Hi, Your calculation is correct, however I would take out the minor injuries, when looking at such figures there is a tendency (among the untrained) to think of all accidents as serious. I always use the approach of using RIDDOR reportable injuries which would include members of the public taken to hospital. Let's face it it is a activity that leads to lots of minor injuries and anyone partaking should be aware that there is an inherent risk in what they are doing, one would presume that they willingly take that risk. Your figures look high to me so I would be concerned, if you re-calculate using on Reportable injuries I think it would give a truer picture. I would also use incident rate per 1000 as it would be more understandable and give a less dramatic figure. I'm not suggesting hiding the truth but these kind of statistics can be subject to gross misunderstanding.

Paul & Jim, Thanks for your comments. Basically we have seen a reduction in both accidents and footfall from 2010 compared to 2009, I am trying to calculate whether there has actually been a reduction in accidents or if the reduction in accidents is due to lower footfall. The incident rate for 2009 was 9.2 per 1000 guests and the incident rate for 2010 is 8.7 per 1000 guests. Obviously if I was to use only reportable injuries this will reduce significantly but for the purpose of this exercise I would like to shoe all incidents. Thanks again Paul