I noticed this subject point on another forum, and wonder what safety professional opinion would suggest, based on experience? If a FAT occurs, should that business record this as zero lost work days, a specified lost work day (OSHA suggests 180-days for long term accidents), or separated from all other lost work days (which I did not understand what the person commenting mean't?).

This then leads into another point, is there a universally (or suitable) formula that can be used to calculate LWD rates consistantly, that can grab any boards attention as a KPI, that drives improvements, or is that no longer common?   

Glad to hear your opinions as I wonder if my / your organisation would suffer same fate in future?

Ian

I have seen this being recorded as 365 lost days.

Unfortunately despite the protestations of Patrick McGoohan (see 1960's show "The Prisoner") each and every employee in the corporate world is nothing more than a number (on a spreadsheet).

Corporations rely on data.

Brian is correct that the number of lost days post Fatal Accident is how long it takes to replace the employee however recruitment is only part of the numbers, you then have a period of orientation and training before the new employee is making "adequate" business contribution and for a real "time served" professional to be replaced can be many years especially for those firms who do not practice cross/up skilling.

For the OP it comes down to local policy. Many employments and anyone "off-sick" for six months hits an occupational health capability assessment ergo 180 days tends to be a default in long term ill health. Again once the employee has left you then enter the recruitment phase so all told 365 days (as Kate mentioned) is likely to be a reasonable figure.

We should remember that human beings die of natural causes and non-work related accidents which, whilst beyond the employers control, there is a business need to adjust and respond to developments.

When we deliver just abut any H&S training, we always mention Moral, Economic and Legal as the 3 drivers for health and safety. The rest of the course almost always focus on the legal and economic aspects as if we either assume the moral bit is always there or perhaps, we find moral issues embarrassing, difficult or just too “touchy feely”.

I thought that until I paid a visit to  my parents homeland, Poland and visited Auschwitz-Birkenau camp. Near the entrance I noticed what looked sunken water tanks. I asked about them and the guide informed me that the SS took out an insurance policy on the camp and its contents. The insurance company sent out a team of assessors to carry out an FRA on the camp and they told the camp administration that if the wanted the camp insured, then they would need to ensure an adequate water supply for fire fighting purposes hence the tanks. So, the camp was protected,  and someone could tick off, legal and economic factors.

Yes, we are all numbers to some algorithm but sometimes its important to remember that ultimately what we are dealing with is people.     

Originally Posted by: Kate

I have seen this being recorded as 365 lost days.

I'm sure I have as well, but I don't remember where.

However from the HSE web site https://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/lfs/dayslost.htm

“Working days lost due to work-related illness is a measure of the total time lost due to all episodes of the illness over the 12 month reference period whereas working days lost due to workplace injury is a measure of the elapsed time between injury and returning to work and does not include any subsequent time taken off work”

Not exactly the same, but the concept it is worked out of a 12 month reference period, seems transferable.

Obviously increased lost time stats should not be the driver for change, but the one fatality is. However if you need to count then the above seems reasonable.

Chris

Ian 

To be honest I don't know where it is written down, but those doing the stats based on US OSHA reporting/recording requirements which then leads on to Global Reporting Initiative GRI 403 (which you can download for free - and it might be in there) say that:

1. Yes, a fatality counts against the Days Away from Work (DAW) statistics and

2. You stop the clock for ANY accident at 365 days. Hence one fatality = DAW.

I do sympathise with what some respondents have said on this thread. 

However, people do insist on organisations keeping "metrics" for reactive monitoring purposes and e.g. to inform potential clients, insurers and others.

...and in most organisatons one method is to keep statistics for accidents, often differentiating between different severities.

So, asking about how many DsAW one fatality counts as is an entirely reasonable question.

Just as long as all those looking at the numbers realise that the difference between a "near miss" [or whatever you may call that] and a fatality is usually down to circumstances at a moment in time and that it is far more important to investigate and learn than to focus on metrics.

Cheers for guide Peter. I went through the GRI 403 guidelines and its not mentioned. There is a link to OSHA and read several references in CFR 1904, and again its not clear but they suggest 'estimate days off if person left the job' which was useless advice.

So went to ILO, and its not even mentioned, or at HSE.gov, or several other website I checked. So much for me finding a quick legal/case to guide companies.  

Hi Ian 

Not wanting to second guess what you might do with this data but your profile indicates that you are an IOSH Member and hence (at least) one element of the "Competency Framework" is relevant:

Proficiency with incident cost analysis As part of incident investigation OSH professionals must undertake a cost analysis to understand the impact of the incident on the business. The cost analysis could include activities associated with the circumstances of the incident but also the impact on the business from a reputational point of view.

All else being equal the official socio-economic cost aka Value for Preventing a Fatality (VPF) in the UK is currently just over £2m. [Department for Transport].

However, not all people are necessarily of equal value.

Suppose two people aged 20 and 60 are in a car each sustaining a multiple fracture to their leg. The Value for Preventing that severity of Injury (VPI) is about £200,000.

However, all else being equal, the NHS will treat the younger person as more valuable. Spending say £50k on a 20 year old will get far more Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) than spending the same sum on the 60 year old. This is entirely rational.

But somewhat contrastingly the HSE says that someone who is old and frail is worth more than a fit person on the street.

So, in R2P2 HSE defines the level at which a risk can be generally considered "Broadly Acceptable" setting the level at an Indidividual Risks of one in a million per annum (IR = 10-6) but pointing out that for the purposes of Land Use Planning it sets a consulation boundary for those who are vulnerable at 3 in 10 million (IR = 3 x 10-7)

Ergo in HSE's eyes the wheelchair user in a care home is three times as valuable as the fit person on the street or the worker.

This, in part reflects HSE's general assumption that those at work "tolerate" some risk (however much it may seem that a worker may not have much choice in the matter), whereas those such as the public who have risk thrust upon them need more protection.

However, you can take these numbers games into how you collate your statistics as well.

You might decide NOT to count anyone who is killed or injured if they are NOT at work - e.g. a member of the public impacted by how your work happens. On that basis your statistics might count the cost of that impact as NIL.

Which brings us to those who are at work.

There are two broad approaches.

1. You count everyone or at the very least those in your supply chain who are close at hand.

2. You only count your direct employees. This USUALLY makes the statistics look MUCH better, partly as the higher risk work tends to be sub-contracted in many, possibly most UK organisations. So actual numbers of accidents go down, but perhaps more importantly in terms of perception, injury rates are lower - it's usually the rates that get the most reporting. 

Coming back to No 1, probably the single greatest reason why UK accident rates have declined so much at the macro level since the end of World War II has been outsourcing to foreign countries.

So, the question is whether you should be making attempts to find out how many accidents (incuding those 365 days DAWs) are happening in places far away where your equipment and components are being made.

....followed by better ways of predicting the occupational ill health that may not present for 5,10 or 30 years at home - and abroad?

Edited by user 04 November 2022 14:47:39(UTC)  | Reason: Typed a d instead of an s, so probably used wrong finger.

Thanks to Neil and Peter for latest updates.  As expected, despite the different industries I served in there is no common method (and even on another forum of cross-world safety professionals where I asked the same point, there was no voluntered viewpoints) so all responses here are very much appreciated.

My experience in O&G and Logistics is says same as you neil, companies report zero days for FATs. GRI guidance encourages FATs as a single number and no mention of related absences, and recommends supply chain FATs are included, however checking many sustainability and end-of-year reports they only report own FATs (and Days lost as a percentatge/rate); looking at some numbers there they are unlikely to include FAT as days lost, a lot of effort for a little sense, lost. 

In summary, it appears no country has a hard and fast rule on this point (although I agree that UK H&SE recommends days lost over 12 months should encourage it, but is not followed). Therefore we endeavour to prevent occurrences based on our passion and experience as safety practitioners.  Many thanks all for your input, its always good information.