Evaluation of trends in RIDDOR reportable injury data ... · Prepared by the Health and Safety Laboratory for the Health and Safety Executive 2015 Health and Safety Executive Evaluation

Prepared by the Health and Safety Laboratory for the Health and Safety Executive 2015

Health and Safety Executive

Evaluation of trends in RIDDOR reportable injury data reported to HSE by dutyholders pre- and post- change to over-7-day reporting

RR1054Research Report

Steven NaylorHealth and Safety LaboratoryHarpur HillBuxtonDerbyshire SK17 9JN

HSE commissioned a statistical study to look into the accuracy and extent of the information reported to HSE by employers via RIDDOR. Based on a sample of employer notifications of non-fatal injuries made during the first half of 2012, the injured person in each case was contacted about the injury, and their view on the incident and outcome compared to the employer report. Results were aggregated, so individual employee responses could not be identified.

The study responds to several aims. Firstly, as HSE publishes many RIDDOR statistics based on employer reports, it helps provide a fuller understanding of possible limitations in the data provided by the employer, compared to the injured person themselves. Secondly, there was legal change to RIDDOR in April 2012, whereby the reporting threshold for incapacitation changed from over 3 days to over 7 days. Thirdly, each respondent was asked to provide the actual number of days off work as a result of the injury (RIDDOR does not require this).

HSE statisticians will use the findings of this study, for example to provide contextual information when providing users with statistics, or in support of European statistics developments.

This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.


HSE Books


© Crown copyright 2015

First published 2015

You may reuse this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view the licence visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/, write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email [email protected].

Some images and illustrations may not be owned by the Crown so cannot be reproduced without permission of the copyright owner. Enquiries should be sent to [email protected].

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Peak Answers who carried out the study interviews as part of this study. The authors would also like to thank all those agreeing to be interviewed, as without their voluntary participation, this study would not have been possible.

ii

iii

KEY MESSAGES

The best estimates of the average working days lost per case of work-‐related injury, derived as part of this study, are 18, 23 and 43 days for over-‐3-‐day, over-‐7-‐day and major injuries respectively; these estimates are all significantly higher than the 2011/12 estimate of 7.3 days, calculated from data collected as part of the Labour Force Survey. Approximately 90% of the injuries reported as major by the employer also satisfied the criteria for a major injury based on the information provided by the injured person. In contrast, 10% of reported major injuries failed to fulfil the criteria for a major injury based on the information provided by the injured person (i.e. were below the threshold). The match between the information on injury severity reported by dutyholders and injured persons appears much lower for those accidents classed as over-‐3-‐day or over-‐7-‐day1. Comparison of employer and injured person data highlighted that approximately a quarter of over-‐3-‐day and over-‐7-‐day injuries as classified by employers actually fulfilled the criteria for a major injury (i.e. were above the respective thresholds). The % of cases subsequently found to be below the reporting thresholds, based on the information provided by the injured person ,were 10% for over-‐3-‐day injuries and 17% for over-‐7-‐day injuries. Overall rates of agreement between employer and injured person reported information were 65% for over-‐3-‐day injuries, and 60% for over-‐7-‐day injuries. Data collected from injured persons on the specific details of the accident also suggest inconsistency in the reporting of the details of over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injuries. For example, match rates for body part injured, injury type and kind of accident varied between 55% and 65% for over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injuries. The equivalent statistics for major injuries varied between 60% and 70%. As forecast, study findings highlight an increase in the severity of over-‐7-‐day injury cases reported by dutyholders to HSE post April 2012, with the average working days lost attributable to injuries increasing from 17.8 to 22.9 days. Study findings suggest however, that the sorts of over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injuries reported to HSE by dutyholders, in relation to the body part injured, type of injury and kind of accident experienced, have changed little following the move from over-‐3-‐day to over-‐7-‐day reporting. Statistical models employed as part of this study explained around a quarter of the total variation in lost work days inherent in the study dataset. Notwithstanding this rather low figure, the predictive power of the statistical modelling methods employed was sufficient to enable certain discrimination between albeit broad categories of accidents with reasonable success.

1 i.e. injuries resulting in >3 days (pre April 2012) and >7 days (post April 2012) of lost work days

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The statistics generated by HSE on employer-‐ reported workplace injuries are used extensively across HSE, local authorities, external organisations, and also the European Union. This research was commissioned by HSE in order to investigate: 1) the reliability of information on non-‐fatal work-‐ related injuries reported by employers, 2) how the profile of non-‐fatal work-‐ related injuries has changed following the move to over-‐7-‐day reporting, and 3) to provide an estimate of the average number of working days lost to non-‐fatal work -‐related injuries and to investigate potential predictive factors. A sample of non-‐fatal work-‐ related injuries, formally reported to HSE in 2012, was identified from HSE’s RIDDOR dataset. An interview survey of the persons injured was then carried out to collect information on the accident experienced; this information included the number of working days lost to the injury experienced. The survey was conducted by telephone using a structured interview method comprising 8 closed questions and one open -‐ended question. Key topics explored in the subsequent parts of the interview included the nature of the accident experienced, the nature and severity of injuries suffered and the working days lost due to the accident. Data analyses undertaken focused on generating descriptive statistics and analysing the existence of any significant trends and associations in the data. The 2011/12 estimate of the average working days lost per case of work-‐ related injury, based on Labour Force Survey data, was 7 days, significantly lower than the best estimates of 24 (based on data for Jan to April 2012) and 28 days (based on data for April to June 2012) derived as part of the current study. 10% of injuries reported as major by employers failed to fulfil the criteria for a major based on the information provided by the injured person i.e. were below the reporting threshold. The match between the information on injury severity reported by employers and injured persons appears much lower for those accidents classed as over-‐3-‐day or over-‐7-‐day2. Comparison of employer and injured person data highlighted that approximately a quarter of over-‐3-‐day and over-‐7-‐day injuries as classified by employers actually fulfilled the criteria for a major injury i.e. were above the respective reporting thresholds. The % of cases subsequently found to be below the reporting thresholds based on the information provided by the injured person were 10% for over-‐3-‐day injuries and 17% for over-‐7-‐day injuries. Data collected from injured persons on the specific details of the accident also suggest inconsistency in the reporting of the details of injuries. As expected, the study findings highlight an increase in the severity of injury cases reported by dutyholders following the move to over-‐7-‐day injury reporting (based on comparison of the change in average number of working days lost to injury). However, findings also suggest that the sorts of injuries reported to HSE by dutyholders have changed little following the move to over-‐7-‐day reporting. The outputs of the statistical modelling undertaken as part of this work suggest that the factors determining the number of working days lost following an accident are complex and multi-‐faceted. Statistical models only explained around a quarter of the total variation in lost

2 i.e. injuries resulting in >3 days (pre April l2012) and >7 days (post April 2012) of lost work days

v

work days inherent in the study dataset. Notwithstanding this, the predictive power of the statistical modelling methods employed was sufficient to enable certain discrimination between albeit broad categories of accidents with reasonable success.

The findings of this study are believed to provide HSE with a robust, reliable estimate of the average number of working days lost to workplace injury per worker based on 2012 reported data. The work undertaken also provides HSE with a potentially repeatable methodological template, enabling the derivation of robust estimates of the working days lost to injury using future years’ data. The study findings also add to the evidence base regarding potential strengths and weaknesses of HSE’s RIDDOR injuries dataset, and hence enable future assessments using such data to be interpreted taking into account such strengths and weaknesses. Finally, the study findings provide HSE with greater awareness of the intricacies of the new dataset by profiling the extent to which the severity and types of injuries reported to HSE by dutyholders has changed following the move to over-‐7-‐day reporting in April 2012.

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Aims and objectives 1

2. IMPLICATIONS ................................................................................................................ 3

3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 4 3.1 Data collection methodology 4 3.2 Data collation and analysis 5

4. RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Working days lost to non-‐fatal injury 9 4.2 Comparison of employer and injured person reported accident information on non-‐

fatal work-‐ related injuries 13 4.3 Changing profile of over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injuries following the move from over-‐3-‐day

to over-‐7-‐day reporting 34 4.4 Predictors of working days lost to non-‐fatal injury 37

5. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................. 49 5.1 Reliability of dutyholder reported injury information 49 5.2 Comparison of profiles of over-‐3-‐day and over-‐7-‐day injuries 51 5.3 Estimation of working days lost due to non-‐fatal injury 51 5.4 Predictors of working days lost to non-‐fatal injury 52

1

1. INTRODUCTION

Employers were obliged under the 1995 Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) to notify the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) or Local Authorities (LAs) of injuries exceeding defined severity thresholds to workers occurring in workplace settings. The formal injury severity categories used in the notification process are “fatal”, “major”3, and a category defined according to the number of consecutive days incapacitation resulting from the injury in question4. The statistics generated by HSE on employer-‐reported workplace injuries (totalling approximately 120,000 per annum) are used extensively across HSE, LAs, external organisations, and also the European Union (EU). Indeed, HSE are obliged under current EU legislation to provide statistics on the number of working days lost to workplace injury in Great Britain to the EU on an annual basis, where it is used to benchmark Great Britain’s health and safety performance in this area against other Member States. Virtually all fatal injuries with a work-‐related cause are investigated by HSE and because information relating to work-‐related fatalities typically originates from formal HSE investigations it is considered to be accurate. However, the vast majority of non-‐fatal injuries reported by employers to HSE (around 94% of the total, equating to approximately 113,000 cases per year) are not investigated. For these incidents, HSE relies on the data reported by employers to form the basis of health and safety intelligence and annual statistics. HSE is aware of some uncertainty in aspects of the employer-‐ reported non-‐fatal injury data. This is likely to be attributable in part to the full extent of some injuries only being suspected at the time of reporting. In addition, on 6 April 2012, the trigger point for the reporting of over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injuries changed from over-‐3-‐days to over-‐7-‐days off work. This is expected to have implications for the profile of accidents reported, in particular, an increase in the average number of lost work days associated with injuries and a potential shift towards accidents associated with more severe outcomes.

1.1 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES This research was commissioned by HSE in order to fulfil three primary aims:

1. to provide supporting quantitative evidence of the reliability of the information on non-‐fatal work-‐related injuries reported to HSE by employers,

2. to provide supporting quantitative evidence of how the profile of non-‐fatal work-‐related injuries reported to HSE by employers has changed since the change from over-‐3-‐day to over-‐7-‐day reporting on 6 April 2012, and

3. to provide a robust estimate of the average number of working days lost to non-‐fatal work-‐related injuries and to investigate potential predictors.

3 Major injuries as defined in RIDDOR 95 include: fractures (except to fingers or toes); dislocation of knee, hip, shoulder, spine; amputation; loss of sight (temporary or permanent); other injuries resulting in overnight hospitalisation; and/or requiring resuscitation. 4 Over-‐7-‐days as of 6 April 2012 (previously over-‐3-‐days).

2

The above aims were met by delivery on the following five specific objectives:

1. identification of a sufficiently large sample of non-‐fatal work-‐related injuries formally reported to HSE by employers in 2012 (pre and post 6 April 2012) from HSE’s RIDDOR dataset,

2. administration of an interview survey of a sample of the above injured persons, enabling information on the accident in question to be sourced from the injured person, along with the number of working days lost attributable to the injury experienced,

3. comparison of the information collected via the above survey to that previously reported to HSE by the employer,

4. comparison of the profiles of over-‐3-‐day and over-‐7-‐day injuries, using both employer-‐reported information, as well as that collected as part of this work,

5. use of the information collected from the injured person survey to calculate the average number of working days lost attributable to non-‐fatal injuries reported to HSE in 2012, and

6. statistical modelling of the number of working days lost attributable to non-‐fatal injuries using select accident/injury information as potential predictor variables.

3

2. IMPLICATIONS

This study aimed to deliver on three discrete but related objectives (as defined in Section 1 of this report), and by doing so provide HSE with an evidence base to be in a position to:

1. fulfil current requirements to report statistics to the EU on the number of working days lost to workplace injury in GB

2. evaluate the reliability of the information reported to HSE by dutyholders on injuries experienced at work, as required under the RIDDOR regulations

3. assess the implications of the change from over-‐3-‐day to over-‐7-‐day reporting of over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injuries, in terms of the absolute severity and types of injuries reported.

With respect to 1) above, the study findings provide HSE with a reliable estimate of the average number of working days lost to workplace injury per worker based on 2012 reported data. The work undertaken also provides HSE with a potentially repeatable methodological template, enabling the derivation of robust estimates of the working days lost to injury, using future years’ data.

The study findings also add to the evidence base regarding potential strengths and weaknesses of HSE’s RIDDOR injuries dataset, and hence, enable future assessments using such data to be interpreted taking into account such strengths and weaknesses.

Finally, by profiling how the severity and types of injuries reported to HSE by dutyholders has changed following the move to over-‐7-‐day reporting in April 2012, the study findings provide HSE with a greater awareness of the intricacies of the new dataset which will help to inform policy and guidance and strategic decision-‐making.

4

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY HSE’s RIDDOR incidents dataset was used as a sampling frame to identify a sample of prospective interviewees for potential participation in the study. The RIDDOR dataset contains, amongst other information, the names and contact details of individuals who have experienced an accident at work resulting in injury for which their employer has reported details of the incident to HSE. The change from over-‐3-‐day to over-‐7-‐day reporting commenced on 6 April 2012. A random sample of 12,000 records was identified from the RIDDOR dataset either side of this date, 3,000 major and 3,000 over-‐3-‐day, reported between 1 Jan 2012 and 5 April 2012, and 3,000 major and 3,000 over-‐7-‐day, reported between 6 April 2012 and 30 Jun 2012. The contact details of the injured person and selected details regarding the incident in question were transferred to a separate database. These 12,000 records constituted the primary study sample. Those where an HSE investigation was on-‐going were removed from the sample. The individuals in the primary study sample were sent a letter by HSL on behalf of HSE, inviting participation in the survey. The letter provided background to the study, explained why individuals were being contacted, how their names had been identified, described the questions that they would be asked if they agreed to participate, explained how the data being collected was to be used, and highlighted that it would be an HSL subcontractor (Peak Answers)who would carry out the interview. The letter also assured potential participants that all data collected would be treated in confidence and informed them of their right to decline to be interviewed. Data collection procedures and supporting forms were developed at the very outset of the study by HSL. These were passed on to Peak Answers, the subcontractor commissioned to carry out the survey on HSL’s behalf. The contact details of all individuals sent a study letter were also passed onto Peak Answers who were then tasked with interviewing approximately 2,000 individuals from the sample, 1,000 whose accident had occurred between 1 Jan 2012 and 5 April 2012 (500 recorded as receiving a major injury and 500 an over-‐3-‐day injury), and 1,000 whose accident had occurred between 6 April 2012 and 30 June 2012 (again, 500 recorded as receiving a major injury and 500 an over-‐7-‐day). Sample size calculations carried out during the study planning stage suggested that a study dataset comprising responses from approximately 2,000 individuals would enable the study aims and objectives to be met in a sufficiently statistically robust manner. Therefore Peak Answers continued approaching and interviewing subjects from the primary study sample until the study targets were met. The survey was conducted by telephone using a structured interview method. The question set used in the telephone interview is shown in Appendix A. The interview form, developed by HSL, consisted of eight closed questions and one open-‐ ended question. Key topics explored in the interview included the nature of the accident experienced, the nature and severity of injuries suffered and the working days lost due to the accident.

5

A set of screening questions was asked at the outset of the interview to determine subject eligibility. Those subjects who indicated either that the accident in question had not happened at work, was under investigation (particularly for local authority enforced accidents which could not be screened out prior to interview), or had not happened on the date as recorded by HSE, were thanked for their time and the interview was terminated. Individuals were also given the opportunity to terminate the interview at the very outset if they wished not to participate. Peak Answers first piloted the data collection procedures on a sub-‐sample of interviewees and the efficacy of the methods and quality of incoming data were reviewed and quality checked by HSL. The results of the pilot suggested that the original data collection procedures worked effectively and therefore data collection in the main study continued as per the pilot. Interviews were carried out between Jan and March 2013. All interview data collected by Peak Answers were first anonymised before being fed back to HSL. Ethics approval was sought from HSE’s Research Ethics Committee prior to the commencement of the survey. Necessary steps were taken to ensure that all potential outstanding ethical issues flagged by the Research Ethics Committee were addressed. The key ethical issue, identified during study planning, was the need to mitigate the risk of interviewees being stressed and upset by recounting traumatic events. This was addressed by providing interviewees adequate forewarning of the subject matter of the interviews and having to hand the contact details of professionally-‐ trained councillors to pass onto the interviewee, so that they could contact them if needed. In addition, potential interviewees were given every opportunity to decline to be interviewed. HSL’s interview form was coded and then converted to an electronic data-‐entry form to facilitate data processing. The electronic data-‐entry form allowed data collected from the interviewees to be automatically entered into a spreadsheet whilst the interviews were taking place. The final dataset was then cleaned and fed back to HSL such that the anonymity of each participant was maintained.

3.2 DATA COLLATION AND ANALYSIS

3.2.1 Calculation of work days lost attributable to different categories of accident

The working days lost profiles of major, over-‐3-‐day and over-‐7-‐day injuries were first explored by plotting data distributions and generating a range of averages and associated 95% confidence limits (including arithmetic and geometric means and medians). Average working days lost were additionally calculated with study data stratified on the basis of the following variables:

1. Body part injured 2. Kind of accident 3. Type of injury 4. Age and gender of injured person 5. Occupation of injured person (as reported by employer)

6

6. Industry worked in (as reported by employer) Results are shown in Figures 1 to 4 and Tables 3 to 7 of the Results section and Tables 48 to 68 of Appendix C.

3.2.2 Matching of employer and injured person reported data The degree of match between employer-‐ and injured person-‐ reported accident information was carried out with respect to the following areas of reported information:

1. Body part injured 2. Kind of accident 3. Type of injury 4. Age and gender of injured person 5. Occupation of injured person 6. Industry worked in

The matching exercise entailed the cross tabulation of employer-‐reported and injured person-‐reported accident information for each of the above listed variables and the recording of the number of accident cases falling in each cell of the cross tabulation (i.e. each variable category combination). An agreement rate5 for each variable category was then calculated along with an overall agreement rate for each variable. This was carried out for major injuries only and then repeated for over-‐3-‐day injuries reported to HSE between January and April 2012 and then over-‐7-‐day injuries reported between April and June 2012. Results are shown in Tables 8 to 32 of the Results section. On 6 April 2012, the trigger point for the reporting of over-‐3-‐day injuries changed to over-‐7-‐days off work. However, the EU still collate injury statistics using the original over-‐3-‐day threshold. In order to investigate the practicalities of HSE converting its over-‐7-‐day statistics to over-‐3-‐day equivalents for the purpose of EU reporting requirements, the number of cases of over-‐7-‐day injury reported to HSE by employers subsequently found to fall above and below the reporting thresholds for an over-‐3-‐day injury was also investigated. These figures enabled predictions of the expected number of injury cases associated with between 4 and 7 lost working days to be arrived at for a given number of over-‐7-‐day injury cases, thereby enabling subsequent adjustment of the over-‐7-‐day figures. Results are shown in Tables 11 and 12 of the Results section.

3.2.3 Statistical comparison of profiles of over-3-day and over-7-day injuries

The profiles of over-‐3-‐day and over-‐7-‐day injuries were statistically compared to judge the significance of any observed differences. Results are shown in Tables 33 to 39 of the Results section.

5 Details regarding how agreement rates were calculated are provided in the notes at the bottom of the relevant results table.

7

3.2.4 Statistical modelling of working days lost The study dataset was also used to investigate the degree to which different descriptive characteristics relating to an accident could be used to predict the associated number of working days lost. The following factors were considered as potential predictors: the age, gender and occupation of the injured person, the industry sector worked in, the type and severity of accident suffered, specific body part injured and whether the injured person suffered concussion and hospitalisation. A series of correspondence analyses were first carried out on select portions of the study dataset. The outputs of such analyses were then used to inform the development of a suitable regression model, enabling subsequent prediction of the number of working days lost to injury associated with different categories of accident. (Multiple) Correspondence Analysis ([M]CA) is a descriptive, exploratory technique designed to analyse two-‐way (in the case of CA) and multi-‐way (in the case of MCA) contingency tables. The technique delivers a geometric representation of the profiles of the row and column categories of a contingency table. A number of methods for carrying out an MCA are available. The analytic method used to analyse the dataset in this study involved a CA on the Burt Matrix with adjustment of principal inertias and with plot co-‐ordinates calculated in standardised normalisation. Correspondence analyses were carried out using Stata v11.1. Results are shown in Figures 41 to 47 of the Results section. An ordinal logistic regression was used to model the number of working days lost to injury. This type of regression allows the modelling of the dependence of a polytomous ordinal response (in this case different categories of working days lost to injury) on a set of predictors. Predictor variables were entered in the regression model as dummy variables with separate variables denoting the presence or absence of specific strata of each variable. Regression modelling was carried out using SPSS v14.0. An initial regression analysis was first performed with all potential predictor variables entered in the model. Regression outputs were scrutinised in order to arrive at a decision as to the best combination of predictors to include in the final model to maximise predictive potential. Outputs of the correspondence analyses were also used to inform this process. Results of the regression analysis are shown in Tables 41 to 47 of the Results section.

8

4. RESULTS

The survey response rate is summarised in Table 1 below; the overall response rate was 24%. Application of the screening criteria reduced the size of the dataset available for statistical analysis by a further 18%. Taking into account the latter, the final size of the dataset available for statistical analysis (including those still off work at the time of interview) was 1609. A breakdown of the study dataset across specific injury severity categories is provided in Table 2. Table 1: Survey response rate

Interviews 1959

Refusals 635

No reply 3997

Non-‐qualifier 307

Wrong no 1118

Not used* 3925

Total 11941

Response rate 1959/8016 = 24.4%

Note: *not included in calculation of response rate

Table 2: Summary of study dataset

Reporting Period 01/01/2012

to 06/04/2012 01/01/2012

to 06/04/2012 07/04/2012

to 30/06/2012 07/04/2012

to 30/06/2012 01/01/2012

to 30/06/2012

Injury severity Over-‐3-‐day Major Over-‐7-‐day Major All

Sample size 525 514 453 467 1959

No. in sample screened out*

91 74 95 90 350

No. in sample still off work 8 32 12 31 83

Sample size after screening 434 440 358 377 1609

Sample size after screening and removing those still off work

426 408 346 346 1526

Notes: N = total number in study sample; *Either unwilling to participate in interview, injury reported to be not at work or not on date in question, or incident under local authority investigation.

9

4.1 WORKING DAYS LOST TO NON-FATAL INJURY The data distributions for each category of injury severity and for each reporting period are shown in Figures 1 to 4. All can be seen to be negatively/left skewed and considerably dispersed about their average. The average number of working days lost to injury (expressed as medians as well as arithmetic and geometric means) in those experiencing an injury of a given severity, are summarised in Tables 3 to 7. Summary statistics are presented on working days lost, first including data for those still off work at the time of interview (Table 3), then with such data excluded (Table 4). The average number of working days lost (including those still off work at the time of interview) for over 3-‐day injuries, over-‐7-‐day injuries, and major injuries, were 18 days, 23 days and 43 days respectively (expressed as geometric means). The percentage of all non-‐fatal injuries reported to HSE, categorised as over-‐3-‐day, over-‐7-‐day and major, are shown in Tables 5 and 6 for the two reporting periods under consideration. The use of such data enables a weighted average number of working days lost to all non-‐fatal injuries (i.e. both over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day and major) to be calculated, taking into account the relative frequencies of over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day and major injuries in each of the datasets analysed. The weighted average number of working days lost per case of injury (using previously reported geometric means as averages, including those still off work) was 24 days for the period 1/1/12 to 6/4/12 and 28 days for the period 7/4/12 to 30/6/12 (see Table 7). The average number of working days lost to a major injury is reported for different categories of gender, age, industry, occupation and industry in Tables 48 to 54 of Appendix C. Accidents resulting in more lost working days were more common in male workers compared to females (average = 40 days, versus 29 days), older workers (average for 56 years plus = 48 days), compared to younger (average for 16 to 25 years = 26 days), workers employed in the utilities/waste and construction sectors, and in workers employed in trade, elementary and process/plant operative occupations. For major injuries, the categories of injury/accident associated with more lost working days were those involving amputation of a body part (average = 59 days), a fracture (average = 44 days), injury to a lower limb (average = 56 days) and a fall from height (average = 51 days). Given that almost 90% of the accidents reported as major were confirmed as major by the injured persons when interviewed as part of this study, this profile of accidents/injuries is believed to be broadly representative of major injuries generally The average number of working days lost to over-‐3-‐day and over-‐7-‐day injuries is reported for different categories of gender, age, occupation and industry in Tables 55 to 61 for over-‐7-‐day injuries, and Tables 62 to 68 for over-‐3-‐day injuries. For both over-‐3-‐day and over-‐7-‐day injuries, the gender and age contrasts observed for major injuries were largely absent. However, the differences across industry and occupation categories observed for major injuries were largely similar to those observed for both over-‐3-‐day and over-‐7-‐day injuries, although the differences were of lesser magnitude. It is worth noting however, that given around a quarter of accidents reported as over-‐3-‐day and over-‐7-‐day by the employer were actually found to fulfil the criteria for a major accident based on the information collected from the injured person as part of this study, it may be that these figures overestimate somewhat the true figures for the average working days lost associated with such categories of accident.

10

With regards to key categories of injury/accident suffered for over-‐3-‐day injuries, the average number of working days lost associated with strains/sprains and lacerations were 15 and 12 days respectively for over-‐3-‐day injuries. Equivalent figures for over-‐7-‐day injuries for these injury categories were, as expected, higher (i.e. 24 and 18 days respectively), reflecting the lesser reporting of less severe injuries with the over-‐7-‐day reporting regime.

11

Figures 1 to 4: Working days lost profiles for major, over-‐3-‐day, over-‐7-‐day injuries Notes: Includes working days lost for those injury cases where injured person is still off work, count for 14 = for interval 8 to 14 days, 21 = 15 to 21 days, 28 = 22 to 28 days, 60 = 29 to 60 days, 90 = 61 to 90 days, 180 = 91 to 180 days, 360 = 181 to 360 days, >360 = >360 days

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Coun

t

Days lost to injury

Major -‐ Jan to April 2012

0

5

10

15

20

25

%

Days lost to injury

Over-‐3-‐day -‐ Jan to April 2012

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Coun

t

Major -‐ April to June 2012

0

5

10

15

20

25

%

Days lost to injury

Over-‐7-‐day -‐ April to June 2012

12

Table 3: Calculation of working days lost to injury – including those still off work

Reporting Period 01/01/2012 to 06/04/2012

01/01/2012 to 06/04/2012

07/04/2012 to 30/06/2012

07/04/2012 to 30/06/2012

Injury severity Over-‐3-‐day Major Over 7 day Major

Median working days lost (95%CI)

14 (14-‐21)

56 (42-‐56)

21 (21-‐28)

56 (42-‐60)

Arithmetic mean working days lost (95%CI)

38.8 (33.0-‐44.5)

88.8 (78.8-‐98.7)

46.0 (39.6-‐52.4)

77.7 (69.8-‐85.7)

Geometric mean working days lost (95%CI)

17.8 (14.5-‐20.0)

44.7 (38.9-‐51.3)

22.9 (20.0-‐26.3)

40.7 (34.5-‐47.9)

Notes on calculations: for those still off work, days lost taken as no of days between date of injury and interview date; those reporting no paid work again excluded from calculation, for those reporting back to work on same day, days lost taken as zero; for those reporting back to work next day, days lost taken as 0.5; for those reporting back to work on second day after accident, days lost taken as 1; for those reporting back to work on 7th day after accident, days lost taken as 6; for those reporting back to work more than 7 days after accident, days lost taken as reported (i.e. no. of days, weeks or months)

Table 4: Calculation of working days lost to injury – excluding those still off work

Reporting Period 01/01/2012 to 06/04/2012

01/01/2012 to 06/04/2012

07/04/2012 to 30/06/2012

07/04/2012 to 30/06/2012

Injury severity Over-‐3-‐day Major Over 7 day Major


14 (14-‐19)

42 (42-‐56)

21 (21-‐28)

42 (42-‐56)

Arithmetic mean working days lost (SD, 95%CI)

33.7 (46.8, 29.3-‐38.2)

66.8 (73.7, 59.6-‐73.9)

38.1 (45.0, 33.4-‐42.9)

61.6 (59.0, 55.3-‐67.8)


16.6 (14.8-‐19.1)

37.2 (32.4-‐42.7)

20.9 (18.6-‐24.0)

33.9 (28.8-‐39.8)

Notes on calculations: calculated as before except those still off work excluded from calculations Table 5: Percentage of non-‐fatal injuries categorised as over-‐3-‐day and major reported to HSE over period 01/01/2012 to 06/04/2012


to 06/04/2012

01/01/2012 to

06/04/2012

01/01/2012 to

30/06/2012

Injury severity Over-‐3-‐day Major All

Total number reported to HSE over reporting period* 13932 3885 17817

% of all reported 78.1 21.9 100

Note: * i.e. total number of reportable non-‐fatal injuries reported

13

Table 6: Percentage of non-‐fatal injuries categorised as over-‐7-‐day and major reported to HSE over period 07/04/2012 to 30/06/2012


to 30/06/2012

07/04/2012 to

30/06/2012

01/01/2012 to

30/06/2012

Injury severity Over-‐7-‐day Major All

Total number reported to HSE over reporting period* 7009 2796 9805

% of all reported 71.5 28.5 100

Note: * i.e. total number of reportable non-‐fatal injuries reported

Table 7: Weighted average number of working days lost to non-‐fatal injuries per case of injury (including those still off work)


to 06/04/2012

07/04/2012 to

30/06/2012

Average number (GM) of working days lost to over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injuries per case of injury

17.8 22.9

Average number (GM) of working days lost to major injuries per case of injury 44.7 40.7

Weighted average number of working days lost to all non-‐fatal injuries per case of injury 23.7 28.0

4.2 COMPARISON OF EMPLOYER AND INJURED PERSON REPORTED ACCIDENT INFORMATION ON NON-FATAL WORK- RELATED INJURIES

The collective results of a comparison of the match between the accident information reported to HSE by the employer at the time of the accident, and that reported by the injured person as part of this survey are presented in Tables 8 to 32. Table 8 illustrates that approximately 90% of the accidents reported as a major accident by the employer also satisfied the criteria of a major accident based on the information provided by the injured person6. There was no major change in the percentage of accidents reported as major by both the employer and injured person following the changeover to over-‐7-‐day reporting in April 2012. The match between the employer and injured person reporting of the severity of the accident was lower for those accidents reported as over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day by the employer (i.e. 65% for over-‐3-‐day injuries, and 60% for over-‐7-‐day injuries). Around 25% of all those injuries reported as over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day by the employer were in fact major based 6 that is involving either a fracture, amputation, dislocation (of shoulder, hip, knee or spine), loss of sight, burn/any penetrating injury to the eye, injury caused by an electric shock, injury requiring resuscitation, resulting in loss of consciousness, or more than a 24 hour admission to hospital.

14

on the description of the accident given by the injured person. It was less common for injuries reported as over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day by the employer to be described as less severe by the injured person, that is, below the threshold for formally reporting to RIDDOR as an over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day; these made up 10 to 17% of all those reported as an over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day by the employer. In addition, the apparent over reporting of the severity of the accident by the employer was more common following the changeover to over-‐7-‐day reporting (increasing from 10% to 17%), more than likely attributable to the effects of the change to the reporting threshold. Consistent with the data presented in Table 8, the degree of match between information from the employer and injured person relating to defining characteristics of major injuries, such as whether the injured person was hospitalised because of the accident (see Table 9), tended to be high (in excess of 90% for hospitalisation). Agreement with respect to whether the injured person lost consciousness because of their accident was less high, although still in excess of 70%. The data in Table 10 illustrates that there was less discrepancy between specific aspects of employer and injured person reported information (e.g. type of injury, body part injured, kind of accident) for major injuries than for over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day. Matching of information relating to the type of injury experienced was particularly high for major injuries (i.e. approximately 80%). With respect to the body part injured and the kind of accident experienced, the match rates for major injuries varied between 60 and 70%. For over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injuries, match rates for body part injured, injury type and kind of accident varied between 55 and 65%, and differed little whether relating to over-‐3-‐day or over-‐7-‐day injuries. More specific information relating to agreement between employer-‐reported and injured person described accident information is presented in Tables 13 to 32. Tables 13 to 30 compare agreement for a specific aspect of accident information, specifically:

1. age of injured person, 2. gender of injured person, 3. the body part injured, 4. the kind of accident suffered, and 5. the type of injury experienced.

Absolute cell counts are presented for each combination of employer and injured person reported information. Where the employer and injured person information agree (i.e. along the diagonal of the table), cell counts are highlighted in red. If the employer and injured person information were in complete agreement (i.e. 100%), there would be no cells populated with counts in the table other than along the diagonal. Conversely, the more cells away from the diagonal that are populated with counts, greater disagreement between the two sets of study data may be inferred. The column and row totals at the bottom and right side of each table provide summations for each column and row category, along with the number and % of data pairs in disagreement. The statistics presented in Tables 13 to 15 highlight that on average, the error rate in the age of the injured person as reported by the employer was around 10%. Unsurprisingly, error rates in reported genders were close to zero (see Tables 16 to 18).

15

With respect to the type of injury suffered (see Tables 21, 24, 27 and 30), focusing on those categories of injuries contributing the biggest proportions to all injuries, disagreement between the employer and injured person reported information tended to be highest where the employer had reported a fracture and the injured person reported a strain or sprain, or vice versa. For example, of all the major accidents reported by employers over the period of interest where the employer had reported that a fracture had been suffered (n=575), in 25 cases, the injured person reported in the study interview that a strain/sprain had in fact been suffered (suggesting a 4.3% error rate). The error in the opposite direction, that is, where the employer had reported a strain/sprain and a fracture had in fact been suffered, was 6.8% for both over-‐3-‐day and over-‐7-‐day injuries. Given the latter two figures, it appears that the change to over-‐7-‐day reporting has impacted little on the errors made by employers in their reporting of information with respect to such types of accidents. With respect to the reporting of the kind of accident that had occurred (see Tables 20, 23, 26 and 29) and again focusing on the most frequent types reported, the biggest discrepancies were observed in the reporting of slips/trips/falls and falls from height. Out of the 754 major accidents reported over the period of interest, in 6.9% of cases (n=52), the employer-‐reported a slip/trip/fall and the injured person-‐reported a fall from height, or vice versa. For over-‐3-‐day and over-‐7-‐day injuries, such discrepancies were slightly less marked (31/772 or 4.0%). However, such observed discrepancies in reporting are likely to be more related to differences in interpretation of the events in question rather than any true error in reporting. Overall discrepancies in the reporting of the body part injured (see Tables 19, 22, 25 and 28) were of the order of 30 to 35% for all three categories of reported injuries (i.e. major, over-‐3-‐day and over-‐7-‐day). Given the focus of this particular area of reporting and the potential for employers and the injured persons to recount and interpret events differently, particularly where multiple body parts are injured, these levels of discrepancies are perhaps unsurprising. Levels of disagreement in the information reported by the employers and persons injured by the sector that the injured person worked in are summarised in Table 31 for industry sector and Table 32 for occupational sector. The statistics presented in Tables 31 and 32 quantify levels of information mismatch overall and for specific industry and occupational sectors. Disagreement across all industry sectors averaged 28% (see Table 31), with disagreement rates highest for the information/communication and business services (39%) and other services (54%) sectors. With respect to reported information on the occupation of the injured person, overall disagreement across all sectors averaged 8% (see Table 32), with highest rates observed for the administrative (14%) and sales/customer service (13%) sectors. Derivation of Scaling Factor Figures 1 to 4, previously described, illustrate the number of injury cases in the study dataset that were found to fall below the threshold for reporting to HSE as an over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injury (i.e. reported working days lost failed to meet the over-‐3-‐day and over-‐7-‐day criteria) based on the information collected from each injured person via the study interviews. Such data is tabulated for each reporting period in Table 11. The data highlight that approximately 10% of all major injuries reported between Jan and April 2012 were associated with fewer than 4 days of absence. For the period April to June 2012 (which post-‐dated the increase in the injury reporting threshold to >7 days of work absence), 16% of all major injuries fell below the

16

reporting threshold. For over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injuries, the percentage of injury cases in the study dataset falling below the reporting thresholds were 12 and 21 for the Jan to April reporting period (over-‐3-‐day) and April to June period (over-‐7-‐day) respectively. The data reported in Tables 11 and 12 illustrate the derivation of a scaling factor, enabling the expected number of injury cases associated with between 4 and 7 days of work absence to be estimated based on the future observed number of over-‐7-‐day injury cases. The percentage of over-‐3-‐day injury cases reported in the Jan to April reporting period associated with between 4 and 7 days of work absence was 18.2%. This can be seen to constitute (by number, not case), approximately 26% of the total number of over-‐7-‐day injuries (i.e. 79/303). Therefore, it can be seen that for every 100 over-‐7-‐day injury cases now reported under the current reporting regime, an additional 26 cases may be expected to be associated with between 4 and 7 days of work absence. The average length of work absence associated with these injury cases is 6.3 days. Table 8: Comparison of reporting of injury severity by employer versus injured person

Reporting Period 1 -‐ Jan to March 2012 % Reporting Period 2 -‐ April to June 2012 %Major by RIDDOR 408 -‐ 346 -‐

Major by Interview 362 88.7% 312 90.2%<Major by Interview 46 11.3% 34 9.8%

Over-‐3-‐day/Over-‐7-‐day 426 -‐ 346 -‐by RIDDOR O3D/O7D by Interview 275 64.6% 207 59.8%

Major by Interview 109 25.6% 80 23.1%<O3D/O7D by Interview 42 9.9% 59 17.1%

Notes: “by RIDDOR” = injury classification assigned based on employer-‐reported information, “by interview” = injury classification assigned based on injured person reported information; excludes working days lost for those injury cases where injured person is still off work; threshold for over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injury based on working days lost to injury (threshold for reporting period 1 = 3 days, reporting period 2 = 7 days); denominators of percentages = total number of major injuries reported to HSE over reporting period (i.e. 408 for RP1 and 346 for RP2). Table 9: Comparison of reporting of select injury circumstances by employer versus injured person – Whether injured person was unconscious, resuscitated or hospitalised

Reporting Period 1 -‐ Jan to March 2012 % Reporting Period 2 -‐ April to June 2012 %

Major by RIDDOR 408 -‐ 346 -‐Unconscious by RIDDOR 21 5.1% 12 3.5%Unconscious by Interview 30 7.4% 30 8.7%Unconscious by both 15 9Resuscitation by RIDDOR 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Resuscitation by Interview 6 1.5% 3 0.9%Resuscitation by both -‐ -‐Hospitalised by RIDDOR 85 20.8% 71 20.5%Hospitalised by Interview 108 26.5% 95 27.5%Hospitalised by both 78 64

Notes: “by RIDDOR” = injury classification assigned based on employer-‐reported information, “by interview” = injury classification assigned based on injured person reported information, “by both” = injury classification assigned by employer and injured person”; excludes working days lost for those injury cases where injured person is still off work; denominators of percentages = total number of major injuries reported to HSE over reporting period (i.e. 408 for RP1 and 346 for RP2). Table 10: Comparison of reporting of select injury circumstances by employer versus injured person – Body part injured, Kind of accident and type of injury

Reporting Period 1 -‐ Jan to March 2012 % Reporting Period 2 -‐ April to June 2012 %

Major by RIDDOR 408 -‐ 346 -‐Match on Body part 272 66.7% 239 69.1%Match on Incident kind 283 69.4% 218 63.0%Match on Injury type 320 78.4% 281 81.2%

Over-‐3-‐day/Over-‐7-‐day 426 -‐ 346 -‐by RIDDOR Match on Body part 275 64.6% 235 67.9%

Match on Incident kind 240 56.3% 200 57.8%Match on Injury type 233 54.7% 186 53.8%

17

Notes: “by RIDDOR” = injury classification assigned based on employer-‐reported information, “by interview” = injury classification assigned based on injured person reported information; excludes working days lost for those injury cases where injured person is still off work; threshold for over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injury based on working days lost to injury (threshold for reporting period 1 = 3 days, reporting period 2 = 7 days); denominators of percentages = total number of major injuries reported to HSE over reporting period (i.e. 408 for RP1 and 346 for RP2). Table 11: Number (%) of injury cases above and below reporting thresholds for over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injuries for reporting periods Jan to April 2012 (over-‐3-‐day) and April to June 2012 (over-‐7-‐day)

Reporting period 1 Jan to April 2012

Reporting period 2 April to June 2012

Over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day Injuries by RIDDOR

Number (%) below threshold for reporting over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injury by interview

51 (11.8%) 74 (20.7%)

Number (%) above threshold for reporting over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injury by interview

382 (88.2%) 284 (79.3%)

Major Injuries by RIDDOR

Number (%) below threshold for reporting over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injury by interview

43 (9.8%) 62 (16.4%)

Number (%) above threshold for reporting over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injury by interview

397 (90.2%) 315 (83.6%)

Note: Includes working days lost for those injury cases where injured person is still off work; reporting threshold for reporting period 1 (Jan to April 2012) = 3 working days lost, for reporting period 2 (April to June 2012) = 7 working days lost Table 12: Predicted injury cases with >3 to 7 working days lost (per 100 cases with >7 days lost) based on reporting profile in the Jan to April reporting period


Predicted (per 100 cases of >7 days lost reported)

All over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day reported

N=433 -‐

0 to 3 working days lost (Number, % of all over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day)

51, 11.8% -‐

>3 working days lost (Number, % of all over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day)

382, 88.2% -‐

>7 working days lost (Number, % of all over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day)

303, 70.0% 100*

18


Predicted (per 100 cases of >7 days lost reported)

>3 to 7 working days lost (Number, % of all over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day)

Average working days lost per case (GM) Total working days lost (all cases >3 to 7)

79, 18.2%

6.3 days

509 days

26**

6.3 days**

163.8 days**

Notes: *Assumed; **Inferred based on reporting profile for reporting period 1 Table 13: Matching of employer and injured person reported accident information – Age of injured person (for major injuries reported between Jan to June 2012) Age (match rate = 618/690, 89.6%)

Interview RIDDOR 16 to 25 26 to 35 36 to 45 46 to 55 56+

Total Disagree (n)

Disagree (%)

16 to 25 78 5 83 5 6.0%

26 to 35 3 74 15 1 93 19 20.4%

36 to 45 3 103 13 1 120 17 14.2%

46 to 55 2 186 19 207 21 10.1%

56+ 10 177 187 10 5.3%

Total 81 82 120 210 197

Disagree (n) 3 8 17 24 20

Disagree (%)

3.7% 9.8% 14.2% 11.4% 10.2%

Table 14: Matching of employer and injured person reported accident information – Age of injured person (for over-‐7-‐day injuries reported between April to June 2012) Age (match rate = 281/306, 91.8%)

Interview RIDDOR

16 to 25 26 to 35 36 to 45 46 to 55 56+ Total Disagree (n)

Disagree (%)

16 to 25 33 4 37 4 10.8%

26 to 35 45 7 52 7 13.5%

36 to 45 68 3 71 3 4.2%

46 to 55 2 74 6 82 8 9.8%

56+ 1 2 61 63 3 4.8%

Total 33 49 78 79 67

Disagree (n) 0 4 10 5 6

Disagree (%) 0.0% 8.2% 12.8% 6.3% 9.0%

Table 15: Matching of employer and injured person reported accident information – Age of injured person (for over-‐3-‐day injuries reported between Jan to April 2012) Age (match rate = 281/306, 91.8%)

Interview

16 to 25 26 to 35 36 to 45 46 to 55 56+ Total Disagree Disagree

19

RIDDOR (n) (%)

16 to 25 37 8 1 46 9 19.6%

26 to 35 50 6 56 6 10.7%

36 to 45 1 76 14 1 92 16 17.4%

46 to 55 109 7 116 7 6.0%

56+ 72 72 0 0.0%

Total 37 59 82 124 80

Disagree (n)

0 9 6 15 8

Disagree (%) 0.0% 15.3% 7.3% 12.1% 10.0%

Table 16: Matching of employer and injured person reported accident information – Gender of injured person (for major injuries reported between Jan to June 2012) Gender (match rate = 751/754, 99.6%)

Interview RIDDOR Male Female Total Disagree (n) Disagree (%)

Male 485 1 486 1 0.2%

Female 2 266 268 2 0.7%

Total 487 267

Disagree (n)

2 1

Disagree (%) 0.4% 0.4%

Table 17: Matching of employer and injured person reported accident information – Gender of injured person (for over-‐7-‐day injuries reported between April to June 2012) Gender (match rate = 346/346, 100.0%)


Male 245 245 0 0.0%

Female 101 101 0 0.0%

Total 245 101

Disagree (n) 0 0

Disagree (%)

0.0% 0.0%

Table 18: Matching of employer and injured person reported accident information – Gender of injured person (for over-‐3-‐day injuries reported between Jan to April 2012) Gender (match rate = 346/346, 100.0%)


Male 285 1 286 1 0.3%

Female 3 137 140 3 2.1%

Total 288 138

Disagree (n) 3 1

20

Disagree (%) 1.0% 0.7%

21

TABLE 19: MATCHING OF EMPLOYER AND INJURED PERSON REPORTED ACCIDENT INFORMATION – BODY PART INJURED (REPORTING PERIOD JAN TO APRIL 2012 – MAJOR)

Body part (match rate = 272/408, 66.7%)

Interview

RIDDOR

Eye Ear Other face Head Several head locations

Neck Back Trunk Several torso locations

Finger/fingers

Hand Wrist Upper limb

Several upper limb locations

Toe Foot Ankle Lower limb

Several lower limb locations

Several locations

General locations

Unknown locations

Total Disagree (n)

Disagree (%)

Eye 5 5 0 0.0%

Ear 0 0 -‐

Other face 8 1 1 1 11 3 27.3%

Head 1 9 1 1 12 3 25.0%

Several head locations 0 0 -‐

Neck 1 2 1 4 2 50.0% Back 6 3 1 10 4 40.0%

Trunk 1 17 2 1 4 1 26 9 34.6%

Several torso locations 3 1 1 5 5 100.0%

Finger/fingers 16 3 19 3 15.8%

Hand 6 19 3 1 1 30 11 36.7%

Wrist 2 4 63 5 2 1 77 14 18.2%

Upper limb 1 1 1 9 48 7 1 1 2 4 75 27 36.0%

Several upper limb locations 1 2 4 7 7 100.0%

Toe 0 0 -‐

Foot 2 34 2 2 40 6 15.0%

Ankle 1 5 25 7 38 13 34.2%

Lower limb 1 1 1 3 15 5 2 28 13 46.4%

Several lower limb locations 2 3 2 7 7 100.0%

Several locations 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 10 7 70.0%

General locations 1 1 2 1 50.0%

Unknown locations 1 1 2 1 50.0%

Total 5 0 10 13 0 3 8 27 3 27 29 77 62 12 2 42 33 28 9 14 3 1

Disagree (n) 0 0 2 4 0 1 2 10 3 11 10 14 14 12 2 8 8 13 9 11 2 0

Disagree (%) 0.0% -‐ 20.0% 30.8% -‐ 33.3% 25.0% 37.0% 100.0% 40.7% 34.5% 18.2% 22.6% 100.0% 100.0% 19.0% 24.2% 46.4% 100.0% 78.6% 66.7% 0.0%

22

TABLE 20: MATCHING OF EMPLOYER AND INJURED PERSON REPORTED ACCIDENT INFORMATION – KIND OF ACCIDENT (REPORTING PERIOD JAN TO APRIL 2012 – MAJOR)

Incident kind (match rate = 283/408, 69.4%)

Interview

RIDDOR

Contact with machinery

Struck by object

Struck by moving vehicle

Struck against Lifting and handling injuries

Slip, trip, fall (same level)

Fall from height

Trapped by something collapsing

Drowned or asphyxiated

Exposure to harmful substance

Exposure to fire

Exposure to explosion

Contact with electricity

Injured by an animal

Physical assault

Another kind of accident

Total Disagree (n) Disagree (%)

Contact with machinery 11 2 1 1 1 1 17 6 35.3%

Struck by object 3 23 1 1 2 2 32 9 28.1%

Struck by moving vehicle 2 2 3 2 9 6 66.7%

Struck against 2 4 2 1 9 5 55.6%

Lifting and handling injuries

7 7 1 9 6 1 2 33 24 72.7%

Slip, trip, fall (same level) 1 2 2 3 146 19 1 1 175 9 5.1%

Fall from height 2 1 11 59 73 14 19.2%


0 0 -‐

Drowned or asphyxiated 0 0 -‐


2 5 1 8 3 37.5%

Exposure to fire 1 1 0 0.0%

Exposure to explosion 0 0 -‐

Contact with electricity 1 2 3 1 33.3%

Injured by an animal 1 7 8 1 12.5%

Physical assault 1 2 9 12 3 25.0%

Another kind of accident 2 4 2 3 5 5 1 1 1 4 28 24 85.7%

Total 27 45 3 10 21 173 85 7 1 6 1 0 2 7 11 9

Disagree (n) 16 22 0 6 12 27 26 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 5

Disagree (%) 59.3% 48.9% 0.0% 60.0% 57.1% 15.6% 30.6% 100.0% 100.0% 16.7% 0.0% -‐ 0.0% 0.0% 18.2% 55.6%

23

TABLE 21: MATCHING OF EMPLOYER AND INJURED PERSON REPORTED ACCIDENT INFORMATION – TYPE OF INJURY (REPORTING PERIOD JAN TO APRIL 2012 – MAJOR)

Injury type (match rate = 320/408, 78.4%)

Interview

RIDDOR

Amputation Fracture Dislocation without fracture

Strains and sprains

Superficial injuries

Lacerations and open wounds

Contusions and bruising

Loss of sight Burn or any penetrating injury to eye

Burns (not to eye)

Asphyxia or poisoning

Concussion or internal injuries

Electric shock Multiple injuries Other known injuries


Amputation 6 1 2 1 10 4 40.0%

Loss of sight 1 1 1 100.0%

Fracture 1 268 4 14 5 1 5 6 1 305 37 12.1%

Dislocation without fracture

4 14 1 1 1 21 7 33.3%

Concussion or internal injuries 1 3 4 1 25.0%

Lacerations and open wounds 2 1 14 3 20 6 30.0%

Contusions and bruising 1 1 2 2 6 4 66.7%

Burns 3 3 1 7 1 14.3%

Asphyxia or poisoning 1 1 1 100.0%

Strains and sprains 1 2 3 1 33.3%

Superficial injuries 1 3 4 4 100.0%

Multiple injuries 5 1 1 1 8 7 87.5%

Electric shock 1 1 0 0.0%

Natural causes 0 0 -‐ Other known injuries 3 2 1 1 3 1 1 12 11 91.7%

Other not known 1 1 1 2 5 3 60.0%

Total 9 282 18 22 10 20 14 0 5 4 0 8 2 9 5

Disagree (n) 3 14 4 20 10 6 12 0 2 1 0 5 1 8 2

Disagree (%) 33.3% 5.0% 22.2% 90.9% 100.0% 30.0% 85.7% -‐ 40.0% 25.0% -‐ 62.5% 50.0% 88.9% 40.0%

24

TABLE 22: MATCHING OF EMPLOYER AND INJURED PERSON REPORTED ACCIDENT INFORMATION – BODY PART INJURED (REPORTING PERIOD JAN TO APRIL 2012 – OVER-3-DAY)


Interview

RIDDOR



Finger/fingers





Several locations

General locations

Unknown locations

Total Disagree (n)

Disagree (%)

Eye 4 1 1 6 2 33.3%

Ear 1 1 0 0.0%

Other face 1 3 2 6 3 50.0%

Head 6 1 2 1 1 1 1 13 7 53.8%

Several head locations 1 1 1 100.0%

Neck 7 1 1 9 2 22.2% Back 81 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 93 12 12.9%

Trunk 1 4 2 3 1 1 1 13 9 69.2%

Several torso locations 2 1 1 1 5 4 80.0%

Finger/fingers 1 42 8 3 1 55 13 23.6%

Hand 1 1 2 8 18 2 1 1 34 16 47.1%

Wrist 2 4 1 7 3 42.9%

Upper limb 1 4 1 22 7 4 39 17 43.6%

Several upper limb locations 1 2 1 1 5 4 80.0%

Toe 5 4 9 4 44.4%

Foot 1 13 2 2 18 5 27.8%

Ankle 1 1 8 26 3 1 40 14 35.0%

Lower limb 1 1 3 1 1 1 37 2 47 10 21.3%


Several locations 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 5 15 15 100.0%

General locations 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 100.0%

Unknown locations 1 1 1 100.0%

Total 4 2 6 14 1 18 91 8 7 57 29 11 35 13 10 26 29 53 2 9 0 1

Disagree (n) 0 1 3 8 1 11 10 4 6 15 11 7 13 12 5 13 3 16 2 9 0 1

Disagree (%) 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 57.1% 100.0% 61.1% 11.0% 50.0% 85.7% 26.3% 37.9% 63.6% 37.1% 92.3% 50.0% 50.0% 10.3% 30.2% 100.0% 100.0% -‐ 100.0%

25

TABLE 23: MATCHING OF EMPLOYER AND INJURED PERSON REPORTED ACCIDENT INFORMATION – KIND OF ACCIDENT (REPORTING PERIOD JAN TO APRIL 2012 – OVER-3-DAY)


Interview

RIDDOR


Struck by object




Fall from height




Exposure to fire




Physical assault



Contact with machinery 14 1 1 2 1 19 5 26.3%

Struck by object 6 21 1 8 2 1 39 18 46.2%

Struck by moving vehicle 2 1 1 1 1 6 5 83.3%

Struck against 2 4 6 1 4 2 1 20 14 70.0%

Lifting and handling injuries 4 13 2 1 67 6 1 5 2 4 105 38 36.2%

Slip, trip, fall (same level) 2 2 1 3 5 86 13 1 1 2 116 30 25.9%

Fall from height 2 4 13 1 20 7 35.0%


1 1 1 100.0%



1 4 5 1 20.0%

Exposure to fire 1 1 0 0.0%


Contact with electricity 3 3 0 0.0%


Physical assault 1 12 3 16 4 25.0%

Another kind of accident 4 4 2 3 16 8 6 7 1 6 1 4 7 69 62 89.9%

Total 35 49 7 14 100 111 35 16 1 10 1 0 5 7 17 18

Disagree (n) 21 28 6 8 33 25 22 16 1 6 0 0 2 2 5 11

Disagree (%) 60.0% 57.1% 85.7% 57.1% 33.0% 22.5% 62.9% 100.0% 100.0% 60.0% 0.0% -‐ 40.0% 28.6% 29.4% 61.1%

26

TABLE 24: MATCHING OF EMPLOYER AND INJURED PERSON REPORTED ACCIDENT INFORMATION – TYPE OF INJURY (REPORTING PERIOD JAN TO APRIL 2012 – OVER-3-DAY)


Interview

RIDDOR


Strains and sprains





Burns (not to eye)





Amputation 0 0 -‐

Loss of sight 0 0 -‐

Fracture 21 2 1 2 26 5 19.2%

Dislocation without fracture 1 1 1 1 4 3 75.0%

Concussion or internal injuries 1 2 1 2 2 8 6 75.0%

Lacerations and open wounds 2 3 4 32 6 1 48 16 33.3%

Contusions and bruising 8 1 19 9 5 11 2 1 1 57 46 80.7%

Burns 1 12 13 1 7.7%

Asphyxia or poisoning 0 0 -‐

Strains and sprains 13 7 147 6 2 5 6 1 4 191 44 23.0%

Superficial injuries 6 5 5 1 1 18 13 72.2%

Multiple injuries 2 1 1 4 4 100.0%

Electric shock 1 1 1 3 2 66.7%

Natural causes 0 0 -‐ Other known injuries 12 14 2 4 5 2 1 3 1 44 43 97.7%

Other not known 2 4 1 1 1 1 10 10 100.0%

Total 2 68 10 194 30 48 30 0 0 15 3 15 1 3 7

Disagree (n) 2 47 9 47 25 16 19 0 0 3 3 13 0 3 6

Disagree (%) 100.0% 69.1% 90.0% 24.2% 83.3% 33.3% 63.3% -‐ -‐ 20.0% 100.0% 86.7% 0.0% 100.0% 85.7%

27

TABLE 25: MATCHING OF EMPLOYER AND INJURED PERSON REPORTED ACCIDENT INFORMATION – BODY PART INJURED (REPORTING PERIOD APRIL TO JUNE 2012 – MAJOR)


Interview

RIDDOR



Finger/fingers





Several locations

General locations

Unknown locations

Total Disagree (n)

Disagree (%)

Eye 8 1 9 1 11.1%

Ear 3 3 0 0.0%

Other face 5 2 7 2 28.6%

Head 5 3 8 3 37.5%

Several head locations 0 0 -‐

Neck 1 1 1 3 2 66.7% Back 2 1 1 4 2 50.0%

Trunk 3 3 1 1 3 1 2 14 11 78.6%

Several torso locations 1 1 2 2 100.0%

Finger/fingers 18 2 20 2 10.0%

Hand 6 23 3 32 9 28.1%

Wrist 3 47 2 1 3 56 9 16.1%

Upper limb 1 1 5 39 3 2 1 1 53 14 26.4%

Several upper limb locations 1 1 1 3 3 100.0%

Toe 1 1 0 0.0%

Foot 3 33 3 39 6 15.4%

Ankle 8 30 3 2 43 13 30.2%

Lower limb 2 1 1 3 5 19 3 1 1 36 17 47.2%

Several lower limb locations 1 1 2 2 100.0%

Several locations 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 9 7 77.8%


Unknown locations 0 0 -‐

Total 8 3 5 8 0 3 4 6 4 25 32 57 46 4 4 44 39 28 8 7 3 8

Disagree (n) 0 0 0 3 0 2 2 3 4 7 9 10 7 4 3 11 9 9 8 5 3 8

Disagree (%) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 37.5% -‐ 66.7% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 28.0% 28.1% 17.5% 15.2% 100.0% 75.0% 25.0% 23.1% 32.1% 100.0% 71.4% 100.0% 100.0%

28

TABLE 26: MATCHING OF EMPLOYER AND INJURED PERSON REPORTED ACCIDENT INFORMATION – KIND OF ACCIDENT (REPORTING PERIOD APRIL TO JUNE 2012 – MAJOR)


Interview

RIDDOR


Struck by object




Fall from height




Exposure to fire




Physical assault



Contact with machinery 10 3 1 3 1 18 8 44.4%

Struck by object 2 18 2 2 1 1 26 8 30.8%

Struck by moving vehicle 2 2 6 10 4 40.0%

Struck against 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 13 11 84.6%

Lifting and handling injuries 3 10 1 5 1 4 2 26 21 80.8%

Slip, trip, fall (same level) 1 3 1 2 3 122 15 1 1 3 152 30 19.7%

Fall from height 2 7 36 45 9 20.0%


5 2 7 5 71.4%



3 1 4 1 25.0%

Exposure to fire 0 0 -‐

Exposure to explosion 1 1 1 100.0%

Contact with electricity 1 1 1 100.0%


Physical assault 2 1 4 1 8 4 50.0%

Another kind of accident 3 4 1 1 6 4 3 1 1 6 30 24 80.0%

Total 23 48 8 6 16 137 56 17 0 5 1 1 0 5 6 17

Disagree (n) 13 30 2 4 11 15 20 15 0 2 1 1 0 1 2 11

Disagree (%) 56.5% 62.5% 25.0% 66.7% 68.8% 10.9% 35.7% 88.2% -‐ 40.0% 100.0% 100.0% -‐ 20.0% 33.3% 64.7%

29

TABLE 27: MATCHING OF EMPLOYER AND INJURED PERSON REPORTED ACCIDENT INFORMATION – TYPE OF INJURY (REPORTING PERIOD APRIL TO JUNE 2012 – MAJOR)


Interview

RIDDOR


Strains and sprains





Burns (not to eye)





Amputation 7 7 0 0.0%

Loss of sight 1 1 1 3 2 66.7%

Fracture 1 238 3 11 2 4 6 1 4 270 32 11.9%

Dislocation without fracture 15 1 16 1 6.3%

Concussion or internal injuries 1 2 2 5 3 60.0%

Lacerations and open wounds 2 2 1 12 1 1 19 7 36.8%

Contusions and bruising 2 1 3 3 100.0%

Burns 1 1 2 1 50.0%

Asphyxia or poisoning 1 1 0 0.0%

Strains and sprains 1 1 2 1 50.0%

Superficial injuries 0 0 -‐

Multiple injuries 4 4 4 100.0%

Electric shock 1 1 0 0.0%

Natural causes 1 1 1 100.0% Other known injuries 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 11 10 90.9%

Other not known 1 1 0 0.0%

Total 11 248 19 15 6 20 9 1 2 0 3 3 1 4 4

Disagree (n) 4 10 4 14 6 8 9 0 1 0 2 1 0 4 2

Disagree (%) 36.4% 4.0% 21.1% 93.3% 100.0% 40.0% 100.0% 0.0% 50.0% -‐ 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0% 50.0%

30

TABLE 28: MATCHING OF EMPLOYER AND INJURED PERSON REPORTED ACCIDENT INFORMATION – BODY PART INJURED (REPORTING PERIOD APRIL TO JUNE 2012 – OVER-7-DAY)


Interview

RIDDOR



Finger/fingers





Several locations

General locations

Unknown locations

Total Disagree (n)

Disagree (%)

Eye 2 1 3 1 33.3%

Ear 0 0 -‐

Other face 1 3 2 1 7 4 57.1%

Head 1 1 6 1 9 3 33.3%

Several head locations 1 1 1 100.0%

Neck 6 1 7 1 14.3% Back 1 51 5 2 1 2 1 3 1 5 1 73 22 30.1%

Trunk 5 3 2 1 1 1 13 8 61.5%

Several torso locations 2 2 2 100.0%

Finger/fingers 1 55 7 1 64 9 14.1%

Hand 2 11 1 14 3 21.4%

Wrist 1 1 7 9 2 22.2%

Upper limb 2 1 1 3 18 3 28 10 35.7%

Several upper limb locations 1 3 4 4 100.0%

Toe 2 2 0 0.0%

Foot 2 11 3 16 5 31.3%

Ankle 1 1 1 2 24 1 30 6 20.0%

Lower limb 2 1 1 2 2 31 1 2 42 11 26.2%


Several locations 2 3 4 1 1 1 1 3 16 13 81.3%


Unknown locations 0 0 -‐

Total 4 1 4 13 0 10 59 11 5 63 19 11 32 6 4 18 29 38 3 12 2 2

Disagree (n) 2 1 1 7 0 4 8 6 5 8 8 4 14 6 2 7 5 7 3 9 2 2

Disagree (%) 50.0% 100.0% 25.0% 53.8% -‐ 40.0% 13.6% 54.5% 100.0% 12.7% 42.1% 36.4% 43.8% 100.0% 50.0% 38.9% 17.2% 18.4% 100.0% 75.0% 100.0% 100.0%

31

TABLE 29: MATCHING OF EMPLOYER AND INJURED PERSON REPORTED ACCIDENT INFORMATION – KIND OF ACCIDENT (REPORTING PERIOD APRIL TO JUNE 2012 – OVER-7-DAY)


Interview

RIDDOR


Struck by object




Fall from height




Exposure to fire




Physical assault



Contact with machinery 7 1 1 2 1 2 14 7 0.5

Struck by object 4 19 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 34 15 0.4

Struck by moving vehicle 2 1 1 1 5 4 0.8

Struck against 2 1 1 8 3 2 2 19 11 0.6

Lifting and handling injuries 1 12 1 2 55 4 4 1 10 90 35 0.4

Slip, trip, fall (same level) 1 5 1 3 67 10 2 89 22 0.2

Fall from height 1 1 4 11 1 18 7 0.4


1 1 2 1 0.5



3 1 4 1 0.3

Exposure to fire 1 1 0 0.0


Contact with electricity 0 0 -‐

Injured by an animal 1 1 2 4 2 0.5

Physical assault 1 1 12 14 2 0.1

Another kind of accident 8 3 2 7 5 2 2 5 1 1 3 13 52 39 0.8

Total 28 44 3 15 74 84 23 16 0 9 1 1 2 2 16 28

Disagree (n) 21 25 2 5 19 17 12 15 0 6 0 1 2 0 4 15

Disagree (%) 75.0% 56.8% 66.7% 33.3% 25.7% 20.2% 52.2% 93.8% -‐ 66.7% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 25.0% 53.6%

32

TABLE 30: MATCHING OF EMPLOYER AND INJURED PERSON REPORTED ACCIDENT INFORMATION – TYPE OF INJURY (REPORTING PERIOD APRIL TO JUNE 2012 – OVER-7-DAY)


Interview

RIDDOR


Strains and sprains





Burns (not to eye)





Amputation 0 0 -‐

Loss of sight 0 0 -‐

Fracture 1 21 2 1 25 4 16.0%

Dislocation without fracture 1 2 2 5 3 60.0%

Concussion or internal injuries 1 1 2 1 50.0%

Lacerations and open wounds 2 2 1 1 3 26 1 1 1 38 12 31.6%

Contusions and bruising 4 1 19 7 2 11 1 1 3 49 38 77.6%

Burns 1 9 1 11 1 9.1%

Asphyxia or poisoning 0 0 -‐

Strains and sprains 10 3 109 4 3 7 4 1 5 146 37 25.3%

Superficial injuries 3 4 1 2 1 1 12 11 91.7%

Multiple injuries 2 1 1 1 5 4 80.0%

Electric shock 0 0 -‐

Natural causes 1 1 1 100.0% Other known injuries 1 3 1 21 1 5 6 1 2 3 44 41 93.2%

Other not known 6 1 1 8 7 87.5%

Total 4 47 8 164 16 40 29 0 2 10 0 9 2 2 13

Disagree (n) 4 26 6 55 15 14 18 0 1 1 0 8 2 1 9

Disagree (%) 100.0% 55.3% 75.0% 33.5% 93.8% 35.0% 62.1% -‐ 50.0% 10.0% -‐ 88.9% 100.0% 50.0% 69.2%

33

Table 31: Matching of employer and injured person reported industry sector data Sector

Major Over-‐3-‐day Over-‐7-‐day

Total number Number disagree % disagree Total number Number

disagree % disagree Total number Number disagree % disagree

Primary 20 4 20.0 9 3 33.3 9 5 55.6

Manufacturing 135 43 31.9 78 24 30.8 79 25 31.6

Utilities/waste 23 6 26.1 16 2 12.5 11 3 27.3

Construction 101 15 14.9 26 5 19.2 26 4 15.4

Retail 77 11 14.3 61 10 16.4 49 11 22.4

Transport/storage 83 23 27.7 55 13 23.6 46 13 28.3 Information/communication and Business services 42 17 40.5 18 10 55.6 9 2 22.2

Public administration 146 19 13.0 93 12 12.9 64 12 18.8

Other services 118 71 60.2 69 37 53.6 49 23 46.9

Total 725 209 28.8 425 116 27.3 342 98 28.7

Table 32: Matching of employer and injured person reported occupation sector data Occupation

Major Over-‐3-‐day Over-‐7-‐day

Total number Number disagree

% disagree Total number Number disagree

% disagree Total number Number disagree

% disagree

Manager 35 2 5.7 6 0 0.0 9 1 11.1

Professional 54 1 1.9 27 1 3.7 17 0 0.0 Associate professional/Technical 49 1 2.0 28 1 3.6 16 1 6.3

Administrative 54 8 14.8 7 1 14.3 7 1 14.3

Skilled trade 132 11 8.3 81 5 6.2 66 4 6.1

Personal service 75 5 6.7 48 1 2.1 44 1 2.3

Sales/Customer service 48 2 4.2 34 7 20.6 22 3 13.6

Process/plant operative 170 14 8.2 86 7 8.1 83 7 8.4

Elementary 110 8 7.3 96 17 17.7 74 7 9.5

Total 727 52 7.2 413 40 9.7 338 25 7.4

34

4.3 CHANGING PROFILE OF OVER-3-DAY/OVER-7-DAY INJURIES FOLLOWING THE MOVE FROM OVER-3-DAY TO OVER-7-DAY REPORTING

Tables 33 to 39 compare the profiles of over-‐3-‐day and over-‐7-‐day injuries based on the information relating to the accidents provided by the injured persons. Paralleling the rise in severity threshold for reporting an injury, the average working days lost to injury increased by around 25% (based on the change in the geometric mean working days lost over the two reporting periods). Given this expected shift in outcome, one might expect some change in other characteristics relating to the accidents reported, for example, proportionally fewer superficial injuries being suffered, or proportionally more of the more severe types, for example, strains/sprains and lacerations. However, the data presented suggest that, by and large, the types of accidents experienced and injuries suffered along with the categories of person involved appear to have changed little following the change from over-‐3-‐day to over-‐7-‐day reporting. Table 33: Comparison of over-‐3-‐day and over-‐7-‐day injury profiles – Accident kind

Accident Kind

Over 3 day injury Over 7 day injury

N % 95% CI N % 95% CI

Contact with moving machinery 35 8.2% 5.8 -‐ 11.2 28 8.1% 5.4 -‐ 11.5

Hit by moving, flying or falling object 49 11.5% 8.6 -‐ 14.9 44 12.7% 9.4 -‐ 16.7

Hit by something stationary or fixed 14 3.3% 1.8 -‐ 5.5 15 4.3% 2.5 -‐ 7.1

Injured while handling, lifting or carrying 100 23.5% 19.5 -‐ 27.8 74 21.4% 17.2 -‐ 26.1

Slipped, tripped or fell on same level 111 26.1% 22.0 -‐ 30.5 84 24.3% 19.9 -‐ 29.2

Fell from height 35 8.2% 5.8 -‐ 11.2 23 6.6% 4.3 -‐ 9.8

Trapped by something collapsing or overturning 16 3.8% 2.2 -‐ 6.0 16 4.6% 2.7 -‐ 7.4

Physically assaulted 17 4.0% 2.3 -‐ 6.3 16 4.6% 2.7 -‐ 7.4

Other 18 4.2% 2.5 -‐ 6.6 28 8.1% 5.4 -‐ 11.5

Table 34: Comparison of over-‐3-‐day and over-‐7-‐day injury profiles – Injury type

Injury type


N % 95% CI N % 95% CI

Fracture 68 16.0% 12.6 -‐ 19.8 47 13.6% 10.2 -‐ 17.7

Strain or sprain 194 45.5% 40.7 -‐ 50.4 164 47.4% 42.0 -‐ 52.8

Superficial 24 5.6% 3.6 -‐ 8.3 16 4.6% 2.7 -‐ 7.4

Laceration 51 12.0% 9.1 -‐ 15.4 40 11.6% 8.4 -‐ 15.4

35

Contusion or bruising 33 7.7% 5.4 -‐ 10.7 29 8.4% 5.7 -‐ 11.8

Burn (not to eye) 15 3.5% 2.0 -‐ 5.7 10 2.9% 1.4 -‐ 5.3

Table 35: Comparison of over-‐3-‐day and over-‐7-‐day injury profiles – Body part injured

Injury type


N % 95% CI N % 95% CI

Head 27 6.3% 4.2 – 9.1 22 6.4% 4.0 – 9.5

Torso 124 29.1% 24.8 – 33.7 85 24.6% 20.1 – 29.5

Upper limb 145 34.0% 29.6 – 38.8 131 37.9% 32.7 – 43.2

Lower limb 120 28.2% 23.9 – 32.7 92 26.6% 22.0 – 31.6

Table 36: Comparison of over-‐3-‐day and over-‐7-‐day over-‐3-‐day injury profiles – Gender of injured person

Injury type


N % 95% CI N % 95% CI

Male 288 67.6% 62.9 – 72.0 245 70.8% 65.7 – 75.6

Female 138 32.4% 28.0 – 37.1 101 29.2% 24.5 – 34.3

Table 37: Comparison of over-‐3-‐day and over-‐7-‐day over-‐3-‐day injury profiles – Age of injured person

Injury type


N % 95% CI N % 95% CI

16 to 25 years 41 9.6% 7.0 – 12.8 36 10.4% 7.4 – 14.1

26 to 35 years 62 14.6% 11.3 – 18.3 53 15.3% 11.7 – 19.6

36 to 45 years 96 22.5% 18.7 – 26.8 82 23.7% 19.3 – 28.5

46 to 55 years 134 31.5% 27.1 – 36.1 92 26.6% 22.0 – 31.6

56+ years 91 21.4% 17.6 – 25.6 79 22.8% 18.5 – 27.6

Table 59: Comparison of over-‐3-‐day and over-‐7-‐day over-‐3-‐day injury profiles – Occupational class of injured person

Injury type


N % 95% CI N % 95% CI

36

Professional 27 6.3% 4.2 – 9.1 17 4.9% 2.9 – 7.8

Associate professional/Technical 28 6.6% 4.4 – 9.4 16 4.6% 2.7 – 7.4

Skilled trade 81 19.0% 15.4 – 23.1 66 19.1% 15.1 – 23.6

Personal service 48 11.3% 8.4 – 14.7 44 12.7% 9.4 – 16.7

Sales/Customer service 34 8.0% 5.6 – 11.0 22 6.4% 4.0 – 9.5

Process/plant operative 86 20.2% 16.5 – 24.3 83 24.0% 19.6 – 28.8

Elementary 96 22.5% 18.7 – 26.8 74 21.4% 17.2 – 26.1

Table 38: Comparison of over-‐3-‐day and over-‐7-‐day over-‐3-‐day injury profiles – Industry sector of injured person

Injury type


N % 95% CI N % 95% CI

Manufacturing 78 18.3% 14.8 – 22.3 80 23.1% 18.8 – 28.0

Utilities/Waste & recycling 16 3.8% 2.2 – 6.0 11 3.2% 1.6 – 5.6

Construction 26 6.1% 4.0 – 8.8 26 7.5% 5.0 – 10.8

Retail 61 14.3% 11.1 – 18.0 49 14.2% 10.7 – 18.3

Transport & storage 56 13.1% 10.1 – 16.7 48 13.9% 10.4 – 18.0

Information & communication/Business services

93 21.8% 18.0 – 26.1 64 18.5% 14.6 – 23.0

Government administration 69 16.2% 12.8 – 20.1 50 14.5% 10.9 – 18.6

Other services 78 18.3% 14.8 – 22.3 80 23.1% 18.8 – 27.9

Table 39: Comparison of working days lost profiles for over-‐3-‐day and over-‐7-‐day injuries

Over 3 day injury

Over 7 day injury

Geometric mean working days lost (95% CI) 17.8 (14.5-‐20.0) 22.9 (20.0-‐26.3)

Median working days lost 14 days 21 days

5th percentile 1 day 2 days

10th percentile 3 days 6 days





Includes working days lost for those injury cases where injured person is still off work

37

4.4 PREDICTORS OF WORKING DAYS LOST TO NON-FATAL INJURY

4.4.1 Correspondence Analyses The results of the correspondence analyses are presented as a summary table of the total inertias derived for each analysis (see Table 40), along with key biplots (See Figures 5 to 10). The total inertia of a correspondence analysis (CA) provides a measure of how much variation there is in a cross tabulation of two factors. If there are only small differences between the row and column profiles of the cross tabulation and their average, then the inertia statistic associated with the CA is close to zero. Alternatively, if each profile is highly concentrated in a few categories and in different categories from profile to profile, then the inertia statistic is closer to 1. The total inertia statistics in Table 40 are accompanied by a corresponding Pearsons chi square probability, denoting the statistical significance of the observed variation. The total inertia of a CA is decomposed and expressed across a number of elements of a cross tabulation, across individual rows, individual columns and individual cells, with each inertia element quantified based on its % contribution to total inertia (%CTI). In this way, interpretation of the various inertia statistics enables identification of relative contributions to the total variation in the cross tabulation. In a CA biplot, the total inertia is additionally quantified for each of the two axes of the plot, reflecting the inertia for the projections of the row or column profiles onto each of the two axes. This measure of inertia effectively quantifies the contribution of the spread along each axis to the total inertia of the cross tabulation, which facilitates interpretation of the biplot.

The CA plot effectively delivers a low dimensional (typically 2D) representation of how the various row and column categories contribute to the total inertia in a contingency table. In doing so, the plot effectively decomposes the total inertia by identifying a small number of dimensions in which the principal components of the total inertia can be represented. The points on the plot represent each of the row and column categories in the contingency table and are positioned in space on the plot relative to one another and the plot’s origin so as to reflect the variation between the categories of each variable and/or the overall associations between the variables. The plots are calibrated in such a way that the plot origin reflects the average row and column profile for the contingency table (i.e. the average across all row/column categories combined). The result is that individual points further away from the plot origin differ from the average profile more significantly, whilst those closer to the origin are more comparable to the average. A further result is that the points of a variable more similar to one another are positioned closer, whilst points more dissimilar are positioned further apart. Associations between row and column variables are characterised in a CA plot by the relative positioning of the vectors of the row and column points, the vector for a point represented by a line connecting the point to the plot origin. The result is that row and column variables that are positively associated have vectors that point in similar directions, whereas variables negatively associated have vectors that point in opposite directions. Where vectors are roughly orthogonal (i.e. at 90 degrees), this indicates little or no association between variables. The plots generated as part of the correspondence analyses undertaken as part of this study are shown in Figures 5 to 10. The working days lost categories are represented on the plots as red points joined to the origin of the plot, whilst the predictor categories are represented as numbered blue points. A key is provided on each plot allowing the various predictor categories

38

of each plot to be located. The inertia statistics derived quantify the degree to which observed variation in each of the factors studied (i.e. age, occupation and gender of the injured person and industry sector worked in, along with the nature of the accident/injuries suffered) is able to explain the observed variation in working days lost due to major and over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injuries. The summary statistics in Table 40 below highlight the factors found to be statistically significant predictors (P<0.05) of the number of working days lost to injury. Type of injury suffered and body part injured were found to be most closely associated with the number of working days lost to major injuries. These factors were also found to have predictive value with respect to over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injuries although associations between factors were less strong. In addition, both the kind of accident suffered and the age of the injured person were found to be useful predictors of working days lost to injuries, but for major injuries only. These associations are explored in more detail in Figures 5 to 10.

Table 40: Total inertias for key factors and associated probabilities (where P<0.05) Factor

Working days lost to major injuries

Working days lost to over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day

injuries

Type of injury 0.180 (<0.001) (See Figure 5)

0.146 (<0.001) (See Figure 6)

Body part injured 0.100 (<0.001) (See Figure 7)

0.058 (0.001) (See Figure 8)

Kind of accident 0.137 (<0.001) (See Figure 9)

Age of injured person 0.037 (0.032) (See Figure 10)

Interpretation of Figure 5 Associations between working days lost to major injuries (as defined by the employer) and the type of injury suffered are described in Figure 5. Associations between specific categories of the factors (that is between a particular type of injury and working days lost) are described by the relative positioning of the pairs of points of interest relative to the origin of the plot. Interpretation of the biplot in this way highlights the apparent broad similarities in the profiles of 6 to 14 days and 15 to 28 days injuries with respect to the type of injury suffered. This also appears true for 29 to 60 days and >60 days injuries. The positioning of the plot points associated with each injury type (i.e. amputation, fracture etc.) relative to the principal working days lost vectors for the plot (i.e. 0 to 5 days, 6 to 28 days and >28 days), provides an indication of the relative predictive value of each of the injury types. Thus, fractures (%CTI=10.5%), multiple injuries (%CTI=4.1%) and amputations (%CTI=4.0%) most characterised major injuries associated with >28 days off. For 0 to 5 day major injuries, superficial injuries (%CTI=23.6%) and electric shocks (%CTI=6.4%) were most discriminating. The types of major injuries most associated with 6 to 28 lost work days were lacerations (%CTI=17.4%), bruising (%CTI=10.4%), eye injuries (%CTI=5.5%) and poisonings (%CTI=4.4%). The spread in injury type along Dimension 1 (i.e. in the horizontal) can be clearly seen to be a function of the number of working days lost to injury, with the number of days lost increasing in a uniform manner as you move from the right to the left of the biplot. Dimension 1 explains 64% of the total inertia in the cross tabulation. Spread in dimension two (i.e. in the vertical) in contrast explains just 23% of the total inertia. This latter statistic highlights the extent to which additional factors besides

39

the number of working days lost contribute to the variation in type of injury suffered inherent in the cross tabulation. Interpretation of Figure 6 Figure 6 describes the same associations as above but with respect to over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injuries reported by employers. Spread along dimension 1 in Figure 6 can again be seen to describe the number of working days lost to injuries, with dimension 1 explaining approximately two thirds of the total inertia, similar to that seen in the equivalent biplot for major injuries. Similar to the above, dimension 2 explains around a quarter. The injury type profiles of 6 to 14 day and 15 to 28 lost work days were again found to be broadly similar to one another although less so than that observed for majors. The same were true for 29 to 60 day and >60 lost work days. As was the case for major injuries, 0 to 5 lost work days were more contrasting to other days lost categories. Given this, it is again felt appropriate to consider the different categories of lost work days in the same collective manners as before, i.e. i.e. 0 to 5 days, 6 to 28 days and >28 days. Whilst such broad similarities with the major data were found to exist on interrogation of the over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day data, the ability to discriminate between 0 to 5 day, 6 to 28 day and >28 day over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injuries on the basis of the type of injury suffered was on the whole found to be slightly more limited for over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injuries. Thus the contributions to the total inertia for the best predictors of >28 day over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injuries were 9.0%, 5.5% and 5.3% for dislocations, multiple injuries and electric shocks respectively, whilst those for 6 to 28 days injuries were 5.2%, 2.9% and 2.9% for strains/sprains, lacerations and poisonings respectively. For 0 to 5 day over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injuries, superficial injuries were again most discriminating (%CTI=18.1%), followed by eye injuries (%CTI=12.4%), then burns (%CTI=5.9%). Interpretation of Figures 7 and 8 Associations between working days lost to injuries (as defined by the employer) and the body part injured are described in Figures 7 (for major injuries) and Figure 8 (for over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injuries). For the purposes of facilitating interpretation, injuries to body parts were considered in analyses with respect to a broader set of injury categories than those considered in reporting, these were: 1) upper limb injuries, 2) lower limb injuries, 3) head injuries, 4) injuries to torso and 5) injuries to several/general locations. Figure 7 highlights the profiles of 6 to 14 day and 15 to 28 day major injuries to be broadly similar with respect to the parts of the body injured, with upper limb injuries being most predictive of such categories. Other categories were sufficiently dissimilar to enable the identification of a particular category of body part injury as most characteristic, these were head injuries (%CTI=46.5%) for 0 to 5 day injuries, and lower limb injuries (%CTI=31.2%) for >60 day injuries. The most discriminating category of injury for 29 to 60 day injuries was found to be injuries to the torso, although the contribution to total inertia for this factor combination was only 1.4%. The equivalent biplot for over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injuries is shown in Figure 8. For such injuries, the profiles of 29 to 60 and >60 day injuries with respect to the part of the body injured were similar, with upper (%CTI=11.3%) and lower (%CTI=6.4%) limb injuries being equally characteristic along with absence of an injury to several/general locations (%CTI=8.8%). Again, 0 to 5 day injuries tended to be most associated with a head injury (%CTI=49.3%). For 6 to 14 day injuries, an injury to the torso was most predictive (%CTI=17.7%), and absence of a torso injury most predictive for 15 to 28 day injuries.

40

Interpretation of Figure 9 Associations between kind of accident and the resulting number of working days lost are characterised for major injuries in Figure 9. Interrogation of Figure 9 suggests the existence of three principal injury categories, a category associated with >60 days lost (particularly characterised by falls from height, %CTI=9.3%, and contact with machinery, %CTI=7.2%), one associated with between 15 and 60 days lost (particularly characterised by slips/trips and falls, %CTI=6.5%, and physical assaults, %CTI=7.0%), and one associated with between 0 and 14 working days lost (best described by an absence of those accidents characteristic of those associated with >60 days lost). The equivalent analysis undertaken for over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injuries had insufficient statistical power to enable accident kind categories with the most value for predicting the number of working days lost injury to be identified. Interpretation of Figure 10 Age of the injured person was also found to have some value for predicting the number of working days lost to injury, although this was restricted to major injuries only. The nature of such associations is illustrated in Figure 10. The spread of points across the plot space suggests that the age of the injured person is able to discriminate between two principal categories of injury, one associated with between 0 and 28 lost work days, where the injured person is more likely to be aged between 16 to 45 years, and a second associated with >28 lost work days, where the injured person is more likely to be aged >45 years.

4.4.2 Ordinal Regression Analysis The final regression model agreed on included as predictors the age of the injured person, the nature and severity of injury suffered, the type of accident suffered, the specific part of the body injured and whether hospitalisation resulted. Chi Square based statistics describing model goodness of fit are summarised in Tables 41 and 42. Pseudo R Square statistics providing proxy estimates of the magnitude of variation in the dependent variable explained by the predictors in the model are shown in Table 43. Model parameter estimates are summarised in Table 44. Statistics illustrating the predictive capacity of the final regression model are shown in Tables 45 to 47. The predictors included in the final model significantly improved predictive value against baseline (i.e. the intercept only model), although the Pearson Chi Square test of model goodness of fit only bordered on statistical significance (P=0.06). The model Pseudo R Square statistics suggested that the model predictors explained around a quarter of the variation inherent in the dependent variable. Table 41: Model fit Model -‐2 Log Likelihood Chi Square df Significance Intercept only 3277.415 Final model 2819.121 458.295 30 <0.001 Table 42: Goodness of fit Chi Square df Significance Pearson 2843.677 2730 0.063 Deviance 2246.307 2730 1.000

41

Table 43: Pseudo R Square Cox and Snell 0.266 Nagelkerke 0.278 The predictive power of the various predictor variables included in the final model that realised statistical significance are indicated by their parameter estimates in Table 44. Parameter estimates are presented for specific categories of the predictor variables. Positive estimates indicate positive associations, that is, the presence of the predictor is associated with more lost work days. Negative estimates in contrast indicate negative associations, that is, the presence of the predictor is associated with fewer lost work days. Predictors found to be most associated with fewer lost work days were four categories of injury type, specifically, in descending order of importance, injuries involving loss of sight (beta=-‐2.61), asphyxiation/poisoning (beta=-‐1.80), superficial injury (beta=-‐1.67) and laceration (beta=-‐1.27). The predictor most associated with more lost work days was overnight hospitalisation (beta = 1.33). Interestingly, whether the injury was classed as a major or over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day was much less associated with more lost work days (beta=0.423). Consistent with the results of the correspondence analysis, younger age (<46 years) was significantly associated with fewer lost work days. The categories of accident most associated with more lost work days were contact with machinery (beta=0.80), fall from height (beta=0.44) and various categories of exposure including harmful substances, fire, explosion and electricity (beta=0.49). Table 44: Model parameter estimates and levels of significance Parameter Estimate Significance

(if<0.05) Injury type Superficial -‐1.670 <0.001 Laceration -‐1.271 <0.001 Loss of sight/injury to eye -‐2.606 <0.001 Poisoning -‐1.797 0.020 Severity of injury Major 0.423 <0.001 Age of injured person 16 to 25 years -‐0.335 0.036 26 to 35 years -‐0.483 0.001 36 to 45 years -‐0.457 <0.001 Whether hospitalised Yes 1.327 <0.001 Kind of accident Contact with machinery 0.795 0.002 Fall from height 0.436 0.029 Exposed to harmful substance, fire, explosion, electricity, injured by animal, assaulted

0.486 0.023

42

In order to evaluate the predictive power of the final regression model, the model was used to classify the accident records in the study dataset into five lost work days categories based on each record’s predictor variable profile. These modelled data were then compared with the lost work days actually reported by each injured person in the survey interviews. The results of this exercise are summarised in Table 45. The model correctly categorised 39% of all records, 19% more than that expected based on chance alone. However, there was much variation in classification success across categories, with 68% of all accidents associated with 6 to 14 lost work days correctly classified, but only 4% of those associated with 0 to 5 lost work days. Given the results of the correspondence analysis, which suggested a number of the days lost categories to be broadly similar, the apparent inability of the model to discriminate between certain days lost categories is perhaps unsurprising. Bearing this in mind, the performance of the model was also considered using a broader set of response categories, the results of this second classification exercise are shown in Table 47. Results illustrate that the model was most able to effectively discriminate between those accidents associated with >28 days (75% success rate), followed by 0 to 14 days (67% success rate), then 6 to 28 days (66% success rate). Success rate was lowest for the 15 to 60 days category (51%), not much more than that expected by chance alone (i.e. 40%). Table 45: Comparison of observed and modelled group membership across working days lost categories Observed

Mod

elled

0 to 5 days

6 to 14 days

15 to 28 days

29 to 60 days

>60 days All

0 to 5 days

7 2 1 0 0 10

6 to 14 days

111 245 118 85 77 636

15 to 28 days

3 16 13 6 7 45

29 to 60 days

57 78 95 171 147 548

>60 days

8 17 11 63 144 243

All

186 358 238 325 375 1482

Table 46: Comparison of observed and modelled group membership across working days lost categories

0 to 5 days

6 to 14 days

15 to 28 days

29 to 60 days

>60 days All

Correctly classified 3.8% 68% 5.4% 52.6% 38.4% 39.1%

Expected by chance alone 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Table 47: Comparison of observed and modelled group membership across working days lost categories

0 to 14 days

6 to 28 days

15 to 60 days

>28 days

Correctly classified 67.1% 65.8% 50.6% 75.0%

Expected by chance alone 40% 40% 40% 40%

43

-1.500

-1.000

-0.500

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

-1.000 -0.500 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000Dimension 1

Dimension 2

0 to 5

15 to 28

6 to 14

29 to 60 >60

12

710

15

2

14

5

4

3

6

8

13

11

1

Figure 5: Correspondence Analysis of Working Days Lost to Injury Versus Injury Type for Major Injuries

Pearson Chi Square <0.001Total Inertia 0.180

Ranking of Total Inertia Contribution5 -‐ Superficial injury (0.236)6 -‐ Laceration/open wound (0.174)2 -‐ Fracture (0.105)7 -‐ Contusion/bruising (0.104)13 -‐ Electric shock (0.064)8 -‐ Eye injury (0.055)15 -‐ Other (0.045)11 -‐ Asphyxia/poisoning (0.044)14 -‐ Multiple injuries (0.041)1 -‐ Amputation (0.040)4 -‐ Strain/sprain (0.034)10 -‐ Burn (0.022)3 -‐ Dislocation (0.020)12 -‐ Concussion/internal injury (0.017)

Increasing days off

64.36%

22.60%

>28 days off

<6days off

6 to 28 days off

44

-0.500

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

4.000

4.500

-2.000 -1.500 -1.000 -0.500 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000Dimension 1

Dimension 2

0 to 5

15 to 286 to 14

29 to 60

>60

13

2 10

15

4

14

6

12

7

5

3

8

11

1

Figure 6: Correspondence Analysis of Working Days Lost to Injury Versus Injury Type for O3D and O7D Injuries


Ranking of Total Inertia Contribution5 -‐ Superficial injury (0.181)2 -‐ Fracture (0.159)8 -‐ Eye injury (0.124)3 -‐ Dislocation (0.090)15 -‐ Other (0.078)10 -‐ Burn (0.059)14 -‐ Multiple injuries (0.055)13 -‐ Electric shock (0.053)1 -‐ Amputation (0.052)4 -‐ Strain/sprain (0.052)6 -‐ Laceration/open wound (0.029)11 -‐ Asphyxia/poisoning (0.029)12 -‐ Concussion/internal injury (0.026)7 -‐ Contusion/bruising (0.014)

Increasing days off

25.62%

63.20%

<6 days off>28 days off

6 to 28 days off

45

-0.500

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

-1.000 -0.500 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500Dimension 1

Dimension 2

0 to 5

15 to 28

6 to 1429 to 60

>60

10

22

15

20

1

6

Figure 7: Correspondence Analysis of Working Days Lost to Injury Versus Body Part Injured for Major Injuries


Ranking of Total Inertia Contribution1 -‐ Head (0.465)15 -‐ Lower limb (0.312)22 -‐ Unknown location (0.104)10 -‐ Upper limb (0.065)20 -‐ Several/general locations (0.039)6 -‐ Torso (0.014)

Increasing days off

77.77%

14.26%

>28 days off <6 days off6 to 28 days off

46

-1.000

-0.500

0.000

0.500

1.000

-0.500 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500

Dimension 1

Dimension 2

0 to 5

15 to 28

6 to 14

29 to 60

>60

1022

15

20

1

6

Figure 8: Correspondence Analysis of Working Days Lost to Injury Versus Body Part Injured for O3D and O7D Injuries

Pearson Chi Square 0.001Total Inertia 0.058

Ranking of Total Inertia Contribution1 -‐ Head (0.493)6 -‐ Torso (0.177)10 -‐ Upper limb (0.113)20 -‐ Several/general locations (0.088)22 -‐ Unknown location (0.065)15 -‐ Lower limb (0.064)

24.07%

60.11%

47

-3.000

-2.500

-2.000

-1.500

-1.000

-0.500

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

-1.000 -0.500 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000Dimension 1

Dimension 2

0 to 5

15 to 28

6 to 1429 to 60

>60

16

6

9

13

3

5

15

4

11

10

821

14

7

Figure 9: Correspondence Analysis of Working Days Lost to Injury Versus Kind of Accident for Major Injuries


Ranking of Total Inertia Contribution10 -‐ Exposure to harmful substance (0.191)4 -‐ Struck against (0.149)3 -‐ Struck by moving vehicle (0.108)7 -‐ Fall from height (0.093)1 -‐ Contact with machinery (0.072)15 -‐ Physical assault (0.070)6 -‐ Slip, trip, fall, same level (0.065)16 -‐ Other accident (0.050)8 -‐ Trapped by something collapsing (0.048)14 -‐ Injured by an animal (0.035)11 -‐ Exposure to fire/explosion (0.034)13 -‐ Contact with electricity (0.033)2 -‐ Struck by object (0.021)9 -‐ Drowned/asphyxiated (0.017)5 -‐ Lifting and handling (0.014)

Increasing days off

48.43%

31.24%

>60 days off

<15 days off15 to 60 days off

48

-1.000

-0.800

-0.600

-0.400

-0.200

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

-1.000 -0.800 -0.600 -0.400 -0.200 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000Dimension 1

Dimension 2

0 to 5

15 to 28

6 to 14

29 to 60

>60

10

2

5

20

3

4

1

Figure 10: Correspondence Analysis of Working Days Lost to Injury Versus Age of Injured Person for Major Injuries

Pearson Chi Square 0.032Total Inertia 0.037

Ranking of Total Inertia Contribution5 -‐ 56+ (0.361)3 -‐ 36 to 45 (0.208)1 -‐ 16 to 25 (0.195)4 -‐ 46 to 55 (0.141)2 -‐ 26 to 35 (0.095)

67.70%

19.51%

49

5. DISCUSSION

The 1995 Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR), placed a legal requirement on employers to report certain work-‐related incidents to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The primary purpose of RIDDOR is to enable enforcing authorities to determine if a particular incident warrants further investigation. An important secondary purpose of RIDDOR is to use the statistics generated by individual incidents as a way of identifying the main causes of accidents with a view to preventing accidents in the future. HSE publishes fatal and non-‐fatal injury statistics in many formats and levels of detail. This information is used within and outside HSE to help steer accident prevention policy and support operational initiatives. It is also used to provide comparisons between industries and countries (e.g. comparing GB injury statistics with other EU member states). In the case of fatal injuries, all incidents are investigated by the authorities; hence it is the data from these investigations that is used for publication in preference to the formal RIDDOR notification made by the duty-‐holder. However, for non-‐fatal injuries, only a small proportion of those reported are investigated and the published statistics are therefore based on information ‘as reported’ by the duty-‐holder. With the above background to this work in mind, this work had three primary aims:

1. to provide supporting quantitative evidence of the reliability of the information on non-‐fatal work-‐related injuries reported to HSE by employers,

2. to provide supporting quantitative evidence of how the profile of non-‐fatal work-‐related injuries reported to HSE by employers has changed since the change from over-‐3-‐day to over-‐7-‐day reporting on 6 April 2012, and

3. to provide a robust estimate of the average number of working days lost to non-‐fatal work-‐related injuries and to investigate potential predictive factors.

Study findings in relation to the above three specific aims are discussed separately in the sections below.

5.1 RELIABILITY OF DUTYHOLDER REPORTED INJURY INFORMATION This study was undertaken, in part, to enable consideration of the reliability of the information on workplace injuries reported to HSE by duty-‐holders. Using the study data collected for this purpose assumes that the information collected from the injured persons themselves on the injuries experienced (as opposed to from the duty-‐holders), is an accurate reflection of the accident in question. This may or may not be totally true. For example, recall bias (both random and also more systematic in nature) may perhaps be an issue in this study, particularly for those accidents where a significant amount of time has elapsed between the date of the accident and the date when study interviews were carried out. Every effort was made to limit the effects of recall bias by restricting case eligibility to those accidents that occurred no longer than one year prior to the commencement of the study. However, the possibility of recall bias of a more systematic nature obviously remains. The findings of the review exercise carried out as part of this study found that approximately 90% of the accidents reported as a major accident by the employer also satisfied the criteria of

50

a major accident based on the information provided by the injured person. However, the match between the employer and injured person reporting of the severity of the accident was lower for those accidents reported as over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day by the employer (i.e. 65% for over-‐3-‐day injuries, and 60% for over-‐7-‐day injuries). These latter categories of accident are particularly interesting, especially as around a quarter appear to be major rather than over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day based on the injured person’s version of events. One might speculate as to the reasons for these reporting discrepancies. It may be that in such circumstances employers are not aware of the full facts of the accident, or they may have a reason to want to down-‐play the seriousness. Conversely, around 10% were under the over-‐3-‐day threshold (increasing to 17% when reporting requirements changed to over-‐7-‐days). Again we may speculate as to why, but there may be uncertainty as to which days to ‘count’ to meet the threshold. It may also be that the change to over-‐7-‐day reporting has created slight ambiguity, for example, the employer, and/or the injured person may now refer to ‘about a week off’ when reporting. In addition, the discrepancies might also be suggestive of broader ignorance on the part of dutyholders regarding the changes made to the reporting threshold for over-‐3-‐day injuries. Paralleling the tendency for greater misclassification of cases of over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injuries by dutyholders, the data collected from injured persons on the specific details of the accident also highlighted somewhat greater inconsistency for over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injuries than for major injuries. For example, match rates for body part injured, injury type and kind of accident varied between 55 and 65% for over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injuries, and between 60 and 70% for major injuries. With respect to error rates associated with specific categories of reported accident information, the most common discrepancies between employer and injured person-‐reported information included:

1. which specific parts of the body were injured, particularly which specific areas of upper and lower limbs,

2. whether accidents involved a slip/trip/fall or a fall from height, 3. details relating to contact and impact-‐related accidents (i.e. contact with and hit

against/by accidents), and 4. whether injuries were fractures, dislocations or strains/sprains.

Some of the above discrepancies in reporting might be explained, in part, by the fact that over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injuries are likely to be more often associated with more diverse injuries, and as a result, are likely to be less easy to recall accurately and consistently by dutyholders and the injured persons. It is also possible that such incidents leave less of an impression on the memory of dutyholders and the injured persons than more severe major injuries. There are a number of other possible reasons why the employer and employee may provide differing accounts of accident outcomes. It is possible that some employers report as soon as the accident has taken place, before any medical diagnosis, and hence may assume the specific injury suffered. In addition, with respect to some larger employers that often report accident cases ‘centrally’, if an accident took place at a workplace remote from a head office, the person reporting may not have the proper or full facts at their disposal. It might also happen that the duty-‐holder decides to present the information regarding the accident on the form in a way to minimise the risk of legal action being taken.

51

Discrepancies in the information reported on the occupation of the injured person and industry sector worked in were also marked, particularly with respect to the manufacturing, information/communication/business services and other services industry sectors and administrative and sales/customer service occupation sectors. Such discrepancies might be attributable to the inherent subjectivity with respect to the reporting of such information. This might also explain reporting discrepancies in other categories of information, for example, the kinds of accident suffered, and parts of the body injured.

5.2 COMPARISON OF PROFILES OF OVER-3-DAY AND OVER-7-DAY INJURIES

The findings of this study demonstrate the expected increase in the severity of non-‐major injury cases reported by dutyholders to HSE post April 2012, as would be expected following the increase in the reporting threshold introduced, with the average working days lost attributable to injuries increasing from 17.8 to 22.9 days. However, study findings also suggest that this has not been paralleled by a shift in the profile of over-‐7-‐day injuries towards categories of accidents associated with more lost work days, as might be expected. This may be because the rise in reporting threshold following the move from over-‐3-‐day to over-‐7-‐day reporting is of insufficient magnitude to significantly impact on the accident/injury profiles, or that the study undertaken had insufficient statistical power to detect any shifts in profile that have indeed occurred. A combination of factors is perhaps the most likely explanation.

5.3 ESTIMATION OF WORKING DAYS LOST DUE TO NON-FATAL INJURY A principal information gap associated with HSE’s RIDDOR reporting scheme is that it does not require the employer to provide information on the number of days off work resulting from injury. In an attempt to address this, HSE use data collected as part of the Labour Force Survey (LFS) to investigate trends in working days lost to work-‐related injuries. Like the data collection method adopted in this work, the LFS is administered by telephone interview. Survey respondents who have worked over the last 12 months are asked as part of the interview whether they have experienced an injury caused by work resulting in time off work over the period of interest. The information provided by interviewees is used to derive a measure of the elapsed time between injury and return to work, excluding any subsequent time taken off work. This enables estimates and rates of the total number of days off work due to all non-‐fatal injuries (excluding injuries caused by road accidents) to be determined. The rates calculated are in the form of average annual working days lost (full-‐day equivalent) per case of workplace injury and average annual working days lost (full-‐day equivalent) per full-‐time equivalent worker. Working days lost are expressed as full-‐day equivalent (FDE) days to allow for variation in daily hours worked. A copy of the LFS interview form is provided in Appendix B. The 2011/12 estimate of the average working days lost per case of work-‐related injury, based on LFS data, was 7.3 days (95%CI 6.0-‐8.7), significantly lower than the range of estimates derived as part of the current study. Tables 69 to 71 of Appendix C provide a detailed breakdown of statistics for the period 2011/12 for specific categories of accident/injury for reference purposes.

52

An important methodological related issue that needs to be taken into account when comparing the estimates of working days lost calculated as part of this work to LFS figures is that LFS figures are based on full day equivalents. The result of this is that the working days lost figures for those working part time are revised downwards so that they contribute less to the overall working days lost estimate than those working full time. The net effect of this is to reduce the overall estimate of working days lost to injury. Such adjustments could not be carried out to the estimates derived as part of the current study because the data required to perform the adjustments was not available. This is likely to contribute in part to the higher working days lost estimates derived as part of this work. Additionally, as the thresholds for employers reporting injury cases to RIDDOR are higher than those for LFS interviewees self-‐reporting cases of work related injury7, the cases of injury represented in the study dataset compiled in this work are likely to be more severe than those in the LFS data and as a direct result, associated with more days off work. It is likely that this also contributes in part to the higher working days lost estimates derived as part of this work. A further factor requiring consideration when comparing the LFS estimate for the average number of working days lost to injury to those calculated in this work relates to how individuals still off work at the time of interviewing are dealt with. In the LFS such individuals are effectively excluded from calculations. However, given that this inevitably results in an underestimate of the true figure for the number of working days lost to injury, a decision was made in this work to include the contributions made by such individuals in the estimates calculated. This was achieved by using the number of days between the first day of work absence due to the injury in question and the date of the study interview as a best estimate of working days lost for such individuals. However, calculations were also carried out with individuals still off work at the time of interview excluded, enabling more direct comparison with LFS figures.

5.4 PREDICTORS OF WORKING DAYS LOST TO NON-FATAL INJURY The outputs of the statistical modelling undertaken as part of this work suggest that the factors determining the number of working days lost following an accident are complex and multi-‐faceted. That the final regression model was only able to explain around a quarter of the total variation in lost work days inherent in the dataset certainly supports this view. Notwithstanding this finding, the predictive power of the regression model employed in analysis was sufficient to enable certain discrimination between albeit broad categories of accidents with reasonable success. For example, the classification success rate for accidents associated with >28 days was 75%, whilst that for <29 days was 67%. However, realising finer discrimination proved more challenging. Even given the above challenges, closer inspection of some of the specific outputs of the modelling work highlighted a number of other observations particularly worthy of note, these included:

7 which is likely to be the case; for example, the contribution of injury cases in the LFS derived statistics where the working days lost attributable to injury is less than the RIDDOR reporting threshold for over-3-day/over-7-day injuries (i.e. 3 days or fewer, or 7 days or fewer for the April to June reporting period), means that the average working days lost figure derived from the data collected as part of this study is expected to be somewhat higher.

53

1. the reporting of overnight hospitalisation by the injured person being more associated with the number of work days subsequently lost than whether the accident was originally categorised as either a major or over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day by the employer,

2. accidents characterised by limb injuries (particularly upper limb injuries) being most associated with more lost work days and those characterised by head injuries being most associated with fewer lost work days, and

3. major injuries in males being associated with significantly more lost work days than the same category of injuries in females, but such a gender contrast being absent for over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injuries.

54

Appendix A Study Interview Form Introduction Good morning/afternoon/evening. Can I speak with . . . . . .? My name is . . . . . and I am calling from Peak Answers on behalf of the Health & Safety Executive. Background You should have received a letter from HSE explaining that they are carrying out a short survey to test the quality of its accident database. The letter explained that your employer reported to HSE that you received an injury as a result of an accident at work. Your name is one of 10,000 that were selected at random from the HSE database to be contacted. Any information that you give us is completely confidential – it is used only by the HSE and will not be passed on to your employer. [Explanatory text if required: Employers are required under RIDDOR (Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1995) to tell HSE and Local Authorities about certain types of injuries to workers. The statistics generated by reported incidents (around 120,000 per year) are used widely across HSE, Local Authorities, commercial organisations and the European Union. HSE has set up an exercise to check the accuracy of its data by asking people, who have had an injury at work, about their accident.] The HSE RIDDOR database shows that you had an accident at work that resulted in you taking time off work. The rest of this interview is about the accident that happened on _____DATE________ [taken from information supplied by HSL] 1. Do you recall the accident that happened on this date? Yes/ No If no, thank them for their time and conclude the interview. If yes, please the following 2. Please confirm that this accident happened at work. Yes/ No If no, conclude the interview. 3. FOR LA contacts only Is the accident currently under investigation? Yes/ No/ Don’t know If yes, please conclude the interview (we do not want active investigations). If don’t know, or no, please continue with the interview Just to remind and reassure you: I want to ask you a few questions about your accident. This should only take about 10 minutes of your time. The answers you provide will only be used by HSE for their data checking exercise and this is simply to test whether the information in the database is accurate. Are you willing to answer a few questions about this accident? Yes/No [If no, thank them for their time and conclude the interview] 1. Occupation 1a. What is/ was your occupation?

55

1b. What industry do/ did you work in? [Probe: job title and what it means, which industry] 2. How soon were you able to start work again after the accident? 1. Still off paid work 2. Expects never to do paid work again 3. Same day 4. The day after the accident 5. On the 2nd day after the accident 6. On the 3rd day after the accident 7. On the 4th day after the accident 8. On the 5th day after the accident 9. On the 6th day after the accident 10. On the 7th day or longer after the accident 11. Don’t know If the individual returned to work after the 7th day (response 10), how many days after the accident did you go back to work? ________ (if the respondent has difficulty remembering the number of days, please enter the number of weeks or months) 3. How would you describe the main injury you received? 1. Amputation (NOT loss of fleshy finger tip, teeth or nails -‐ count as superficial) 2. Fracture/broken bones (NOT cartilage in nose -‐ count as superficial) 3. Dislocation of joints (without fracture) 4. Strain/sprain 5. Superficial (inc. light bruising, abrasions, scratches, foreign body in eye) 6. Lacerations/open wound 7. Contusions and bruising 8. Loss of sight (temporary or permanent) 9. Chemical or hot metal burn to the eyeball or any penetrating injury to the eyeball (NOT the eye area of the face generally) 10. Burns/scalds (NOT to the eye) 11. Lack of oxygen (asphyxia) or poisoning 12. Concussion and/ or internal injuries 13. Electric shock 14. Multiple injuries, no one injury type obviously more severe 15. Other type of injury, please specify________________ 4. Which part of the body did you mainly injure? If more than one, answer ‘several’? 1. Eye 2. Ear 3. Other parts of the face 4. Head 5. Several head locations 6. Neck 7. Back 8. Trunk 9. Several torso locations 10. Finger or fingers

56

11. Hand 12. Wrist 13. Upper limb 14. Several upper limb locations 15. Toe 16. Foot 17. Ankle 18. Lower limb 19. Several lower limb locations 20. Several locations 21. General locations 22. Unknown locations 5. Still thinking of the same accident, did you… 1. Lose consciousness, even briefly? 2. Suffer from hypothermia or heat induced illness? 3. Need resuscitation? 4. Stay in hospital for more than 24 hours? 5. Not experience any of the above Finally, thinking about the same accident, 6. What kind of accident was it? 1. Contact with moving machinery or material being machined 2. Hit by a moving, flying or falling object 3. Hit by a moving vehicle 4. Hit something fixed or stationary 5. Injured while handling, lifting or carrying 6. Slipped, tripped or fell on the same level 7. Fell from a height 8. Trapped by something collapsing or overturning 9. Near drowning or asphyxiation 10. Exposed to, or in contact with, a harmful substance 11. Exposed to fire 12. Exposed to an explosion 13. Contact with electricity or an electrical discharge 14. Injured by an animal 15. Physically assaulted by a person 16. Another kind of accident That concludes the questions about the accident; I just have to record some background information about you 7. What is your Date of Birth? (IF YEAR OF BIRTH NOT GIVEN – What was your age last birthday?) 8. Male or Female That concludes the interview.

57

9. Are there any other comments you want to make? Thank you for taking part in this data checking exercise. If you would like any further information about this research, I have a website and telephone number for you – the information is also on the letter and information sheet that HSE sent to you. Would you like me to read out the website details over the phone? Further information Further information about this data checking exercise is provided on the HSE Website: http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/about/research-‐underway.htm You can contact the HSE project officer for this work, Linda Heritage: [email protected] Telephone: 0114 291 2452.

58

Appendix B LFS Module on workplace injury Questions only applicable if respondents are working during reference week or temporarily away from a job or working for their own or a family business or on an employment training scheme or on the New Deal employment schemes or on other New Deal options or worked in the last 12 months Thinking of the 12 months since [full date] have you had any accident resulting in injury at work or in the course of your work? How many accidents have you had (in the last 12 months)? The remainder of the questions refer to the respondent's most recent injury. Was that (most recent) injury caused by…? A road accident or in some other way May I just check, was the job you were doing when you were injured the one you previously mentioned as... How soon were you able to start work again after the accident ? Still off paid work expects never to do paid work again same day the day after the accident on the 2nd day after the accident on the 3rd day after the accident on the 4th day after the accident on the 5th day or longer after the accident don't know Ask next question if respondent injured at work in last 12 months and returned to work on or after the fifth day after the accident How many days after the accident did you go back to work? Enter the number of days. If the respondent has difficulty remembering the number of days, please enter the number of weeks or months. Thinking of your most recent injury, how would you describe the injury you received? I bones broken, which bones did you fracture/break?

59

If joints dislocated, which joints were dislocated? If loss of sight, was the loss of sight temporary or permanent? For how long was your sight impaired? Still thinking of the accident you just mentioned, did you… Lose consciousness, even briefly? Suffer from hypothermia or heat induced illness? Need resuscitation? Stay in hospital for more than 24 hours? Not experience any of the above If lose consciousness, How long were you unconscious? Please could you describe how the accident happened?

60

Appendix C

Table 48: Working days lost to major accident – By gender Accident category (n)



Male (487) 49

(42-‐56) 40.0

(35.3-‐45.2)

Female (267) 42

(42-‐56) 29.0

(24.1-‐35.0)

Based on self-‐reported working days lost for a sample of major injury cases reported to HSE between 01/01/2012 and 30/06/2012 (n=754)

Table 49: Working days lost to major accident – By age Accident category (n)



16 to 25 (90) 35

(28-‐56) 25.7

(18.8-‐35.1)

26 to 35 (88) 42

(35-‐49) 30.1

(22.0-‐41.2)

36 to 45 (137) 42

(35-‐60) 29.9

(22.8-‐39.4)

46 to 55 (228) 49

(42-‐60) 37.6

(31.3-‐45.3)

56+ (208) 56

(56-‐70) 47.6

(40.1-‐56.4)

Based on self-‐reported working days lost for a sample of major injury cases reported to HSE between 01/01/2012 and 30/06/2012 (n=754, excludes those still off work)

Table 50: Working days lost to major accident – By industry sector Accident category (n)



Agriculture/Extractive (20) 58

(42-‐77) 42.1

(23.4-‐75.6)

Manufacturing (138) 56

(42-‐63) 36.0

(27.8-‐46.6)

Utilities/Waste & recycling (23)

70 (42-‐120)

66.9 (43.5-‐102.9)

61

Construction (103) 60

(49-‐90) 49.3

(38.8-‐62.7)

Retail (78) 42

(42-‐56) 36.1

(28.7-‐45.5)

Transport & storage (84) 49

(42-‐70) 42.6

(32.5-‐55.8)

Information & communication/Business services (42)

29 (21-‐56)

20.9 (12.9-‐34.1)

Government administration (147)

42 (42-‐56)

28.9 (21.9-‐38.1)

Other services (119) 42

(35-‐56) 31.4

(24.0-‐41.0)


Table 51: Working days lost to major accident – By occupation Accident category (n)



Manager (35) 42

(30-‐90) 30.4

(17.3-‐53.1)

Professional (54) 32.5

(30-‐63) 23.5

(14.4-‐38.5)

Associate professional/Technical (49)

35 (28-‐56)

27.3 (17.2-‐43.3)

Administrative (54) 24.5

(21-‐56) 19.4

(12.1-‐31.3)

Skilled trade (132) 56

(49-‐70) 44.8

(36.1-‐55.7)

Personal service (75) 45.5

(42-‐60) 31.4

(21.9-‐45.0)

Sales/Customer service (48) 45.5

(42-‐70) 37.2

(25.9-‐53.4)

Process/plant operative (170) 49

(42-‐60) 40.5

(33.3-‐49.3)

Elementary (110) 56

(42-‐63) 44.4

(34.7-‐56.7)


62

Table 52: Working days lost to major accident – By kind of accident Accident category (n)



Contact with/Hit by (170) 49

(42-‐70) 37.5

(29.9-‐46.9)

Manual handling (37) 42

(30-‐60) 29.7

(18.1-‐48.9)

Slip/trip/fall (excl. from height) (310)

42 (42-‐56)

33.5 (28.8-‐39.0)

Fall from height (141) 60

(56-‐90) 51.0

(41.0-‐63.3)

Based on self-‐reported working days lost for a sample of major injury cases reported to HSE between 01/01/2012 and 30/06/2012 (n=754, excludes those still off work) Table 53: Working days lost to major accident – By type of injury Accident category (n)



Amputation (20) 80

(42-‐120) 59.2

(34.9-‐100.2)

Fracture (530) 49

(42-‐49) 43.8

(39.3-‐48.8)

Dislocation (37) 56

(30-‐60) 26.3

(15.0-‐46.1)

Strain/sprain (36) 35

(21-‐60) 30.1

(20.1-‐45.1)

Superficial (16) 4

(1-‐63) 8.4

(2.7-‐26.7)

Laceration (41) 14

(7-‐30) 15.5

(9.8-‐24.5)

Bruising (23) 14

(7-‐63) 15.4

(7.4-‐32.3)

Based on self-‐reported working days lost for a sample of major injury cases reported to HSE between 01/01/2012 and 30/06/2012 (n=754, excludes those still off work) Table 54: Working days lost to major accident – By body part injured Accident category (n)



63

Head (52) 14

(7-‐24) 11.5

(7.0-‐19.1)

Torso (58) 46

(42-‐60) 39.7

(29.0-‐54.4)

Upper limb (371) 42

(42-‐56) 31.9

(27.5-‐36.9)

Lower limb (237) 60

(56-‐63) 55.5

(47.9-‐64.2)

Several/general (27) 60

(25-‐98) 34.3

(17.2-‐68.6)

Based on self-‐reported working days lost for a sample of over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injury cases reported to HSE between 01/01/2012 and 06/04/2012 (n=754, excludes those still off work) Table 55: Working days lost to over-‐7-‐day injury – By gender Accident category (n)



Male (245) 21

(21-‐28) 21.2

(18.2-‐24.6)

Female (101) 21

(14-‐30) 20.4

(16.0-‐26.1)

Based on self-‐reported working days lost for a sample of over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injury cases reported to HSE between 06/04/2012 and 30/06/2012 (n=346, excludes those still off work)

Table 56: Working days lost to over-‐7-‐day injury – By age Accident category (n)



16 to 25 (36) 25

(14-‐35) 20.3

(13.2-‐31.2)

26 to 35 (53) 14

(14-‐21) 16.5

(12.5-‐21.9)

36 to 45 (82) 25

(14-‐30) 18.8

(13.6-‐26.0)

46 to 55 (92) 21

(14-‐30) 22.6

(17.7-‐28.9)

56+ (79) 21

(21-‐30) 24.8

(20.1-‐30.7)


Table 57: Working days lost to over-‐7-‐day injury – By industry sector

64

Accident category (n)




(14-‐35) 18.4

(8.2-‐41.5)


(21-‐30) 23.1

(18.2-‐29.3)


21 (14-‐90)

28.3 (13.6-‐58.8)


(14-‐42) 27.3

(17.5-‐42.5)

Retail (49) 21

(14-‐35) 15.3

(10.1-‐23.3)


(14-‐30) 23.3

(17.1-‐31.7)


42 (6-‐120)

32.8 (10.4-‐103.6)


14 (14-‐30)

21.8 (16.6-‐28.7)


(14-‐28) 15.9

(11.4-‐22.4)


Table 58: Working days lost to over-‐7-‐day injury – By occupation Accident category (n)



Manager (9) 9

(1-‐14) 5.1

(1.6-‐16.3)

Professional (17) 21

(7-‐56) 23.8

(14.0-‐40.5)


21 (14-‐30)

20.4 (16.1-‐25.9)

Administrative (7) 14

(2-‐42) 19.2

(7.5-‐49.4)


(14-‐21) 17.3

(12.9-‐23.1)

65

Personal service (44) 18

(14-‐35) 21.5

(15.5-‐29.7)

Sales/Customer service (22) 21

(14-‐42) 19.5

(12.1-‐31.4)


(21-‐35) 25.4

(19.7-‐32.7)

Elementary (74) 21

(14-‐28) 21.2

(16.1-‐28.0)


Table 59: Working days lost to over-‐7-‐day injury – By kind of accident Accident category (n)




(21-‐28) 22.1

(17.6-‐27.8)


(21-‐35) 25.9

(19.7-‐34.0)

Slip/trip/fall (incl. from height) (107)

21 (14-‐28)

21.0 (16.9-‐26.2)


Table 60: Working days lost to over-‐7-‐day injury – By type of injury Accident category (n)



Amputation (4) 53

(10-‐90) 39.3

(15.3-‐101.0)

Fracture (47) 28

(14-‐35) 22.6

(16.9-‐30.3)

Dislocation (8) 73

(14-‐180) 64.0

(29.9-‐137.3)


(21-‐28) 23.8

(19.9-‐28.3)

Superficial (16) 10

(7-‐21) 8.2

(4.0-‐16.6)

Laceration (40) 14

(14-‐28) 18.2

(12.9-‐25.6)

66

Bruising (29) 14

(7-‐21) 14.5

(9.1-‐23.1)

Based on self-‐reported working days lost for a sample of over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injury cases reported to HSE between 06/04/2012 and 30/06/2012 (n=346, excludes those still off work) Table 61: Working days lost to over-‐7-‐day injury – By body part injured Accident category (n)



Head (22) 14

(7-‐28) 11.1

(6.0-‐20.6)

Torso (85) 21

(14-‐30) 20.8

(15.7-‐27.7)

Upper limb (131) 21

(14-‐30) 22.1

(18.1-‐27.1)

Lower limb (92) 21

(14-‐30) 22.9

(18.7-‐28.1)


(7-‐90) 23.4

(11.3-‐48.5)


Table 62: Working days lost to over-‐3-‐day injury – By gender Accident category (n)



Male (288) 14

(14-‐21) 17.4

(15.0-‐20.2)

Female (138) 14

(14-‐21) 15.4

(12.5-‐18.9)


Table 63: Working days lost to over-‐3-‐day injury – By age Accident category (n)



16 to 25 (41) 14

(7-‐21) 14.6

(10.1-‐21.2)

26 to 35 (62) 18

(10-‐30) 19.9

(14.3-‐27.8)

36 to 45 (96) 14

(14-‐21) 16.6

(13.1-‐21.1)

67

46 to 55 (134) 14

(14-‐21) 17.9

(14.4-‐22.2)

56+ (91) 14

(14-‐21) 14.7

(11.2-‐19.3)


Table 64: Working days lost to over-‐3-‐day injury – By industry sector Accident category (n)




(5-‐28) 18.6

(10.0-‐34.4)


(14-‐21) 16.0

(12.0-‐21.3)


18 (7-‐28)

18.2 (10.1-‐32.7)


(14-‐56) 35.2

(23.7-‐52.3)

Retail (61) 14

(14-‐21) 16.2

(11.4-‐22.9)


(14-‐30) 21.2

(15.0-‐29.8)


14 (5-‐16)

10.2 (5.7-‐18.4)


14 (14-‐21)

15.7 (12.4-‐20.0)


(7-‐28) 13.4

(9.9-‐18.2)

Based on self-‐reported working days lost for a sample of over-‐3-‐day/over-‐7-‐day injury cases reported to HSE between 01/01/2012 and 06/04/2012 (n=426, excludes those still off work) Table 65: Working days lost to over-‐3-‐day injury – By occupation Accident category (n)



Manager (6) 14

(7-‐18) 12.4

(8.5-‐18.0)

Professional (27) 14

(14-‐28) 18.8

(12.8-‐27.8)

68


14 (7-‐28)

13.3 (8.7-‐20.5)

Administrative (7) 7

(5-‐90) 18.4

(5.9-‐57.0)


(14-‐14) 18.0

(13.8-‐23.5)

Personal service (48) 17.5

(14-‐42) 18.3

(12.7-‐26.3)

Sales/Customer service (34) 28

(14-‐30) 22.9

(14.6-‐35.9)


(14-‐35) 19.9

(14.8-‐26.8)

Elementary (96) 14

(9-‐14) 11.9

(9.4-‐15.1)


Table 66: Working days lost to over-‐3-‐day injury – By kind of accident Accident category (n)




(14-‐30) 17.8

(14.1-‐22.5)


(10-‐14) 16.0

(12.4-‐20.8)

Slip/trip/fall (incl. from height) (146)

20 (14-‐21)

17.9 (14.7-‐21.8)


Table 67: Working days lost to over-‐3-‐day injury – By type of injury Accident category (n)



Amputation (2) -‐ 35.5

(25.5-‐49.4)

Fracture (68) 35

(30-‐56) 32.3

(24.5-‐42.2)

Dislocation (10) 40

(14-‐90) 40.2

(21.0-‐76.9)

69


(14-‐14) 15.1

(12.9-‐17.7)

Superficial (24) 7

(5-‐17) 7.4

(4.5-‐12.2)

Laceration (51) 14

(7-‐14) 12.2

(8.3-‐17.9)

Bruising (33) 16

(7-‐28) 14.6

(9.3-‐22.9)


Table 68: Working days lost to over-‐3-‐day injury – By body part injured Accident category (n)



Head (27) 7

(3-‐14) 6.5

(3.7-‐11.3)

Torso (124) 14

(14-‐14) 15.8

(13.0-‐19.3)

Upper limb (145) 21

(14-‐28) 18.8

(15.3-‐23.1)

Lower limb (120) 21

(14-‐28) 19.6

(15.6-‐24.7)


(1-‐42) 10.5

(3.2-‐33.7)


70

Tables 69 to 71: Estimated Working Days Lost (2011/12) Based on Labour Force Survey Data (from HSE website)

Table SWIT1 - 2011/12

lower upper lower upper lower upperAll illness 22681 20011 25351 0.97 0.85 1.08 21.1 18.9 23.4

Musculoskeletal disorders 7503 5845 9160 0.32 0.25 0.39 17.1 13.6 20.6mainly affecting the upper limbs or neck 2611 1836 3386 0.11 0.078 0.14 14.7 10.7 18.7

mainly affecting the lower limbs 2276 1279 3274 0.097 0.055 0.14 26.4 15.9 36.9mainly affecting the back 2616 1541 3690 0.11 0.066 0.16 14.9 9.1 20.7

Breathing or lung problems 667 251 1083 0.028 0.011 0.046 19.3 8.4 30.1Skin problems * * * * * * * * *

Hearing problems * * * * * * * * *Stress, depression or anxiety 10378 8755 12000 0.44 0.37 0.51 24.2 21.0 27.5

Headache and/or eyestrain * * * * * * * * *Heart disease/attack, other circulatory system * * * * * * * * *

Infectious disease (virus, bacteria) 316 37 595 0.014 0.0016 0.025 15.6 3.5 27.7Other type of complaint 2468 1475 3461 0.11 0.063 0.15 30.1 19.4 40.8

All injury 4320 3467 5173 0.18 0.15 0.22 7.3 6.0 8.7All illness and injury 27001 24165 29837 1.15 1.03 1.27 16.8 15.2 18.4

central 95% C.I.

Source: Labour Force Survey (LFS)

Average days lost per case+

central 95% C.I.

Estimated days (full-day equivalent) off work and average days lost per (full-time equivalent) worker and per case due to self-reported work-related illness or workplace injury, for people working in the last 12 months, 2011/12

Type of complaint Estimated days lost (thousands)

Average days lost per worker

central 95% C.I.

Table INJKIND2 - 2011/12

lower upper lower upper lower upperHit by moving, flying or falling object 343 135 551 0.015 0.0058 0.024 6.0 2.6 9.4

Injured handling,lifting or carrying 1207 640 1774 0.052 0.027 0.076 8.8 4.8 12.8Slipped, tripped or fell on same level 941 629 1253 0.04 0.027 0.053 7.8 5.5 10.0

Fell from height 374 178 570 0.016 0.0076 0.024 9.5 5.1 13.8Physically assaulted by a person 194 34 354 0.0083 0.0015 0.015 5.3 1.1 9.4

Other kinds of accident 1257 807 1708 0.054 0.034 0.073 6.4 4.3 8.5Total 4320 3467 5173 0.18 0.15 0.22 7.3 6.0 8.7

95% C.I.

Source: Labour Force Survey (LFS)

Average days lost per case+

central 95% C.I.

Estimated days (full-day equivalent) off work and average days lost per (full-time equivalent) worker and per case due to self-reported workplace non-fatal injury, by accident kind, for people working in the last 12 months, 2011/12

Accident kind Estimated days lost (thousands)


central 95% C.I. central

Table INJNAT2 - 2011/12

lower upper lower upperFracture/broken bones 1107 695 1519 0.039 0.025 0.054

Dislocation of joints 386 65 708 0.014 0.0023 0.025Strain/sprain 1044 702 1386 0.037 0.025 0.049

Superficial 228 113 343 0.0081 0.004 0.012Lacerations/open wounds 311 118 505 0.011 0.0042 0.018

Burns/scalds * * * * * *Other type of injury 1198 664 1732 0.042 0.023 0.061

Total 4320 3467 5173 0.15 0.12 0.18Source: Labour Force Survey (LFS)

Estimated days (full-day equivalent) off work and average days lost per (full-time equivalent) worker due to self-reported workplace non-fatal injury, by accident nature, for people working in the last 12 months, 2011/12

Accident nature Estimated days lost (thousands)


central 95% C.I. central 95% C.I.

Published by the Health and Safety Executive 06/15



RR1054

www.hse.gov.uk

HSE commissioned a statistical study to look into the accuracy and extent of the information reported to HSE by employers via RIDDOR. Based on a sample of employer notifications of non-fatal injuries made during the first half of 2012, the injured person in each case was contacted about the injury, and their view on the incident and outcome compared to the employer report. Results were aggregated, so individual employee responses could not be identified.

The study responds to several aims. Firstly, as HSE publishes many RIDDOR statistics based on employer reports, it helps provide a fuller understanding of possible limitations in the data provided by the employer, compared to the injured person themselves. Secondly, there was legal change to RIDDOR in April 2012, whereby the reporting threshold for incapacitation changed from over 3 days to over 7 days. Thirdly, each respondent was asked to provide the actual number of days off work as a result of the injury (RIDDOR does not require this).

HSE statisticians will use the findings of this study, for example to provide contextual information when providing users with statistics, or in support of European statistics developments.

This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.

Documents

Evaluation of trends in RIDDOR reportable injury data ... · Prepared by the Health and Safety Laboratory for the Health and Safety Executive 2015 Health and Safety Executive Evaluation