Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 24 January 2001 17:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Kev Stevenson
Having evaluated our accident statistics for Annual Injury Incidence Rates using the HSE method (No. of 'Reportables' divided by Average no. of employees times 100,000)I can compare our results to the guidlines quoted in the HSE publication 'A Recipe for Safety'for the food & drink sector.

What do I compare against when calculting the Incidence rate
(Number of injuries - divided by total hours worked times 100,000) I have my resluts but what do I compare them against?

Also should it be the total of ALL accidents or again the number of reportable ones?

Thanks in advance for any assistance you may be able to offer?

Kev
Admin  
#2 Posted : 26 January 2001 09:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ian Waldram
A tricky area, it's easy to get confused!

Traditionally, accident data was compiled 'per hours worked' - this started in the days when most workers clocked on, so organisations knew the hours without much difficulty. If they didn't, the usual assumption was '2000 hours per worker per year' (= 40/week x 50weeks). In UK, the data is typically per 1000 employees (= 200,000 hours), but in US they usually use 100,000 hours.

More recently HSE has not bothered to assume the 2000 hours per employee, so just quoted rates per 1000 employees. Of course, the only injuries HSE knows about are those reported to it, i.e. lost time and major injuries. As safety improves, the actual number of reportable injuries per 1000 empoyees per year is often less than 1, so the number get a bit small. Thus HSE's most recent figures (see their website for 1998/99 data just released per occupational type) are for 100,000 workers. The average for all occupations is 1,490, or 1.49 per 1000 employees. The 'worst' occupations have rates 3.2 times this average.

For internal purposes, it is more statistically reliable to count 'all injuries', or at least all that require some sort of medical treatment, i.e. not just a plaster from a First-Aider. This is what are called 'recordable injuries' in US legislation (they have very detailed definitions to explain what this means in practice, which can lead to very creative post-injury arguments and efforts as to why something shouldn't actually BE recorded - thus completely losing sight of the objective of learning how to prevent it happening again!). Thus many US-based organisations use 'all-injury' data as a performance indicator, and this usually means 'recordable injuries', whereas HSE 'all-injury' data means everything notified to them - lost-time+ major+ fatalities. If comparing with US-based recrdable injury data, remember this wil be per 100,000 hours, i.e. 500 employees.

'Severity' data is usually a measure of the total time lost per lost-time injury. I think the best way to measure it is in days. It becomes VERY confusing when it is quoted a 'hours lost per 100,000 hours worked', as it often is in US. As we all know, the actual time lost has a quite poor correlation with the actual severity of the injury, so I've never found severity data helps much. There is also the issue of how many hours to 'count' if you have a fatality or severe disablement and the employee NEVER comes back to work!
Users browsing this topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.