I train site managers regularly and on day 1 we always end up looking at fatalities and injuries. e.g. there are 3,000,000 workers in the UK who regularly work at height, in 2007 there were 58 recorded deaths from falls and 12,000 injuries, 50% major and 50% over 3 day injuries (with factoring for RIDDOR under reporting by self-employed etc)


Primary question, can anyone put a figure on how likely you were to exit a hospital after injury in 1960 compared to today? I can't find the data but I am sure someone will have measured it.


Secondary is, using such a factor, how many of these injured people would have died if it wasn't for medical advancement?


We know deaths have reduced dramatically since the 70's but, underlying question I was asked was "when looking at deaths per 100,000 workers has H&S really made us safer or has medical advancement skewed the data, if so, by how much?" Good question I am sure you will agree. My simple answer was, I'll ask!


Look forward to any response!


Thanks, Jim

Also I expect recovery time for a lot of injuries and conditions have reduced dramatically over the period due to new surgical techniques developed!

Jim

In about the 70s the number of construction fatalities dropped by about half at the same time as the number of major injuries was going up.

So, yes medical science has had an impact. Less fatal head injuries. Possibly some of the injured brain damaged but not dead.

Lee, yes construction and related trades, I suppose incidents per 100,000 workers by sector is the appropriate measure to take out our shifting industry profile in the UK.

Rich, absolutely agree regarding the impact of disability including on family as carers and the IP, please don't think I am being in any way insensitive to this, I am interested in this purely as an academic measure.

Medical performance I suppose must include air ambulances, paramedics rather than ambulance drivers, first responders, better first aid training, MRI scans and the host of other interventions.

Please keep head scratching and as a final thought, is Birds Triangle, published in 1969 still a fair reflection?

oh, I have always seen numbers 1, 10, 30 and 600 in the Byrds (that I can't spell) triangle. Did make me wonder where they came from in the first place. Thanks Ray

Don't think you'll find a conclusive answer but I can throw some examples in the mix that may (or may not!) be relevant.

During the first world war the British army was concerned about the number of fatalities from debilitating head injuries. They introduced a new helmet and the number of head injuries increased. Concern was raised that the helmets were having an adverse effect. In reality more soldiers were surviving what would be previously fatal headshots. Has a similar effect happened in construction?

I can't give you examples of medical best practice in construction but from a chemical perspective Hydrofluoric Acid treatment has significantly improved in the last decade. In the recent past it was not uncommon for hf injuries to result in debridement of the wound or even amputation. Now improved first aid with administration of calcium gluconate gel and improved treatment/monitoring at hospital mean that injuries are far less severe and recovery rate tremendous.