Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By John J
Over the last few years we have reached a plateau on our injury rate.
Over the last year we have had 5 Lost Time Accidents and 7 Days away cases out of a workforce of almost 1500. Obviously 5 of these are also the LTA's. Our TRIR is currently 0.65. Our minor accidents are at 89. Both figures are slightly up on the norm but nor enough to be statistically significant.
I know we have an excellent level of reporting so I'm confident with the figures. My problem is how does this compare with other companies and how do I reduce accidents further.
We are a large manufacturing company and have a wide range of operations including bulk chemicals, production lines, foundry, workshops and a construction section.
Any help on your best practice and comparable accident rates especially if you've broken through a long term static point will be greatly appreciated
Regards,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MAK
Im not involved in accident reporting and subsequent statistical analysis so I will apologise now if my response appears to be at a lower level from which you might have expected.
Would the next step, to reduce the figure you list, be to undertake a qualitative analysis of the events you describe, and look at the why's, where's, whats, and who of the events to see if there is commonality or any particular procedures, characteristics or issues that are recurring. i.e age of the casulaties, manual handling injuries.
probably you undertake an audit and review work procedure after each event anyway though so just an idea.
Mak
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian G Hutchings
Hi John
A quick approach can be to measure the number of repeat accidents you have had in the last three years. Analyse the root causes and then focus on totally eradicating those over the next 12 months. The flaw with this can however be that you have risk in the business that has not yet been realised.
I believe to truly get past the plateau and make a sustainable improvement the business will need to shift its thinking. I always recommend a third party view to do this (I know I am a consultant), but I do believe when you are in the business things can still be missed and an external review will help.
The review should extract the best practices and look at when you performed exceptionally well. When you performed well was there anything different you did? What are the best performing parts of the business? What can you learn from them?
All the best
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John J
Mak,
thanks for the reply.
I've looked at our accident stats and found the most likely person to have an accident is a male in their late forties/early fifties working day hours having worked for the company over 15 years. Time doesn't appear to be statistically significant.
The minor injury is liable to be a hand abrasion or cut with an LTA being a twisted ankle or foot injury.
The majority of near miss reports relate to driving on site and housekeeping and do not correlate to the type of accident we are having.
I've run awareness sessions on hand injuries and avoiding them as well as carrying out a review of manual handling and a glove suitability assessment but any other ideas are welcome.
We have recently spent a lot of money on our site roads and pavements so hopefully this will help reduce the ankle/foot injuries although most have been about lack of attention while moving around.
In reality I'm trying to go from very good performance to outstanding,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
John,
your figures are pretty good and you seem to be doing all the right conventional things.
We preach that there are three principle sources of accidents/incidents : Technical (machines, floors, guarding and so on), Management (lack of systems or defined responsibilities, training, standards ...) and, finally, human behaviour.
As consultants we help companies to get the first two categories right as a start and then look for ways of improving behaviours. (I know some of our esteemed colleagues disagree and talk of Behavioural Based Safety as "all smoke and mirrors")
However I suggest that you get in touch with some of the UK based behaviouralists and give them a try.
With new, largish clients we often suggest that they try a "pilot" project with one work group or area rather than implementing a plant wide project (which can involve a lot or work and expense for large companies)
From the results of that project we usually go on to cover the rest of the site/company.
For sample numbers I can offer one site of 6500 employees who went from (on Lost Time Injuries per million hours worked) from 4 to 1 in two years, another of 3500 employees which went from 16 to 2 over 3 years and a 30 employee site which had had 6 LTIs in six months did not have another during the following 6 months.
National average safety statistics are around 30 per million for those industries. (1 000 000 hours is roughly 600 man years)
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Just to add a different slant, I think it is all too easy to focus on accident rates and miss the big picture. The recent BP enquiry highlighted this same point. Reducing the AFR still further may not be achievable. There is a point of where relative improvement is not possible. Ensuring those accidents that do happen are minor injuries is good achievement.
In my company we have a AFR that is half the industry standard. We are not complacent and continually strive for improvements without focusing on the AFR rate. By its very nature it can fluctuate. For example, last year we had a significant increase in passenger PTI incidents. I was asked to make a report and found no correlation to any tangible factors. I concluded that the increase was nothing more than a statistical blip and crossed my fingers. No such incidents this year thus far...
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Ray,
your right. "Blips" do happen and I tended to call them "noise" as in background radio emissions.
However, I have on some occasions been able to sort of correlate them to the social situation within the company. (no real proof of this)
If union/employee/company relations are not good and/or the workplace is not a happy one then employees prefer to take time off and not come into work. This may translate to "sickie" days or just minor accidents being converted to significant time off.
Where there is talk or rumours of cut-backs, lay-offs or a buy-out then absentee rates often go sky high.
Conversely, where human relationships are very good and employees like working with their mates and their bosses then even fairly serious injuries (cuts with a few stitches or the odd sprained ankle) seldom end up as lost time.
It's all sykolgy, innit. Well, not all, but I'm sure you see what I mean.
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By peter gotch 1
John,
Agree with John, but don't know what your sector and risks you are dealing wih.
Are you sure that reactive statistics are a good measure of your HSE performance?
p
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Merv
Agreed. Underlying factors in LTIs are often socially constructed events. Classic example is occupational stress 'the backache of the 21st Century'. As an ex TU H&E rep I am acutely aware how employees can take their frutations out on managers by throwing a sickie. These cultural issues are very difficult to rationalise in any AFR factors.
However, the example I offered previously was passengers falling/slipping between the train and the platform interface. With small samples there is a good chance that there will be large variations in the data, affecting probabilities etc.
Just knowing these problems is why we get paid (in your case, charge) so much money!
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.