Safety performance outcomes

As an organization begins an effort to improve process safety performance, it should establish specific goals and objectives that reflect performance outcomes and the desired future state of process safety. Senior leadership needs to lead the development of goals and objectives to signal full support and demonstrate active engagement. 

Tying employee performance evaluation, including linking compensation or bonuses, with process safety performance should be implemented only after careftil consideration and safeguards are in place to prevent perverse outcomes. 

CRAM is able to impose higher contributions on whole sectors or individual entaprises based on health and safety perfonmnce outcomes such as raised injury rates. Reductions in contributions reflecting improved health and safety performance are also possible. 

Supervisors interactions with new employees, what might be terms their leadership style, will play an important role in the establishment of tmst-relationships. Evidence is mounting that a transformational leadership style, where leaders develop affective bonds with their employees will help facilitate tmst development and positively influence safety (Conchie 2013), as well as positively influence performance outcomes (Schaubroeck et al. 2011). Supervisors should of course develop a safety-specific tmst relationship with a new employee based on evidence from their behavior, not based on assumptions. While supervisors may be somewhat insulated from the adverse impact of new employee s behavior, they should consider new employees as potential sources of safety risk until proven otherwise. Co-workers are likely to be the most vulnerable in terms of the impact of unsafe behavior from new employees. Thus from the perspective of co-workers, it is advisable to be careful and ensure that any tmst which is given to a new employee is deserved. 

The term indicator may be used in several ways, which means that there exist many definitions (see 0ien et al. [2011a] for more thorough discussion). Also, terms which may have different meanings, such as safety performance measures or safety outcome measures and safety indicators or risk indicators , are sometimes used interchangeably. 

The actuarial premises on which the workers compensation experience rating system was developed give credibility to OSHA incident recordable and lost workday case rates as measures, and predictors, of safety performance, with these qualifications The statistical base (the hours worked) on which the records are developed has to be large enough and low probability-severe outcome risks may not be encompassed within the experience base. 

The assessment and analysis of the inherent safety performance in the hydrogen system requires sound and appropriate metrics. Several valuable proposals for inherent safety metrics (Cozzani et al. 2007, Tugnoli et al. 2007) as well as the main issues needed for such assessment are well summarized in the literature (Roller ef a/. 2001, Khan eta/. 2003). Recently, a novel consequence-based approach for inherent safety key performance indicators (KPI) assessment was proposed (Tugnoli et al. 2007). The approach bases the calculation of safety indicators on the evaluation of the expected outcomes of the hazard present in the system, by runs of specific physical consequence models. The KPI method was preferred in the current assessment framework, since, unlike other approaches, it allows easily fitting the peculiarities of the analysed systems and does not require subjective judgment. Furthermore, the KPI method was newly reviewed to describe some particular features of the hydrogen chain. In particular the assessment of transport units was added and new index aggregation rules were defined. 

In this subsection, we apply another type of safety performance data, i.e., self-reported staff attitudes to error reporting and interaction with the patient, to the test of criterion validity of the safety culture factors. For this purpose, we used the nurse sample of the Japanese data including more than 17,000 questionnaire responses collected from 82 hospitals (Itoh and Andersen, 2010). An example of resrrlts of correlation analysis is shown in Table 4.10 in terms of Spearman s rho, using the mild outcome case in the three vignettes offered - results for the near-miss and severe cases were quite similar to this case. 

Numerous studies have shown that safety climate survey results predict safety-related outcomes (Yule et al. 2007), for example, accidents and injuries (Huang et al. 2006), safety performance (Nahrgang et al. 2011 Shaimon and Norman 2009) and workers safety behaviour (Griffin and Neal 2000). Previous studies on the relationship between positive safety climate and lower accident rates demonstrated that employees with a positive safety attitude were less likely to be involved in accidents (Barling et al. 2002 Hofmann and Stetzer 1996 and Lee 1998). 

Outcome measures reflect the company s key safety objectives and are used to determine whether the company has reached them. These measures, sometimes referred to as lagging indicators, typically demonstrate the final results of the safety process. They are often commonly recognized or standard measures, such as those quoted in benchmarking studies. They are also the measures that tend to be tracked by CEOs, presidents, and vice presidents. Examples of outcome measures for a safety metrics program include lost workday rates, recordable injury rates, and number of miles driven without an accident. These indicators are referred to as lagging because they measure safety performances that are the result of, or occur after, an activity. 

Quantitative safety performance measurements can be either outcome oriented or process oriented (Daugherty 1999, 147). Outcome-oriented performance measures are after-the-fact measures. The performance activity has occurred then the results have been measured. Examples of outcome measures used in safety include the reduction in the number of accidents, lost workdays, etc. Outcome measures can provide an indication as to the impact safety program interventions have upon safety performance. These performance measures provide an historical account of the effectiveness of past performance. 

One broad class of outcome measures commonly used to measure safety performance is called failure measures. These measures are generated from the injury recordkeeping system. Included in this group can be performance measured by dollar criteria. Losses and cost savings attributed to safety performance will often mean more to management than other safety measures such as frequency and severity rates. 

Leading indicators are those measures that can be effective in predicting future safety performance (Dupont Corporation 2000). Leading indicators can be considered before-the-fact measures. These measures assess outcome actions taken before accidents occur and are measures of proactive efforts designed to minimize losses and prevent accidents. Leading indicators can help uncover weaknesses in the organization s operations or employee behaviors before they develop into full-fledged problems. 

Process outcome measurements, production rates, loss rates, and positive and negative occupational performance indicators are all organizational parameters which can be measured. The reason measmement is important in the QM process is because it provides quantitative analysis of performance. Knowing the expected value or result of the measurement is important, as arty variation from the expected result will be the starting point for further analysis of the cause of the variation. In relation to safety performance, benchmarking can be done across industry or internally against organizational safety performance indicators. 

Refer to Rgure 9-1 for a safety performance pyramid. This pyramid is a graphical overview of consequences of outcomes of nonconformance and upstream activities (controls). Basically, if you do proactive activities, you will reduce your near misses, work error, etc. This is because there is more involvement of employees as we discussed in Chapter 7, Employee Participation. ... 

---