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
Azza  
#1 Posted : 21 December 2012 10:39:30(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Azza

Hi All,

What does everyone think is the best way to measure safety performance across multiple warehouses (all doing the same tasks with less than 150 staff)

a) Qty of accidents?
b) Qty of RIDDORs?
c) Lost time accidents?
etc etc

What about qty of near misses reported? The more near misses reported the better?
Discuss.......
peter gotch  
#2 Posted : 21 December 2012 10:43:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Arron

Number of accidents is usually a very poor indicator especially if there are any disincentives to report.

Leading indicators of active management / workforce engagement much better e.g. amount of training, workforce suggestions, timely close out of non-conformances
A Kurdziel  
#3 Posted : 21 December 2012 10:54:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

I’d do not like RIDDORS since a RIDDOR by itself means nothing in relation to how H&S is managed.
The accident data is useful; in the sense that it tells management that there is something that needs doing. Near miss reporting is very useful since, if done correctly it will tell you how engaged staff are in H&S issues. In this case high levels of near miss reporting can be a good thing (in bad cases it might just mean that the employees are disgruntled and looking for something to moan about)
These are all following indicators; you could also look at some leading indicators such as:
• Employees who had manual handling training\refresher training
• Other sorts of training including fire awareness training
• Audits/inspections carried out; actions and follow-ups completed
• PPE survey- what proportion of staff were found to be wearing the correct footwear etc
I suspect others will be able to add to the list. As far as I can see there is no single magic number that can be used to measure H&S effectiveness.
damelcfc  
#4 Posted : 21 December 2012 11:17:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
damelcfc

As above + Risk assessments completed/scores lowered, Health Surveillance attendance, AFR/AIR/MDR, Toolbox talks delivered, Revenue/Capital spent, Reduction in known risks from things like DSEAR/FIRE/PUWER etc etc assessments (high to med, med to low etc)

The list is endless really and should also form the basis for your SMART objectives for the next 12 months
cheifinspector  
#5 Posted : 21 December 2012 11:31:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
cheifinspector

You can use the TRIF frequency whereby the total number of incidents is measured against the manhours worked. This gives a far better indication of H&S performance as all types of incidents are included and not just LTI's.
NigelB  
#6 Posted : 21 December 2012 11:59:26(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
NigelB

Arron

Former IOSH President Neil Budworth wrote a very useful summary of the pros and cons for different safety indicators some years ago. I understand this will be updated soon but it is still worth a look.

A copy can be found at:

www.docstoc.com/docs/103...nce-in-Safety-Management

Cheers.

Nigel
Ron Hunter  
#7 Posted : 21 December 2012 13:12:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

Arron wrote:
Hi All,

What does everyone think is the best way to measure safety performance across multiple warehouses (all doing the same tasks with less than 150 staff)

a) Qty of accidents?
b) Qty of RIDDORs?
c) Lost time accidents?
etc etc

What about qty of near misses reported? The more near misses reported the better?
Discuss.......

None of the above. You need to look at active (leading) indicators and measurement of performance.
Accidents and their outcomes are essentially a matter of chance and give no real measure of the Employers H&S management performance.
RayRapp  
#8 Posted : 21 December 2012 18:47:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Measuring performance should be a combination of both leading and lagging indicators. All too often what is easy to measure gets measured, as opposed to what should be measured. For example, the frequency of site inspections and tours by managers should be factored into the equation. Historical data like accidents and incidents are a poor indicator for future events.
KieranD  
#9 Posted : 22 December 2012 07:56:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
KieranD

IN relation to 'Measuring performance should be a combination of both leading and lagging indicators', Tony Clarke (FCIOB) explains a very incisive and cost-effective approach based on a mission 'action plan' about controlling loss and waste, which includes the category of accidents.

HIs book,' Managing Health and Safety in Building and Construction', Butterworth Heinemann, 1999, repressents health and safety as a form of total quality management; it's relevant to most sectors.
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.