Lost time accident defined

To achieve a yes score either the number of employee lost time accidents and the total hours worked, or the ratio of the two, must be reported. Since the definition of what constitutes a lost time accident will vary between companies, this must also be clearly defined. 

LTI-rate - lost time injury frequency rate is defined as the number of lost-time injuries per one million hours of work. A lost-time injury is an injury resulting from an accident at work, where the injured person does not return to work on the next shift (Kjell6n, 2000)... 

When eomparing outcome indicators related to HSE, it is also important to note differences in how they are defined and reported. For instance, what does reported injuries mean Do they only include injuries leading to absence from work, or all injuries Are serious accidents and fatal accidents included Does lost time injuries mean absence in three days or in more Is reporting voluntary or mandatory ... 

Safety in other domains is assessed by the incidence of accidents and injuries aviation accidents, road accidents, lost time injuries at work and other types of mishap are counted and tabulated by various means. Defining these accidents is... 

Indemnity Case Rate, which is a negative metric providing the rate of all workers compensation cases that involve lost time payments per 100 full time employees per year. It may be indicative of the company s basic prevention and reduction efforts in minimizing more serious lost time case incidence and severity. It relates closely to OSHA s DART or rate of injuries and illnesses resulting in days away from work, restricted work activity, and/or job transfer. According to Italian National Standards UNI 7249 (UNI 2007) further index rates are introduced, like incidence index of occurred accidents, defined as rate of occurred accidents per 1.000 workers, frequency index (rate of occurred accidents per 1.000.000 hours worked), severity index of accidents, which represents 1000 times total number of lost days per hours worked. 

The origin of the Domino Theory is credited to Herbert W. Heinrich, circa 1931, who worked for Travelers Insurance. Mr. Heinrich nndertook an analysis of 75,000 accident reports by companies insnred with Travelers. This resulted in the research report titled The Origins of Accidents, which concluded that 88 percent of all accidents are caused by the unsafe acts of persons, 10 percent by unsafe physical conditions, and 2 percent are Acts of God. His analysis of 50,000 accidents showed that, in the average case, an accident resulting in the occurrence of a lost-time work injury was preceded by 329 similar accidents caused by the same unsafe act or mechanical exposure, 300 of which produced no injury and 29 resulted in minor injuries. This is sometimes referred to as Heinrich s Law. Mr. Heinrich then defined the five factors in the accident sequence, which he identified as the Domino Theory. Heinrich s work is the basis for the theory of behavior-based safety, which holds that as many as 95 percent of all workplace incidents are caused by unsafe acts. See also Accident Chain Behavior-Based Safety. 

The lost time injury frequency rate (LTIFR) is the most commonly used indicator of HSE performance, and it is defined as the number of lost time injuries per one million hours of work. A lost time injury is an injury due to an accident at work, where the injured person does not return to work on the next shift. However, LTIFR has some deficiencies as a safety performance indicator. It is insensitive to the severity of the injuries, it is possible to manipulate the registration and classification of injuries, use of alternative job (i.e. restricted work), and for small companies LTIFR is fluctuating and sensitive to changes (Kjellen 2000). 

The length of disability, days of absence from work, describes the seriousness of the accident. A lost-time injury (LTl) was defined as an injury that causes at least one entire day to be lost from work. Some results also were analysed by using the LTl rate and Chi-square statistic. 

In the first case, the pursuit of absolute safety, the concern is for the value of the numerator N, where N represents the number of a certain type of events, for instance accidents, incidents, injuries, lost time injury, unplanned outages rejection rate, etc. The goal is to reduce N to as small a value as is practicable, preferably zero if that is possible. In the pursuit of absolute safety, there is no concern for the number of complementary events, i.e., the number of cases where N does not occur. For example, if N is the number of times per year a train passes a red signal (SPAD), then the number of complementary events is the number of times during the same time period that a train stops at a red signal. Having N=0 as the ideal in practice means that safety is defined as the freedom from risk rather than as the freedom from unacceptable (or unaffordable) risk. The difference is by no means unimportant. 

Not only do base rate numbers change from country to country, but definitions of the types of accidents may also vary from country to country. It is important to know what definitions are being used for such things as lost time, recordables, first aid cases, and others if you are planning to compare accident frequency rates. For example, the definition of a recordable injury and illness in the United States may be different from the definition used in Canada, Latin America, Asia, or the United Kingdom. In areas where no clearly defined definitions exist, the site must develop its own. This is usually what has to take place in cases of property damage and process interruptions. 

A lost-time injury is defined as an accident resulting in injury and where the injured person does not return to the next shift. 

The reporting criteria define what types of events are to be reported. Such criteria may be formalised but may also be informal and based on a shared understanding within the organisation. Reporting criteria for accidents are usually defined on a consequence scale of measurement such as whether the accident involves lost time after the day of the event or not (yes/no). This particular criterion is relatively simple to communicate and apply, since it also has implications as to the victim s right to compensation for sick leave. A problem is its limited coverage. Minor accidents with potentially severe consequences will pass undetected and we will miss an opportunity of learning from such experience. 

Criteria as to which accidents to report should be well defined and easily communicated. It is recommended that they include accidents resulting in lost-time, transfer to another job or restricted work and medical treatment other than first aid. 

Comparison analysis is based on a model for the assessment of the accident risk in an organisation. This is determined by (1) the frequency of hazardous activities that are performed by the organisation, (2) the probability of accidents when a hazardous activity is performed, and (3) the consequences of the accidents (Kjellen, 1995). The activities are defined by a discrete set of types of activities, AJ. Associated with each type of activity is the possibility of the occurrence of injuries. We will analyse the risk of reportable injuries, i.e. either lost-time injury (LTI) or total recordable injury (TRI). The injuries belong to the discrete set of types of injuries, IJ. 

It is the responsibility of Norskoil s SHE manager to follow up on the accident statistics from the yards. He monitors the SHE performance in this way and compares the results with the project s goals. NORSOK S-CR-002 defines the requirements as to reporting of accident statistics from the EPC contractor to Norskoil. Based on this information, Norskoil follows up on the following SHE performance measures LTI-rate, LTI -rate (i.e. the frequency of lost-time injuries with potential for severe harm, see Table 17.2) and the TRI-rate. 

Only in a limited number of countries have individual risk limit values courageously been defined. One famous definition is the British Fatal Accident Rate (FAR). Operations with a FAR of less than 0.4 are regarded as safe. The FAR is defined as the number of fatalities per 1000 employees in their average working life time of 25 years. The answer to the question whether those relatives who have just lost a loved one find consolation in the statement that the probability for one worker in a company with 1000 employees to die fi om the consequences of a process is once in 30000 years can easily be found by the reader. 

Such classifications may be useful in defining the level of injury. (All three suffered the same level of injury.) The categories can help us determine the frequency of accidents or lost work-time in a mine. But these categories provide little information about the cause or causes of the accident. If we wish to protect the health and safety of workers, we need more information than the data provide. To determine a solution, we need to understand the events and conditions that produced the accident. 

---