand, eye, body and respiratory protection in combination, depending on the risks that remain after other controls have been considered. The risk assessment must account for both the protective function of each item and the conditions in which it will be worn.
When several items are worn together, an otherwise suitable product can interfere with another piece of protection. Safety glasses may disturb a respirator’s face seal, while a helmet can affect the positioning of hearing protection. Equipment should therefore be assessed in the combination required for the task, including normal movement and changes of posture, rather than selected solely from individual specifications.
Tight-fitting respiratory protective equipment relies on an adequate seal against the wearer’s face, so the selected make, model, type and size require appropriate fit testing by a competent person. The wearer also needs the relevant practical instruction and checks before use, with any additional equipment assessed for interference with that seal.
Health and Safety Executive guidance requires employers to consider size, fit, weight, compatibility and individual physical characteristics when selecting PPE. The same guidance advises against modifying an unsuitable product to force a fit. Because personal protection is generally used for residual risks, the choice of PPE follows consideration of measures that eliminate a hazard or reduce exposure through more effective controls.
Those selection duties sit alongside the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, as amended in 2022, which require suitable equipment and appropriate information, instruction and training. The amendments extended relevant duties to a wider group of workers. Maintenance, storage and replacement arrangements also affect whether the equipment continues to provide the protection specified by the employer’s assessment.
Procurement decisions consequently need to reflect the characteristics of the workforce as well as the technical standards applying to individual products. Suppliers may offer compliant equipment in size ranges that leave some workers without an appropriate fit. Allowing prospective wearers to try suitable designs, recording deficiencies and checking the compatibility of combined items can reveal problems that a catalogue specification would not identify.
As working conditions or individual requirements change, equipment may need reassessment because wear, damage or exposure to a new hazard can make the original selection unsuitable. A different task may call for another approved design, particularly when existing items no longer provide the protection specified by the risk assessment. Reliable reporting arrangements and access to replacement stock help ensure that unsuitable items are withdrawn or exchanged without leaving workers to improvise adjustments.
Evidence supplied by the Women’s Engineering Society helped shape the courses, following its review of ECITB’s proposed training and contributions through the society’s Safety Forum. Its earlier Voice of our Apprentices research had identified a difference between respondents’ reported sense of belonging in engineering and their experience of receiving well-fitting protective equipment. Its findings informed material on obtaining suitable sizes, reporting poor fit and correcting gaps in the protective equipment available at work.
Individual needs may vary with body size, shape, medical circumstances, disability, pregnancy or religious practice, requiring organisations to consider more than a narrow range of standard products. The aim remains an appropriate level of protection against the identified hazard for every worker. In some cases, achieving that may involve supplying a different approved design and reassessing its compatibility with other required equipment.
ECITB head of careers and inclusion Mat Parker has highlighted the shared responsibilities involved in identifying unsuitable equipment and providing workable alternatives. The two modules reflect those separate roles, with the worker’s immediate checks linked to the organisation’s purchasing and review procedures. Their practical benefit depends on whether concerns raised by workers lead to timely changes in the items provided.
As awareness courses, the modules can improve recognition and reporting of PPE problems, while formal equipment assessment, respirator fit testing and practical instruction remain governed by the employer’s safety arrangements. Eligible engineering construction organisations now have access to both short courses through ECITB World. How those lessons are applied will be evident in the availability, fit and compatibility of protection during the work itself.
