Editor's Note: Here is an excerpt from Wayne Pardy's new book, tentatively entitled, Safety Management Systems. . . The New Generation of Safety Improvement Tools. We've adapted the excerpt to the SafetyXChange format. We'll let you know more details about the book and where to obtain it once it's published.

Let's discuss an issue that still causes considerable grief and debate for safety professionals, workers and management alike: measuring the effectiveness of the safety effort.

The Tendency to Overblow Accident & Injury Data

Everybody understands that a comprehensive accident prevention system is essential to preventing injury. But how does one determine how effectively the system is doing the job? Middle and senior managers (not to mention government regulators) are interested only in the "bottom line." In this context, the "bottom line" refers to the accident and injury statistics. The typical question: How well are we doing relative to this time last year, or based on the accident or injury targets which we've set for ourselves this year?

To be fair, many senior managers don't have the time to devote to a more thorough evaluation of prevention initiatives. So they rely on weekly, monthly or quarterly status reports of how well the organization is meeting its corporate safety targets to "take the pulse" of safety systems.

In fact, injury and accident statistics are still and will remain a very important part of the safety system. However, their value, relevance and role should be clearly understood by everybody in your business. Safety professionals especially should recognize that there is a pronounced tendency for people to overreact when the injury statistics rise to what is considered to be an unacceptable level. Conversely, the lack of or decline in accident or injury experience data fuels the perception that everything is being managed well from a risk perspective and that safety is "OK."

Why Accident & Injury Data Don't Tell the Whole Story

You should not rely wholly on accident and injury data as your only safety indicator. Here's an overview of the reasons why:

• Most organizations have too few injury experiences to distinguish real trends from random events;
• If more work is done by the same number of people at the same time, increased workload alone may account for an increase in accident or injury rates;
• The length of absences from work attributable to injury or illness may be influenced by factors other than injury or illness severity, such as poor morale, monotonous work, poor management, opinions of doctors, age of workers, etc.;
• Accidents are often under-reported (and occasionally over-reported). Levels of reporting can also change. They may improve as a result of increased workforce awareness and better reporting and recording systems; and
• A delay may occur between safety system failures and the consequences of those failures (potential injuries or illnesses). Moreover, many occupational diseases have long latency periods.

(Source: British Safety Standard BS 8800)

The Krause Critique

In his book, The Behavior-Based Safety Process, author Thomas Krause highlights five very important reasons why accident data should not be used as the primary indicator of safety performance:

• The approach is reactive rather than proactive;
• Random variability is misread;
• As a consequence of random variability and its negative effect, management overreacts;
• Safety incentives based on frequency rates tend to provide false feedback. You may actually end up rewarding at-risk behaviors and practices which, through luck, happen to result in low frequency or severity rates; and
• The emphasis on frequency rates encourages mere numbers management and lost time injury record saving schemes, rather than improvement in policies, practices, systems, procedures or risk-taking behavior.

According to Krause, the net effect of the above factors is the erosion of the overall credibility of the safety management effort.

Conclusion

Next week, I'll discuss the importance of integrating performance-based measures into your safety performance assessment system and show you how to do so.

TOP 10 LIST

The World Health Organization

Preventable Health Risks

By Glenn Demby

All around the world, preventable health conditions like obesity and alcoholism are killing millions of people per year and causing tens of millions of others to age prematurely. According to the World Health Organization, efforts to eliminate or control these conditions could add an average of up to 5 to 10 years of healthy life expectancy. Here's a list of the top 10 global preventable health risks:

1. Childhood and maternal underweight;
2. Unsafe sex;
3. High blood pressure;
4. Tobacco use;
5. Alcohol use;
6. Unsafe water, sanitation and hygiene;
7. High cholesterol;
8. Indoor smoke from solid fuels;
9. Iron deficiency; and
10. Overweight/obesity.

Together, these conditions account for 40% of the 56 million deaths that occur worldwide every year, according to WHO.

Source: World Health Organization Report, 2002.

TOP 20 LIST

Los Angeles: Home of America's dirtiest air

American Cities with the Dirtiest Air

By Glenn Demby

And speaking of preventable health risks, the American Lung Association just published its list of U.S. cities with the most unhealthy air, as measured by short-term particle pollution. Which city do you think finished first? If you answered Los Angeles - and you probably did - you're absolutely right. In fact, California dominated the list. Here's the complete top 20:

1. Los Angeles
2. Pittsburgh
3. Fresno, CA
4. Bakersfield, CA
5. Logan, UT
6. Birmingham, AL
7. Salt Lake City
8. Detroit
9. Eugene, OR
10. Cleveland
11. Washington - Baltimore - Northern Virginia
12. Sacramento
13. Chicago
14. Harrisburg, PA
15. San Jose
16. New York - Newark - Bridgeport (CT)
17. Indianapolis
18. San Diego
19. Provo, UT
20. Weirton (WV - Steubenville (OH)

Source: American Lung Association, State of the Air 2007

Story Tools:  Email This Post  Print This Post Top