Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By shaun allport
OK! its been some time since I've asked advice on this forum...but here goes
currently at a contract where the company encourage reporting of near misses, accidents so forth which is commendable! however we are now at a stage where for example someone bumps an elbow on a desk or door, this is entered into the accident book, then it hits the companies AFR, this results in a investigation to determine route cause analysis!!
I have legal definitions of near miss, injury so on! but is this an actual injury? I'm in a quandary? employees have to report injuries for their own sake, also claim culture etc
can you SPs out there advise? where is there a cross over determining injury / no injury and do you know of any text /guidance because I'm exhausted looking
need help quick!
regards to all
Shaun Allport MMIRSM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By JLR
Hi Shaun
Is the main dilemma that these types of injuries effect
(a) your AFR and therefore may have an adverse effect on tendering etc.? OR
(b)that they are taking up time because they are all being investigated.
If it is (a) The difficulty with discouraging them from being reported is that it may have a negative effect on accident reporting in general and people have different perceptions about where fault lies and severity. I would therefore consider categorising your accidents differently so that these types of accidents are separated out from Over 3 day injuries and Near-misses.
If it is (b) I would use the matrix system described in HSG 245 to identify different levels of investigation required, these type of 'accident' would then only require the supervisor to look at it to see if any lessons could be learnt.
Hope this helps
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Diane Thomason
Hi Shaun
In some places they say report anything needing first aid. This would exclude the "ouch - never mind, carry on" incidents.
This whole issue is difficult to judge sometimes, it's a bit subjective, but including only first-aid accidents is a reasonable boundary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kieran J Duignan
Shaun
Two ways of resolving the dilemma you've outlined depend on contrasting ways of thinking.
Adopting the framework published by the cognitive ergonomist John Reason, you can define an injury as the outcome of a violation, a mistake, a lapse or a slip, and then perhaps exclude particular categories of mistakes, lapses or slips. This would allow you consistency within the framework you define. This approach is mandatory in high hazard areas but equally relevant to modest and low hazard ones.
Alternatively, with the active involvement of senior management, you could put a much greater on behaviour modification which if done well would reduce the incident and accident frequecies by promoting a climate of positive reinforcement. To operate effectively, a behaviour modification programme needs to start well beyond the safety area, preferably in sales and customer service.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By shaun allport
thanks all too yoy that replied
I forgot how usefull the site can be
Shaun
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.