Posted By Geoff Burt
A large number of organisations use the 'over 3 day' accident as their baseline when calculating their accident rate. Anything less is not recorded in their 'public' statistics.

Hence big signs saying '1,000,000 hours without an accident' can be taken with a large pinch of salt.

On one occasion a brickie had broken his leg and was employed doing paperwork while he recovered. His accident hadn't been reported because he was back at work (with a large plaster cast) within the 3 days - despite the fact he wasn't doing his normal job.

It's why incentive schemes to reduce accident levels can be questionable - the real number of accidents is often hidden.

Geoff

Posted By Merv Newman
Mark,

riddor is a good guide, but the three day rule is a nonsense. (I have heard that it dates from the beginning of the national health service when doctors, required to certify people as unfit to work protested that there would be too many "minor" illnesses and injuries requiring surgery visits and sick notes. Thus the three-day rule to cut down on doctor's work load)

For me, anything requiring medical treatment, not first aid which just happens to be administered by a medically qualified person, gets the full treatment.

"Minor" first aids are trickier. Here I try to encourage a "no fault, no blame" culture. "Please tell us about even the smallest injury - we need this info so that we can do something before you are a colleague suffer a worse injury from the same cause, and we will be ever so ever so grateful"

It helps, but you can never guarantee 100% reporting. I cut myself a bit with a breadknife this morning - a few drops of blood which I sucked off, not even a
plaster. And I certainly didn't tell my wife - she would have just laughed (safety man ? Huh !) Who has never "hidden" such a minor injury, at work or at home ?

Merv Newman

Posted By Sean Fraser
For those who might not have been party to it, there was recent a discussion regarding "near-miss" incidents (raised by Peter MacDonald on 29/8) that is very relevant to this discussion. It all comes down to an effective reporting culture and a general understanding of the purpose behind recording incidents by all concerned, especially reporting incidents that didn't result in injury.

One definition that I thought encapsulated it nicely was "any unexpected or unplanned event or circumstance that has given rise to or could give rise to actual or potential loss, injury or ill health or other unwanted effect." The key element was "has given rise to or could give rise to" so it covers all eventualities. So, should I report this? Put it to the test - did it cause harm/damage or could it have caused harm/damage? There is very little that could be justified away as not reported if that definition is being applied correctly.

But I feel that there is another side to this - the pertinence of reporting. If all of the data falls into a black hole and is not being disseminated back to the workforce, they start to ask themselves "why are we wasting our time doing this?". It is important that the information being gained is properly analysed and effectively reported back, otherwise there is no incentive to report.

And safety incentives based on reduced accidents, especially fiscal rewards . . . well, there is a good Dilbert strip that addresses just this point, where the winner of the safety award for having no accidents said "if it weren't for awards there'd be no incentive not to have accidents". Obviously the wrong way round! A good accident record is something to be proud of, of course, but if doing nothing and hiding the actual accident rate will continue to be rewarded, then we only have ourselves to blame - it always surprises me the sometimes obvious lack of foresight and understnding of human behaviour exhibited in such ill-concieved plans, that often fall at the first hurdle and further bring the safety profession into disripute amongst those who need our contribution the most - the workers.

Make sure the accident reporting system is simple, consistent, easily accessible and user friendly and most of all, pertinent to those who use it.

Posted By Hilary Charlton
At our place we report absolutely everything - minor cuts, small burns, minor bumps, slips and trips. We have quite good buy in because I tell people when they come in that the accident book is as much for their benefit as for ours and perhaps more so. The accident book will prove to a court of law that the employee did actually hurt him or herself at work on said date at said time, if it is not entered in the book then it is their word against mine - this seems to work on the psyche.

I am absolutely against this "x days without a lost time accident" and any reward scheme attached thereto, this can only encourage people not to report accidents so how beneficial to the long term accident reduction plan is that?

My own view - report anything and everything, it may be a wasted piece of paper at the end of the day but a few sheets of paper may be all that stands between you and litigation - it is not worth doing otherwise.

Hilary

Posted By Mark Bywater
I'm pleased to say that we seem to be in agreement with most of you on the view that ALL accidents should be recorded. It does seem crass to artificially lower your accident figures by "selecting" which accidents to record.

I'm pleased we, as a company, seem to be on the right path. Hopefully a few of the "other" managers I mentioned will now realise what Health & Safety is really all about.

I especially enjoyed the reference to the Dilbert cartoon - I shall use that one in the future.

Many thanks to all the contributors,

Kind regards,
Mark

Posted By Geoff Burt
Exactly!