Discussion time!

I have a situation where Company X has only just had a near miss reporting programme in place. There hve been accident/incident report forms available, but these have only previously been used in the event of something "significant" - Near misses such as slips/trips have previously gone under the radar.

So to help this business out I've created some simple but effective near miss reporting cards, which have helped to highlight some areas of the business which contain hazards which have not been picked up by a risk assessment, or have simply occurred and been (previously) ignored.

The trouble is that these cards are aimed at being simple to use and easy to complete, so that any employee can pick one up and fill it in. Unfortunately, the incident reporting procedure needs to define what is a near miss as opposed to what is an incident.

I don't want to devalue the incident reporting procedure because it should identify root causes and corrective actions, nor do I want to make the reporting procedure for "minor" near misses a lengthy form which many staff simply won't bother to fill in - Does anyone have any suggestions?

Of course, there is also the need to define "what is a near miss" and "what is an incident". Technically, they are both the same thing (aren't they?)

I have systems in place to rank the severity of any near miss/incident, by the way, so at least high potential near misses can't escape the reporting system.

Does anyone else have any experience of managing simple near miss reporting cards?

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel

Much as I like the pictures, in practical terms what is the difference
between a near miss and an undesired circumstance? Both will be investigated (I
hope and some sort of corrective actions carried out). That fact that someone noticed
these situations and bothered to record them is a GOOD THING implying that there is decent H&S culture going on

Neither needs to be reported under RIDDOR so what is the difference?

You put it much better than me, but in essence that is exactly what I was trying to get across. Both should be reported and it is making life unnecessarily complicated in spending too much time defining which is which.

The OP states:

The trouble is that these cards are aimed at being simple to use and easy to complete, so that any employee can pick one up and fill it in. Unfortunately, the incident reporting procedure needs to define what is a near miss as opposed to what is an incident.

Of course, there is also the need to define "what is a near miss" and "what is an incident". Technically, they are both the same thing (aren't they?)

My response is yes, for all intents and purposes they are, so why bother to try to distinguish between them both. Unless there is a specific reason to have a seperate record then it would be simpler to "put them all in one pot" so to speak

Edited by user 17 February 2017 14:32:51(UTC)  | Reason: Grammar

Incident – an incident is the sequence of events or actions that produces that accident. All accidents are incidents. However the definition of an incident is wider in that it also includes dangerous occurrences and near misses. 

A near miss is an unplanned event that did not result in injury, illness, or damage - but had the potential to do so. Only a fortunate break in the chain of events prevented an injury, fatality or damage. 

I have a set of cards made up where i'm working where staff can report near misses without having to identify themselves, Its a lot better when the staff are educated and know when a near miss had the potential to cause injury or damage. 

When i do my safety Audit reporting Near misses are just as important as incidents as they highlight areas which need improving or education that would not of been identified had a system not been in place

There are all sorts of classifying systems you can have to define near misses, non-injury incidents, damage incidents, unsafe conditions, etc.  There's not a single system that everybody uses.  In terms of how thoroughly you investigate them, it shouldn't really depend on the classification at all, it should depend on how much benefit there is from a thorough investigation (for example, whether a serious consequence was possible).