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
PHurley  
#1 Posted : 07 May 2012 07:51:47(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
PHurley

A reduction of incident reporting reflects an improvement in EHS Performance, discuss. Sorry for the exam style question! I am working on EHS Strategic Objectives and targets. The overall strategy is to have a safe workplace and the EHSMS is the tool to achieve this. However, if I set a target to decrease incident reporting will the number of incidents decrease or will the number of reports decrease? If reports decrease (whilst incidents do not) surely this will decrease safety. Am I setting a false incentive by targeting a reduction in incident reporting. Conversely does setting a target for increased incident reporting send out the wrong message? Will it act as an incentive to report or an incentive to be unsafe?
RayRapp  
#2 Posted : 07 May 2012 09:36:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

A good question, even if it has been discussed before on these forums. A reduction of reported incidents does not necessarily equate to an increase in EHS performance. There have been many organisations who believed otherwise, only to have a rude awakening when a serious incident unfolded which subsequently showed that their systems were not as good as they thought - or hoped! The setting of targets for incident reporting (I presume that includes near misses) is problematical in itself. This can lead to a number of artificial interventions, such as incentives for reporting incidents. Encouraging staff at ALL levels within the organisations to report unsafe acts and conditions is the way forward, regardless the of actual numbers of incidents reported. Trends should be identified as they are indicators, but only indicators, hence they should not be relied on too heavily. Again, some organisations foolishly set targets for incident reporting believing that the more incidents reported the safer they will become. However, it is not just a numbers game, but the quality of those reports and the potential impact should be properly assessed - which takes time and effort. For example, many incidents are caused by poor planning, supervision, training, etc. Yet, very few incidents, including near misses, ever report those type of issues because they tend to involve local management and they have a tendency to be 'forgotten' in the context of accident causation.
PHurley  
#3 Posted : 07 May 2012 10:40:35(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
PHurley

Thanks for the reply, that pretty much sums up my thinking on the subject too. It really is a balancing act in finding the right approach to reducing incidents and improving safety whilst not imposing false or wrong incentives. Personally I am against any sort of incident reporting targets for these reasons, reporting should be part of the safety culture and should be done without fear of reprisals or of such draconian investigations and responses. This needs balancing against the need for effective investigation and corrective action.
John J  
#4 Posted : 07 May 2012 11:12:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
John J

If you do want an incident reporting measure why not repeat near misses. It shows you didn't (or somebody didn't) do enough following your first one to eliminate the second.
A Kurdziel  
#5 Posted : 08 May 2012 11:22:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

A simple reduction in the number of incidents reported is not a good measure of H&S performance. It can simply be achieved by making reporting more difficult to report incidents eg replacing a system accessible by all by a system that requires a form to be sent in triplicate to head office etc. A good level of incident reporting, especially near misses can be a sign of a good H&S culture: people believe in the system and expect it to do something about issues that they might encounter. On the other hand setting targets for the number of near misses is a bit perverse with some employers doing just that.
Jake  
#6 Posted : 08 May 2012 12:00:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Jake

An interesting thread. We currently publish accident stats for each of our regions, as a inter-company benchmarking excercies on a monthly basis. Could anyone point out a research report that has reviewed the use incidents reported as a measure of health and safety performance and how this could drive reporting underground? Would help me sell the idea of altering the way we report H&S information.
peter gotch  
#7 Posted : 08 May 2012 13:13:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Jake http://www.osha.gov/pls/...e=SPEECHES&p_id=2218 "special attention to safety incentive and discipline programs that have been shown to discourage workers from reporting injuries and illnesses" There's also an HSE research report on similar considerations. Search for underreporting on the HSE website.
NEE' ONIONS MATE!  
#8 Posted : 08 May 2012 13:51:29(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
NEE' ONIONS MATE!

I'd give reporting a very wide berth as an objective or target, and focus instead on reducing the leading indicators that contribute to the accidents themselves. Perhaps improving the time frames for rectifying defects, or reducing the number of missed routine inspections. Reducing the number of accident reports is a bit vague, and in some ways, slightly reactive.
Corfield35303  
#9 Posted : 08 May 2012 13:58:33(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Corfield35303

Think about the type/level of incidents reported, we have significantly increased reports of minor accidents, the numbers of more serious incidents remain constant. I dont think the number of accidents has gone up, but awareness has. I think if you focus on a specific type of accident, at the right level in the organisation, and discreetly, then it can be a useful aiming point.
Jake  
#10 Posted : 08 May 2012 14:37:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Jake

peter gotch wrote:
Jake http://www.osha.gov/pls/...e=SPEECHES&p_id=2218 "special attention to safety incentive and discipline programs that have been shown to discourage workers from reporting injuries and illnesses" There's also an HSE research report on similar considerations. Search for underreporting on the HSE website.
Thanks Peter, found a literature review that fits the bill nicely as well as your direct link :)
RayRapp  
#11 Posted : 08 May 2012 14:47:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

I recall a quote (think it was Cox & Flynn) "We tend to measure those things which are easy to measure, as opposed to things which we should measure." A truism if there ever was one.
chris.packham  
#12 Posted : 08 May 2012 15:20:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

Just consider what Einstein once said: "Not everything that can be measured counts, and not everything that counts can be measured." Chris
jay  
#13 Posted : 08 May 2012 16:40:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jay

It depends upon the safety culture of your organisation and the maturity/robustness of the reporting system. Otherwise it can lead to under-reporting My expereince is that it is desirable to have an overall downward trend, but not necessarily hard targets. It is better to analyse some of the trends and if you have robust investigations and root cause findings. then it is possible to reduce the numbers. I would find it difficult to arbitarily set targets without undertaking a trend/root-cause analysis and addressing the root causes. Please PM me your contact details, I will send info on the system we use. Our global aspirational target is zero accidents (in context of OSHA recordables for personal injuries).
Corfield35303  
#14 Posted : 08 May 2012 16:41:48(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Corfield35303

Chris.Packham wrote:
Just consider what Einstein once said: "Not everything that can be measured counts, and not everything that counts can be measured." Chris
....very valid quotation. My emphasis at the moment is trying to capture and measure 'culture' - a different mindset is required when comparing this to simple, rear-facing accident stats.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.