Investigating Fall Fatalities and

Injury Claims on Prevention EffortsModerator: Scott P. Breloff, Ph.D

Detailed as the Coordinator for the NIOSH Office of Construction Safety and Health

Biomedical Research Engineer

Panel:Characteristics of Workers and Employers Involved in Construction Falls

Dr. Todd Schoonover, Washington State Department of Labor & Industries, SHARP Program

Washington FACE

Does Experiencing an Injury Claim Impact Small Construction Company Leaders’ Participation in a

Fall Protection Survey?

Dr. David Hurtado, Oregon Health & Science University, Oregon FACE

Fatal Construction Falls in Michigan: Tracking and Outreach for Prevention

Dr. Anthony Oliveri, Michigan State University, Department of Medicine, Occupational and Environmental

Medicine, Michigan FACE

Characteristics of Workers and Employers Involved in Severe Construction Falls

Dr. Todd Schoonover, Randy Clark, Eva Glosson - Washington FACE

Washington State Department of Labor & Industries, SHARP Program, Olympia, Washingtonscto235@lni.wa.gov

Definition of severe fall injury in construction

• Worker Injury claim • Source: WA State workers’ compensation system • Worker hospitalized within one day of injury.• Compensable claim: Injury involving wage replacement for missed work, disability,

or death.• Construction industry

• All NAICS 23 because risk classes are not restricted to a single industry• Falls

• Includes OIICS V1.01 10: fall, unspecified; 11: fall to lower level. Use most detailed level.

• Injury date • 2015-2019

437 Employers

Each worker who fell is assigned a risk class

453 Construction workers hospitalized due to severe fall injuries

Employers report hours per risk class

All injury claims in construction (NAICS 23)

Fall injury rates by risk class

What are risk classes and why use them?

WA Risk Classes NAICS Industries

Purpose Describes the risks workers face Describes the economic activity

Number Most employers have multiple risk classes

Single classification

How assigned By risk specialist during visits or record reviews

By employer services during licensing

Use Determine an employer's workers’ compensation insurance rates

No influence on employer's workers’ compensation insurance rates

Accuracy Updated periodically Rarely updated

WA Risk Class compared to NAICS Industries

Fall Rates by Risk ClassWA WC claims data, 2015-2019

0.3

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.6

0.8

1.3

2.5

3.7

5.5

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

All other Risk Classes

Electrical Wiring in Buildings

Building Construction, N.O.C.

Interior Finish Carpentry

Interior Building Painting

Heating, ventilation, air conditioning, refrigeration and furnace…

Building Repair, Remodeling and Carpentry, N.O.C.

Building Repair and Carpentry, N.O.C.

Building Construction: Wood Frame

Exterior Painting - Building/Structure

Roof Work: All Types

Fall Rate per 1000 FTE

Number of Falls by Event TypeWA WC claims data, 2015-2019

11

15

19

20

39

55, 12%

79, 17%

190, 42%

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

FALL DOWN STAIRS OR STEPS

FALL, UNSPECIFIED

FALL FROM ROOF EDGE

FALL FROM NONMOVINGVEHICLE

FALL FROM SCAFFOLD, STAGING

FALL TO LOWER LEVEL, N.E.C.

FALL FROM ROOF, UNSPECIFIED

FALL FROM LADDER

Number of Workers

Worker Time with EmployerWA WC claims data, 2015-2019

20%

30%32%

8%

11%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1 months or less 1 month to 1 year 1 year to 5 years 5 years to 10 years 10+ years

Paid Time Away from WorkWA WC claims data, 2015-2019

31%

3%

29%

37%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

None 1 day to 1 month 1 month to 1 year 1+ years

Perc

ent

of

Falls

Employer Time in BusinessWA WC claims data, 2015-2019

9%

5%

31%

16%

39%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

6 months or less 6 months to 1 year 1 year to 5 years 5 years to 10 years 10+ years

Perc

ent

of

Falls

Falls / Worker WA WC claims data, 2015-2019

0.44

0.13

0.06

0.01

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

5 or fewer 6 to 10 11 to 50 51+

Falls

/ W

ork

er

Number of Workers

• Workers classified in roof work, exterior painting, and wood frame construction risk classes suffered falls at the highest rates.

• Workers fell from ladders and from and through roofs most frequently.

• Half of the workers experienced a fall within the first year with the employer.

• 37% of workers who fell were away from work for a year or more.

• Fall rates were highest among smaller employers and consistently lower as employer size decreased.

Summary

• Communicate information about severe falls by risk class, event, worker tenure, and employer size to WA OSHA and construction apprentice programs.

• Focus more fall prevention efforts toward:• Employers doing roof-related work.• Interior and exterior painters.• Small construction employers.

Actions

• Fall rates by risk class are not reproducible by others and difficult to compare.

• Mismatch between assigned risk class and task that was being done when worker fell.

• Worker tenure is self-reported and not all workers reported.

Limitations

Does Experiencing an Injury Claim Impact Small Construction Company Leaders’ Participation in a

Fall Protection Survey?

David Hurtado, Leah Greenspan, Michael Vogt, Layla Mansfield, Ryan Olson

Background

Small and medium construction companies (≤50 employees) accounted for 74% of fatal falls from elevation (2011- 2015) (Dong et al., 2018).

Need to determine effective ways to engage with this subsector for research and training.

• Hard to reach --survey response rates that range from 10.0 to 35.7% (Baruch and Holtom, 2008; Choi and Carlson, 2014).

• Employment of a immigrant and/or low literary workforce

CPWR, Data Bulletin 2020

Objectives

1. To test whether recent insurance-documented fall-related claims increase engagement with a fall protection survey

2. Describe fall protection equipment familiarity among leaders of residential construction companies

• Motivating Operations (MO) Theory• Environmental events/stimuli may motivate change of certain behaviors

to avoid such events in the future (Laraway et al., 2014).

• Ho: Injury associated with higher survey engagement because the adverse trigger may motivate protective behaviors to avoid negative consequences

Methods

• Stratified random sample (from N=~7,000) of• Policyholders with an injury claim between Jan. 2016 and March. 2018 (n = 197)

• Policyholders without a claim (n = 195)

• SAIF mailed policyholders a link to the online survey

• Survey responses kept confidential from SAIF and company identity kept confidential from researchers (double blinded)

• Incentive: fall protection equipment and training raffle

Analysis

• Survey engagement: binary variable (1, 0) indicating completion of half of the survey items (Courser, 2008)

• Familiarity with and use of fall protection 10 pieces of equipment (Kaskutas et al., 2010).

• Safety boots, wall walker, safety bar, pump jack, power pole, anchor, choker strap, truss anchor, yo-yo, and rope grab

Safety boots Wall walker Pump Jack SystemPower pole

Anchors Choker strap Rope grabTruss anchor

Results: Participants

• Surveys mostly completed by owners/presidents (34.1%) and managers/leaders (20.5%)

• Average age of respondent = 51.1 years

• Average tenure = 24.6 years

• Average company size = 11.6 employees

• Average homes serviced or built in past year = 42.5

Results: Survey engagement by injury claim

• 22% response rate (88/392)

Injury ClaimYes No

Emailed 197 195ID link 33 3050% survey completion 19 12Survey Engagement (%) 57 40

Results: Equipment familiarity by survey engagement

1.151.56

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

Did not complete half(n=18)

Completed half (n=36)

M= 1.42, where 1= "Seen it but never used it" and 2= "Used several times at work"

Anchors, choker strap, rope grabs all significantly higher, p <.05

* P <0.05

Main Findings

• A recent fall claim may act as a triggering event

• Fall protection equipment familiarity/use low across entire sample

• Representatives from companies with less equipment familiarity also engaged less with the survey

Implications for Research and Practice

• Many small residential construction companies in Oregon could benefit from increased training/access to fall protection equipment

• Outreach strategies could first engage with more established companies

• Need to re-think tactics for harder to reach companies• Community-based recruitment strategies need to be evaluated

• Engagement may improve if recruitment occurs shortly after incident• Future research can evaluate timing of recruitment after a fall claim is filed

Strengths & Limitations

• Strengths:• Partnership with a leading workers’ compensation insurer

• A stratified, random, and double-blinded sampling method

• Limitations:• Small sample size

• Missing data

• Survey did not collect historical fall records of companies

• Potential for selection bias (companies with least safe practices avoided participation due to SAIF recruitment)

• No financial incentive outside of raffle entry

Raffle Progress

• Raffle for a small grant valued at $1,000• Fall protection equipment

• OSHA Competent Person Training

• ACME Construction Supply Co. (Portland) created equipment package

• Portland Fasteners will provide training

• 3 companies won grants• 1 had fall claim

• All located in Portland

• Average company has 19.33 employees and services 75 homes a year

• Most unfamiliar with safety boots, safety bar, wall waker, and power pole

Thanks for your attentionhurtadod@ohsu.edu

NIOSH -- OR-FACE program (grant number U60OH008472). Oregon Institute of Occupational Health Sciences at OregonHealth & Science University via funds from the DCBS (ORS 656.630).

Fatal Construction Falls in Michigan: Tracking and Outreach for Prevention

Anthony Oliveri, PhD, MPH

Michigan FACE

Michigan State University Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

The MIFACE program

▪ Track and investigate work-related fatalities in Michigan

▪ Overlapping but not exactly same scope as MIOSHA

▪ Create tools for use in safety training, education, and outreach

Investigation Reports (most detailed)

▪ In-depth look at a single incident

▪ Only for select incidents, voluntary participation

▪ Background info, incident narrative, contributing factors, and recommendations

Investigation Reports

Investigation Reports

Summaries of MIOSHA Inspections (less detailed)

▪ Based on interview of compliance officer and review of case

▪ Some go on to become full MIFACE investigations, but not all

Summaries of MIOSHA Inspections

Annual Reports (trends)

▪ Summary of all deaths in a given year

▪ Discussion of trends within that year, some trends across years

▪ Short narrative of each death in Appendix

Annual Reports (trends)

Hazard Alerts (long-term trends)

▪ ID hazards that appear repeatedly across years

▪ Summarize a couple of cases

▪ Offer preventative tips and resources for further information

Hazard Alerts (long-term trends)

Hazard Alerts (long-term trends)

Hazard Alerts (long-term trends)

Links

▪ MIFACE investigation reports for construction falls

▪ Summaries of MIOSHA inspections for construction falls

▪ 2018 MIFACE annual report (annual reports from previous years)

▪ Hazard alert – Fatal Falls in Construction

▪ Hazard alert – Fatal falls from roofs

▪ Hazard alert – Fatal falls from scaffolds

Thank you!

Anthony Oliveri

Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Michigan State University

oliveria@msu.edu

Investigating Fall Fatalities and

Injury Claims on Prevention Efforts

QUESTIONS?