Health and safety: The big casualty cover-up

With so many reportable incidents not figuring in national statistics, or even in the works' accident book, these 'missing victims' constitute a massive gap in safety knowledge which, if filled, could help others avoid the suffering of an accident at work.

There are other theories about the under-reporting of accidents. Fear of punishment by the authorities is among the most common. Firms struggling to make ends meet may opt for a cover-up rather than exposing themselves to potentially unwelcome enquiries from the enforcing authorities. Employees concerned about job security may feel it is sensible to go along with this.

Some employers just do not want the hassle of going through a reporting process that they mistakenly worry will take time and expose them to mountains of paperwork and endless red tape.

Small firms, such as many of those in the catering sector for instance, are believed to be the biggest group of culprits for under-reporting or non-reporting of accidents. They argue that they don't have enough staff to cope or insufficient time to implement the procedures for an efficient reporting system. They often believe that failure to report the occasional accident does not matter.

However, if those confused by the system took some time to find out more, they would be helping themselves and others.

Riddor rules
The system for reporting accidents is called Riddor. It stands for the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995. Far from being mysterious, it is a relatively straightforward process. The starting point for information is the HSE. Publications, a website and a helpline can all be used to guide the newcomer through the requirements of the reporting procedure, which have been simplified in recent months.

Anyone who is an employer, self-employed or in control of work premises is required under Riddor to report some work-related accidents, diseases and dangerous occurrences.

The information enables the enforcing authorities to identify where and how risks arise and to investigate serious accidents.

The enforcing authorities can then help and advise employers on preventive action to reduce injury, ill health and accidental loss — much of which is not recoverable through insurance claims.

Employers, or others with responsibility, must keep a record of any reportable injury, disease or dangerous occurrence. This must include the date, time and place of the event, personal details of those involved and a brief description of the nature of the event or disease. Records can be kept in a variety of ways, including keeping copies of report forms in a file, recording the details on a computer or maintaining a written log.

A new, centralised Incident Contact Centre (ICC) was set up in April this year, based at Caerphilly. This means that employers no longer need to be concerned about which office and which enforcing authority to report to. Incidents can be reported to the ICC by telephone, fax, via the internet,email or by post. Reports can also still be made directly to a local HSE office or local authority (by phone and then on form 2508 or 2508A), and these reports will be forwarded to the ICC for processing.

The ICC will forward details of incidents to the relevant enforcing authority, which is the environmental health department of the relevant local authority if a business is:

• office-based
  
• retail or wholesale
  
• warehousing
  
• hotel and catering
  
• sports or leisure
  
• residential accommodation, excluding nursing homes
  
• concerned with places of worship
  
• pre-school child care
  
• mobile vending.

For all other types of business it will be the area office of the HSE.

Those using the internet or telephone service may not retain their own copy of the official reporting forms (2508 and 2508A) — but the requirement to keep a record of reported incidents for inspection by visiting officers still remains. To help with this, they will be sent a copy of the report and given the chance to correct any errors in it.

The new procedure will make reporting easier. It should also improve the quality of the information obtained, allowing for more detailed risk assessments to help the HSE and local authorities get a better understanding of trends.

Duty to investigate
At present only 40 per cent of accidents at work are reported, and only a minority of these are investigated. In future, however, reporting is also likely to be the trigger for an explicit duty being proposed by the Health and Safety Commission to investigate accidents, incidents and diseases.

Many companies and organisations tend to opt for a quick-fix approach following accidents, rather than carrying out thorough investigations which could save lives in the future.

Some employers have simply told workers to take more care following dangerous occurrences, when what was needed was better training for employees, better management systems and better safety policies.

At present there are three legal duties pointing employers towards investigation: their general duty of care; the duty to revise and keep risk assessments up to date; and the duty to monitor health and safety.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (Rospa) argues that proper, efficient investigation requires a 'no blame' culture in the workplace. Rospa believes the most important part of the process is to learn from accidents. The aim must be to search for the underlying causes of accidents rather than simply looking for culprits.

Properly conducted investigations offer the opportunity not only for companies to gain knowledge so that mistakes are not repeated, but are valuable tools for promoting learning about health and safety management.

Although Rospa supports the Health and Safety Commission's (HSC) recently published consultation document on accident investigation, it fears that if this plan is approved it will be a squandered opportunity because it suggests that only accidents notifiable under Riddor should be investigated.

Many serious incidents — including major near-misses — will be ignored by employers if they are required only to investigate events which they have to report to enforcing authorities.

By only investigating notifiable accidents many important problems will be missed. A serious accident that only resulted in minor injury or damage, but that could have had fatal consequences would not require investigation under the HSC recommendations.

Rospa feels a much broader, 'goal-setting' duty is needed, backed by guidance, so that employers are challenged to identify the type of accidents in their businesses which should be investigated. The need for an investigation and its depth should be governed by the safety significance and the learning potential of the incident.

No matter what the consequences of the accident, employers should be required in law to show that their response in terms of investigation has been adequate. They should put systems in place to do this rather than simply letting the scale of injury trigger their reaction.