Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Stephen Evans
I'm looking for some data on the use of near miss reporting systems. I work in a pharmaceutical company and we have seen a decline in the number of near miss reports being filed and I need to be able to answer the question ' What is an acceptable number of near miss reports?'
I've found little guidance to be honest but one academic paper suggested a range of 0.9 -3.0 reports per head per annum. Have I missed an obvious data source or is this a necessary difficult area of concern.
What would other people think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
As a rough guide I use a multiplier of 25x number of first aid treatments per month, with a minimum of 25. The basis for this goes back to the old triangle ratios.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kenneth Patrick
All reported should be your aim I would sugggest
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Kenneth
The only problem with "all reported" is that it is not measurable and you do need some sort of figure to give an indication as to whether you are in fact achieving the "All Reported" objective.
I find departmental measurements and targets in competition with each other tends to produce good results although one needs to eliminate the chaff, so to speak, in the initial phases.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Konstanty Budkiewicz
Stephen,
In answer to your question” What is an acceptable number of near miss reports” – “Acceptability” levels are dictated by management’s commitment to a safety culture. Consequently, there is a great degree of variability across all aspects of “work” and associated undertakings. I do not believe that a definitive mathematical model exists for your industry or local manufacturing conditions, other than the generic statistics provided by IOSH book: Principles of Health and Safety, page 4.
Regarding the wider issue of near miss reporting, I remind you that near miss reports are REACTIVE, and intended to collect for analysis information about failures in your current arrangements. So, in crude terms, all factors being equal, the decline in reports may indicate that you have modified all systems of work to be safe: unlikely.
What will help you in this situation? At present you have ACTIVE monitoring systems in place such as inspections by Departmental heads and subordinate managers. Such inspections deal with the obvious house keeping events associated with your business processes. By their nature they are unlikely to engage staff and managers in detailed discussion related to “near misses” associated with their tasks. To overcome your decreasing report figures, I suggest that an EHS representative parents and attends such events, and that every opportunity is taken to encourage the operational staff to “air” their problems though the Near Miss reporting system. This should re-prime the information/reporting loop.
Parallel to the above monitoring process, within your ACTIVE risk reduction program you have the cyclic review of processed-based risk assessments – some of the proposed risk-rated remedial actions may actually be addressing previously undisclosed near miss scenarios. You may wish to discuss this demarcation aspect with your assessors and reviewers, and where appropriate, add these events to your statistics.
The above deals with “loss” reduction involving personnel. I suggest that to fully capture related information that you also consider a program of “general safety concern” (GSC) reporting. This is functionally one level lower than a “near miss”. GSC is an ACTIVE monitoring system that takes a wider view of “loss” and includes potential reputation, product and property damage that may lead to loss or injury (a simple example is: Winter is coming – a walking surface is identified by one of your staff as being unsuitable in icy conditions – increase friction on surface - prevent falls on first day of frost).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stephen Evans
Thanks for all the responses guys - I agree regarding the Active measures and indeed we run a system that matrices safety inspections, attendance on safety training, incident or injury investigations completed within a specified timescale as well as timely closeout of identified remedial actions.
My concerns were around the fact that in the past three years we have seen the incident reporting frequency decline by 50% and as a first step in reinvigorating it I wanted to know an approximate level to aim at.
Interestingly both the academic survey (0.9 -3.0) and the 25 times fist aids add up to approximately the same figure at the upper end of the range.
At least I can hold some more informed discussions with the senior managers on this basis.
Thanks again
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jon Vitta
Hi Stephen
I read your post and my initial thoughts are why are the number of Near misses reported going down in the first place? maybe it is lack of feedback to the reportee or lack of remedial actions that have been identified and carried out. Whilst I agree with the above contributors to all instances of reporting is a good thing sometimes you can get reports for reporting sake and even things that are not H&S related.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By pat merchant
Near Misses Reported
I would go back to when you first started seeing a decline in Reports and look to whether you have put management controls in place to deal with the problems, how effective they have been or whether communication and support for the system has simply dimminished.
It could mean that you have been successful in your controls but I doubt it, do not try to set an average amount of reports as it depends on your skills in management, the type of organisation, the culture of your workforce and many other factors.Monitoring is upmost important but if reports are not coming in and you are worried, try other means of monitoring such as audits to try to gain a bigger picture.
Communication with the employees to the reasons of reporting and gaining their support and buy in is the only way to get an honest and accurate picture of near misses.
Try benchmarking other Organisations simular to yours for statistics.
Pat
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
"Near miss" reports from employees are often met with a "blame" response. This tends to reduce the frequency of reporting.
I often include in my SMS audit reports a recommendation similar to :
"Thanks for telling me you have just destroyed the MD's new Jaguar with your fork-lift truck. Let's go have coffee, I'll pay, so that we can see how not to destroy his next one, like we did all his others"
A positive, welcoming approach increases reporting frequency.
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Bannister
Stephen, have you considered that the numbers of near misses may be reducing? If all your active measures are in place and effective you would expect your incident numbers to reduce, as well as the "could have beens"
Of course, this assumes that the various Triangle theories are anything other than rubbish!
Now this looks like it may make a proper Friday thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.