RR139 - Sample analysis of construction accidents reported to HSE

159 Pages·2003·2.03 MB·English

HSE
Health & Safety
Executive
Sample analysis of construction accidents
reported to HSE
Prepared by BOMEL LIMITED for the
Health and Safety Executive 2003
RESEARCH REPORT 139
HSE
Health & Safety
Executive
Sample analysis of construction accidents
reported to HSE
BOMEL LIMITED
Ledger House
Forest Green Road
Fifield
Maidenhead
Berkshire
SL6 2NR
This report presents results of a telephone survey, conducted by BOMEL Limited (BOMEL) on behalf

of the Health & Safety Executive (HSE), of some 1000 notifiers of major and over-3-day injury

construction accidents that occurred between 19 December 2001 and 31 March 2002. The accidents

were representative of the kind and severity notified to HSE throughout the 2001/2 year. Around three
­
quarters of the cases examined were associated with property, split almost equally between new build

and refurbishment (including maintenance & repair). In both cases, almost half the accidents were

associated with domestic housing, the remainder being industrial or commercial properties or public

buildings. The remaining quarter of accident cases examined were linked largely to civil engineering

works (predominantly new build), roadworks (predominantly refurbishment/maintenance & repair) and

demolition. About two-thirds of construction clients were in the private sector and one third in the public

sector.

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 2003
First published 2003
ISBN 0 7176 2724 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in

any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,

photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior

written permission of the copyright owner.

Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to:

Licensing Division, Her Majesty's Stationery Office,

St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ

or by e-mail to [email protected]

ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents results of a telephone survey, conducted by BOMEL Limited (BOMEL) on behalf
of the Health & Safety Executive (HSE), of some 1000 notifiers of major and over-3-day injury
construction accidents that occurred between 19 December 2001 and 31 March 2002. The accidents
were representative of the kind and severity notified to HSE throughout the 2001/2 year. Some 39%
of notified accidents were associated with refurbishment of buildings (including maintenance &
repair) with 45% of those cases associated with domestic premises. An almost equal number (36%) of
notified accidents concerned new build properties, 47% of these cases being for domestic housing with
the remainder largely commercial and industrial. In 63% of cases notifiers said CDM applied at the
site. Some notifiers did not know but of the 287 cases where CDM was said not to apply, evidence
related to duration, number of workers etc suggested CDM should have been applied in 29%.
Construction clients were split 56% private sector (64% including domestic clients), 33% public sector
and 3% unknown.
Asked about other pressures on the job, only 13% of notifier thought the job was more demanding
than average from a schedule perspective and 8% that financial rewards were poorer than average. In
all but 5% of cases notifiers said method statements and risk assessments were available and up to date
but these were sometimes described as ‘generic’. In 80% of cases, notifiers said a safety induction had
been given.
Only 14% of notified accidents involved the self employed. However, based on answers to questions
regarding the form of contract, payment terms, line management etc under which they were working,
it appeared that all were effectively working as employees. There was evidence of uncertainty in this
area with 97 self-employed notifications in the ICC database increasing to 136 on the basis of
notifiers’ responses (a 40% increase).
Whilst trades such as carpentry (13%), bricklaying (8%), electrical (7%) contributed definable
proportions to the accident level, less easily classified craft and manual workers constitute over 20%
of the injured persons. However, when comparing the overall task they were undertaking with the
specific activity at the time of the accident, relatively few workers were exercising their core skills.
Instead, ancillary activities such as traversing the site, loading or unloading a vehicle, accessing /
leaving the workface etc dominate.
Comparison was made between the composition of the sample of 1004 major and over-3-day injury
accidents and corresponding information for the smaller set of 77 fatal accidents through the 2001/2
year. Whereas the private / public sector split was similar there was a shift towards proportionally
more notified accidents from large sites (15 or more people), from sites where CDM applied and
particularly from large contractors (employing 15 or more) as the responsible party. In the latter case,
it appears that the large to small contractor ratio changes from 42:58 for fatalities to 75:25 for notified
major and over-3-day injury accidents. It is considered that reporting of fatal accidents is universal
but major and over-3-day injuries are under-reported to different extents depending on industry sector
as recorded in the Labour Force Survey. It is therefore important that good reporting from large
companies, major sites and those where formal CDM controls are addressed are not interpreted as
poorer safety levels than smaller enterprises where under-reporting is greater. This survey deals only
with the profile of notified accidents.
In general, the responses to the survey were positive and notifiers particularly offered suggestions for
preventing similar accidents to the one they had reported in the future. Mapping the findings to the
Influence Network, revealed a similar pattern of key influences to those emerging in construction
workshops in parallel HSE research. For example, better Situational Awareness / Risk Perception and
Compliance were often associated with calls for greater care and attention and adherence to site rules,
iii
method statements and procedures amongst the workforce. The Operational Equipment deficiencies
observed in response to this question generally related to use, with (correct) footing of ladders being a
frequent example. Similarly, in relation to PPE, recommendations generally centre on wearing
equipment provided, with typical references to eye protection or gloves and only occasional mention
of hard hats, perhaps suggesting their use is generally accepted. Patterns emerging in relation to the
Internal Working Environment, frequently relate to the covering of temporary openings,
housekeeping, and maintenance of clearly defined walkways. Use of common sense and care and
attention are frequent suggestions to aid Competence and Situational Awareness. Where Training is
called for it is notable how frequently manual handling training is suggested specifically. Together
issues raised under Procedures and Planning, confirm that pre-thought and more effective safety
management controls could have prevented the hazardous situations arising. Within Communications,
at the organisational level, one frequent call was for toolbox talks and for them specifically to address
cross-trade/-contractor issues.
Whilst the depth of insight gained from the survey is considerable, obtaining notifier details and
establishing contact were extremely time consuming processes. However, by comparing the
consistency in response profiles emerging at intervals through the project, it has been shown that
containing the survey to around 1000 notifiers gives a robust and stable picture. It is therefore
recommended that the knowledge from the survey be used to inform a smaller survey to be conducted
for a subset of construction notifiers alongside the original notification in future.
iv
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 BACKGROUND 1

1.2 SURVEY PROFILE 2

1.3 DATASET 3

1.4 REPORT LAYOUT 8

2 GENERAL SITE INFORMATION 11

2.1 QUESTION 1 – TYPE OF PROJECT 11

2.2 QUESTION 2 – CDM 14

2.3 QUESTION 3 – CLIENT’S BUSINESS 16

2.4 QUESTION 4 – SIZE OF THE PROJECT 20

2.5 QUESTION 5 – OTHER COMPANIES INVOLVED 24

3 NOTIFIER’S ROLE / POSITION 29

3.1 QUESTION 6 – COMPANY’S ROLE 29

3.2 QUESTION 7 – CONDITIONS OF JOB 33

3.3 QUESTION 8 – METHOD STATEMENTS AND RISK ASSESSMENTS 37

3.4 QUESTION 9 – NOTIFYING COMPANY SIZE 39

3.5 QUESTION 10 – NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON SITE 41

3.6 QUESTION 11 – SAFETY INDUCTIONS 42

3.7 QUESTION 12 – SIZE OF SITE 43

4 THE INJURED PARTY 45

4.1 QUESTION 13 – LENGTH OF IP EMPLOYMENT 45

4.2 QUESTION 14 – EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND CONDITIONS 47

4.3 QUESTION 15 – TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT WORK 51

4.4 QUESTION 16 – IP TRADE 52

4.5 QUESTION 17 – LENGTH OF TIME IN TRADE 53

4.6 QUESTION 18 – TRAINING QUALIFICATIONS 55

5 THE ACCIDENT 57

5.1 QUESTION 19 – LENGTH OF TIME ON SITE 57

5.2 QUESTION 20 – HOURS WORKED 59

5.3 QUESTION 21 – TASK INVOLVED 60

v
5.4 QUESTION 22 – SPECIFIC ACTIVITY INVOLVED 61

5.5 QUESTION 23 – SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS 65

6 QUESTIONNAIRE FEEDBACK 75

6.1 RATING OF RESPONSES 75

6.2 FEEDBACK 76

7 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 79

7.1 TYPE OF PROJECT 79

7.2 SIZE OF SITE 82

7.3 PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR 86

7.4 EMPLOYER SIZE 87

7.5 APPLICATION OF CDM 89

7.6 VALIDATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF SELF EMPLOYED INJURED

PERSONNEL 98

8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 103

8.1 OVERVIEW 103

8.2 CONCLUSIONS 103

8.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 105

9 REFERENCES 107

APPENDIX A PRINT OUT OF QUESTIONNAIRES
APPENDIX B NOTIFIERS’ RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACCIDENT PREVENTION
vi
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
BOMEL was commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive “to obtain comparable or better data
analysis of influences on major and over 3-day accidents in construction similar to that available for
fatal accidents”.
The objectives of the project were:
1. To analyse a statistically representative sample of accidents and draw conclusions beyond
that available from analysis of current RIDDOR data
2. To obtain additional data on major and over 3-day injury accidents
3. To evaluate the accuracy of construction accident report data
4. To inform the RIDDOR review, particularly in respect of Construction Division needs.
The focus was on major and over-3-day injury accidents in 2001/2 reported via the new Incident
Contact Centre (ICC). The approach to obtaining more information about reported accidents was to
contact notifiers by telephone and ask a series of structured questions. BOMEL’s work was
undertaken through the second half of 2002 and notified accidents were taken at random working back
through the database from 31 March 2002 to minimise difficulties with recall and movement of
personnel.
Accident records were supplied to BOMEL from HSE’s Field Operations Directorate from their
FOCUS data system. The data were provided via this route for expediency but had not yet been
subject to the checking that HSE’s statistics division would normally apply. The accident records do
not hold notifier details within the database and these had to be extracted manually, accident by
accident, from the web viewer onto the ICC database. BOMEL consolidated both datasets into a
Microsoft (MS) Access database system.
In the course of recent fatal accident investigations, HSE had sought specific information additional to
that required on the RIDDOR Form F2508. The information to be covered in this study was
comparable and covered:
• General site information
• Notifier’s role / position
• The injured party
• The accident.
A questionnaire was compiled and structured for use in a telephone survey in accordance with Market
Research Society guidelines. The questionnaire was built into the MS Access database for
contemporaneous completion and to enable an integrated analysis of the questionnaire responses with
basic RIDDOR / FOCUS information. Responses as given and as subsequently categorised are
retained in the database. The questionnaire is reproduced in Appendix A showing the flow of
questions. This was reviewed and approved by HSE’s Project Officer at the outset.
1
An important principle in conducting surveys of this type is for it not to be a burden on participants.
Recognising this, the scope of questions was limited and the questionnaire was piloted internally and
externally. This process was beneficial and categories were clarified and a few questions were
reordered. The pilot, however, demonstrated the viability of the approach, the willingness of industry
to assist and the additional insight to causes of construction accidents that the process would afford.
Considering the principles of good survey practice, it was agreed with HSE not to be appropriate to
call notifiers about cases which had already been subject to HSE investigation or to call notifiers
repeatedly to discuss different accidents.
1.2 SURVEY PROFILE
1.2.1 A study of notified accidents
It should be emphasised that this study related to major and over-3-day injury accidents notified under
RIDDOR. Results must be interpreted in this context so that the safety performance of sectors of the
industry which are better at reporting is not unfairly represented.
1.2.2 Exclusion of investigated accidents
The reasons for investigation can be many, nevertheless it is reasonable to assume that the more
serious accidents will have been investigated and there is therefore the possibility that, by excluding
investigated accidents, the sample is biased slightly towards less serious major or over-3-day injury
cases.
1.2.3 Exclusion of repeated notifiers
Some larger companies / public bodies have a central point for accident reporting. By electing not to
repeatedly call a notifier (to avoid being burdensome) means the relative contribution of these
organisations to the survey (which could employ many people or have poor safety performance) is less
than to the underlying statistics. The separate source data systems precluded a number of accidents
being reported by a notifier being located in one go and this situation could not therefore be tested
until data were consolidated in the BOMEL database.
1.2.4 Other exclusions
Where the accident related to fights between workers these were not followed up because of the
limited applicability to construction processes in general and the reluctance of notifiers to discuss
these issues.
1.2.5 Time of year
All the accident cases surveyed took place between 19 December 2001 and 31 March 2002 at the time
of year when external construction conditions are at their worst (cold, wet, wind) and when working
hours may be shorter than in summer. In a number of cases weather was a factor but this did not seem
to dominate the survey. HSE advice was to focus on one period to avoid an additional confounding
factor. Furthermore, concentrating at the latter end of the year was important to minimise the time
lapse between the notification and the survey to aid recall and minimise problems with people leaving
the company. By this period, the ICC system was not ‘new’ having been running for at least eight
months and any coding issues may be considered to be reasonably representative of ongoing practice.
2
1.2.6 Process
Each notifier was contacted by telephone and asked to take part in this research into factors involved
in construction accidents to help achieve a reduction in the number of accidents occurring. A
questionnaire was compiled (see Sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 for the questions contained in the
questionnaire) and each notifier was surveyed using the questions listed. The information required by
HSE to be obtained from the notifier was as follows:
• Project status with respect to CDM
• The size and duration of site activity and the size of the contractor
• The nature of the construction project
• The type of main duty holder
• How long the injured person (IP) had been working on site and for his employer, usual
working hours on site, and whether this was the IP’s usual site (i.e. was he casual)
• The actual activity of the IP at the time of the accident
• How long the IP had practised his trade
• The IP’s employment status.
1.3 DATASET
BOMEL’s primary data source was the RIDDOR / FOCUS data supplied by FOD. On conclusion of
the study some 3235 records had been drawn into the survey sample. Eliminating cases that had been
subject to investigation by HSE, notifier details were obtained for 2942 cases from the ICC web
system case-by-case. Only once these were within BOMEL’s database system could notifier details
be compared between cases. To avoid re-contacting individual notifiers about different cases a
number of further cases were eliminated from the survey, as were misleading records, for example
repeated notifications of an accident by more than one party. Similarly cases were excluded where
ICC Incident Numbers were missing in the FOCUS records or casualty names conflicted between
FOCUS and the ICC F2508. It should be noted that the FOCUS data were supplied as provisional
and it must be anticipated that some of the apparent anomalies would be subject to correction prior to
publication of official statistics.
Of the 2942 records for which details were obtained, 1839 were released to BOMEL’s survey team
post-screening. Collating and screening of data were carried out in parallel with the conduct of the
survey. The final target of 1000 completed questionnaires was achieved (1004) when 1756 of the
1839 potential contacts had been made.
The initial target had been to sample 3000 cases. However, the exceptionally cumbersome route to
obtaining notifier details and the degree of pre-screening required had not been anticipated. In
addition, the time taken (number of calls) to make contact with even willing survey participants had
been underestimated. After the pilot study, the pattern of survey findings was compared at intervals
(421, 792 and 1004 completed questionnaires) to examine the extent of variation and robustness in
relation to sample size. Comparisons were made for all the questions from the three sample sizes and,
in summary, demonstrated a comparable pattern such that the final sample presented in this document
may be considered to be a robust representation of the notified accident profile.
3