Does your organisation make decision based on actual or potential consequences?
What about high vs low severity?
Recent research published in the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management reveals the distinct causes of low- and high-severity injuries, challenging long-standing beliefs in the safety profession.
Proximal Causes of Low- and High-Severity Injuries
This recent study highlights that minor injuries don’t simply result from less severe versions of the same factors that cause major injuries. Instead, they often stem from entirely different circumstances and require distinct preventative strategies.
Research related to the causes of high and low-severity injuries and the proximal causes (Bhandari, 2024)1:
1. Low-Severity Injuries (LSI): Used to broadly refer to injuries that are less than serious (i.e., actual injuries that are not life-threatening, life-altering, and life-ending), e.g. often routine tasks involving repetitive motions, minor slips, trips, or falls, or the handling of tools and materials. Although low severity of harm, can still significantly impact a worker’s well-being. work productivity and costs. In particular, secondary psychological claims.
2. High-Severity/Serious Injury or Fatality (SIF): Conversely, SIF is used to refer to higher-severity injuries (i.e., life-threatening, life-altering, and life-ending injuries as defined by Bayona et al. (2023)2. Also often referred to Material Unwanted Events (MUE) to capture major or catastrophic events that create harm to people, property, environment etc.
The study suggests that these situations often arise unexpectedly, making it difficult to mitigate risks using the same approaches that might be effective for lower-severity injuries. Also refer to our blog3 Personal Safety vs Process Safety: Debunking Myths to Support Critical Risks
Potential serious injury or fatality (PSIF) refers to an incident that could have resulted in a serious injury or fatality if not for certain barriers or countermeasures. Essentially, these are potential events or near-miss events that had the potential to cause significant harm but did not due to various preventive measures (Campbell Institute, 2022)4. Also often referred to as high potential events (HiPo).
Key Findings of the Study
1. No Difference Between SIF and Potential SIF (PSIF) Cases
The study found that there were no discernible differences between actual SIF cases and potential SIF (PSIF) cases. This suggests that the underlying causes of these incidents are closely related, highlighting the importance of addressing potential risks with the same rigor as actual incidents.
Unfortunately, one key limitation of this study was the evaluation of the misconceived industry practice of organisations making decision purely on actual consequences of injury classifications e.g. Loss Time Injury (LTI) and Medical Treatment Injury (MTI). This often drives undesired behaviour to hide / change classification of injuries rather than focusing on the real potential, i.e. regardless of the actual injury classification, focusing on material risks, potential severity and worst-case scenarios.
A great culture is when potential worst-case scenarios are reported and travel fast up the organisation hierarchy and leaders respond with urgency.
- What is the welfare of our people?
- What can we learn?
- What can we do better?
2. Two Critical Factors Comparing Low vs. Serious (Potential or Actual) Severity
The research identified two significant factors that distinguished low vs high severity:
- Absent Direct Controls: The absence of direct controls is a critical differentiator. The study states that “the odds that a SIF involves a missing direct control is about two orders of magnitude higher than an LSI.” This emphasizes the importance of having effective and reliable safety controls in place to prevent serious incidents.
- Absent or Not Followed Work Plan: The absence of a work plan or failure to follow an existing plan also plays a significant role in the escalation of incidents from low severity to potentially fatal outcomes. Proper planning and adherence to work plans are vital in preventing serious injuries.
Typical Critical Control Management Process
3. Control of High-Energy Hazards is Vital
The study highlights the importance of controlling high-energy hazards, which are defined as hazards involving 1,500 joules (J) or more. Effective work planning, discipline, and execution are crucial in mitigating these risks. This supports the theory that a differentiated approach is necessary to reduce the rate of serious injuries and fatalities in construction.
High-Energy Hazard Wheel
Implications for Health, Safety & Environmental (HSE) Management
The findings of this study have significant implications for HSE management:
- Shift in Focus to Systemic Controls: The study suggests that safety practices should prioritise the control of high-energy hazards and the implementation of effective work plans over traditional human behaviour-focused interventions associated with higher frequency / minor impacts. This shift could lead to more effective strategies for preventing SIFs.
- Differentiated Approach to HSE: A one-size-fits-all approach to safety may not be effective in preventing serious injuries and fatalities. Instead, a differentiated approach that specifically targets the factors that contribute to SIFs is needed.
- Re-evaluation of HSE Practices: The notion that “the things that hurt people are not the same as the things that kill people” is gaining traction within the safety profession. This perspective encourages a re-evaluation of current safety practices, with a focus on preventing the most severe incidents rather than just reducing overall injury rates.
Do you have a hazard taxonomy aligned with sources of high-energy?
Is your hazard taxonomy aligned for both proactive risk management and reactive incident management?
Leveraging Proactive HSE
The study also highlights the importance of learning from near misses with the potential for SIFs. By monitoring and analysing these incidents, organisations can expand proactive decision-making opportunities and enhance their HSE programs.
Taking this a step further, focusing on potential material events before near miss events unfold and identifying critical controls associated with high-energy hazards. This includes providing robust governance and assurance on the effectiveness of critical controls. This also reinforces the benefits of moving away from using injury classifications as thresholds for making important decisions.
FEFO RIFA Model
In conclusion, this research underscores the necessity of a differentiated approach to HSE management, emphasizing the control of high-energy hazards and the importance of proper planning and execution. By focusing on these key factors, we can make significant strides in preventing serious injuries and fatalities in the construction industry.
For those interested in diving deeper into this topic, the full study is available in the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management.
Contact us to assist with your:
- Hazard Taxonomy: Checking you unique HSE hazard taxonomy is aligned with both proactive risk and reactive incident management.
- Material Risks: Understanding your material risks and assurance on critical control effectiveness – Download our ‘Critical Risk and Control Management Roadmap’ here.
- Risk/Incident Analysis: Our unique Risk & Incident Factor Analysis (RIFA).
References:
