We're looking at options for improving near-miss reporting and have come across a T-card system.

Does anyone have any good/bad experiences of using this type of system that they can share?

Regards

Geoff

Hilary.
It will add value to get everyone onboard with some correct language and understanding of what actual event (near-miss) happened - OR - what hazard (unsafe action or unsafe condition) was observed.

The two situations:- an 'event happened' OR an 'observation was made' are utterly and completely different.

I don't believe any organisation wants its people to have accidents:- unplanned, uncontrolled events that cause harm - OR - have the potential to. When my MD states clearly & publicly to the workforce in a safety conference "he wants lots of near-miss reports", what he's asking for is people to have lots of accidents! The sentiment is right, the terminology is wrong.

Conversely, I do believe organisations want and need from their people is:- observe - intervene - correct - report.
Expert hazard spotters.
Expert hazard stoppers.
Expert hazard interveners.
Expert hazard reporters.
Expert engagers with others.

Fact:- year 1 - 1265 people - 104 lost time & RIDDOR events - 3 hazard reports - Lost £0.45m
Fact:- year 10 - 4000 people - 1 lost time injury - 15,000 hazard reports - Profit £12.4m
Construction Industry with peripatetic and outdoor workers, often working solo or pairs out on 100's different sites day-in / day-out.

Get the language and meaning right, are you actually talking about accidents (a near-miss event) or hazards? create a positive competetive culture, commend (never patronise) any meaningful interventions to correct hazards = unsafe actions and/or unsafe conditions.

I hope this helps.

Vince

Hilary,

I concur with just about everything you say, clearly we have had some similar experiences.

fence or ambulance
Do you think this might date you ;-)
I wonder how many people got it?

Near miss - near hit --- semantics.

Call it whatever suits you. It's what you do about it that matters. The best thing you can do to improve near miss reporting / investigation / close out is give meaningful feedback every time.

Agree with PL53 - semantics

A near anything is an accident sequence but without the loss......simples :)

Just to throw my hat into the mix (because it Friday) we classify someone failing to follow a SSOW or a safe process as a near miss.....

Anyhoo we have a carbon copied hazard / near miss book's - person identifying the problem completes the first part and hands it to a manager (leaving the carbon copy in the book for audit trails), second part is completed by the manager (actions to be taken etc) and final part is completed by me to confirm that the action has been taken and is satisfactory. Works quite well :) and by well I mean that employees report hazards and never report near misses!

Then you have the problem as to when a near miss becomes a hazard...'wow I nearly tripped over that hose running across the floor'...

Oh look the sun is shining :)

..unsafe act I meant to say.

Like, not wearing his safety eyewear while drilling. Near miss?



:o))


Well, recently I spoke with someone who attributed his popular near-miss reporting system for the dramatic reduction in accident rate. Yes that is a common conclusion for many businesses.

But hang on, they recorded 1400 near misses in 12 months, that's about 25 near misses every working week!

And 20% were someone failing to follow a SSOW or a safe process, so 5 'bad' near misses every week.

Does that add up to a good safety culture?

I think they have 1600 staff so maybe the numbers are not so bad?

We use the company intranet system as a reporting tool, and we are fortunate to be able to do so but for the record if someone fails to follow the prescribed SSoW, regardless of whether an incident or near hit occurs, it's a violation.
Unfortunately it's usually after the violation has occurred that its effects become known and reports get raised. Whatever reporting mechanism you adopt, the aim is to identify root cause and educate all to make things safer in the future.

That is why we use our own definitions internally:-

Potential Hazard: Definition=A hazard is identified.e.g. a trailing cable

Near Miss: Definition=An event without loss or injury i.e. an "event" has occurred, but nobody has been injured and no equipment has been damaged. e.g.someone actually trips on a trailing cable, but no injury or damage to equipment

Incident: Definition=An event with a loss, but no injury i.e. an event has occurred and there has been damage to equipment or a spill has gone beyond the point at which the material can be recovered. e.g.Someone trips on a trailing cable, no injury but damage to equipment

Injury Accident: An event with injury i.e. someone has been hurt.e.g.Someone trips on the cable and is injured