I'm reviewing the monthly H&S report that I produce for our Directors/Managers. The curent report details the AFR for the month that we are reporting on but its been raised that this figure on its own doesnt mean much and some of the directors have stated that they want this figure to be benchmarked against an 'industry standard' ie, if its less than 0.1 (just a random figure) they are doing ok, if its higher then it needs to be looked at in greater detail.

In addition to this some directors have stated that they want AFR statistics to be produced on a 'rolling' basis to monitor performance.

I'm keen to findout how others report on monthly AFR's and is these can be benchmarked, any input/feedback would be very much appreciated 

Martin#1

Martin, I tend to agree with Ray on this one as stats can be misleading & can be a "turn-off" for a Board meeting that may just "note" the contents.

About 9 months ago, one of my Clients asked me to produce a H&S report to the Board & what has gone down well is a "RAG" style, whereby I outline, what, in my professional opinion, could give them sleepless nights, but also as important, an indicator where things have improved.

I also inform them of any changes in legislation, industry guidance etc. as well as any enforcement activity in similar sectors. Some recent fines have certainly made them think!!

Last, but not least, it might be worth asking them what they would like to see, but I do appreciate that they may not know!!

Thanks for comments and feedback. I agree with the points raised and think I just need to try and slowly develop the monthly report to shift the focus away from the monthly AFR figure(s) onto other sections which will give a better indication of how the businesses are performing in terms of H&S 

Originally Posted by: Martin#1

One business (that has had a RIDDOR) is showing as having an AFR of 0.67.

Does this mean that everyone who works for that business will (statistically) experience 0.67 RIDDOR injuries in their working life?

Patently not, because 0.67 riddor injuries makes no sense.  How do you 0.67 break a limb?  Or 0.67 lose consciousness due to head injury?  You either suffer a riddor injury or you don't.  You can't 0.67 suffer a riddor injury.

Edited by user 06 March 2017 16:16:03(UTC)  | Reason: spelling

There are lies, damned lies and statistics - Rather than benchmarking why not use the statistical technique CUSUM (cumulative sum) - this graph is never horizontal (even if you have several months of zero reports) it is either increasing or decreasing i.e. upward or downward trend

Although you don't see it used all that much in the UK, I've always found that ASR is a good method of calculation as this shows the number of days lost (and days lost equals money lost!)

No of days lost x 200,000 / hours worked

The 200,000 multiplyer is used a lot in America and is supposed to represent the average number of hours worked by a group of 100 people over the course of a year (well, 50 weeks but i believe the "missing" two weeks is to allow for public holidays etc). I'm not normally a fan of Americanisms but found this to be a very useful way of making the figures seem more understandable, given that we are a company of approx 100 staff.

For example, if we take last year (before i worked here), the figures were

ASR: 48.89

AFR: 1.11

On their own those figures mean nothing but you look at them as numbers against a group of 100 people, they start to become a lot more "real". 

ASR: 48.89 days lost due to injury/illness each year for every 100 staff

AFR: 1.11 RIDDORs each year for every 100 staff

Edited by user 13 March 2017 11:59:18(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified