Waste sector injury rate higher that reported

It has become apparent that the waste sector injury rate is actually higher than reported because of a data error by HSE; accident rates for 2011/12 were actually UP rather than down as it had previously stated.

Mistakes happen, though this one is perhaps an error too far.

Provisional statistics issued last month (October 2012) by the HSE showed a slight decrease in the number of injuries recorded in the waste and recycling sector for the 2011/12 financial year (see letsrecycle.com).

However, it has now emerged that a coding error by the HSE saw 314 waste-related injuries wrongly allocated to the heading ‘Public administration and defence; compulsory social security’ instead of waste management.

The HSE has now corrected the data which can be found in a report entitled Waste and recycling – work related injuries and ill health, which offers detailed analysis of the injury rate for the waste industry.

FatalitiesMajor
injuries
Over three
day injuries
Total non-
fatal injuries
2010/1194821,9672,449
2011/1254651,8762,341

Injury statistics for waste and recycling sector

 

Clearly, injury rates are a far better measure of performance that are fatalities though it is headline fatality rate that is the focus of attention. This can be misleading – not as misleading as an error in reporting by HSE – since , even when a small increase in fatalities is noted there can be a downward trend that tells a tale of overall improvement. In essence, the numbers are too small to be a useful indicator or progress, though we should be grateful for that (Blenkharn JI, Gladding T, Moffatt T. Nine deaths is nine too many. CIWM Journal 2011 August; 34-5).

So now we can use injury, or incident, rates. Inevitably, the numbers are bigger and trends become more apparent. The next problem is the availability of these data. Most are captured through RIDDOR. Under-reporting is high, so this is just the tip of a probably very big iceberg. Under-reporting may be due to an individual decision not to report an injury to a line manager, perhaps failing to recognise the potential severity and impact, and negating any possibility of prevention of recurrence. Moreover, it seems to be the way of the waste sector in particular, and industry in general, to work hard to avoid the filing of a RIDDOR report.  Perhaps too many reports paint an unfortunate, though not necessarily accurate, picture of overall H&S performance and can affect success in contract negotiation.

And now, regrettably, HSE themselves are down-rating RIDDOR, eliminating over 3 day injuries in preference to over 7 day injuries. In parallel with this change, we might have hoped to see, at least, mandatory reporting of all sharps injuries and blood/bloodstained body fluid exposures to the face but no, this didn’t happen. It would have complemented upcoming sharps safety legislation applicable only to the healthcare sector. As it is, its just less work for HSE.

The change to RIDDOR will result in a notional decrease in accident stats next year, and no doubt someone will trumpet this fall as a success for the waste sector safety performance. Not so.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.