Rank: Forum user 
|
Question please: Is anyone else keeping a seperate reporting category for the over 3 day injuries and an additional one for the over 7 day injuries? It seems who ever I speak with is, just for internal statistical reporting but not any other reason... comments please.
(Please note all accident data is kept, but I am just referring to specific categories and data producing and claims etc).
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
I am not, but I guess the reason for doing so would be for the comparison of trends otherwise you are trying to compare apples with oranges due to the changed definition
Martyn
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Yes. In our case it is a simple spreadsheet, one column of which is binary on >3, another is binary on >7.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user 
|
Like Tabs, in order to be able to compare to previous years data, I am now recording <3 day + >3but<7 days + >7 days. In a couple of years time that'll be able to be reduced to <7 and >7 but for the meantime Excel is working overtime on its formulas in order to produce meaningful comparative statistics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Please note that the law changed on 6 April 2012. If a worker sustains an occupational injury resulting from an accident, their injury should be reported if they are incapacitated for more than seven days. There is no longer a requirement to report occupational injuries that result in more than three days of incapacitation, but you must still keep a record of such injuries.
The above is the wording taken directly from the HSE website, so if you aren't keeping a seperate record if the HSE may come calling how, might be an idea to do so...
For the record, i have two sets of statistics. One for internal use and a briefer version for external, unless i can come up with something better...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Obviously in respect of proving that you are still keeping notes etc within the accident records.
No idea if they will ask mind but you never know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
We are for the sole reason of allowing like-for-like comparison of accident stats. Otherwise, you may find a sudden decrease in RIDDOR's!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Surely all they mean by keeping such records is that they are recorded in the accident book as a lost time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Mr.Flibble wrote:
Surely all they mean by keeping such records is that they are recorded in the accident book as a lost time?
Yes!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
We record time lost on all our accident records so by extension, yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Safety Smurf wrote:We record time lost on all our accident records so by extension, yes. Don't understand this are you saying that every accident you have ahs an element of lost time element?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Invictus wrote:Safety Smurf wrote:We record time lost on all our accident records so by extension, yes. Don't understand this are you saying that every accident you have ahs an element of lost time element? No, sorry, should have been clearer. Our accident reporting process records any time lost (which is nothing if there wasn't any).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Garfield Esq wrote:Mr.Flibble wrote:
Surely all they mean by keeping such records is that they are recorded in the accident book as a lost time?
Yes! I agree, though I still think the HSE guidance on this specific point is confusing. The guidance states that an inspector may request details of O3D-O7D accidents, and that if they do a company shall provide those details. If you've just completed an accident form like all other non-RIDDOR accidents, how would you ever be able to distinguish which O3D-O7D accidnets you've had? (or would you just give the inspector every accident report and ask them to sift through...). In reality it'll never be asked, so its by and large a moot point, but why add that sentence into the guidance? meh. FWIW we also keep stats on O3D-O7D accidents for benchmarking reasons (and if an inspector ever asks for a list of this classification of accident!!).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I think we have to keep record of over three day but not report as RIDDOR. When we changed to over seven day for RIDDOR it meant we weren't complying with an EC directive - hence the need to record but not report - as far as I am aware
Lilian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
My organisation is keeping both. However, the one concern I have is that managers may make a note and record that an accident is over three days, but then 'forget' to advise the person has been off for 7 days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
griffo28 - I share your concern - we have an electronic reporting system and we have urged people to complete this as near as possible to the time of the incident, this was not too much of a problem for over 3 days but now over 7 days is the new criteria, it is proving very difficult to get people to log back in later on to update the original entry. Education and time is the answer I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks for all your discussions on this one, I am glad I am not the only one speculating interpretation and use of data!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
There's an upcoming requirement for each EU member state to inform Eurostat of O3D injury accidents and a summary of their causes.
In the consultation document ahead of the amended regs, HSE speculated that they might try to ascertain the causes by
(a) getting admin staff to ring employers up to find out what's in their accident book (assuming that the information in this matches what is required to be recorded by an additional schedule to RIDDOR) and/or
(b) sending Inspectors out to examine accident books (ditto!)
HSE didn't attempt to calculate the potential cost of (a) and (b) either to employers or to HSE/LAs.
So much for cutting red tape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
and a PS.
Those in the supply chain will end up keeping an extra layer of stats as some clients will ask about O7D accidents, others will want to know about O3D as then they can look at trends.
HSE guestimating that there will be about 30% fewer reports, but this will almost certainly not be consistent across all sectors / trades.
...and some clients will just add yet another question to prequals etc, i.e. how many O7D AND how many O3D.
So much for reducing bureaucracy in the assessment of supply chain competence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.