Safety Practitioner

The safety practitioner could be the safety coordinator, safety manager, or similar 

Coordinate and ensure the implementation of the safety system in his or her respective department and/or area of responsibility. 

Conduct 6-monthly audits using all elements of the safety system. 

Be responsible and accountable for maintaining the safety element files. Must be knowledgeable and proficient on all aspects of the safety system. Coordinate the design and participate as a resource in safety committee meetings. 

Be active participants in disabling (lost-time) injury and high-potential near-miss incident investigations. 

---

Hawksley, J. L. 1987. Risk assessment and project development - considerations for the chemical industry. The Safety Practitioner, October 1987, pp. 10-16. 

Hazard Data Sheet Aniline. Sheet Number 78, pp 44-45. The Safety Practitioner, June 3, 1986... 

Hazard Data Bank Sheet No 77. Dimethyl formamide. The Safety Practitioner, pp 48M-9. May, 1986... 

Nitric acid. Hazard Data Bank, Sheet No 82. The Safety Practitioner, pp 46-47, Oct 1986... 

Notwithstanding this increase, Ihe strategy of the insp torate well as that of the EXYPPs) is orientated towards improving employers awareness of the need for documented risk assessments overall. Actual measurement of exposure is estimated to feature only in around 10 per cent of written risk assessments. Policy documents and comments from health and safety practitioners shed light on this approach. For example, a circular to inspectors from the Miiiistry of Labour mak it clear that the immediate objective of the Labour Inspectorate should be to ... 

Safety practitioners will attain professional recognition only when the practice of safety meets the regimens of a profession. Recognizing first the great accomplishments thus far toward achieving professional recognition, a review of our present status, needs, and actions that we should consider are encompassed in a discussion outline. 

This chapter derives from the research done on the Heinrich concepts, one of which is that The predominant causes of no-injuiy accidents are, in average cases, identical with the predominant causes of major injuries — and incidentally of minor injuries as well. That premise is unsound, and the application of it by many safety practitioners has resulted in misdirection of efforts and an ineffective use of resources. This author s research and that of others (Petersen, Allison, Ferry, Benner, and Norman) is cited. 

Regularly at safety conferences and in the work of committees drafting safety standards, controversy develops over the level of risk that is acceptable. This chapter presents a thought-provoking review of the levels of risk acceptable in various enterprises (space travel, auto racing, various manufacturing and business entities) and for product safety. It also provides a practical, useable framework for safety practitioners to use in determining acceptable risk levels. 

Lessons can be learned from the successes attained by system safety practitioners. System safety is hazards-based and design-based. So is the entirety of the practice of safety. This chapter establishes why it is important for generalist safety professionals to acquire knowledge of system safety principles, and it outlines the system safety idea. As opportunities arise for generalist safety professionals to participate in the design processes, the need for system safety skills will be apparent. 

In previous editions of this book, this chapter was titled Successful Safety Management A Reflection of an Organization s Culture. Note that in this edition successful has been replaced by superior. In discussions with some safety practitioners, I found that what they considered successful might really be only slightly better than average and not superior. 

My impression, having had discussions with divisional and corporate safety directors about their work environments, is that the executive I interviewed describes quite well the current business climate. To say that there has been volatility and transition in the business world in the past several years is an understatement. In relation to those transitions, for introspection by safety practitioners, this chapter will explore the following ... 

Current announcements by a few companies indicate that Dmcker s prediction has some merit. Although the press continues to report on newly planned mergers and acquisitions, splitting up of some major companies is now in progress. Understandably, the safety staffs in those companies are under a bit more stress. But, if breaking up major companies into still sizeable entities becomes the vogue, additional employment opportunities for safety practitioners may result. 

Understandably, applied ergonomics has become a major element in the practice of safety, and effective safety practitioners will sense the opportunity that provides and acquire extensive knowledge in the field. 

Involvement in quality management presents extended career opportunities for safety practitioners. A review of the considerable literature on quality management leads to this conclusion For paragraph after paragraph in most texts and papers, the word quality can be replaced with safety, and the premise being discussed remains sound. There is a remarkable kinship between sound quality management principles and sound hazards management principles. 

It is important for safety practitioners to understand that most all of the varied consultancies being offered fall within one of two diverse schools of thought. One school advances a culture change model the other advocates a worker-focused behavior-based model. 

I recommend that, as early as practicable, safety practitioners take a course in financial management as a career enhancement measure. To introduce this subject, I borrow from the chapter titled A Short Course on Financial Management in the book Innovations in Safety Management Addressing Career Knowledge Needs. 

A part of the study included interviews with senior-level safety professionals to obtain their comments on the subjects they believed to be significant in maintaining professional performance and for career enhancement. This scenario was presented to 17 divisional and corporate safety practitioners and two university professors to produce the discussions desired. 

You are to have a gathering of safety practitioners for educational purposes, and you want to have workshops on those topics for which you believe additional knowledge is required, considering current needs as well as looking ahead three to five years. What topics would you choose ... 

Finance is the language of management. Safety practitioners who strive for management positions would do themselves well if they understood that language. 

A highly regarded professor in industrial engineering observed, after participating with safety practitioners in what he considered a baffling discussion of concepts, that what we who call ourselves safety professionals actually do will never be accepted as a profession by those outside our field until we agree on a clear definition of our practice. 1 agree with that premise, and I will explore in this chapter the scope and function of the professional safety position and will define the practice of safety in terms of a societal responsibility. 

Unfortunately, safety personnel use many job titles, and that may be a hindrance in their achieving an understanding of the practice of safety by those outside the profession. Safety practitioners call themselves by too many names, some of which do not communicate a favorable image of what they do. 

An informal and unscientific study was conducted to assess how management personnel perceived some of the titles used by safety practitioners. Risk managers were approached who had on their staffs people with... 

Loss Control and Loss Prevention as functional designations have their origins in the insurance business. Within the insurance fraternity and among some other safety practitioners, the terms are understood. But, those terms do not convey clear messages of purpose and function to people outside that group. 

H. W. Heinrich has had more influence on the practice of safety than any other author. Even if a safety practitioner has never heard of him, Heinrich s influence may stiU be felt in what the safety practitioner does since Heinrich s premises have been adopted by many as certainty. They permeate the safety literature. Four editions of his book Industrial Accident Prevention were printed, the last being in 1959. Many of the Heinrich premises are questionable, as follows ... 

Transitions in the practice of safety have extended the functions performed by safety practitioners considerably. Thus, no college curriculum could include in a baccalaureate safety degree program aU the courses that one would like students to take in preparation for entry into the practice of safety. So, at a baccalaureate level the course work should be basic and preparatory and provide broad opportunities in anticipation of current and evolving professional needs. 

I have made a thorough re-study of the Curriculum Standards for Baccalaureate Degrees in Safety in light of the added responsibilities many safety practitioners now have. Because of the soundness of the basic requirements and the flexibility they provide for electives, they still provide an excellent foundation for the diverse needs of those entering the safety profession. The Standards are foundational and their content is very broad. They recognize the need to have several electives available in specialty flelds, and they also recognize that individual universities will have particular course requirements. 

Safety practitioners continue to strive for recognition as a profession. They seek that recognition within society, by other professions, by their employers, and from each other. They will attain recognition as a profession only when the practice of safety meets the regimens of a profession, and only when the content and quality of their performance earn professional and societal respect. 

Has the time arrived for safety practitioners to stop reciting cliches, repeating the literature—without requiring substantiation Should we cease docilely adopting published premises, without promoting scientific... 

This is a subject for which, with rare exceptions, activity by safety practitioners will be an original undertaking. As a beginning, research is needed to evaluate the premises that have accumulated in the practice of safety in the past 75 years. If we are to be recognized as a profession, we must have established that we are promoters and supporters of research. 

Several related societies exist that safety professionals can well support. Low levels of participation in such societies lead to the observation that more safety practitioners call themselves safety professionals than should. Just being a member of such a society doesn t really qualify for professional status. 

Establishing that the domains and responsibilities and the knowledge and skill categories for the BCSP Comprehensive Practice Examination represents the breadth of knowledge and skill required for safety practice and communicating that to the public and to safety practitioners. 

Who was H. W. Heinrich He was one of the foremost pioneers in the field of accident prevention. Give him his due. My view is that, from the 1930s until today, he has had more influence than any other individual on the work of occupational safety practitioners. In my early years, I was influenced considerably by his writings. I still have a set of dominoes representing Heinrich s Accident Sequence. 

As readers proceed, it is suggested that they keep in mind Heinrich s emphasis on psychology as a root causal factor and as a means of problem resolution. Also, safety practitioners could profitably reflect on the bases upon which behavioral safety is founded. Some critics have said that behavioral safety is Heinrich repackaged, and they can present an arguable case. 

A great many safety practitioners have adopted the premises on which the 88 10 2 ratios are based, and they apply them to this day. Of all the Heinrich concepts, his thoughts pertaining to accident causation, expressed as the 88 10 2 ratios, have had the greatest impact on the practice of safety and have done the most harm. Why harm Because when basing safety efforts on the premise that man failure causes the most accidents, the preventive efforts are directed at the worker rather than on the operating system in which the work is done. 

The practice of safety can be moved forward if safety practitioners discard the terms unsafe acts and unsafe conditions and replace them with terms such as causal factors or risk factors (terms commonly used by ergonomists, human factors engineers, and industrial hygienists) and concentrate on the sources of the causal factors, most of which are systemic. 

To this day, safety practitioners use Heinrich s 300 29 1 ratios, known as the Heinrich triangle, as soundly based premises. But, a review of the Heinrich texts and the lack of documentation require that serious questions be asked as to their validity. In each of the editions following the first edition, the premise to which the ratios apply changed, with no explanation. 

Not only have many safety practitioners used the 300 29 1 ratios in their statistical presentations, but they have also misconstrued what Heinrich intended with respect to the terms major injury, minor injury, and no-injury accidents. In each edition, Heinrich gave nearly identical definitions of the accident categories to which the 300 29 1 ratios apply. This is how the definition reads in the fourth edition. 

Heinrich often stated his belief that the predominant causes of no-injury accidents are identical to the predominant causes of accidents resulting in major injuries. That led many safety practitioners to believe that if efforts were concentrated on the t) es of accidents that occur frequently, the potential for severe injury would also be addressed. I submit that this premise is not vaMd. 

This is a subject to be taken seriously since the efforts of many safety practitioners are still misdirected because of their reliance on this Heinrich premise. Quotations indicating how Heinrich expressed his view are taken from the first and fourth editions. 

Since resources are always limited, and since some risks are more significant than others, safety practitioners must be capable of distinguishing the more important from the less important. They would then allocate the necessary time to those risks that present the greatest potential for severe harm. Such an undertaking requires discounting the Heinrich premise that the causal factors for no-injury accidents are the same as those for accidents resulting in severe injuries. 

For years, safety practitioners have sought soundly based methods to communicate to management on the reality of hazards-related incident costs. That would be great to have. 

Absent a more reliable system, many safety practitioners accepted as universally applicable Heinrich s undocumented premise that the incidental cost of accidents has been found by analysis to be four times as great as compensation and medical costs (Citation 40). 

---