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 behalfof the Health & Safety Executive (HSE), of some 1000 notifiers of major and over-3-day injuryconstruction accidents that occurred between 19 December 2001 and 31 March 2002. The accidentswere representative of the kind and severity notified to HSE throughout the 2001/2 year. Around three­quarters of the cases examined were associated with property, split almost equally between new buildand refurbishment (including maintenance & repair). In both cases, almost half the accidents wereassociated with domestic housing, the remainder being industrial or commercial properties or publicbuildings. The remaining quarter of accident cases examined were linked largely to civil engineeringworks (predominantly new build), roadworks (predominantly refurbishment/maintenance & repair) anddemolition. About two-thirds of construction clients were in the private sector and one third in the publicsector.

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 anddo 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 bereproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted inany form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the priorwritten 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 hmsolicensing@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk

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

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

Figure 1 shows the number of people contacted for this questionnaire was 1756. From this dataset there are 1004 completed questionnaires and 752 uncompleted questionnaires. The information derived from the completed questionnaires is discussed in Sections 2 - 6. The reasons given for the uncompleted questionnaires are shown in Figure 2.

1004

752

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Num

ber o

f Que

stio

nnai

res

Yes No

Figure 1 Number of Questionnaires Completed (1756 questionnaires)

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Wrong phone Called x times Left company Other non Notno contact construction

accident

117

244

89

45

102

24 29 44

58

Legal action Requested in Too busy Refused to help writing / not over phone

Figure 2 Reasons for Uncompleted Questionnaires

4

As can be seen from Figure 2, the most common reason for uncompleted questionnaires is BOMEL abandoning the case once attempts to contact the notifier exceeded four (32% of uncompleted questionnaires). The procedure was that if a person / answering machine was reached a message was left and BOMEL followed this up to a reasonable extent if calls were not returned. If there was no answer, calls were repeated at different times of the day, again to a reasonable extent. The second most common cause is the non-availability of the notifiers (e.g. wrong phone numbers (16%), leaving the company (12%) and others where the notifier could not be reached (6%) - phone lines were dead, phone numbers related to another company, the phone number lead to companies with no knowledge of a person with the recorded notifier’s name, or the notifier person was off sick, injured, on maternity leave, etc). Alternatives to the notifier were not consulted as their knowledge would be limited.

Around 3% of the cases were subject to legal action and it was agreed (by BOMEL, HSE and notifiers) that participation in a survey of this type was not therefore appropriate at this stage.

After an initial discussion with the notifier it was found that 13% of cases were factory or manufacturing type accidents, not site-based construction. BOMEL were not able (or required) to validate the SIC coding but these cases were excluded as they would not help provide a more detailed profile of typical construction accidents. Some 18% of uncompleted questionnaires were because of notifiers refusing to help (4% wanted something in writing or the company policy was not to answer questionnaires over the phone, 6% were too busy to help and 8% had other reasons for refusing).

Any resistance to the study is arguably reflected in the final two categories comprising 102 (44+58) of the 1756 cases where contact was attempted, constituting less than 6% of the whole sample or around 10% of the 1004 successful contacts. Indeed, overall, the attitude of notifiers was constructive and positive and, in a number of cases, notifiers welcomed the fact that the details were being looked at, providing reassurance that RIDDOR was not just a reporting process.

The following figures are presented to demonstrate the degree to which the survey sample is representative of the provisional accident data for 2001/2 data supplied to BOMEL for the study and the final accident / injury statistics published by HSE as this study concluded(2).

5

Figure 3 shows, for the completed questionnaires, the number classified in FOCUS as major injury accidents (35%) and over-3-day injury accidents (65%). Across all accidents in the preliminary 2001/2 database supplied to BOMEL, 35% of non-fatal accidents are major injuries and 65% are over-3-day injury accidents (shown in Figure 4). However, the final figures for workers (employees and self-employed) for 2001/2 which were published as this study concluded(2) showed 79 fatal accidents, 4480 major injury accidents and 9587 over-3-day injury accidents giving a lower major to over-3-day injury ratio of 32:68 compared with 35:65 in the sample.

700653

Num

ber o

f Acc

iden

ts

600

500

400 351

300

200

100

0 MAJOR INJURY OVER 3 DAY/MINOR

Figure 3 Ratio of Over-3-day and Major Accidents Surveyed (1004 Questionnaires)

9000 8657

8000

7000

6000

5000

Tota

l Num

ber

4764

4000

3000

2000

1000

96 0

Fatal Major Over 3 Day / Minor

Figure 4 Distribution of Report Types in Provisional Construction Database 2001/2 (13517 Accidents) (see Reference 2 for published statistics)

6

500

0

1500

1000

46

373 235

519

2348

78 3

273

46 21 121

13 38

383

1 2 13 11 2 38 4 1 1 7 7

jFatal

2227

3314

3005

Ma or / Over-3-day

3500

3000

2500

2000

250

200

150

100

50

0 2

32

173

8

37

253

278

177

7 15

5 1 16

Of the 1004 accidents surveyed, the RIDDOR FOCUS categorisation shows 18% are to do with falls from height, 28% slips or trips, 25% manual handling and 17% involving contact with or being hit by an object. This is shown in Figure 5 and, compared to the distribution by accident kind in the overall preliminary construction database for the year supplied to BOMEL in Figure 6, a reasonably similar distribution can be seen.

300

Figure 5 Kind of Accident Surveyed (1004 Questionnaires)

Tota

l Num

ber

No

Info

rmat

ion

Con

tact

with

Mac

hine

ry

Hit

by O

bjec

t

No

Info

rmat

ion

Mac

hine

ry

Num

ber o

f Acc

iden

ts

Hit

by V

ehic

le

Hit

by O

bjec

t H

it by

Fix

ed

Man

ual H

andl

ing

Hit

by v

ehic

le

Slip

or T

ripH

it by

fixe

d

Fall

Trap

ped

Dro

wne

d

Man

ual H

andl

ing

Slip

or T

rip

Har

mfu

l Sub

stan

ce

Fall

Fire

Expl

osio

nTr

appe

d

Elec

trici

ty

Har

mfu

l Sub

stan

ceAn

imal

Phys

ical

ly a

ssau

lted

Elec

trici

ty

Oth

er

Phys

ical

ly A

ssau

lted

Oth

er

Figure 6 Accident Kind in Provisional Overall Construction Database 2001/2 (13517 accidents)

7

Further comparison is made with the published statistics(2) in Table 1 showing the relation between accident kind and injury severity from the published statistics. Clearly the first and final data columns show the survey sample to be representative and the slight discrepancy is due in part to the slightly higher proportion of major injury data in the sample (35% in the survey compared with 32% of the published accidents) such that falls and slips and trips are slightly more significant and manual handling slightly less so.

Table 1 Published Statistics by Accident Kind 2001/2(2)

Accident Kind Major and Over-3-day Injury Accidents

Survey (workers)

Major Injury X

Accidents Over-3-day X

Injury Accidents Published X

Falls from a Height * 18% 30% 10% 16%

Slips, trips or falls on the same level 28% 26% 22% 23%

Struck by moving vehicle 1% 2% 1% 1%

Struck by moving / falling object 17% 18% 16% 17%

Trapped by something collapsing or overturning 1% 0% 0% 0%

Injured while handling, lifting or carrying 25% 9% 35% 27%

Other 11% 14% 15% 15%

TOTAL 1004 workers 3959 employees 9013 employees 12972 employees

* Falls from a height include falls from up to and including 2 metres, over 2 metres and height not known. X From Reference 2. Note: Published data are for ‘employees’ whereas survey covers all ‘workers’. There were 1095 major and over-3-day injuries to self employed for which kind data are not available in the published statistics – these constitute less than 8% of worker accidents and therefore comparison is considered justifiable.

1.4 REPORT LAYOUT

Having established that the survey sample is broadly representative of the major and over-3-day injury accidents reported, the main part of this report presents the more detailed information about the accidents gleaned from the questionnaires (Appendix A).

In general it should be noted that the categorisation reflects distinct areas definable and meaningful within the construction context, generally as provided by HSE. There is no expectation that the volume of activity, number of people involved, level of risk etc are equal or therefore that the number of responses in each category should be equal. Identifying areas where significant numbers of people are affected, however, will help in targeting action.

In the following sections (Sections 2-6) the question asked is shown in italics and a graph showing the responses to each question is presented with a discussion of the results. The responses to questions are also combined to give a more detailed analysis of the data gathered. For example, to examine what kinds of project involve weekend work, combines responses from Question 1 (type of project) and Question 4b (weekend working included).

8

Section 7 presents a discussion of the findings to indicate the type of insight to be gleaned. Section 8 presents conclusions and recommendations.

9

10

2 GENERAL SITE INFORMATION

2.1 QUESTION 1 – TYPE OF PROJECT

Could we begin by confirming some basic details about the type of construction project where the accident occurred:

Part a) Was it a civil engineering project; or road works; domestic housing; industrial facilities; commercial property; or something else?:

110

77 77

97

50

0

50

233

360

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

Civil Engineering Commercial Domestic Housing Industrial Facilities Road Works Public Buildings Other Project Property

Figure 7 Question 1a – Type of Project (1004 Questionnaires)

As can be seen from Figure 7 the most significant project type where notified accidents occurred related to domestic housing (36%). The least number of accidents was in relation to industrial facilities (8%) and road works (8%). Further demographic data on numbers involved in different aspects of construction activity would be needed to investigate relative risks. The ‘other’ category contains, for example:

• Transmitter building • Relocation of portable buildings • Incubator for botanical gardens • Site for a skip • Underground work • Preparation for a half marathon.

11

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

Part b) And was it new-build / construction; or site preparation; M&E fit out; refurbishment; maintenance / repair; demolition; or something else?:

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0 Demolition M&E Fit Out Maintenance / New-build / Refurbishment Site Other Unknown Not applicable

Repair Construction Preparation

10 16

451

10 34

5 11

192

275

Figure 8 Question 1b – Type of Project (1004 Questionnaires)

As can be seen from Figure 8, more notified accidents occur in the new-build / construction category (45%), while less than 20 accidents occurred on a site at the time of site preparation (1%), demolition (1%) or designated as M&E fit out (1.5%). Some of the latter however are of relatively short duration. The other significant areas are refurbishment (27%) and maintenance / repair (19%). ‘Other’ includes, for example:

• Fixing a head stone

• Moving location.

12

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 1 4 1 1 3 2 4 6 2 2

14

28

66

17

45

15 7

60

105

170

34

16

50

16 23

83

104

16 10

28

11 3 1 2 2 2 7 9 7 2 1 2 6 2 3 5

Com

mer

cial

Pro

perty

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

Indu

stria

l Fac

ilitie

sPu

blic

Bui

ldin

gsO

ther

Civ

il En

gine

erin

g Pr

ojec

tC

omm

erci

al P

rope

rtyD

omes

tic H

ousi

ngIn

dust

rial F

acilit

ies

Roa

d W

orks

Civ

il En

gine

erin

g Pr

ojec

tC

omm

erci

al P

rope

rtyD

omes

tic H

ousi

ngIn

dust

rial F

acilit

ies

Roa

d W

orks

Publ

ic B

uild

ings

Oth

erC

ivil

Engi

neer

ing

Proj

ect

Com

mer

cial

Pro

perty

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

Indu

stria

l Fac

ilitie

sR

oad

Wor

ksPu

blic

Bui

ldin

gsO

ther

Civ

il En

gine

erin

g Pr

ojec

tC

omm

erci

al P

rope

rtyD

omes

tic H

ousi

ngIn

dust

rial F

acilit

ies

Roa

d W

orks

Publ

ic B

uild

ings

Oth

erC

ivil

Engi

neer

ing

Proj

ect

Com

mer

cial

Pro

perty

Indu

stria

l Fac

ilitie

sR

oad

Wor

ksO

ther

Civ

il En

gine

erin

g Pr

ojec

tC

omm

erci

al P

rope

rtyD

omes

tic H

ousi

ngIn

dust

rial F

acilit

ies

Roa

d W

orks

Publ

ic B

uild

ings

Oth

erC

ivil

Engi

neer

ing

Proj

ect

Com

mer

cial

Pro

perty

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

Roa

d W

orks

Publ

ic B

uild

ings

Com

mer

cial

Pro

perty

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

Indu

stria

l Fac

ilitie

sO

ther

lition / ion

f i Sii i

1 1 1 1 1 1

Demo M&E Fit Out Maintenance / Repair

New-buildConstruct

Re urb shment te Preparat on

Other Unknown Not appl cable

Figure 9 Comparison of Type of Project (1004 Questionnaires)

Figure 9 combines the information from Question 1a and 1b on project type and shows that domestic housing new-build / construction is the most significant category (17%), with commercial new-build / construction (10%) and domestic housing refurbishment (10%) being second, followed by commercial property refurbishment (8%), domestic housing maintenance / repair (7%), civil engineering new build (6%), and public building new build (5%). Further information on activity levels is needed to compare risk.

However, as a pointer to areas for reducing accident numbers from amongst those notified, it is clear that new-build domestic housing is a key area.

13

2.2 QUESTION 2 – CDM

Did CDM [the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations] apply?

90

0

287

627

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

No Yes Unknown

Figure 10 Question 2 – CDM Applicability (1004 Questionnaires)

As can be seen in Figure 10, in the majority of cases, 62%, the CDM Regulations applied to the work being carried out, while 29% of notifiers stated that the CDM Regulations did not apply. There were 9% of people surveyed who did not know if CDM Regulations applied. This could be a function of not recalling or not knowing whether CDM applied – notifiers from some companies are central administrators without direct project involvement.

14

Figure 11 shows the type of projects where the notifier stated CDM did not apply. The main areas where CDM was thought not to apply were maintenance / repair (domestic housing, roadworks and commercial property) and refurbishment (domestic housing and commercial property). There were few new-build / construction projects (30 or 7% of this project type) where CDM was said not to have applied. Further consideration to CDM applicability is given in Section 7.5.

50

2 1 1 1

5 2 1

8

18

43

12

25

10

4 2

4

11

5 2

7 6

19

43

6 6 4

6

1 2

7 4

1 1

5

1 1 1 1 2 2 4

Indu

stria

l Fac

ilitie

sO

ther

Indu

stria

l Fac

ilitie

s

Ci

Indu

stria

l Fac

ilitie

s

Publ

ic B

uild

ings

Oth

er

Ci

Indu

stria

l Fac

ilitie

s

Oth

er

Ci

Indu

stria

l Fac

ilitie

s

Publ

ic B

uild

ings

Oth

erO

ther

C

i

Indu

stria

l Fac

ilitie

sPu

blic

Bui

ldin

gsO

ther

C

i

Indu

stria

l Fac

ilitie

sO

ther

/ ion

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

Com

mer

cial

Pro

perty

D

omes

tic H

ousi

ng

Roa

d W

orks

vi

l Eng

inee

ring

Proj

ect

Com

mer

cial

Pro

perty

D

omes

tic H

ousi

ng

Roa

d W

orks

vil E

ngin

eerin

g Pr

ojec

t C

omm

erci

al P

rope

rty

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

Roa

d W

orks

vil E

ngin

eerin

g Pr

ojec

t C

omm

erci

al P

rope

rty

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

Roa

d W

orks

vil E

ngin

eerin

g Pr

ojec

t C

omm

erci

al P

rope

rty

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

vil E

ngin

eerin

g Pr

ojec

t C

omm

erci

al P

rope

rty

Roa

d W

orks

C

omm

erci

al P

rope

rty

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

Demolition M&E Fit Out Maintenance / Repair New-buildConstruct

Refurbishment Site Preparation

Other Unknown Not applicable

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Figure 11 Type of Projects where CDM was said not to apply (287 Questionnaires)

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

15

2.3 QUESTION 3 – CLIENT’S BUSINESS

Part a) What was the nature of the Client's business?:

45 42

67 53

68

35 35

16

36

212

46

14 26

10

58

0

50

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

241

100

150

200

250

300

Con

stru

ctio

n

Educ

atio

n

Hom

e ow

ner

Prop

erty

Util

ities

Publ

ic S

ervi

ces

Leis

ure

Com

mer

cial

Tran

spor

t

Man

ufac

turin

g

LA /

Gov

ernm

ent

Ret

ail

Indu

stria

l

Serv

ices

Sec

tor

Oth

er

Unk

now

n

Figure 12 Question 3a – Nature of Client’s Business (1004 Questionnaires)

Figure 12 shows that the largest category of clients is Property Developers (24%) and Local Authorities / Government Departments (21%). Some 7% of clients are homeowners, 7% provide a public service (NHS, highways, hospitals, environment, police, prisons, charities and MOD / military), 5% of clients are concerned with utilities (water, electricity, gas, communications), and 5% of clients are involved in the retail industry (shops, supermarkets). Some 6% of notifiers did not know (or recall) the nature of the client’s business. The other category (1%) includes:

• Marine organisations • Places of worship • Quarrying

The services sector category includes law, accountancy, catering, car hire, insurance, training and advertising firms. The transport category includes public transport undertaking such as railway companies and London Transport.

16

500

Part b) Was the Client: domestic / private co. / public sector:

600 568

Domestic Private Co. Public Sector Unknown

Figure 13 Question 3b – Sector (1004 Questionnaires)

Figure 13 shows that 56% of accidents, according to the notifiers’ responses, occur within the private sector. From the responses, 33% of notified accidents occur in the public sector, 7% in the domestic sector and 3% of notifiers did not know (or recall) which sector the client’s business was in. Here there are 6 more domestic clients than ‘homeowners’ in Figure 12 due to other types of work being done (e.g. fixing a head stone). Figure 14, compares the sector to the type of project and shows that the most common type of project is domestic housing and commercial property in the private sector.

250

73

32

0

67

6

73

195

62

25 13 15

34 38

91

12 13

63 80

3 10 7 3 6 1 2

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

Com

mer

cial

Pro

perty

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

Indu

stria

l Fac

ilitie

s

Roa

d W

orks

Publ

ic B

uild

ings

Com

mer

cial

Pro

perty

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

Indu

stria

l Fac

ilitie

s

Roa

d W

orks

Publ

ic B

uild

ings

Com

mer

cial

Pro

perty

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

Indu

stria

l Fac

ilitie

s

Roa

d W

orks

Publ

ic B

uild

ings

ic i li

331

100

200

300

400

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

185

Oth

er

Civ

il En

gine

erin

g Pr

ojec

t

Oth

er

Civ

il En

gine

erin

g Pr

ojec

t

Oth

er

Civ

il En

gine

erin

g Pr

ojec

t

Oth

er

Domest Pr vate Co. Pub c Sector Unknown

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

200

150

100

50

0

Figure 14 Sector Compared to Type of Project (1004 Questionnaires)

17

Part c) [If domestic] Did this domestic client have a property developer involved?

50

46

Yes

Unk

now

n

No

Yes

No Yes Unknown

Figure 15 Question 3c – Property Developer (73 Questionnaires) N

o

The 73 notifiers who stated the Client was domestic, were asked if a property developer was involved in the work being done. The majority of those notifiers, 63% stated that a property developer was not involved and 32% did not know if the client had a property developer involved, while only 5%

Yes

involved a property developer. This is shown in Figure 15. Figure 16 compares the response given by the notifiers with a domestic client when asked if CDM applied and whether a property developer was involved. The majority of notifiers stated that CDM did not apply and their domestic client did not

Unk

now

n have a property developer involved. In only one case was a property developer involved and the notifier said CDM did not apply. CDM applicability is discussed further in Section 7.5.

40

4

23

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

36

5 5

1 3

14

4 5

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s N

umbe

r of N

otifi

ers

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

No

l

CDM

Property Deve oper

applies

No Yes Unknown

Figure 16 CDM Application Compared to Use of a Property Developer (73 Questionnaires)

18

Part d) [If unclear to questioner] Would you say this client regularly commissions construction work?

133

654

0

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

105 112 100

200

300

400

500

600

700

One-off Occasional Repeat Unknown

Figure 17 Question 3d – Repeat Construction Client (1004 Questionnaires)

Figure 17 shows for the majority of notified construction accidents surveyed the clients regularly commission construction work (65%). Only 11% occasionally commission construction work and for 13% of clients this project was a ‘one-off’ construction project. Around 11% of notifiers did not know whether the client regularly commissioned construction work.

19

2.4 QUESTION 4 – SIZE OF THE PROJECT

Part a) So we can get a feel for the size of the project, do you know how long (over what period) work was going on at the site altogether?

Figure 18 Question 4a – Length of Project (1004 Questionnaires)

Figure 18 uses the categories supplied by HSE, although it should be noted that the intervals are not equal. The category with the largest number of accidents is for projects lasting 6 months or more but less than 12 months (15%). The number of accidents for work lasting less than a day (7%) or a day or more but less than a week (11%) is considerable, although knowledge of the distribution of construction projects is needed before the relative risk can be examined. There are a number of projects over 5 years and ongoing contracts (5%). Figure 19 compares the length of the project to the type and it is evident that it is maintenance and repair that is principally associated with shorter durations. Within the BOMEL database actual responses are also recorded so that further analysis without the category constraints is possible.

Figure 19 Length of Project Compared to Type of Project (1004 Questionnaires)

20

Part b) [If 4-6 weeks] Did that include weekend working?

436

99 90

0

50

379

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

No Yes Unknown Not Applicable

Figure 20 Question 4b – Weekend Working (1004 Questionnaires)

Figure 20 shows that many projects do not include weekend working (43%) but the number which do include weekend working (38%) is not insignificant. The responses also indicated that a range of ‘weekend’ working is involved:

• Occasional weekend work, when necessary • Weekend work towards the end of the project (when deadlines are tight) • Saturday morning only • Saturday only • All weekend

There were 10% of notifiers who did not know if the project contained weekend work and 9% where the question was not applicable (i.e. very short duration jobs).

21

Figure 21 shows the type of projects which involve weekend working. The main projects involving weekend working are new-build / construction projects including domestic housing (18%), commercial property (14%) and civil engineering projects (10%) and commercial property refurbishment projects (12%). The other areas are concerned with the new-build / construction of public buildings (7%), industrial facilities (6%) and refurbishment of domestic houses (5%). Despite there being few road works projects overall (see Figure 7) they dominate maintenance / repair activities undertaken at the weekend. For comparison Figure 9 gave the overall distribution of project types for the 1004 completed questionnaires, irrespective of work pattern.

80

1 1 3 1 5 5

2 3

11

3

39

54

68

22

6

26

8 3 1 2 1 1

12

46

17

8 3

13

4 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

Publ

ic B

uild

ings

Oth

erC

omm

erci

al P

rope

rtyR

oad

Wor

ksC

ivil

Engi

neer

ing

Proj

ect

Com

mer

cial

Pro

perty

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

Indu

stria

l Fac

ilitie

sR

oad

Wor

ksPu

blic

Bui

ldin

gsC

ivil

Engi

neer

ing

Proj

ect

Com

mer

cial

Pro

perty

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

Indu

stria

l Fac

ilitie

sR

oad

Wor

ksPu

blic

Bui

ldin

gsO

ther

Civ

il En

gine

erin

g Pr

ojec

tC

omm

erci

al P

rope

rtyD

omes

tic H

ousi

ngIn

dust

rial F

acilit

ies

Publ

ic B

uild

ings

Civ

il En

gine

erin

g Pr

ojec

tC

omm

erci

al P

rope

rtyD

omes

tic H

ousi

ngIn

dust

rial F

acilit

ies

Roa

d W

orks

Publ

ic B

uild

ings

Oth

erC

ivil

Engi

neer

ing

Proj

ect

Com

mer

cial

Pro

perty

Indu

stria

l Fac

ilitie

sR

oad

Wor

ksO

ther

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

Roa

d W

orks

Publ

ic B

uild

ings

Indu

stria

l Fac

ilitie

s

i ir ld / ion Si ii

DemolitionM&E Fit Out

Mantenance / Repa New-bui Construct Other Refurbishment te Preparaton Unknown Not applcab

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

le

Figure 21 Projects Involving Weekend Working (379 Questionnaires)

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

22

700

Part c) And was there night work?

900

781 800

No Yes Unknown Not Applicable

Figure 22 Question 4c – Night Work (1004 Questionnaires)

Figure 22 shows that 78% projects do not involve night work and 7% of projects do involve night work. The main types of project which involve night work, shown in Figure 23, are new-build / construction civil engineering and commercial property projects and maintenance / repair road works projects. Whereas domestic housing was significant with respect to weekend work, there is little night working.

12

73 97

53

0

1

3

1

2

1

9

2

10

8

1

6

1 1

3

2

4

6

2 2

1 1

2

1 1 1

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

ilitie

s

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

ilitie

s

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

ilitie

s

ilitie

s

ion / Repair i i Site ion

100

200

300

400

500

600

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

Oth

er

Civ

il En

gine

erin

g Pr

ojec

t

Com

mer

cial

Pro

perty

Indu

stria

l Fac

Roa

d W

orks

Publ

ic B

uild

ings

Civ

il En

gine

erin

g Pr

ojec

t

Com

mer

cial

Pro

perty

Indu

stria

l Fac

Oth

er

Roa

d W

orks

Publ

ic B

uild

ings

Civ

il En

gine

erin

g Pr

ojec

t

Civ

il En

gine

erin

g Pr

ojec

t

Com

mer

cial

Pro

perty

Indu

stria

l Fac

Oth

er

Roa

d W

orks

Publ

ic B

uild

ings

Oth

er

Roa

d W

orks

Publ

ic B

uild

ings

Indu

stria

l Fac

Demolit Maintenance New-bu ld / Construction Other Refurb shment Preparat

Unknown Not applicable

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

10

8

6

4

2

0

Figure 23 Projects Involving Night Work (73 Questionnaires)

23

1

2.5 QUESTION 5 – OTHER COMPANIES INVOLVED

Part a) [If 2 = Yes] Is the planning supervisor (company) independent (client, principal contractor, consultant, other) or in-house?:

160

4 0

50

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

341

122

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Independent In-house Other Unknown

Figure 24 Question 5a – Planning Supervisor (627 Questionnaires)

Figure 24 shows that of the projects where CDM was said to apply (627 incidents), 54% have an independent planning supervisor and 26% have an in-house planning supervisor. 19% of notifiers surveyed did not know the origin of the planning supervisor.

24

999

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

Part b) How many companies were in the design / engineering team?:

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 15 35 Unknown

70

50 41

16 14 1 4 3 2 3 2

142

279

Number of Companies

Figure 25 Question 5b – Design / Engineering Team (627 Questionnaires)

Figure 25 shows that, of the projects where CDM was said to apply, 23% of the projects involved only one company in the design and engineering team. The graph also shows 44% of the notifiers did not know how many companies were in the design and engineering team. It is notable that some projects appear to be very complex with up to 35 parties thought to be involved in the design / engineering team.

25

Part c) Do you know if the designer was an engineer or an architect?:

44

10

0

50

248

105

220

100

150

200

250

300

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

Architect Engineer Both In-house Unknown

Figure 26 Question 5c – Type of Designer (627 Questionnaires)

Figure 26 shows, of the projects where CDM was said to apply, that 39% of projects were considered to be designed by an architect, 17% by an engineer and 7% involving both an architect and engineer. There were 36% of notifiers surveyed who did not know if the designer was an engineer or architect. Also 2% of notifying companies stated that the designer was in-house.

26

The type of project is compared to the type of designer in Figure 27. It can be seen that the most frequent combination is an architect being the designer for a new-build / construction project. The most common projects where an engineer is the designer are also new-build / construction projects followed by refurbishment. Where the design team involves both an engineer and an architect, again, the most common type of project is a new-build / construction project.

200

3 1

69

2 1

36

7 17

57

23

3 4 1 8

2 6 2

29

58

4 6 1

ion

ion

ion

Si

ion

Dem

oliti

on ion

Si

i i I

173

114

M&E

Fit

Out

Mai

nten

ance

/ R

epai

r

New

-bui

ld /

Con

stru

ct

Ref

urbi

shm

ent

Oth

er

M&E

Fit

Out

New

-bui

ld /

Con

stru

ct

Ref

urbi

shm

ent

Mai

nten

ance

/ R

epai

r

New

-bui

ld /

Con

stru

ct

Ref

urbi

shm

ent

te P

repa

ratio

n

Oth

er

Not

app

licab

le

New

-bui

ld /

Con

stru

ct

Ref

urbi

shm

ent

M&E

Fit

Out

Mai

nten

ance

/ R

epai

r

New

-bui

ld /

Con

stru

ct

Ref

urbi

shm

ent

te P

repa

ratio

n

Oth

er

Not

app

licab

le

Arch tect Both Engneer n-house Unknown

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Figure 27 Designer for Type of Projects (648 Questionnaires)

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

27

28

3 NOTIFIER’S ROLE / POSITION

3.1 QUESTION 6 – COMPANY’S ROLE

Part a) What was your company's role at the site?:

24 34

227

121

74

36

13

51

111

44 51

67

22

0

50

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

129

100

150

200

250

Fit o

ut

Scaf

fold

ing

Gen

eral

Con

tract

or

M&E

Dev

elop

er

Stre

etw

orks

Plan

t

Fini

shes

Ref

urbi

shm

ent /

Mai

nten

ance

/ R

epai

r

Gro

undw

orks

/ Fo

unda

tions

/ C

ivils

Fram

e / F

loor

s

Roo

fing

/ Cei

ling

/G

lazi

ng

Oth

er

Unk

now

n

Figure 28 Question 6a – Role of Notifying Company (1004 Questionnaires)

Figure 28 shows the notifying company’s role on site. As can be seen from the graph, the role of 23% of companies is as a general contractor, 13% as refurbishment / maintenance / repair, 12% as M&E (including HVAC, plumbing and electrics) and 11% as groundworks / foundation / civils. The less frequent roles of notifier companies where accidents occur are plant (1%), fit out (including partitioning, dry lining, WCs etc) (2%), scaffolding (3%), streetworks (4%), frames / floors (4%), roofing / ceiling / glazing (5%), and finishes (including joinery, plastering, floor finishes) (5%). Some 2% of notifiers do not know what their company’s role was on site.

29

Part b) So you were: the principal contractor / a contractor / a subcontractor / a nominated subcontractor?:

26

0

50

341

203

324

110

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

Principal Contractor Contractor Subcontractor Nominated Subcontractor Unknown

Figure 29 Question 6b – Notifier’s Role (1004 Questionnaires)

Figure 29 shows that the majority of notifiers were the Principal Contractor (34%) on the project where the accident occurred, while 32% were subcontractors, 20% were contractors, 3% were nominated subcontractors and 11% did not know the relationship between their company and who they were contracted to.

30

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

Part c) Who were you contracted to and was their role as? client / principal contractor / contractor:

600560

500

400

311 300

200

100

0

ncipa

Figure 30 Question 6c – Chain of Contracting (1004 Questionnaires)

Figure 30 shows that 56% of notifiers were contracted directly to the Client, while 31% were contracted to the Principal Contractor, 3% to a contractor and 10% did not know the relationship between their company and who they were contracted to. Summarising the previous two figures, Figure 31 shows that the majority of notifying companies are Principal Contractors contracted directly to the Client. The next major category is subcontractors contracted to Principal Contractors followed by Contractors contracted directly to the Client.

101

32

l Contractor Contractor Unknown Client Pri

28

160

32

3 8

32

252

25 15

4 20

1 1

51

7 3

49

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Clie

nt

Clie

nt

iip

al

Clie

nt

iip

al

Clie

nt

iip

al

Clie

nt

iip

al

Princi l ii

313

Unk

now

n

Prnc

Con

tract

or

Con

tract

or

Unk

now

n

Prnc

Con

tract

or

Con

tract

or

Unk

now

n

Prnc

Con

tract

or

Con

tract

or

Unk

now

n

Prnc

Con

tract

or

Con

tract

or

Unk

now

n

paContractor

Contractor Subcontractor Nom nated Subcontractor Unknown

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

Notify ng Company

Contracted to

Figure 31 Chain of Contracting (1004 Questionnaires)

31

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s Part d) [If c is contractor] What was the contract chain from there to the client?

350

319

300

250

200

150

100

50

21

3 0

Client Principal Contractor to Client Unknown

Figure 32 Question 6d – Contracting Chain (343 Questionnaires)

Of the companies contracted to a Principal Contractor or Contractor in Question 6c (Figure 30), Figure 32 shows the chain of contracting to the client. Figure 79 shows the complete chain of contracting from the notifying company to the client. The graph shows that the majority of contracting chains are associated with notified accidents are two tier. The most frequent pattern with which accidents are notified is where the notifier is the Principal Contractor and contracted directly to the client (31%) or the notifier is a subcontractor contracted to the Principal Contractor contracted to the client (25%).

32

1 2

3.2 QUESTION 7 – CONDITIONS OF JOB

Part a) Were there any special / unusual conditions which applied to the work, e.g. Fixed price, Lump Sum, Day Rate, Penalty Clauses for Late Delivery or Reference to Health and Safety in the Contract?

398

47

130

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

429

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

Fixed Price Lump Sum Day Rate Other Payment

Figure 33 Question 7a – Payment Conditions (1004 Questionnaires)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

ifier

s

221

783

Num

ber o

f Not

Yes No

Figure 34 Penalty Clauses for Late Delivery in the Contract (1004 Questionnaires)

33

1 2

642

362

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

ifier

sN

umbe

r of N

ot

Yes No

Figure 35 References to Health and Safety in the Contract (1004 Questionnaires)

The notifier could pick more than one special or unusual condition that applied to their contract (which is why the percentages add up to more than 100%). Figure 33 shows 40% of contracts were based on fixed price payments for the work, 13% were based on day rates, 5% were lump sum and 43% were based on other methods of payment (such as schedule of rates, etc). Figure 34 shows that 22% of contracts included penalty clauses for late delivery. Figure 35 indicates that 64% of respondees stated that references to health and safety were included in their contract.

34

Part b) In terms of timescale, was the job ‘more demanding’, ‘pretty average’ or ‘reasonably comfortable’?:

134

384

130

0

50

356

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

More Demanding Pretty Average Reasonably Comfortable Unknown

Figure 36 Question 7b – Timescale (1004 Questionnaires)

As can be seen from Figure 36, in terms of timescale the biggest category of notifiers considered the job pretty average (38%), compared to 35% of notifiers who considered the job reasonably comfortable relative to their normal contracts. The job was considered more demanding by 13% of notifiers and 13% did not know the time pressures on the job.

35

Part c) In terms of financial return, was it ‘good’, ‘average’ or ‘particularly poor’?:

82

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

472

129

321

Particularly Poor Average Good Unknown

Figure 37 Question 7c – Financial (1004 Questionnaires)

Figure 37 shows there were 47% of notifiers who considered the financial return on the project relative to their normal business to be average, while 13% rated the profitability as good, 8% rated the profitability as particularly poor and 32% did not know the financial pressures of the project.

From the answers to these questions it cannot be argued that the jobs where accidents are notified are any more pressured from time or cost perspectives than the ‘average’.

36

1000

3.3 QUESTION 8 – METHOD STATEMENTS AND RISK ASSESSMENTS

Part a) Were method statements and risk assessments available for the work on site?

928

900

800

700

600

500

400

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

300

200

100 54 22

0 No Yes Unknown

Figure 38 Question 8a – Method Statements and Risk Assessment Available (1004 Questionnaires)

Figure 38 shows that 93% of notifiers said that method statements and risk assessments were available for the work on site, but 5% said there were none and 2% of notifiers do not know. Figure 39 shows that the most common project which does not have risk assessments or method statements available is domestic housing refurbishment projects, followed by domestic housing maintenance / repair projects and commercial refurbishment projects. The numbers are, however, small for statistical significance.

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

1 1 1

4

7

1 2

1

4 3

2

6

13

1 2

1 1 1 1 1

Com

mer

cial

Pro

perty

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

Civ

il En

gine

erin

g Pr

ojec

t

Com

mer

cial

Pro

perty

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

Indu

stria

l Fac

ilitie

s

Oth

er

Publ

ic B

uild

ings

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

Civ

il En

gine

erin

g Pr

ojec

t

Com

mer

cial

Pro

perty

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

Indu

stria

l Fac

ilitie

s

Oth

er

Civ

il En

gine

erin

g Pr

ojec

t

Civ

il En

gine

erin

g Pr

ojec

t

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

Com

mer

cial

Pro

perty

Indu

stria

l Fac

ilitie

s

i ir i

iM&E Fit Out Ma ntenance / Repa New-build / Construct on

Other Refurb shment Site Preparation

Unknown Not applicable

Figure 39 Types of Projects Which Do Not Have Method Statements and Risk Assessments (54 Questionnaires)

37

Part b) If so, would you say they were up-to-date?

26 12

890

0

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

No Unknown Yes

Figure 40 Question 8b – Method Statements and Risk Assessments up to Date (928 Questionnaires)

Of the 928 cases which have Method Statements and Risk Assessments, the majority (96%) of notifiers said the Risk Assessments and Method Statements were kept up to date, while 3% said they were not and 1% did not know. This is shown in Figure 40. Several respondees noted that they were generic rather than specific to the particular job.

38

3.4 QUESTION 9 – NOTIFYING COMPANY SIZE

Part a) Within your firm, how many people do you employ (in the UK) in total?:

67 63 44

86

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

137

404

203

1-10 11-19 20-24 25-49 50-499 500+ Unknown

Figure 41 Question 9a – Number of Employees in Notifying Company (1004 Questionnaires)

As can be seen from Figure 41, the most common size of company where accidents occur, using the HSE designated size categories, is between 50 and 499 employees (40%) and a company size of more than 500 (20%) is the second most common. The least common size of company is between 20 and 24 employees (4%). 9% of notifiers did not know how many people their company employed in the UK but in many cases these were large companies with recognisable construction company names thus potentially explaining why the notifier was uncertain as to numbers. Actual numbers are recorded in BOMEL’s database enabling alternatives to HSE’s categories to be examined, if required. The large end also includes notifying Local Authorities where the employee numbers are considerable but the construction activity may be a small part.

39

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

Part b) What proportion are staff employees?

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0 1-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100 Unknown

25 27 41 44

15

56 34 37 44

84

440

157

Figure 42 Question 9b – Percentage of Staff Employees (1004 Questionnaires)

Figure 42 shows that a high proportion of notifying companies directly employ all their workers (44%). 16% of notifying companies did not know what percentage of employees were directly employed (staff employees).

40

3.5 QUESTION 10 – NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON SITE

Turning to the site at the time of the accident, how many people working through your company were on site?:

200

79

97

46

64

17

35

9

40

8

28

1 5

30

3 1

47

2 1

21 18

1 7

1

11

1 1 1 4 12

1 7

1 6

1 1 7

2 2 1 2 4 1 1

66

181

121

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 23 24 25 30 32 35 36 40 41 42 43 45 50 55 60 70 80 90 95 100

106

125

130

140

150

175

180

200

250

300

380

400

700

800

1100 999

Ukn

Figure 43 Question 10 – People on Site (1004 Questionnaires)

Figure 43 shows that the most common number of people working for the notifying company on a particular site at the time of the notified accident is 2 people (18%) or 3 people (12%). There were 7% of notifying companies which did not know the number of people working for their company on a particular site. Grouping the results and presenting them in Figure 44, clearly shows that the majority of companies where notified accidents take place have between 1 and 10 representatives working on site (69%), whereas less than 0.3% of companies have over 500 workers on site. Comparison with Figure 41 implies that notifying companies are generally running multi-site work activities.

800

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

689

76 66 6650 54

3

1-10 11-19 20-24 25-49 50-499 500+ Unknown

Figure 44 Grouped People Working on Site (1004 Questionnaires)

41

3.6 QUESTION 11 – SAFETY INDUCTIONS

Part a) Were they all given a formal site safety induction?

806

35

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

163

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

No Yes Unknown

Figure 45 Question 11a – Safety Induction Given (1004 Questionnaires)

Figure 45 shows that in 80% of cases where an accident has been notified, formal site safety inductions have been given to the people working on site. However, in one case everyone on site had been given a site safety induction apart from the injured person. In 16% of cases no formal site safety inductions were given and 4% of notifiers did not know if an induction had taken place.

42

3.7 QUESTION 12 – SIZE OF SITE

Part a) Do you know approximately how many people were on the site at the time altogether?:

400

342350

292300

250

200

150 Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

148

109

100

63

50 36

14

0 1-10 11-19 20-24 25-49 50-499 500+ Unknown

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

Figure 46 Question 12a – Number of People on Site (1004 Questionnaires)

Figure 46, again using the HSE categories, shows the number of projects where accidents occur having 1 to 10 people working on site is significant (34%), whereas 1% of projects have over 500 people working on site. 29% of notifiers did not know the total number of people working on a particular site where an accident occurred. There are 15% of projects where 50 to 499 people work on site, 11% where 25 to 49 people work, 6% where 11 to 19 and 4% where 20 to 24 people work on site. The type of project where more than 500 people are on site is shown in Figure 47.

7

66

5

44

3

2

1 1 1 1 1

0 Other Civil Engineering Commercial Property Road Works Other Commercial Property

Project

Demolition New-build / Construction Other Refurbishment

Figure 47 Projects Where There are More Than 500 People on Site (14 Questionnaires)

43

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

Part b) [If <5] Were there ever 5 or more workers on site at any stage?

250

200

150

100

50

0

No Yes Unknown

118

199 209

Figure 48 Question 12b – Five or More People on Site (527 Questionnaires)

If a notifier’s response to the previous question (12a) was less than 5 people working on a particular site or unknown at the time of the incident, they were asked if there were ever 5 or more people on that site at any stage. Figure 48 shows that in 40% of those cases there were always fewer than 5 people on the site where an accident occurred. Some 22% of sites had 5 or more people on site at a particular stage and 38% of notifiers did not know if there were more than 5 people on site at any stage.

44

4 THE INJURED PARTY

4.1 QUESTION 13 – LENGTH OF IP EMPLOYMENT

How long had IP been working with your company when the accident happened?:

Figure 49 Question 13 – Length of IP Employment (1004 Questionnaires)

The largest HSE designated category of people who had an accident had been working with the company for more than 5 years (27%), whereas 0.3% of people had been working with the company for less than 1 day when an accident occurred. This is shown in Figure 49. In 52% of cases, the IP had been employed for less than 5 years but the degree of mobility typical within the industry needs to be accounted for in interpreting this. Also, 6% of injured people were employed by a subcontractor or a company other than the notifying company and 16% of notifiers did not know how long the injured person had been working for the company. Figure 50 removes the categories and shows the length of employment of the injured party in years.

45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s 250

200

150

100

50

0

203

115

93

64

46 55

18 15 20 9

45

4 8 7 4

26

1 2 7

27

2 1 4 3 1 6 1 1 2 1

56

157

<1 20 22 24 25 27 28 30 36 40 41 42

Oth

Com

p

Unk

now

n

Figure 50 Length of IP Employment in Years (1004 Questionnaires)

46

4.2 QUESTION 14 – EMPLOYMENT STATUS AND CONDITIONS

Part a) Would you say his employment status: was directly employed; self employed; or employed via an agency?:

900

779800

Directly Employed Self Employed Employed by subcontractor Agency Employed Unknown

Figure 51 Question 14a – Employment Status (1004 Questionnaires)

Figure 51 shows that 78% of injured people were said by the notifier to be directly employed by the notifying company, while 13% were self-employed, 2% were employed via an agency and 3% were employed by a subcontractor. 4% of notifiers did not know what the injured person’s employment status was. Figure 52 compares the IP employment status with the notifier’s role.

300

136

33 20 36

0

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

21

248 240

87

16 4

50 53

13 2

17 11 3 2 1 5 10

2

21 10 5

Con

tract

or

Nom

inat

edSu

bcon

tract

or

Prin

cipa

lC

ontra

ctor

Subc

ontra

ctor

Unk

now

n

Con

tract

or

Nom

inat

edSu

bcon

tract

or

Prin

cipa

lC

ontra

ctor

Subc

ontra

ctor

Unk

now

n

Con

tract

or

Prin

cipa

lC

ontra

ctor

Subc

ontra

ctor

Unk

now

n

Con

tract

or

Nom

inat

edSu

bcon

tract

or

Prin

cipa

lC

ontra

ctor

Subc

ontra

ctor

Unk

now

n

Prin

cipa

lC

ontra

ctor

Subc

ontra

ctor

Unk

now

n

l l l l

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

183

Direct y Employed Self Emp oyed Emp oyed by subcontractor

Agency Emp oyed Unknown

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

250

200

150

100

50

0

Figure 52 IP Employment Status Compared with the Role of the Notifier (1004 Questionnaires)

47

Part b) How was he paid? Hourly / Weekly / Monthly / Lump Sum at end of project:

32

14

40

4

17

29

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

Hourly Day rates Weekly Monthly Lump Sum Unknown

Figure 53 Question 14b – Payment Conditions (136 Questionnaires)

Of the injured people who were self-employed, 29% were paid weekly, 24% were paid hourly, 13% were paid a lump sum at the end of the project, 10% were paid daily and 3% were paid monthly. 21% of notifiers did not know how the self-employed injured person was paid. This is all displayed in Figure 53.

48

Part c) Did he receive instructions from the site foreman or did he work on his own?:

99

11

2

15

9

0

20

40

60

80

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

100

120

From Foreman Own Work Production Group Supervisor Unknown

Figure 54 Question 14c – Responsibility / Line Management (136 Questionnaires)

Figure 54 shows that, of the injured people who were self-employed, 85% received their instructions from personnel in authority (73% site foreman, 11% supervisor, 2% production group), while 8% carried out their own work (or were the person in authority). Around 7% of notifiers did not know who the injured person took instruction from for their work. Those taking instruction from others are working effectively as employees.

49

Part d) Did he have a contract FOR services or a contract OF service?:

107

21

8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

FOR Services OF Service Unknown

Figure 55 Question 14d – Contract Conditions (136 Questionnaires)

Of the injured people who were self-employed, 79% had a contract for services (a contract to provide personnel, which may be oneself, for a service) and 15% had a contract of service (a contract to provide oneself for service). The former category, strictly applied, reflects true self-employed status. Some 6% of notifiers did not know the type of contract the injured person had with the company.

50

4.3 QUESTION 15 – TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT WORK

Did his job fall into any of the following categories: fixed period contract; seasonal work; agency temping; casual work; or some other temporary work?:

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

742

39 17 11 2 1

25

167

Permanent Fixed Period Agency temping Casual Work Seasonal Work Trainee Other temporary Unknown Contract work

Figure 56 Question 15 – Temporary or Permanent Work (1004 Questionnaires)

As can be seen from Figure 56, the majority of injured people had a permanent contract of employment (74%). There are 4% of injured people employed under a fixed period contract, 2% were temping via an agency, 1% were casual workers, 0.2% were seasonal workers, one was a trainee (0.1%) and 2% had some other form of temporary contract. Some 16% of notifiers did not know if the injured person was temporary or permanent.

51

4.4 QUESTION 16 – IP TRADE

What is IP’s trade?

140

2

79

9

47

1

128

3 8

1 5

1

71

3

15

2 3 2 1

18 24

14

1 1 1 1 1 7

1 3

82

16 13

2

29

2

18 26

1

62

25

1 1

41 33

40

1 1 1 3 8

2 1

10

1

131

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

BAR

BEN

DER

/FIX

ERBR

ICKL

AYER

/MAS

O

BUIL

DER

BU

ILD

ING

LAB

OU

R

CAB

LE J

OIN

TER

C

ARPE

NTE

R/J

OIN

ER

CLE

ANER

S C

onst

ruct

ion

Cra

fts M

ates

C

RAN

E D

RIV

ERS

DES

PATC

H C

LER

KS

ELEC

TRIC

FIT

TER

EN

GIN

E/EL

EC

ENG

INEE

R/T

ECH

NO

FL

OO

RER

FO

RK

LIFT

DR

IVER

GAR

DEN

ER

GLA

SS/C

ERAM

IC

Gla

zier

GO

OD

S D

RIV

ERM

aint

ain

Fitte

r M

ETAL

MAC

HIN

ING

O

th A

ssoc

iate

O

th C

onst

ruct

ion

OTH

OTH

LAB

OU

R

OTH

MAC

HIN

ING

O

th M

ach/

Plan

t O

TH S

ERVI

CE

OTH

/TR

ANS/

MAC

H

Oth

er B

uild

ing

OTH

ER M

ANU

AL

OTH

ER M

ISC

O

THER

WO

OD

PA

INTE

R/D

ECO

RAT

EPA

VIO

RS

Plan

t Driv

ers

PLAS

TER

ER

PLAS

TIC

S PL

UM

BER

/HEA

TIN

G

Prod

uct/M

anag

ers

Rai

l Con

stru

ct

REF

USE

R

OAD

CO

NST

RU

CT

RO

OFE

RSC

AFFO

LD/S

TEEP

LESC

IEN

TIFI

C/B

UIL

SCIE

NTI

FIC

/EN

GSE

CU

RIT

Y SE

RVI

CE/

PIPE

S ST

EEL

EREC

TOR

Su

rvey

or/P

lann

er

TRAN

S/M

ANAG

ERS

WEL

DER

S W

ood

Trad

es

Figure 57 Question 16 – IP Trade (1004 Questionnaires)

Figure 57 shows the injured person’s trade, correctly categorised (as per FOCUS categorisations). As can be seen from the graph, the trades where more notified accidents occur are in ‘other construction’ trades (13%), carpentry / joinery (13%), other building trades (8%), bricklaying / masonry (8%), electrical fitting (7%), plumbing / heating (6%), road construction (4%), scaffolding / steeplejack (4%), and roofing (3%). The trades, as stated by the notifiers, included in significant general categories, such as ‘other construction’ are as follows:

Category Includes Oth Construction (Craft and Labourer, Asbestos removal, General operative, Fitter, Concrete related manual operations) cutter, Multi-skilled labourer, General construction worker Oth Mach / Plant (Plant and Plant or machine operator machine operatives) Other Building (Other Ground worker, Building operative, Fire protection installer occupations, construction)Other Manual (Other Multi-trades, Assembly team member, Insulation installer occupations, construction)Other Misc (Other Land drainage worker, Blaster, Duct layer occupations, construction)

52

4.5 QUESTION 17 – LENGTH OF TIME IN TRADE

Do you know how long he's been in that trade?:

Figure 58 Question 17 – Length of Time in Trade (1004 Questionnaires)

As can be seen from Figure 58, using HSE designated categories, the majority of injured people had accidents when they had been in their trade for over 5 years (56%). The graph also shows 27% of notifiers did not know how long the injured person had been in their trade. The time in a trade, where few accidents occur are 2-3 years (4%), 3-4 years (3%), 4-5 years (3%) and 12-18 months (3%). The length of time in trade where least accidents occur is 1-2 weeks (0.3%) but clearly this is the shortest duration category for an individual. Figure 59 shows the times in trade by year. Concentration around 5 year intervals is understandable given the indicative estimates being provided by notifiers.

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

16

13

1 1 3

12

1

8

1

16

1

21

4

1

10

2 1

35

5 3 3

26

1 1 1

48

2 1 1 1

16

28

3 3

13

1 1 1 1

<1 y

ear 1

1.2

1.3

1.5 2

2.2 3

3.5 4

4.5 5 6 7 8 9

9.6 10 12 13 14 15 16 17

19.2 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 35 37 40 41 43 50 52

Time in Years

Figure 59 Length of Time in Trade

53

Figure 60 and Figure 61 show the top 10 most common trades compared to the length of time the injured person was in their trade, where known (as shown in Figure 57). The pattern is broadly similar to Figure 57 differing only because the time in trade for general categories is more frequently unknown and therefore relatively under-reported in this sample. These figures should be viewed with caution in that a worker in the industry from 16-65 has one period with <5 years experience but nine times longer in the >5 years bracket. Further interpretation could be made with IP age, for example.

Figure 60 Length of Time in a Top 10 Accident Trades (475 Questionnaires)

Figure 61 Top 10 Accident Trades and Length of Time in Trade (475 Questionnaires)

54

4.6 QUESTION 18 – TRAINING QUALIFICATIONS

Did he have relevant training qualifications or a CSCS card or equivalent, for example, that you are aware?

0

239

582

183

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

No Yes Unknown

Figure 62 Question 18 – Training Qualifications (1004 Questionnaires)

Figure 62 shows that 58% of injured people are said to have relevant training qualifications, 24% of injured people do not have any training qualifications and 18% of notifiers do not know if the injured person had any relevant training qualifications. Figure 63 shows the comparison between the trade of the injured person and whether or not he had training qualifications. The occupations where qualifications are limited are general categories such as building labour, other construction, other manual whereas the proportion of workers qualified is greater for trades such as bricklaying, carpentry, electrical fitter, plumbing, scaffolding etc.

55

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s80

71 70

60 56

5151 50 46 46

40 38

32

30 29

24

10

20 16

4

18

1 2 11 3

20

1 2 3 1

14

1 2 4 4 3

1 5

2

12

2 3 2 1 5

14 9

1 1 1 6

1

18

6 3

1

9

2 1

8 9 6

1 5

11 7

13

7 10

1

16 16

9

1

17

1

18

2 21 3 5

2 1

7

0

Quals No Yes

BAR

BEN

DER

/FIX

ERBR

ICKL

AYER

/MAS

OBU

ILD

ERBU

ILD

ING

LAB

OU

R

CAB

LE J

OIN

TER

CAR

PEN

TER

/JO

INE

CLE

ANER

SC

onst

ruct

ion

Cra

fts M

ates

CR

ANE

DR

IVER

SD

ESPA

TCH

CLE

RKS

ELEC

TRIC

FIT

TER

ENG

INE/

ELEC

EN

GIN

EER

/TEC

HN

OFL

OO

RER

FOR

K LI

FT D

RIV

ERG

ARD

ENER

G

LASS

/CER

AMIC

Gla

zier

GO

OD

S D

RIV

ERM

aint

ain

Fitte

rM

ETAL

MAC

HIN

ING

Oth

Con

stru

ctio

nO

THO

TH L

ABO

UR

Oth

Mac

h/Pl

ant

OTH

MAC

HIN

ING

OTH

SER

VIC

EO

TH/T

RAN

S/M

ACH

Oth

er B

uild

ing

OTH

ER M

ANU

AL

OTH

ER M

ISC

OTH

ER W

OO

DPA

INTE

R/D

ECO

RAT

PA

VIO

RS

Plan

t Driv

ers

PLAS

TER

ERPL

ASTI

CS

PLU

MBE

R/H

EATI

NG

Prod

uct/M

anag

ers

Rai

l Con

stru

ctR

EFU

SER

OAD

CO

NST

RU

CT

RO

OFE

R

SCAF

FOLD

/STE

EPLE

SCIE

NTI

FIC

/BU

ILSC

IEN

TIFI

C/E

NG

SER

VIC

E/PI

PES

STEE

L ER

ECTO

RSu

rvey

or/P

lann

erTR

ANS/

MAN

AGER

SW

ELD

ERS

Figure 63 Trades Which Do And Do not Have Training Qualifications (821 Questionnaires, 183 = Unknown)

56

5 THE ACCIDENT

5.1 QUESTION 19 – LENGTH OF TIME ON SITE

Going back to the accident, how long had IP been working at that particular site?:

Figure 64 Question 19 – Length of Time on Site (1004 Questionnaires)

Figure 64 shows that most notified accidents, according to the survey, occur between 1 and 3 months (17%) of the person having started work on the site, and the least amount of accidents occur between 4 and 5 years (0.2%), 3 and 4 years (0.7%), 18 and 24 months (1%), 2 and 3 years (1.3%) and over 5 years (1.5%), again using HSE categories. Some 15% of notifiers do not know how long the injured person was on a particular site before the accident occurred. This needs to be further interpreted in relation to the project duration and the norms for duration of site activity for the trade / construction type.

57

Figure 65 compares the length of time the injured person was on site before the accident occurred to the length of time the project was going on.

Figure 65 Comparing Length to Project to IP Time on Site Before Accident (1004 Questionnaires)

58

999

5.2 QUESTION 20 – HOURS WORKED

What were the typical hours of work for IP and his colleagues? (hours per week):

350

1 2 1 8 3

23

1

48

25 15

1 1

84

302

2 1 2 15

40

4 1 8

158

1 2 1 4 19

29

1 3

92

5 6 2 14

3 13

1 1 5 1 2

53

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

16 20 25 30 32 35 36 3737

.5 3838

.5

38.7

5 39 40 4141

.25

41.5 42

42.5 43

43.5 44 45

45.5 46

46.2

5 4747

.5 4848

.5 49 50 5252

.5 54 55 56 60 65 68 70 77 80

Unk

n

Figure 66 Question 20 – Hours worked

Figure 66 shows the most common hours of work for those involved in these incidents are 40 hours per week (30%). The other significant categories are 45 hours per week (16%), 50 hours per week (9%). Some 5% of notifiers did not know the hours of work for the injured person. Figure 67 shows the hours of work grouped together. These need to be compared with industry norms. Only in 2% of cases are the hours exceptionally long for the industry (e.g. > 60 hours per week).

Figure 67 Grouped Hours of Work (1004 Questionnaires)

59

5.3 QUESTION 21 – TASK INVOLVED

What task was he doing when the accident occurred?:

100

9083

16

36

18 24

10

31

74

41 35

19

65

51

5

39

91

35 38

30

22

39

63

39

8 12

31

18

31Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Bric

k / b

lock

layi

ng

Con

cret

e w

orks

Dem

oliti

on /

rem

oval

Erec

ting

/ dis

man

tling

Fit o

ut

Floo

ring

Gla

zing

Gro

und

wor

ks /

foun

datio

ns

Hig

hway

wor

ks

Hou

seke

epin

g

Insp

ectio

n

Join

ery

wor

k

Labo

urin

g

Lift

inst

alla

tion

Load

ing

/ unl

oadi

ng v

ehic

le

M&E

Mai

nten

ance

Ope

ratin

g / m

aint

aini

ng p

lant

Pain

ting

/ Dec

orat

ing

Plas

terin

g

Plum

bing

wor

ks

Roo

fing

/ cla

ddin

g

Scaf

fold

ing

Stan

d-by

Stee

l wor

ks

Supe

rvis

ion

Oth

er

Unk

now

n

Figure 68 Question 21 – Task Carrying Out (1004 Questionnaires)

As can be seen from Figure 68 the most common task the injured person had been assigned to undertake when an accidents occurred was M&E (9%). Other common tasks being carried out when accidents occur are block / brick laying (8%), ground works / foundations (7%), joinery work (6%) and roofing / cladding (6%).

60

5.4 QUESTION 22 – SPECIFIC ACTIVITY INVOLVED

What was the specific activity involved?:

200

55

88

20 11 15

4

30 23

2 12 15 17

79

10

52

2 17

52

10 9 1

25 17

6 11 7

35 35 21 23

176

124

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Acce

ssin

g / l

eavi

ng w

orkf

ace

Acce

ssin

g / l

eavi

ng w

orkf

ace

(Lad

ders

)

Acce

ssin

g / l

eavi

ng w

orkf

ace

(Veh

icle

s)

Assi

stin

g

Bric

k / b

lock

layi

ng

Con

cret

e w

orks

Dem

oliti

on /

rem

oval

Erec

ting

/ dis

man

tling

Gla

zing

Gro

und

wor

ks /

foun

datio

ns

Han

dlin

g m

ater

ials

Hou

seke

epin

g

Insp

ectio

n

Inst

allin

g m

ater

ials

Join

ery

wor

k

Load

ing

/ unl

oadi

ng v

ehic

le

M&E

Mai

nten

ance

Ope

ratin

g / m

aint

aini

ng p

lant

Pain

ting

/ Dec

orat

ing

Plas

terin

g

Plum

bing

wor

ks

Prep

arin

g m

ater

ials

Prep

arin

g w

orkf

ace

Roo

fing

/ cla

ddin

g

Stan

d-by

Supe

rvis

ion

Trav

ersi

ng s

ite

Trav

ersi

ng s

ite (C

arry

ing)

Usi

ng h

and

tool

s

Usi

ng p

ower

tool

s

Unk

now

n

Figure 69 Question 22 – Specific Activity Involved (1004 Questionnaires)

Figure 69 shows the specific work activity being undertaken when an accident occurred. The most common activities are handling materials (18%), accessing / leaving workface (16%, either on the same level (5%), using ladders (9%) or using vehicles (2%)), traversing site (16%, either carrying equipment (4%) or not (12%)) and installing materials (8%). It appears that most of the accidents were associated with ancillary activities (e.g. only 15 of the 83 people tasked for brick / block laying were doing so at the time of the accident, etc).

61

62

Figure 70 and Table 2 compare the task to the specific activity being carried out when the accident occurred. It is clear to see that the biggest category (20 accidents) concerns installing materials during M&E. The other common combinations with 15 or more instances are handling materials while labouring, handling materials or traversing the site while brick / block laying, accessing / leaving workface (ladders) during M&E, loading / unloading vehicles during highway works, erecting / dismantling scaffolding, loading / unloading vehicles, operating / maintaining plant and traversing the site when supervising. These data provide a basis for examining relative risks in more detail.

Figure 70 Task Involved Compared to Specific Activity Involved (1004 Questionnaires)

Bric

k / b

lock

layi

ngC

oncr

ete

wor

ksD

emol

ition

/ re

mov

alEr

ectin

g / d

ism

antli

ngFi

t out

Floo

ring

Gla

zing

Gro

und

wor

ks /

foun

datio

nsH

ighw

ay w

orks

Hou

seke

epin

gIn

spec

tion

Join

ery

wor

kLa

bour

ing

Lift

inst

alla

tion

Load

ing

/ unl

oadi

ng v

ehic

leM

&EM

aint

enan

ceO

pera

ting

/ mai

ntai

ning

pla

ntPa

intin

g / D

ecor

atin

gPl

aste

ring

Plum

bing

wor

ksR

oofin

g / c

ladd

ing

Scaf

fold

ing

Stan

d-by

Stee

l wor

ksSu

perv

isio

nO

ther

Unk

now

nAc

cess

ing

/ lea

ving

wor

kfac

eAc

cess

ing

/ lea

ving

wor

kfac

e (L

adde

rs)

Acce

ssin

g / l

eavi

ng w

orkf

ace

(Veh

icle

s)As

sist

ing

Bric

k / b

lock

layi

ngC

oncr

ete

wor

ksD

emol

ition

/ re

mov

alEr

ectin

g / d

ism

antli

ngG

lazi

ngG

roun

d w

orks

/ fo

unda

tions

Han

dlin

g m

ater

ials

Hou

seke

epin

gIn

spec

tion

Inst

allin

g m

ater

ials

Join

ery

wor

kLo

adin

g / u

nloa

ding

veh

icle

Mai

nten

ance

M&E

Ope

ratin

g / m

aint

aini

ng p

lant

Pain

ting

/ Dec

orat

ing

Plas

terin

gPl

umbi

ng w

orks

Prep

arin

g m

ater

ials

Prep

arin

g w

orkf

ace

Roo

fing

/ cla

ddin

gSt

and-

bySu

perv

isio

nTr

aver

sing

site

Trav

ersi

ng s

ite (C

arry

ing)

Usi

ng h

and

tool

sU

sing

pow

er to

ols

Unk

now

n

11 2 2

111

14

2 21 1

3

1

3

12

12 2

1

5

2221

5

12

7

1

3

2

1

5

112

1 1

45

22111

6

1 1

15

121

43

7

23

6

9

11

3

9

3

12

77

22

15

45

11

53

11

664

1111 1 2

112

11

3

1 122

12 2

1 11

3

1

3

11

1

8

10

4

11 1

12

21

22 21

3

15

1 1 111

21 113

5

2

43

1 1

15

1111

15

2 21 11

211

2

9

1

6

21

3

1

6

33

54

2

20

1

5

10

12

3

1

1

5 6

1 11 2

1 1

13

16

5

10

6

11

3

131211

1

9

18

1

12

6

98

12

5

9

7

5

3

11

8

3

11

11 2

1 1 1

17

2

10

1

5

1 1 22

5

1

4

14

12

1112111

1

1

10

121

3

11

3

122

43

1

33

7

3

11

16

5

3

54

8

5

2

64

3

5

111

33

11

9

23

11

8

2 222

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Number of Notifiers

Overall TaskSpecific Activity

Table 2 Comparison of Task to Specific Activity

Specific Activity

Task

Acc

essi

ng /

leav

ing

wor

kfac

e A

cces

sing

/ le

avin

g w

orkf

ace

(Lad

ders

) A

cces

sing

/ le

avin

g w

orkf

ace

(Veh

icle

s)

Ass

istin

g

Bric

k / b

lock

layi

ng

Con

cret

e w

orks

Dem

oliti

on /

rem

oval

Erec

ting

/ dis

man

tling

Gla

zing

Gro

und

wor

ks /

foun

datio

nsH

andl

ing

mat

eria

ls

Hou

seke

epin

g

Insp

ectio

n

Inst

allin

g m

ater

ials

Join

ery

wor

kLo

adin

g / u

nloa

ding

ve

hicl

e M

aint

enan

ce

M&

EO

pera

ting

/ mai

ntai

ning

pl

ant

Pain

ting

/ Dec

orat

ing

Plas

terin

g

Plum

bing

wor

ks

Prep

arin

g m

ater

ials

Prep

arin

g w

orkf

ace

Roo

fing

/ cla

ddin

g

Stan

d-by

Supe

rvis

ion

Trav

ersi

ng si

te

Trav

ersi

ng si

te

(Car

ryin

g)U

sing

han

d to

ols

Usi

ng p

ower

tool

s

Unk

now

n

Gra

nd T

otal

Brick / block laying 4 3 14 2 16 6 3 4 3 4 15 5 1 2 1 83 Concrete works 1 1 4 5 2 1 1 1 16 Demolition / removal 2 10 10 1 3 2 1 5 2 36 Erecting / dismantling 2 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 18 Fit out 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 4 2 2 24 Flooring 1 1 2 1 3 2 10 Glazing 3 3 2 5 1 3 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 31 Ground works / foundations 5 1 10 1 2 8 13 3 1 12 2 1 1 7 5 1 1 74 Highway works 1 1 1 3 12 3 15 2 2 1 41 Housekeeping 1 3 1 11 13 1 1 3 1 35 Inspection 1 3 1 5 1 6 2 19 Joinery work 3 7 1 9 5 9 1 2 2 1 9 4 7 3 2 65 Labouring 3 3 1 1 18 4 1 2 1 11 5 1 51 Lift installation 1 1 1 2 5 Loading / unloading vehicle 1 1 2 1 12 15 2 1 1 3 39 M&E 9 16 1 2 2 1 1 1 6 6 20 2 3 2 1 1 9 2 1 3 2 91 Maintenance 2 5 1 2 9 1 5 3 1 2 3 1 35 Operating / maintaining plant 3 3 1 1 8 2 15 3 2 38 Painting / Decorating 3 5 1 1 1 1 10 3 2 1 1 1 30 Plastering 1 4 2 1 8 1 1 2 1 1 22 Plumbing works 1 8 5 5 1 5 1 2 1 1 7 1 1 39 Roofing / cladding 8 5 1 9 1 10 1 1 4 1 3 2 6 7 2 2 63 Scaffolding 2 2 17 7 1 2 2 6 39 Stand-by 6 2 8 Steel works 5 2 1 1 1 2 12 Supervision 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 5 15 31 Other 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 4 1 1 18 Unknown 2 6 1 1 1 5 1 14 31 Grand Total 55 88 20 11 15 4 30 23 2 12 176 15 17 79 10 52 17 2 52 10 9 1 25 17 6 11 7 124 35 35 21 23 1004

63

01010

Figure 71 compares the accident kind with the agent causing the accident based on notifier responses. It shows that the most common factors involved in falls from height (07) and slips, trips and falls on the same level (06) are surface, structures and building access equipment (02). Factors contributing to injuries caused by handling, lifting or carrying (05) and injuries caused by moving, flying or falling objects (02) are materials, objects, products and machine components (09).

18000

- N

o l02

- Su

rface

s an

d st

ruct

ures

bel

ow g

roun

d 160

on o

f mat

er

04 -

Han

d he

ld to

ols

and

equi

pmen

t 140

05 -

Syst

ems

for e

nerg

y an

d st

orag

e, m

otor

s ng

, sto

rage

sys

tem

s an

d 120

ed tr

ansp

ort e

quip

men

t07

- Ve

hicl

es, p

lant

and

ear

th m

ovin

g

08 -

Mac

hine

s an

d eq

uipm

ent –

not

han

d to

ols

als,

obj

ects

, pro

duct

s, m

achi

ne

100Number of Notifiers

8010

- Su

bsta

nces

and

radi

at

11 -

Safe

ty d

evic

es a

nd e

quip

men

t 12

- Fu

rnitu

re, w

ashi

ng a

nd b

athi

ng fa

cilit

ies,

60

14 -

Peop

le

40m

als,

tree

s or

pla

nts

20

th m

ovin

g m

achi

nery

ng

obj

ect

t by

mov

ing

vehi

cle

ng o

r car

yKind

08 -

Trap

ped

by fa

lling

or o

vertu

rned

10 -

Expo

sed

to h

arm

ful s

usbs

tanc

e

13 -

Expo

sed

to e

lect

r14

- Ph

ysic

alii

ding

acc

ess

i

i

i

ici

l

0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 10 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

162

5 2 0 1 4 9 0 4 0 0 0 4

0 0

7 8 5 4 6 5 0

55

11 1 0

8 1 8

0

32

2 3

33

3 19

5 10

111

0 1 2

25

0 1

0 17

0 0 2 0 0 2 1 8 0 0 1 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

24

1 4

44

0 12 9

3

89

0 1 1 1 0 2

0 0 0 0 11

0 1 1 9

5 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

nfor

mat

on

als

or

on

onar

y ng

on

sam

e le

vel

from

hei

ght

12 -

Expo

sed

to e

xplo

sion

ty

y as

sulte

d 16

- O

ther

151

0.00

Agent

Figure 71 Comparison of Accident Kind and Agent

01 -

Surfa

ce, s

truct

ures

and

bui

equi

pmen

tle

vel

03 -

Syst

ems

for t

he d

istri

buti

subs

tanc

es

06 -

Con

veyi

ng, l

ifti

hand

hel

d pu

shed

/ pu

ll equi

pmen

t

09 -

Mat

eri

com

pone

nts

offic

e eq

uipm

ent,

pers

onal

equ

ipm

ent

15 -

Ani

16 -

Phys

ical

, phe

nom

ena

and

natu

ral

elem

ents

00

- N

o in

form

atio

n01

- C

onta

ct w

i02

- H

it by

mov

ing,

flyi

ng o

r fal

li03

- H

i04

- H

it fix

ed o

r sta

ti05

- In

jure

d w

hile

han

dlin

g, li

fti

06 -

Slip

ped,

trip

ped

or fe

ll07

- Fa

ll

64

Social, Political and MarketContext

Corporate Policy Influences

Organisation& Management Systems

Human andTechnical Systems

Social, Political and MarketContext

Corporate Policy Influences

Organisation& Management Systems

Human andTechnical Systems

5.5 QUESTION 23 – SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS

Finally, from your experience, is there anything you could suggest that should be done to prevent such accidents in the future?:

The responses received from notifiers to this question were wide-ranging and extensive. All the responses are listed in Appendix B where they have been categorised. The meaningful analysis of this information has been aided by the application of ‘Influence Network’ methodology as described below.

5.5.1 Influence Network Model

5.5.1.1 Background

The Influence Network was originally developed to model how human and organisational factors could affect the likelihood of human error leading to accidents in hazardous environments (e.g. nuclear power stations, petrochemical plants, aerospace).

Social, Political and Context

Corporate Policy Influences

Organisation & Management Systems

Human and Technical Systems

Figure 72 Nested hierarchy of influences

The Influence Network approach for human performance was enhanced by BOMEL to cover human and hardware performance at all levels in an organisation in a single analysis, thereby giving a comprehensive approach to understanding the factors which influence the likelihood of human error or hardware failure in the causation of accidents. This approach has rapidly gained wide acknowledgement and has been applied in risk assessment and, perhaps more importantly, in the development of risk reduction strategies for a variety of accident scenarios in a wide range of industrial sectors. The structuring within the network gives coherence to fragmented information and the quantification enables weaknesses and areas where change may achieve substantial benefit to be identified.

65

5.5.1.2 Methodology

The Influence Network is developed from consideration of a generic set of influences which are structured in a hierarchy representing the influence domains shown in Figure 72. The Generic Influence Network is shown in Figure 73, and described in the following sections.

CONSTRUCTION

DIRECT LEVEL

COMPETENCE

D1

MOTIVATION / MORALE

D2

TEAM-WORKING

D3

SITUATIONAL AWARENESS /

RISK D4PERCEPTION

FATIGUE / ALERTNESS

D5

HEALTH

D6

COMMS

D7

INFORMATION /ADVICE

D8

COMPLIANCE

D9

SUITABLE HUMAN

RESOURCES D10

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

D11

OPERATIONAL EQUIPMENT

D12

SAFETY EQUIPMENT

/ PPED13

RECRUITMENT & SELECTION

O1

TRAINING

O2

PROCEDURES

O3

PLANNING

O4

INCIDENT MANAGEMENT & FEEDBACK

O5

MANAGEMENT / SUPERVISION O6

ORGANISATIONAL LEVEL

COMMS

O7

SAFETY CULTURE

O8

EQUIPMENT PURCHASING O9

INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE O10

PAY AND CONDITIONS

O11

PROCESS DESIGN

O12

CONTRACTING STRATEGY

P1

OWNERSHIP & CONTROL

P2 P3

COMPANY CULTURE

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE

P4

POLICY LEVEL

SAFETY MANAGEMENT

P5 P6

LABOUR RELATIONS

COMPANY PROFITABILITY

P7

E1 E2 E3 E4

ENVIRONMENTAL LEVEL

POLITICAL INFLUENCE

REGULATORY INFLUENCE

MARKET INFLUENCE

SOCIETAL INFLUENCE

Figure 73 Generic Influence Network

At the top is the event being considered (i.e. construction accident prevention). Below the top event is the direct causal level which is made up of human, hardware and external factors. These are perhaps the most obvious contributors to an accident, and are therefore assumed to be the easiest to tackle. What is of critical importance are the underlying influences that contribute to the accident’s occurrence or prevention. In order to model these influences, the Influence Network has adopted a hierarchy below the direct causal level as follows:

• Direct performance influences - these directly influence the likelihood of an accident being caused.

• Organisational influences - these influence direct influences and reflect the culture, procedures and behaviour promulgated by the organisation.

• Policy level influences – these reflect the expectations of the decision makers in the employers of those at risk and the organisations they interface with (e.g. clients, suppliers, subcontractors).

• Environmental level influences - these cover the wider political, regulatory, market and social influences which impact the policy influences.

66

In terms of the construction industry, the relevant stakeholders that might be affected by the suggestions made through the RIDDOR survey are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Construction stakeholders applied to Influence Network levels

Influence level Definition

Direct level Applies to site operatives and technicians, i.e. the people actually carrying out the construction work.

Organisational Level

Policy Level

Environmental Level

Applies to the site organisation and local management.

Applies to both the client and construction company management. Contracting strategy, ownership and control and company culture apply to the client (i.e. the organisation commissioning and paying for the construction activity) the remainder apply to the policies of contractors carrying out the work.

The Political Influence incorporates both national and local government procurement strategy as well as government as guardians of worker and public safety. Otherwise the Environmental Level influences are external to the organisations represented at the Policy Level.

5.5.2 Analysis

Notifiers’ suggestions for ways to prevent the accident have been analysed and classified under a particular influence. In total there were 1395 (including null) separate classifications for the responses to this question; many notifiers implied more than one suggestion with the highest number of suggestions a notifier produced being four. All responses were included in the analysis. Of the 1004 notifiers, 171 indicated that there was “nothing” that could be done to prevent a similar accident in future. Three notifiers declined to answer or had suggestions that could not be understood. Therefore, the Influence Network analysis is based on 1221 separate constructive suggestions.

In summary, there were 720 direct level suggestions, 451 at the organisational level, 37 at the policy level and seven at the environmental level. The classification of answers was made according to the similarity between the content of the suggestion and the definition of the influence as illustrated below. This process was corroborated by a second rater and this ensured that the reliability of the data was maximised. However, it is important to appreciate that some suggestions do overlap more than one influence, in such cases the answer has been classified under the most appropriate influence and the quantification is indicative as opposed to definitive. The frequency with which suggestions relate to the factors are shown in Figure 74 (50 suggestions relate to competence D1, for example). The top 10 factors, based on the frequency of suggestions are also shaded. The following section lists each influence, its definition and gives actual examples of suggestions made by the notifiers categorised against influences.

Appendix B lists all the influencing factors and corresponding suggestions against each. Where more than one suggestion is made, other influence categories are shown alongside.

67

PREVENTION OF CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENTS

COMPETENCE

D1

MOTIVATION / MORALE

D2

TEAM-WORKING

D3

SITUATIONAL AWARENESS /

RISK D4PERCEPTION

FATIGUE / ALERTNESS

D5

HEALTH

D6

COMMS

D7

INFORMATION /ADVICE

D8

DIRECT LEVEL

COMPLIANCE

D9

SUITABLE HUMAN

RESOURCES D10

INTERNAL ENVIRONMENTAL

CONDITIONS D11

EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTAL

CONDITIONS D12

OPERATIONAL EQUIPMENT

D13

SAFETY EQUIPMENT

/ PPED14

50 0 20 188 14 11 24 7 83 7 123 29 83 81

RECRUITMENT & SELECTION

O1

TRAINING

O2

PROCEDURES

O3

PLANNING

O4

INCIDENT MANAGEMENT & FEEDBACK

O5

MANAGEMENT / SUPERVISION O6

ORGANISATIONAL LEVEL

COMMS

O7

SAFETY CULTURE

O8

EQUIPMENT PROVISION

O9

INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE O10

PAY AND CONDITIONS

O11

PROCESS DESIGN

O12

10 77 86 86 13 37 50 9 48 19 4 18

CONTRACTING STRATEGY

P1

OWNERSHIP & CONTROL

P2 P3

COMPANY CULTURE

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE

P4

POLICY LEVEL

SAFETY MANAGEMENT

P5 P6

LABOUR RELATIONS

COMPANY PROFITABILITY

P7

ICAL

E1 E2 E3

SOCIETAL

E4

4 5 0 8 18 0 2

ENVIRONMENTAL LEVEL

POLITINFLUENCE

REGULATORY INFLUENCE

MARKET INFLUENCE INFLUENCE

1 5 0 1

Figure 74 Influence Network for Suggestions of Improvement

5.5.2.1 Direct Level Influences

D1 Competence - The skills, knowledge and abilities required to perform particular tasks safely Examples:

• Use common sense • Learn to bend knees when lifting.

D2 Motivation / Morale - Workers incentive to work towards business, personal and common goals

Examples: • None given

D3 Teamworking - The extent to which individuals work in teams and look out for each other's interests

Examples: • Wait for others' help • Assistance from another person to lift equipment

D4 Situational Awareness - The extent to which workers are aware of the hazards and risks associated with working on a construction site

Examples: • Be more careful and aware • Care and attention • Increase vigilance

D5 Fatigue - The degree to which performance is degraded, for example, through sleep deprivation, or excessive / insufficient mental or physical activity, or drugs / alcohol

Examples: • Was working in overtime - 2hrs per night Mon to Thurs.

68

• Reduce alcohol consumption the night before

D6 Health - The well being of body and mind of the workforce Examples: • Eye tests for employee • Regular medicals

D7 Communications - The extent to which the frequency and clarity of communications are appropriate for ensuring effective task and team work Examples: • Better communication between operative and machine operator. • Improve coordination of other trades’ activities

D8 Information / Advice - The extent to which people can access information that is accurate, timely, relevant and usable

Examples: • Operatives to seek advice when needed

D9 Compliance - The extent to which people comply with rules, procedures or regulations Examples: • Should use correct equipment to do the job • Follow Method Statement

D10 Availability of Suitable Human Resources - The relationship of supply to need for suitable human resources. Relates to the appropriate mix and number of workers in terms of experience, knowledge and qualifications

Examples: • More personnel to support potentially dangerous [built] structures. • More hands on site.

D11 Internal Environmental Conditions - The extent to which the control of internal environmental factors, such as tidiness and may prevent accidents

Examples: • Don't leave manholes uncovered • Improve housekeeping

D12 External Environmental Conditions - The extent to which the control of external environmental factors, such as weather affect workplace activity may prevent accidents

Examples: • Don't access work face in unsuitable weather • Salt and grit workplace during winter

D13 Operational Equipment - The extent to which OPERATIONAL equipment and materials are available, conform to best practice, meet the usability needs of the operator and are inspected and maintained

Examples: • Mechanical handling of equipment • Better securing at bottom of ladder • Use equipment that can detect cabling 20mm below ground

69

D14 Safety Equipment / PPE - The extent to which SAFETY equipment / PPE is available, conforms to best practice, meets the usability needs of the worker and is inspected and maintained Examples: • Wear goggles and gloves • Cause was identified as a faulty boot. New boots issued. • More warning signs

5.5.2.2 Organisational Level Influences

O1 Recruitment and Selection - The system that facilitates the employment of people that are suited to the job demands Examples: • Don't employ idiots! • Ensure that employees are given a medical before they are employed

O2 Training - The system that ensures the skills of the workforce are matched to their job demands Examples: • Convinced CSCS cards going along right route and can only do good. • Health and Safety training • Manual Handling training

O3 Procedures - The system that ensures that the method of conducting tasks and/or operations is explicit and practical

Examples: • Revise method statement • Generator should be switched off for refuelling • Focus more on how work is sequenced so that employees work from platform

rather than ladders

O4 Planning - The system that designs and structures work activities Examples:

• More strategic planning of material arrivals on site • Have materials offloaded where it is needed, rather than transporting them across

site.

O5 Incident Management + Feedback - The system of incident management that ensures high quality information is available for decision-making when and where it is required, including the collection, analysis and feedback of incident and near-miss data

Examples: • Safe system of work - take in all known incidents • Recall this particular incident and point out how and why it happened

O6 Management / Supervision - The system that ensures human resources are adequately managed/supervised Examples: • Managers have too much pressure - sends labour down to work without a proper

explanation of how, who, what, where and when. Senior management should guide the process

• Changing behaviour. People revert when not supervised. 70

O7 Communications - The system that ensures that appropriate information is communicated clearly to its intended recipients

Examples: • Communicate around the site. • More communication between trades on site.

O8 Safety Culture - Product of individual and group values, attitudes, competencies and patterns of behaviour in relation to safety

Examples: • Should have been 2 man lift - culture change required. Stop them thinking they are

stronger than they are - training and education. • More attention to safety

O9 Equipment Provision - The system that ensures that the appropriate range of equipment is available Examples: • Recommend that all boxes fitted with restraint arms to prevent the lids falling

down. • Improve quality of ramps - semi wood / semi steel • Have already improved vehicle design: when tipper is up and vehicle attempts to

move a speaker informs the driver that the tipper is up. After 5 metres of movement, an external speaker announces the same message to others in the vicinity

O10 Inspection + Maintenance - The system that ensures equipment and materials are maintained in good working order Examples: • Ensure all faulty equipment is promptly reported and not used. • Defective vehicles & plant must be repaired before use. • Proactive inspection.

O11 Pay + Conditions - The remuneration package and benefits in the context of working hours and conditions and welfare facilities

Example: • Incentive schemes to encourage long term service. A key issue for safety is long

term service

O12 Design – The process of design to ensure the buildability of new structures and operability of safety devices of existing structures during maintenance, repair and refurbishment. Examples: • Design that allows panels to be directly installed by crane. • Do not improvise. Properly designed lifting points should be incorporated and

used.

5.5.2.3 Policy Level Influences

P1 Contracting Strategy - The extent to which health and safety is considered in contractual arrangements and the implications

Example: • Principal Contractor should enforce H&S Regs with Subcontractors

71

P2 Ownership + Control - The extent to which ownership and control are taken over sustained safety performance Example: • Increase toolbox talks to show senior management commitment to safety

P3 Company Culture - Culture within an organisation consists of assumptions about the way work should be performed; what is and what is not acceptable; what behaviour and actions should be encouraged and discouraged and which risks should be given most resources

Example: • No suggestions

P4 Organisational Structure - The extent to which there is definition of safety responsibility within and between organisations

Example: • Too much fragmentation [between contractors], single point contact would allow

better understanding of conditions

P5 Safety Management - The management system which encompasses safety policies, the definition of roles and responsibilities for safety, the implementation of measures to promote safety and the evaluation of safety performance

Examples: • Management system failure. Damage to vehicles was reported. Scheduled for

repairs. But was used before carried out. • Principal contractor should make regular inspections to ensure Site Safety.

P6 Labour Relations - This extent to which there is a harmonious relationship between managers/owners and the workforce. It also concerns the extent to which there is the opportunity for workers to affiliate with associations active in defending and promoting their welfare, and the extent to which there is a system in place for pay negotiation

Example: • No suggestions

P7 Profitability - The extent to which the owner is subject to competition over market share and constrained as to the price that they can charge

Example: • Less money pressure. Less time pressure.

5.5.2.4 Environmental Level Influences

E1 Political Influence - The profile of, and practices within, Government related to safety in the industry

Example: • No, the condition of council properties is often very poor.

E2 Regulatory Influence - The framework of Regulations and guidance governing the industry and the profile and actions of the Regulator

Examples: • HSE should start prosecuting individuals on site who are breaking the law (e.g. not

wearing hard hats), e.g. fining people £50 would get rid of problem in 2 months. Word of mouth will eradicate problem.

• Need a proactive approach from HSE, to offer affordable advice.

72

E3 Market Influence - The commercial and economic context affecting the industry Example:

• No suggestions

E4 Societal Influence - Aspects of the community and society at large, which bear upon organisations and workers Example: • Change overall lifestyle attitudes to safety.

5.5.2.5 Discussion

It is clear that in answering the question, notifiers focused on aspects of site organisation and the direct workplace factors, with infrequent references to more fundamental human or organisational change. In a number of instances the problems were associated with worker behaviours but the notifier felt this meant nothing could be done. The role of the notifier and context of the question in relation to a specific accident will however have influenced the nature of the response.

It is notable that issues such as Situational Awareness / Risk Perception and Compliance are also frequently cited as problems in more generic industry workshops. Training is also a specific focus of industry activity, targeting improved health and safety. However, these initiatives have moved away from hardware oriented solutions with a general observation that equipment is usually of a reasonable standard and available, leaving emphasis on proper use, human and organisational factors.

The Operational Equipment deficiencies observed in response to this question generally relate to use, with (correct) footing of ladders being a frequent example. Similarly, in relation to Safety Equipment / 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 now 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/inter-contractor issues.

The above illustrate the key points emerging amongst the suggestions, but a sequential reading through Appendix B helps the reader build a fuller picture.

73

74

6 QUESTIONNAIRE FEEDBACK

6.1 RATING OF RESPONSES

When the questionnaire had been completed on the telephone the BOMEL questioner rated the robustness of the replies given by the respondee subjectively, by answering the following question:

Did you feel the respondee (Tick one only): a) Clearly recalled the incident and circumstances and gave robust replies throughout b) Had reasonable recall of the incident and circumstances but was uncertain about some aspects c) Had poor recall of the incident and it is doubtful the responses are reliable

215

22

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

ifier

s

767

Num

ber o

f Not

a) b) c)

Figure 75 Ratings of Answers Given (1004 Questionnaires)

As can be seen from Figure 75, the majority of responses (76%) have been given a high confidence rating, while only 2% of responses were poor and 22% of responses were reasonable. Therefore, this data can be used with a high confidence of its robustness.

75

6.2 FEEDBACK

A field was also provided for the questioner to note any comments or concerns raised by the notifier:

Any other comments / concerns from you or the respondee in relation to the interview.

Some of the responses given to this question are:

• In some cases some of the questions were no applicable due to the nature of the project e.g. − An accident occurred where the IP was carrying out maintenance on plant machinery

in a yard prior to plant going to a site. There was no client and no contract. − An accident occurred while loading materials in preparation to go to a site − An accident occurred in a workshop, preparing wood to be used on a variety of

projects

• A number of injured people were employed by a subcontractor to the notifying company or were a self employed person working for a subcontractor to the notifying company

• A notifier was concerned in the initial stages that we were trying to sell something and / or that the calls were associated with insurance services

• Some notifiers were unable to answer confidently to all areas of the questionnaire due to lack of knowledge or no information available to confirm the question (i.e. contract specific questions and IP employment / training specific questions)

• A number of notifiers were very happy to help and were pleased that something was being done with the information they had submitted, however, one notifier was not happy about being ‘cold called’

• A lot of people were very helpful and stated that reducing factors involved in construction accidents was important.

Specific issues which were noted by questioners during the course of contacting the notifiers were:

• One notifier was ‘disappointed’ that HSE did not inspect the site of a high fall or investigate the accident but this was communicated to, and followed up by, HSE

• A couple of injured persons should not have been on site as they were made redundant a few days earlier or no longer worked for the company

• One notifier was carrying out a job (for 2 days) for a charity, for no money, which they have done for the last nine years

• One notifier was keen to follow up the interview with some observations in respect of falls from height. He was about to attend a NHBA course on this subject and recognised the problem as serious. However, he felt that the latest requirements, as he understood them, in relation to mitigation measures for falls from height were impractical to the point of making it impossible to work and that safety regulation in the industry had reached a point of diminishing returns. He thought that for a house builder to need to use catch nets or air cushions was impractical and economically not viable. He also expressed a view that the HSE should try to find (by research) fall mitigation measures that were practical and that if

76

more regulation in this area was promulgated it should be specific “they should tell us what to do”, i.e. prescriptive rather than goal setting.

• A Safety Consultant in Aberdeen believes the construction industry is about 10 to 15 years behind the offshore industry in safety matters / thinking. He also works a lot with paper mills which he believes are about 5 to 10 years ahead of construction but 5 to 10 years behind offshore.

• A Safety Officer for a construction company, who had previously worked in the oil industry independently suggested construction safety practice was well below oil industry standards but attributed this to a cultural element. Whereas in the oil industry there was a strong claims culture and an employee with a minor injury might take off several weeks, on pay, and also make a compensation claim, in construction for the same incident a worker may take off only a few days, unpaid, and make no compensation claim. Thus in the oil industry managers had to be more safety conscious to avoid claims whereas construction management were less safety conscious as the potential for claims was much lower.

• A builder believed that CDM has done nothing to reduce accidents, suggesting site managers on large sites would be better employed planning and supervising activities rather than spending their time on CDM paperwork.

• A notifier had been working on a major public sector ‘Prime Contracting’ set-up and his company was the ‘cluster leader’ for the buildings. He commented that: 1) The Consortium was led by a ‘project management’ company who the notifier considered ‘inexperienced’ in construction and safety. They employed a consultant Safety Specialist for initially only 1 day per week and later 2-3 days per week. The notifier indicated that for a project of that size (£40M) they would normally have had a full time site safety presence. 2) The organisational set-up meant that different people on site got different inductions although they were all exposed to the same hazards. 3) Design Safety - All the services were to be run under a false floor and presented permanent trip hazards and restricted material movements until the false floor was installed. 4) As the building was ‘blast proof’ there was continuous manual handling requirements for 25kg (dry weight) blocks which the bricklayers and their labourers were handling for extended times (health hazard). 5) The roof construction prevented personnel and material access.

• A notifying company has incentive schemes to encourage long term service which they see as a very significant contributor to safety. They find that most accidents they have occur with employees who have less than 18 months’ service.

• One interviewee (specialist interior decorators and stone workers) indicated that his past year’s statistics showed 50% of their accidents were eye related with PPE not being worn when needed.

Some of the trends which have been noticed by the survey team during the course of contacting the notifiers are:

• The use of method statements, risk assessments, tool-box talks, site induction is almost universal; it seems as if management are trying hard to prevent accidents which nevertheless continue to happen. There is also significant safety and other training being provided (e.g. safety awareness courses). There are, however, many instances of people not following policies, procedures, instructions, method statements etc. and consequentially suffering injuries.

77

• A number of incidents relate to Apprentices / Trainees (although often coded as employees). One interviewee commented that the training colleges are teaching the tools / techniques of the last century not those used on site today. Another suggested CITB training courses taught ‘nothing useful’. A small builder developer noted that apprenticeships are too short at two years. Newly qualified tradesmen come to work with little to no site experience or awareness of the dangers on site. They can only do simple tasks.

• A large number of incidents seem to occur when people are traversing buildings / sites rather than actually working at an activity. These are mainly caused by poor housekeeping, debris etc. There are several instances of ‘another trade’ leaving obstacles on previously cleared areas. Comments on the need for increased communication between trades were also made.

• A number of falls down staircases, trips outside buildings etc. occurred as people were leaving the premises / leaving canteens etc - it is almost as if people switch off their safety thinking when they go ‘off duty’.

• Quite a number of incidents occur when people are collecting or moving materials rather than installing them. Wind was a contributor to some injuries as people moved sheets of material in exposed areas. Wind also features in vehicle accidents in relation to doors being blown shut.

• A large number of incidents appear to be in relation to maintenance rather than new build or refurbishment (e.g. entering lofts to examine services). It is questionable how many of these are captured by traditional thinking about ‘construction accidents’ - it obviously all depends on definitions and the dividing line is fine but the necessary interventions will differ.

• Moveable ladders feature strongly - a number of incidents relate to the bottom few rungs ­this may be a premature feeling of ‘I've arrived and therefore am safe now’.

• Notifiers attribute a lot of incidents to carelessness, lack of attention / awareness, complacency etc. One interviewee quoted a senior Inspector as saying words to the effect that ‘incidents could often be prevented by use of common sense - the problem is that it isn't too common!’- use of common sense was also a frequent suggestion in the survey as a means to prevent future occurrences.

• A significant number of people state that there is nothing that could have been done to prevent the accident and that it was a ‘one-off’ or ‘freak’ accident. Also people have stated that ‘it was just an accident’.

• Quite a number of incidents occur from a) Using wheelbarrows on slopes, ramps etc. and b) Protective covers on floors, stairways etc. (polythene and timber) – polythene when wet appears to be a particular risk.

• On a separate DTI project BOMEL are working on, comments were made that good site relations, motivation and high productivity were achieved by setting daily targets and permitting the tradesmen to leave site early, without loss of pay, when those activities were appropriately completed (apparently quality was not thereby compromised). During this project comments were noted that such policies encouraged people to rush their work to leave early leading to a lack of care and hence accidents. Thus, it was suggested that people were putting themselves under pressure to gain their incentives rather than management putting them under time pressure because of cost considerations (although, obviously, management also benefited from the higher productivity).

78

7 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The following sections review the data in the context of the main areas of interest for HSE, stated in the pre-tender document (as detailed in the fatal accident pilot).

7.1 TYPE OF PROJECT

The information to determine the type of project was gathered in Question 1a and 1b (and Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9, reproduced here as Figure 76). The most common type of project associated with notified major and over-3-day injury accidents, is a domestic housing new-build / construction project (17%), with commercial (10%) new-build / construction and domestic housing refurbishment (10%) being the second most common type, followed by commercial property refurbishment (8%), domestic housing maintenance / repair (7%), civil engineering new build (6%), and public building new build (5%). Table 4 compares these results with those provided by HSE for fatal accidents.

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 1 4 1 1 3 2 4 6 2 2

14

28

66

17

45

15 7

60

105

170

34

16

50

16 23

83

104

16 10

28

11 3 1 2 2 2 7 9 7 2 1 2 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 5

Com

mer

cial

Pro

perty

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

Indu

stria

l Fac

ilitie

sPu

blic

Bui

ldin

gsO

ther

Civ

il En

gine

erin

g Pr

ojec

tC

omm

erci

al P

rope

rtyD

omes

tic H

ousi

ngIn

dust

rial F

acilit

ies

Roa

d W

orks

Civ

il En

gine

erin

g Pr

ojec

tC

omm

erci

al P

rope

rtyD

omes

tic H

ousi

ngIn

dust

rial F

acilit

ies

Roa

d W

orks

Publ

ic B

uild

ings

Oth

erC

ivil

Engi

neer

ing

Proj

ect

Com

mer

cial

Pro

perty

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

Indu

stria

l Fac

ilitie

sR

oad

Wor

ksPu

blic

Bui

ldin

gsO

ther

Civ

il En

gine

erin

g Pr

ojec

tC

omm

erci

al P

rope

rtyD

omes

tic H

ousi

ngIn

dust

rial F

acilit

ies

Roa

d W

orks

Publ

ic B

uild

ings

Oth

erC

ivil

Engi

neer

ing

Proj

ect

Com

mer

cial

Pro

perty

Indu

stria

l Fac

ilitie

sR

oad

Wor

ksO

ther

Civ

il En

gine

erin

g Pr

ojec

tC

omm

erci

al P

rope

rtyD

omes

tic H

ousi

ngIn

dust

rial F

acilit

ies

Roa

d W

orks

Publ

ic B

uild

ings

Oth

erC

ivil

Engi

neer

ing

Proj

ect

Com

mer

cial

Pro

perty

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

Roa

d W

orks

Publ

ic B

uild

ings

Com

mer

cial

Pro

perty

Dom

estic

Hou

sing

Indu

stria

l Fac

ilitie

sO

ther

li i / iDemo tion M&E F t Out MaintenanceRepair

New-build / Construction

Refurb shment Site Preparation

Other Unknown Not applicable

Figure 76 Type of Project (1004 Questionnaires)

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

79

Table 4 Type of Project Comparing Survey Results with Fatal Accidents

Project Types Fatal Accidents (77 accidents)

(1 accident = 1.3%)

Survey Results (1004 accidents)

Survey Results (946 accidents)

(1 accident = 0.1%)

New Build – Industrial 6.5% 3.6% 3.8%

New Build – Commercial 6.5% 15.5% 16.5%

New Build – Domestic 1.3% 16.9% 18.0%

Refurbishment – Non domestic 29.9% 21.0% 22.3%

Refurbishment – Domestic 26.0% 17.5% 18.6%

Road Works 18.2% 7.7% 8.1%

Other Civil Engineering 9.1% 11.0% 11.6%

Other Demolition 2.6% 1.0% 1.1%

New Build – Other - 1.8% -

Other / Unknown / NA – Non Dom. - 3.0% -

Other / Unknown / NA – Domestic - 1.0% -

The project types in Table 4 are as used by HSE with respect to fatal accidents. In the present survey the categories were broken down further so that maintenance / repair and refurbishment could be distinguished. The presentation in Table 4 amalgamates these back to the HSE survey categories as follows:

• New Build–Industrial includes new build / construction (34) and site preparation (2) for industrial facilities

• New Build–Commercial includes new build / construction and site preparation for commercial properties (105, 1) and public buildings (50, 0)

• New Build–Domestic includes new build / construction for domestic housing only (170) • Refurbishment–Non Domestic includes M&E fit out, maintenance / repair, refurbishment,

other unknown, not applicable for commercial property (4, 28, 83), industrial facilities (2, 17, 16), public buildings (0, 15, 28) and other (0, 7, 11).

• Refurbishment–Domestic includes M&E fit out (6), maintenance / repair (66), refurbishment (104) for domestic housing

• Road Works includes all road works. • Other Civil Engineering includes all civil engineering work. • Other demolition includes all demolition work.

A number of detailed categories became necessary in the course of the survey:

• Other/Unknown/Not applicable–Domestic combines corresponding categories (7, 1, 2) • Other/Unknown/Not applicable–Non-domestic combines categories for Commercial (9, 1,

1), Industrial (2, 0, 3) and Public buildings (2, 1, 0) and other (6, 0, 5).

The final columns show the proportions including and excluding the few extra categories although the figures remain similar.

In examining the percentages, it is important to recognise that an accident resulting in a fatality would affect the data in the first column by 1.3% but with major injury consequences the effect would be just

80

0.1% in the final column. The significance of the differences must be moderated in this way. Nevertheless, it appears broadly that the proportions are comparable.

It appears also that the relative severity of accidents at roadworks is high compared with other categories given the relatively significant contribution to fatality statistics compared with major and over-3-day injuries. This may be associated with the nature of the work, public proximity and plant used.

It might further appear that new build activity has a greater contribution to major / over-3-day injury statistics than fatalities. However, the converse is that refurbishment (including maintenance and repair) has a lesser contribution. However, potential differences in reporting culture need to be considered (fatal accident data are considered all but immune to under-reporting) such that better reporting of non-fatal accidents in new-build activity compared with refurbishment / maintenance could distort the comparison in the manner shown.

Similarly the nature of the work and potential severity of injury must be considered such that the fact that fatal injuries are relatively more significant in industrial / commercial construction than domestic housing can be understood.

81

7.2 SIZE OF SITE

The size of the site can be shown by considering:

• The length of time the project was ongoing

• The number of contracting parties involved in the design, planning and construction

• The number of people present on the site.

The information to determine the duration of the project was gathered in Question 4a (and Figure 18, reproduced here as Figure 77).

Figure 77 uses the categories supplied by HSE and shows that the length of the largest category of projects are more than 6 but less than 12 months (15%) and more than 12 but less than 18 months (14%) but projects lasting more than 1 day but less than 1 week (11%) and more than 2 months but less than 6 months (11%) are also significant. There are very few projects which last more than 1 but less than 2 weeks (0.1%) and more than 4 but less than 5 years (0.5%). However, there are a number of projects over 5 years and ongoing contracts (5%). There are 7% of projects which last less than 1 day.

Figure 77 Length of Project (1004 Questionnaires)

82

999

The number of parties involved in the design, planning and construction of the project are also an indication of the size of the site and project. Figure 78 shows that, of the projects where CDM was said to apply (in 287 cases it was said not to apply), 23% of the projects involved only one company in the design and engineering team. The graph also shows 44% of the notifiers did not know how many companies were in the design and engineering team.

300

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

250

200

150

100

50

0

142

70

50 41

16 14 1 4 3 2 3 2

279

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 15 35 Unknown

Figure 78 Design / Engineering Team (627 Questionnaires)

The contracting chain from the notifying company to the client is established in Question 6 (and summarised in Figure 32, reproduced here as Figure 79). The graph shows that the majority of companies’ chains are two tier. The most frequent chain associated with notified accidents is where the notifier is the Principal Contractor and contracted directly to the client or the notifier being a subcontractor contracted to the Principal Contractor contracted to the client.

28 32

2 1 1 7

32

5 18

2 15

4 20

1 1

51

7 1 2

49

0

50

(bl ) ( ) ( ) Client Client Client (blank) ( ) Client Client Pri ipal

to Cli

( ) ( ) Client Pri i l

to Cli

) (bl ) Cl Cl l

to Cli

)

Cli Client i ipal Client Pri ipal Client Pri i l Client Pri i l

Pri i l iNoti

313

160

252

100

150

200

250

300

350

ank blank blank Unknown blank ncContractor

ent

Unknown blank blank nc paContractor

ent

(blank ank ient ient PrincipaContractor

ent

(blank

ent Unknown Pr ncContractor

Contractor Unknown ncContractor

Contractor Unknown nc paContractor

ContractorUnknown nc paContractor

Contractor Unknown

nc paContractor

Contractor Subcontractor Nom nated Subcontractor Unknown

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

fier

Figure 79 Chain of Contracting from Notifier to Client (1004 Questionnaires) (Blanks are where there is no chain)

83

The number of people present on site at the time of the accident is established in Question 12a (and Figure 46, reproduced here as Figure 80). The majority of projects, where accidents occur, have 1 to 10 people working on site (34%), whereas 1% of projects have over 500 people working on site. 29% of notifiers did not know the total number of people working on a particular site where an accident occurred. There are 15% of projects where 50 to 499 people work on site, 11% where 25 to 49 people work and 6% where 11 to 19 and 4% where 20 to 24 people work on site.

400

342 350

292300

250

200

150 Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

148

109

100

63

50 36

14

0 1-10 11-19 20-24 25-49 50-499 500+ Unknown

Figure 80 Number of People on Site (1004 Questionnaires)

In the fatal accident study, HSE’s Construction Division considered a small site to involve 15 people or less and a large site to be over 15 people. Using the same classification for the major and over-3-day injury accidents surveyed, Figure 81 compares large and small sites from which accidents have been notified.

403

309 292

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

Small Large Unknown

Figure 81 Comparison of Small and Large Sites (1004 Questionnaires)

84

Table 5 compares the size of project between the survey results and those provided by HSE for fatal accidents.

Table 5 Size of Project Comparing Survey Results with Fatal Accidents

Site Size Fatal Accidents (77 accidents)

Survey Results (1004 accidents)

Survey Results (Site size known)

Large Site 32.5% 30.8% 43.4%

Small Site 67.5% 40.1% 56.6%

Unknown - 29.1% -

Irrespective of the severity, the majority of notified accidents fall in the small site category. Although information on site size across industry would help give a picture of risk level, it must also be remembered that for major and over-3-day injury accidents, the data are influenced by the likelihood of notification. The survey data alone show a higher proportion of notified injuries are associated with large sites under-reporting compared with fatal injuries.

Assuming length of project is also an indicator of site size, it can be seen from Figure 77 that the duration of 875 projects is known and 56.6% of these would number 495. Accumulating projects from the smallest end of Figure 77, a break point of 495 cases coincides with projects of between 6 and 12 months duration. Further scrutiny could help lead to a corresponding duration criterion to categorise site size.

85

600

7.3 PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SECTOR

Of the notifiers contacted, Figure 82 (reproduced from Figure 13) shows that 56% accidents, according to the notifiers’ responses, occur within the private sector. From the responses, 33% of accidents occur in the public sector, 7% in the domestic sector and 4% of notifiers did not know (or recall) which sector the client’s business was in.

73

32

0

568

331

100

200

300

400

500

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

Domestic Private Co. Public Sector Unknown

Figure 82 Sector Where Project Carried Out (1004 Questionnaires)

Table 6 compares the percentages obtained for fatal accidents to the data gathered through the questionnaire for each sector where accidents occur.

Table 6 Comparison of Sectors where Accidents Occur

Sector Fatal Accidents (77 accidents)

Survey Results (1004 accidents)

Survey Results (Sector known)

Private Sector (including domestic) 63.9% 63.7% 65.9%

Public Sector 36.4% 32.9% 34.1%

Unknown - 3.4% -

It is notable that the split of notified accidents between public and private sectors is very similar irrespective of accident severity.

86

7.4 EMPLOYER SIZE

As can be seen from Figure 83 (reproduced from Figure 41) the most common size of notifying company, using the HSE categories, is between 50 and 499 employees (40%) and a company size of more than 500 (20%) is the second most common. The least common size of company is between 20 and 24 employees (4%). 9% of notifiers did not know how many people their company employed in the UK.

67 63 44

86

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

137

404

203

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

1-10 11-19 20-24 25-49 50-499 500+ Unknown

Figure 83 Number of Employees in Notifying Company (1004 Questionnaires)

Table 7 compares the size of the notifying employer for the results gained during the survey and those provided by HSE for fatal accidents. In the fatal accident study, HSE’s Construction Division considered a small contractor to be one employing 15 people or less and a large contractor to employ more than 15 people. Counted within the ‘small’ category within the table are all cases where the injured party was said to be self employed plus cases where the IP was directly employed and the notifying company employs 15 people or less.

Table 7 Comparison of Employer Size where Accidents Occur

Contractor Size Fatal Accidents (77 accidents)

Survey Results (1004 accidents)

Survey Results (Employer size known)

Large Contractor 41.6% 68.5% 74.9%

Self Employed or Small Contractor

58.4% 22.9% 25.1%

Unknown - 8.6% -

Around three quarters of notifiers of major and over-3-day injury accidents are large contractors whereas only around 40% of fatal accidents are attributable to this category. In considering these findings consideration must be given to reporting levels as well as accident rates. If large employers were better at reporting than smaller and self employed contractors then the pattern could in part be explained given that fatal accidents occur are considered to be well reported irrespective of contractor size.

87

Of the 33 cases (see Figure 51) where the IP is employed by a subcontractor, for 26 the notifier (typically the Principal Contractor) is a large firm and it is probably misleading for the figures to be counted in the large contractor category. However making the opposite assumption that the 26 subcontractors all fell into the small contractor category would only shift the percentages in the final column to 72:28, large to small, still substantially greater than in the fatal accident case (42:58). It seems counter intuitive and contrary to site experience that large contractor practices lead to more major and over-3-day injury accidents and this shift in accident profile would seem to confirm a lower level of reporting from small contractors.

88

700

7.5 APPLICATION OF CDM

Question 2 (and Figure 10, reproduced here as Figure 84) asked whether CDM applied to a project. As can be seen in the majority of cases, 62%, the CDM Regulations were known to apply to the work being carried out, while 29% of notifiers stated that the CDM Regulations did not apply. There were 9% of people surveyed who did not know if CDM Regulations applied.

90

0

287

627

100

200

300

400

500

600

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

No Yes Unknown

Figure 84 CDM Applicability (1004 Questionnaires)

Table 8 compares CDM applicability between the major and over-3-day injury accident results gathered during the survey and those provided by HSE for fatal accidents. The proportions are comparable but in the case of notified major and over-3-day injury accidents the notified cases are more likely to be from a CDM site. The comments regarding reporting practices highlighted in relation to contractor size in Section 7.4 are also valid here.

Table 8 Comparison of CDM Applicability Between Survey Results and Fatal Accidents

CDM Applicability Fatal Accidents (77 accidents)

Survey Results (1004 accidents)

Survey Results (CDM status known)

CDM Applicable 57.1% 62.5% 68.7%

CDM Not Applicable 42.9% 28.5% 31.3%

Unknown ­ 9% -

In order to assess whether failure to apply CDM in full in cases where it should have been acted upon has a significant association with accidents, the cases where CDM was said not to apply are reassessed with respect to the following criteria:

• Was the work carried out for a domestic client and, if so, had the client entered into an arrangement with a developer?

• Was dismantling or demolition work involved? • Was the project notifiable (by virtue of duration and / or extent of effort)? • Was the largest number of people carrying out construction work at any time five or more?

89

50

7.5.1 Was the work carried out for a domestic client and had the client entered into an arrangement with a developer?

The responses gathered from Question 3c (and shown in Figure 15 and Figure 16) are reproduced here as Figure 85 and Figure 86.

46 Ye

s

Unk

now

n

No

Yes

No

No Yes Unknown

Figure 85 Property Developer Involved for a Domestic Client (73 Questionnaires) Ye

s

Figure 86 shows that 63% of domestic clients do not have a property developer involved, 5% do have a property developer involved and 32% did not know. Of the four notifiers which stated a property developer was involved in the work for a domestic client, three stated CDM did apply while one of

Unk

now

n these notifiers stated CDM did not apply.

40

4

23

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

i

36

5 5

1 3

14

4 5

Num

ber o

f Not

ifer

s N

umbe

r of N

otifi

ers

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

No

l

CDM

Property Deve oper

applies

No Yes Unknown

Figure 86 CDM Application Compared to Use of a Property Developer (73 Questionnaires)

90

7.5.2 Was dismantling or demolition work involved?

The responses given to Question 1b (and shown in Figure 8, reproduced here as Figure 87) show that 1% of projects involve demolition as the principal activity at the time of the accident. Other project may have involved demolition and would therefore be notifiable but this latter aspect cannot be tested from the responses. Figure 88 shows that of the demolition jobs, 4 notifiers stated that CDM did not apply and 6 stated it did. Where demolition is involved, all the regulations apply to the work, therefore in 4 major or over-3-day injury accidents the notifier stated CDM did not apply when it should have done. In 3 of these cases, the duration of the work (Q4a) was said to be less than a week.

10 16

451

10 34

5 11

0

50

192

275

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

Demolition M&E Fit Out Maintenance / New-build / Refurbishment Site Other Unknown Not applicable Repair Construction Preparation

Figure 87 Type of Project (1004 Questionnaires)

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

4

6

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

No Yes

Figure 88 CDM Application Where Demolition is Involved (10 Questionnaires)

91

7.5.3 Was the project notifiable?

A project is notifiable, according to the CDM Regulations, if it lasts more than 30 days or involves more than 500 man days construction work.

Question 4a (and Figure 18) showing the length of projects is reproduced here as Figure 89.

Figure 89 Length of Project (1004 Questionnaires)

Figure 90 shows that there are 21% of projects that last 30 days or less and 66% which last over 30 days. Projects which last more than 30 days are notifiable and hence all the CDM Regulations apply. The figure shows that 76 projects last longer than 30 days but the notifier stated that CDM did not apply when it should have done.

92

18 37

76

42 58

30 41

0

ifi

/ i

153

549

100

200

300

400

500

600 N

umbe

r of N

oter

s

30 days and Under Over 30 days Unknown Ongo ng

No Unknown Yes

Figure 90 Length of Projects and CDM Application (1004 Questionnaires)

Of the projects which are less than 30 days there would have to be more than 17 people on site for the project to be notifiable (17 people over 30 working days gives 500 man days). Figure 91 shows the number of people on site for projects which last less than 30 days and whether CDM is said to apply. Applying the criterion depends also on fluctuations in manpower levels for which there are no data. The candidate cases are however very short duration projects and would fall under CDM because of the numbers of personnel on site.

60

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

30

40

50

No Yes Unknown

CDM applies

23

2 1

56

8

5

26

4 2

8 6

3 5

0 2 1 1 0

2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

2 0

2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

26

10

5

20

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 11 12 15 20 40 80 Unknown

Number of People on Site

Figure 91 Comparison of CDM Application to Projects Lasting Less Than 30 Days to Total Number of Personnel on Site (208 Questionnaires)

93

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

7.5.4 Was the largest number of people carrying out construction work at any one time ever five or more?

If the number of people on site at the time of the accident was less than 5 or unknown (527 cases), a supplementary question was asked to consider whether the number ever exceeded 5 (implying CDM applicability). The responses to this Question 12b (Figure 48, reproduced here as Figure 92 and compared to CDM application in Figure 93) show that 22% of these sites had five or more people on site at any one stage and 40% have less than five people on site at any one stage. If there are five or more people on site at some stage all the CDM Regulations apply. There are 25 cases where due to the number of people on site CDM should have been applied but was not thought to as stated by the notifier.

250

200

150

100

50

0

No Yes Unknown

209

118

199

Figure 92 Five or More People on Site (no / unknown / yes) (527 Questionnaires)

94

144

61

2524 26

15

41

78

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160 N

umbe

r of N

otifi

ers

No

CDM

112

Unknown Yes

applies

No Unknown Yes

Figure 93 Comparison of 5 or more workers on site to applicability of CDM (527 Questionnaires)

For the 477 cases when 5 or more people were on site at the time of the accident, comparison with the stated applicability of CDM is shown in Figure 94. It can be seen that in 57 projects where CDM should have applied, because 5 or more personnel were on the site, it was stated by the Notifier that the provisions had not applied.

450

396 400

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

350

300

250

200

150

100

57 50

25

0 No Yes Unknown

Figure 94 Comparison of 5 or more workers on site at the Time of the Accident to applicability of CDM (477 Questionnaires)

Based on this analysis of CDM applicability, it appears from the information available that of the 287 accidents where the notifier stated that CDM did not apply to the project (in 627 cases it was said to apply), in 83 cases this was incorrect and CDM should have been applied in full. The individual and

95

combined criteria against which CDM applicability has been deduced are shown in Table 9. Cases of ongoing work (generally maintenance activity) are excluded and cases where responses have been ‘unknown’ are also excluded from the figures such that they may be considered to represent a lower bound.

Table 9 CDM applicability in cases where notifier said CDM did not apply

Combination of criteria No. of cases Notes

Client Prop. Demolition Duration >4 people >4 people In survey CDM D=domestic, Dev. >30 days at time at other applies N=non domestic time

D 23 -

D „ 1 -

D „ 8 -

D „ „ 11 -

D „ „ 3 -

D „ 2 -

D „ 3 -

N N/A 134 -

N N/A „ 3 3 All < 1 week

N N/A „ „ „ 1 1

N N/A „ 11 -

Ongoing N N/A „ „ 6 -

N N/A „ „ 2 -

N N/A „ 25 25 7 cases 1 month

N N/A „ „ 22 22

N N/A „ „ 6 6

N N/A „ 15 15 3 cases 5 people

N N/A „ 11 11

No. of cases where indication is CDM should apply but notifier said not 83 Excl. ongoing

The implication is that in 29% of the 287 cases where CDM was said not to apply, there is evidence that it was in fact applicable adding some 13% to the CDM applicable cases within the dataset. Lack of application or recognition of CDM would not seem to be a major factor or potential control overlooked by notifiers within the dataset. It should also be noted that notification of accidents through RIDDOR may in itself indicate good recognition of legal requirements of which CDM forms a part so that the dataset may be inherently biased.

It can be seen that in a number of cases it appears that CDM should have applied on a number of counts.

Of the 51 cases with domestic clients where CDM was said not to apply, the one case with property developer involvement did not exceed the other limits. In the remaining 50 domestic cases which

96

were not conditions for CDM application, 27 cases met or exceeded one or more of the criteria which apply to non-domestic work (i.e. the construction works were nevertheless fairly substantial despite the client being ‘domestic’).

Table 10 shows the proportion of cases where one of the criteria applies in comparison with the number of cases in each category within the sample. This demonstrates that the most frequently overlooked criterion appears to be demolition (although the absolute numbers are small and three of the jobs are of very short duration). There is no distinct pattern when considering numbers on site or project duration. Taking the number of people criteria together, it is in 9% of the 595 cases where the numbers of people on site are 4 or more at some stage, that the sites were not thought by the notifier to have been subject to CDM. In 8% of cases exceeding the 30 day limit, CDM has been said not to have applied when it ought.

Table 10 Criteria being overlooked in considering CDM applicability

Criterion No. failing criterion

Corresponding group Level of oversight

Domestic and Prop. Dev. 0 Of 4 domestic jobs with PD 0%

Demolition 4 Of 10 demolition jobs 40%

Duration > 30 days (excluding ongoing work)

54 Of 667 jobs lasing > 30 days 8%

>4 on site at time of accident 38 Of 477 sites where >4 at time of accident 8%

>4 on site at some other time 17 Of 118 sites with <5 at time of accident but >4 at some other time

14%

Note: Some cases fail more than one criterion so above total exceeds Table 9

97

7.6 VALIDATION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF SELF EMPLOYED INJURED PERSONNEL

The criteria involved in verifying if an injured person is self employed or directly employed are:

• Payment conditions

• Who they take instructions from for their work

• If they have a contract for services or a contract of service

• Type of employment contract

Question 14a (and Figure 51, reproduced here as Figure 95) asks the notifier about the injured person’s employment status (directly employed, self-employed or employed via an agency). Figure 95 shows that 78% of injured people were directly employed by the notifying company, while 13% were self-employed, 2% were employed via an agency and 3% were employed by a subcontractor. Some 4% of notifiers did not know what the injured person’s employment status was.

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

779

136

33 20 36

Directly Employed Self Employed Employed by subcontractor Agency Employed Unknown

Figure 95 Employment Status (1004 Questionnaires)

In this sub-section the above criteria are applied to those 136 accidents where injured persons are said to be self-employed to test whether they are effectively working as employees. In 55 of these cases the original ICC notification indicated they were employees (and 7 direct employees according to the survey were designated self-employed in the original notification giving a net change of 48), underling the uncertainty surrounding employment status.

Question 14b (and Figure 53, reproduced here as Figure 96) show the payment conditions of self­employed injured persons. Figure 96 shows that of the injured people who were self-employed, 29% were paid weekly, 24% were paid hourly, 13% were paid a lump sum at the end of the project, 10% were paid daily and 3% were paid monthly. Some 21% of notifiers did not know how the injured person was paid. It appears that only 17 injured persons are clearly paid as self-employed personnel (lump sum).

98

45

40 40

35 32

30 29

25

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

20 17

15 14

10

5 4

0 Hourly Day rates Weekly Monthly Lump Sum Unknown

Figure 96 Payment Conditions (136 Questionnaires)

Question 14c (and Figure 54, reproduced here as Figure 97) shows who the injured person takes instructions from to carry out their work. Figure 97 shows that, of the injured people who were self­employed, 85% received their instructions from personnel in authority (73% site foreman, 11% supervisor, 2% production group), while 8% carried out their own work (or were the person in authority). 7% of notifiers did not know whom the injured person took instruction from for their work. Therefore only 11 injured persons seem to be working as if they were self employed (carrying out their own work).

120

99100

80

60

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

40

20 15 11 9

2 0

From Foreman Own Work Production Group Supervisor Unknown

Figure 97 Responsibility / Line Management (136 Questionnaires)

99

Question 14d (and Figure 55, reproduced here as Figure 98) show whether the injured person had a contract for services or a contract of service. Figure 98 shows that of the injured people who were self-employed, 79% of injured people had a contract for services (a contract to provide personnel, which maybe oneself, for a service) and 15% had a contract of service (a contract to provide oneself for service). 6% of notifiers did not know the type of contract the injured person had with the company. Therefore 107 injured persons had a contract that would indicate that they were self­employed (contract for services).

107

21

8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

FOR Services OF Service Unknown

Figure 98 Contract Conditions (136 Questionnaires)

100

Question 15 (and Figure 56) show what type of employment contract the injured person had. Figure 99 shows that the majority of self employed injured people had a fixed period contract of employment (12%) or some other temporary work contract. There are 10% of injured people employed under a permanent contract, 7% were casual workers, 1% were employed by an agency and 1% were seasonal workers. Around 59% of notifiers did not know what type of contract the injured person was employed under. Therefore 43 injured persons had a contract of employment which could apply to self-employed personnel (fixed period, agency temping, casual work, seasonal work and other temporary work).

Num

ber o

f Not

ifier

s

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

13 16

2

9

1

15

80

Permanent Fixed Period Agency temping Casual Work Seasonal Work Other temporary Unknown Contract work

Figure 99 Temporary or Permanent Work (136 Questionnaires)

Table 11 shows the numbers of cases in which one or more of the self employment criteria are met. A clear demarcation of true self employed status would be if all criteria were met but there are no cases amongst the 136 where this is so. However, it should be recognised that these questions were often difficult for the notifier to answer and, in relation to temporary or permanent status, 80 replies were ‘unknown’ (59%) making this an unreliable indicator. Nevertheless, there are also no cases where all three of the other criteria are satisfied.

The penultimate row in Table 11 shows the totals where the responses match the criterion within the column. The final row presents for comparison the number of cases where the respondent stated ‘Unknown’. This confirms that there was considerable uncertainty regarding permanency of the employment contract and greater clarity in whom instructions were taken from.

Taking the first two as the most clear cut categories and therefore the stronger indicators irrespective of compliance with the others, suggests just 25 of the cases may be self-employed. The evidence is however weak and it therefore appears that in the majority of notified cases the notionally self­employed are working in a manner and with terms and conditions such that they are effectively employees in respect of health and safety controls.

101

Table 11 Combinations of Criteria for the 136 Notionally Self Employed

Paid Lump Sum Own Instructions Contract FOR service

Non-permanent form of contract

No. of cases satisfying criteria

„ „ „ 3

„ „ 10

„ „ „ 3

„ „ 1

„ „ „ 2

„ 1

„ „ 3

„ „ 1

„ 1

„ 67

„ „ 22

„ 11

11

17 11 107 43 136

29 9 7 80 ‘Unknown’

No injured persons was paid lump sum, carried out their own work, had a contract for services and had a temporary employment contract. Therefore none of the injured persons were truly self-employed.

102

8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 OVERVIEW

In deriving overall conclusions the views and experience of the survey team were combined. Findings were considered in relation to the survey itself, observations on industry performance and the actions and role of HSE. Both conclusions and recommendations are presented.

8.2 CONCLUSIONS

8.2.1 Data

The conclusions from this study are generally discussed in each section and in each question. However, it can be stated that the data gathered do help inform the industry and HSE as to:

• What type of projects are associated with accidents

• The size of site where accidents occur

• If the project, where accidents occur, is within the public or private sector

• The trades and activities associated with accidents

• The size of the employing company

• Whether the applicability of CDM is mirrored in projects where accidents are reported to be occurring.

A significant conclusion is that the data gathered are informative and give a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding construction accidents than can be gleaned from the pan-industry RIDDOR reporting and FOCUS coding.

There is potential for considerably more analysis than allowed within this project, for example to drill down in to the distinctions between major and over-3-day injury accidents or to explore the nature of accidents associated with maintenance and repair as opposed to new-build.

The questions in the questionnaire which were deemed to be less useful are:

• Method Statements and Risk Assessments – Almost all respondees said method statements were in place supported by RAs which were all kept up to date. A number of people stated, however, that they were generic. It was also felt that while the majority of companies had method statements and risk assessments and / or recognised the need, there was no linkage as to whether they were followed or addressed the risks that were realised in the accident..

• Health and Safety in the Contract – A number of people stated that there was some reference to health and safety in the contract but did not say what it was to do with, e.g. either all their contracts had references to H&S, they had read the reference once or a contracts department had dealt with the contractual side but they knew there were references to H&S in it. The degree of influence of this provision was sensed to be minimal but again no linkage could be demonstrated.

103

It would have been useful to include the following in the questionnaire:

• Break down the ‘suggestions for improvement’ into ‘what did you do following the accident?’ and ‘what would you do differently?’

• Ask what was in place before the accident, i.e. if they stated that a tool box talk on manual handling was given after the accident, ask if they had had a tool box talk on manual handling before the accident and how long ago.

8.2.2 Industry

Asked for salient impressions, the survey team observed that:

• A number of plant accidents occurred when hooking and unhooking trailers

• A number of accidents occurred when walking around the site either off-duty (lunch, break, etc) or carrying out housekeeping

• Cross communication between the trades did not happen resulting in misunderstandings between the trades

• The weather (wind, rain, snow, etc) was a factor in a number of accidents, i.e. the wind blowing vehicle doors closed – the survey period was of accidents from December to March

• There was a lack of marked access routes (or non access areas) around sites which contributed to a number of accidents

• The factors involved in some accidents were the suitability of the personnel carrying out the activity, i.e. a 21 stone person climbing a tower.

• A number of accidents involved power tools (drills, angle grinders, etc) snagging and jumping resulting in an injury

• Accidents involving ladders were observed to be low falls on the final rungs possibly combined with an attitude of ‘it is the last few steps and I’m safe’

• A number of accidents involved getting in or out of vehicles / plant or lofts

• In a number of accidents where lifting was involved; the facilities for mechanical lifting equipment were provided but not used

• The attitude of a number of notifiers was that ‘it was just one of those things’ and there was no recognition that it could happen again or that they could prevent it

• A number of accidents involved personnel swinging off scaffolding after being in the pub, ‘fooling around’, etc

• A number of notifiers were of the opinion that new personnel to the construction industry were not made aware of the risks on site whilst attending training colleges

• Lack of care and attention significantly contributed to a large number of accidents.

104

• Personnel were noted as not following guidelines in the case of use of PPE

• A number of notifiers were said to have some level of scepticism as to whether the injury was work related or, for example, was a football injury.

The above observations from the project team correlate well with the areas for improvement given by notifiers and listed in Appendix B and summarised in Section 5.5.2.

8.3 RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations can similarly be categorised into three areas:

8.3.1 Data

While the extra data are very useful and provide better insight into the factors involved in construction accidents, a considerable amount of effort was required to, firstly, obtain the notifier details and, secondly, contact the notifier. However, if the survey were carried out by post (or fax or email) it is envisaged that the success rate would be considerably less. It is recommended that this data continue to be gathered but it has been shown that data from a smaller sample (e.g. 500 notifiers) would be adequately robust. It is suggested that the F2508 form be reviewed for construction accidents to enable this type of data to be gathered from the notifying company.

Further analysis of the data can best be conducted through use of the pivot charts into which the FOCUS and survey data have been amalgamated. Considerable in depth analysis is now possible, for example looking at particular trades, major versus over-3-day injury profiles, the nature of accidents in CDM notified sites compared with others, exploring the type and severity of accidents associated with maintenance activity etc.

8.3.2 Industry

Based on the feedback from the survey, it is recommended that the industry could:

• Promote cross trade communications by, for example, cross discipline tool box talks

• Include time on site as a regular part of college training courses. This would enable the trainee to understand the processes involved in site working, the environment and the risks

• Provide training or tool box talks on accessing / leaving the workface or vehicles, risk assessing particular tasks in varying weather conditions, use of ladders, lifting/carrying, etc i.e. ancillary aspects of construction work

• Ensure the method statements and risk assessments are adhered to. Perhaps the personnel actually doing the work need to have some input into them rather than site managers / project managers preparing them and expecting the personnel to follow them

• Ensure access routes (and non access areas) are clearly marked for both personnel and vehicles with particular attention to temporary openings.

105

8.3.3 HSE

Similarly in relation to the HSE role:

• A number of accidents involve poor housekeeping. It is suggested that HSE personnel, perhaps not fully qualified inspectors, could undertake frequent visits to construction sites to promote good housekeeping

• It was suggested that the flaws in drills which cause accidents could be designed out

• It was noted that while the sizes of cement bags, etc, have been reduced the size of kerb stones have not. It is recommended that the size of kerb stones be reduced to enable them to be easily carried

• Tool box talks are delivered to a wide range of personnel by a number of different people. It is suggested that guidelines be published on how to deliver tool box talks, who should deliver them, subjects to be covered and examples of visual aids. It is suggested that personnel who have been injured, for example, by manual handling, give the tool box talk on manual handling

• It is recommended that HSE use the data to work in partnership with specific groups, e.g. house builders, to examine the profile of accidents in their sector and identify focused initiatives that might be relevant and effective in improving safety.

106

9 REFERENCES

1. Health and Safety Executive. Construction Statistics. Published on HSE web site (www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/industry/index/htm)

2. Health and Safety Commission. Health and Safety Statistics Highlights 2001/02. HSE Books, www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/overpic.htm, December 2002.

107

108

APPENDIX A – PRINT OUT OF QUESTIONNAIRE

The following pages show print outs for the Questionnaire from the Access Database.

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

APPENDIX B – NOTIFIERS’ RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACCIDENT PREVENTION

The following table lists the areas for suggested improvement indicated by notifiers in response to Question 23. The suggestions have been related to relevant influences within the Influence Network (e.g. E1, D4 etc). The designation ‘0’ indicates no specific suggestion was forthcoming and ‘1’ that the suggestion could not be interpreted with general application. Section 5.5 presents the definitions of the factors and aggregates the findings.

I1 / I2 I3 I4 0 No 0 No 0 0 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 0 No 0 No 0 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 0 0 No 0

0 No 0 No 0

0 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0

0 No

Notifier suggestions recommendations

No. No specific hazards No just unfortunate

Absolutely nothing

Not really - Manual Handling Course had been taken.

Just bad luck Freak accident, interviewee could make no recommendations for prevention.

Nothing. Only factor in the accident was his own fault and could have been prevented if he did not slip

Took back to manufacturer but was no damage. There was nothing really that could have prevented this accident. None.

Just one of those things, nothing really could be done. Lighting was working and all storage was good

119

I1 / I2 I3 I4 0 No 0 0

0 No 0 0 No 0 No 0

0 No 0 0 0 No 0 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 0 No 0 0 No 0 No 0 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 0

0 No 0 0 No 0 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 0 No 0 No

Notifier suggestions recommendations

None. Let labourer do it as they are the expert, but unusual occurrence - not foreseeable, risk could not have been predicted and avoided

All safety precautions were in place and nothing more could have been done.

Was doing everything as specified, had PPE and adequate edge protection. Just freak accident, no realistic improvements

No. Very unlikely accident. Not really.

No. Freak accident

Nothing

Unavoidable accident - tripped over own feet.

Nothing

None. Spoke to Inspector at HSE about the accident. All precautions were in place. Sheet popped out instead of slid out and swung towards IP, as he moved sheet went over the protected part of his foot and damaged unprotected part of foot. Nothing more could have been done - pure accident.

Nothing

Nothing to do was a freak accident - just went wrong on this occasion

Not really, just one of things, the employee was very experienced.

120

I1 / I2 I3 I4 0 0 No 0 0

0

0 0 No 0 No 0 0 No 0 No 0 0

accident. 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 0 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0

0 0 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 0 No 0 No 0 0 No 0 No

Notifier suggestions recommendations Not really relevant

No - could easily happen at home. Freak accident - hammer rebounded. Not sure what else could have done to prevent. Result of accident - took tip off finger - 1/2" off top. Could not really do anything to prevent accident as IP and company do not know what happened. No suggestions

None.

Site not seen, full investigation not possible. They have had Independent people to check the fuse box and are awaiting results. IP does not remember what happened but is sure he was not doing anything wrong. They are not sure what went wrong so they are not able to say what could have prevented the

Freak accident Nothing in particular.

Generally one off unavoidable accident. All things in place were being done. Cannot suggest anything cost effective to reduce accidents. Could use JCB to move small amounts but that is not cost effective and no contractors would do it. No. Just lost footing. Handrail & Steps appeared to be appropriate. Always something that you can do but could not pin point it.

Nothing, just one of those things

Not realistically.

121

I1 / I2 I3 I4 0 No 0 0 No 0 0 No, j0 0 0 0 No 0 No 0 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 0 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 0 No 0 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 No 0 0

Notifier suggestions recommendations

Nothing

None. ust a trip

One-off - pulled calf muscle N.A. Nothing.

Nothing, all training given

Activity had to be manual. No suggestions. No - freak accident

No - long standing problem

IP was provided with gloves and was wearing steel toe cap boots. Nothing more could be done

Nothing

Nothing - just one of those things No, very difficult to overcome

122

I1 / I2 I3 I4 0 0 0 0 No 0 0 0 No 0 0 No 0 No 0 No 0

0 No 0 No 1 1

1 d1 d1 d1 d1 d1 d1

d1 d1 d1 d4

d1 d1 o2 d4

d1 d1

d1 o2

d1 d1 ( d5

d1 d1 o2 d1 o9

Notifier suggestions recommendations Ladder inspected, PPE worn. No recommendation Wearing PPE as instructed. No. Mechanical equipment could not be employed.

Not known. Accident unknown

No - see description.

Nothing else could be done - safety footwear is provided and was being worn and lots of training.

Declined to answer this question Could not really say as there is an insurance investigation going on at moment with two different stories. No comment. No. Careful use of tools. Extra inspection of scaffolding beyond scaffolder certificate. Use tools in proper way. More common sense - walk round obstacles - have defined access routes d11 IP should use good practice Make sure any nails are taken out of the wood before putting piece down and ensure that nails are put in safe place. Use of common sense Don't put ladders on wet plastic sheeting Avoid use of sledge hammer More forethought Ideally, do not carry items when using ladders. M/C is guarded with kick plate. Activity shouldn't have happened while M/C is running. Competency of trainers is poor. More individual awareness of safety issues. Inappropriate lift - he knew he shouldn't have done it. None. Put down tools he was working with. Forgetting their location, he tripped over them - how do you prevent that? Current education system is better, especially for younger employees IP was educated under 'old' system where H&S was not so relevant Use correct tools provided. Use correct hand I.e. right hand for right hander) Stand properly Keep focused Don't put ladder on a tarpaulin sheet, more care more thought. Use common sense. Learn to bend knees when lifting. IP should know better. No more use of trestles without fall prevention

123

I1 / I2 I3 I4 d1 o3

d1 d1 o7 p4

d1 o4 d1 d1 d1 o2

d1

d1 d1 d1 o6 d1 /C o3

d1 d1 o1 d1 d1 d1 d1 d1 d3 o3

d3 d9 d3 d3 d3 d3 /d3 jd3 d3

Tie/fix ladder d3 d3 d3 d3 d4

d4 d4 o7 d4

Notifier suggestions recommendations People to use common sense

Method statement was revised Don't use equipment that you feel unsafe on. Ensure that surfaces are adequately prepared/strengthened for construction work. Improve communication between, and coordination of contractors working on site. Lift sheets singularly rather than a pack of boards or use fork lift. Handle properly Steps must be secured in the correct position Standardise the configuration of instrumentation for equipment - IP used 'old' knowledge, acquired from using older equipment to operate a new hoist Trestles normally erected by hand carriers. Untrained personnel should not erect working platforms Not really, perhaps more care or positioning of sack truck Should ensure that hoist was steady Only allow equipment to be used by trained people Blade must be removed from MGloves to be worn Rubbish should be separated and bagged.

d14

Ensure chains are fully slack to allow for crane movement. Avoid inexperienced employees Practice only. Take time & be careful. Start with hole from top More common sense Increase common sense Should remove from the top not bottom of the downpipe. Delivery driver should open rail gate prior to reversing to paver. Banksman should supervise the process. Possible footing of ladder. This was required by the method statement Another man to watch his back Assistance from another person to lift equipment Having a person to foot ladder or telescopic ladder to ground to fit to floor. d13 2 People Door might help. Paired lifting with one other person to slide ack lift underneath Mark cones around base of ladder and someone to foot ladder. Wait for others' help

When conditions are adverse use 2 men to carry boards. d12 Use two men to uplift Seek colleague's assistance A two man approach might have prevented the incident. Slow down processes More care Increase awareness Avoid complacency with low platforms - tool box talks Pay more attention

124

I1 / I2 I3 I4 d4 o6

d4 d3 d4 ) d4 d4

d4 d4 d4 d4 d4 d4 d4 d4 d4 d4 d4 d4 d4 d4

d4 d4 d4 d5 d4 d4 d4 d4 d1 d4 d4 d4 d9 o2

d4

d4 d4 o3 d4 d4 d4 d4 o3 d4 d4

Notifier suggestions recommendations Be more careful, and define what more care means More supervision, - contact has evidence that most accidents are caused by poor/ absence of supervision. Be aware of dangers. Tell other what not to do Do not walk forward (into hazardMore awareness and responsibility by IP and Folk lift driver. No. More care. Stand clear of operations. Take more care in future More observant Be more alert More care and attention Improve awareness. Avoid complacency More care by Operative. Work area was all very safe so not much could be done, perhaps more care and attention More awareness Heightened awareness. More awareness IP should concentrate more Awareness No, assumed that he missed footing and fell off side of trestle. At the time it was deemed that there was no need for hand rail. Lack awareness perhaps. More vigilant More awareness More care and attention, more concentration More care. More care and awareness More awareness Take more care, operative should know his limits. Awareness Don't try to catch dangerous propped objects Increase vigilance Put steps out properly Educate to increase awareness General increase in awareness on site. Wear protective footwear Consider weather conditions

d14 d12

Lack of concentration / awareness Face approaching traffic when entering vehicle. Increase awareness More awareness More operative responsibility / awareness More care on part of IP More awareness. Lorry should be brought into close proximity with loading bay More care Take extra care, reduce familiarity.

125

I1 / I2 I3 I4 d4 d4 d3

d4 d4

d4 d4 o9

d4 o3 d4 d4 d4

d4 d4

/

o2 o7

d4 d1 d4 d4 d4 d4

d4 o6 d4 d4 d4 d4 o3 d4 d4

d4 d4 p5

d4 o4

d4 d4 d4 o6

d4

Notifier suggestions recommendations Operative awareness Calm people down - stop corner cutting. Should have used Banksman to disconnect. People should follow instructions. Care and attention Avoid carelessness. Exact cause of accident unclear. Could operations have been designed out?*

* Designers only paying lip-service. CDM Heavy Blocks, Smaller Components.

o12

More care and awareness More care/ awareness Colour code short/long sacks More care, reinforce procedures More care, more tolerance and self control More care and awareness Take more care Salt road

d12

More awareness on the part of employee Increase awareness Remove risks immediately More training toolbox talks to communicate More care. Ensure mixer is on firm surface. Pay on 'piecework' tends to cause too fast work o11 Be more careful and aware Make sure drivers are aware of danger from the weight of the side drops. Be more careful Be more vigilant Eye protection

d14

More care taken by supervisor staff to ensure holes covered properly - should be aware of this. Be more vigilant Increase employee awareness of H&S Just down to care and attention Ensure machine not in operation when someone tampering with bucket. - care and attention More awareness d11 More notice of what ground is like Ensure that ladder is on even ground More vigilance on part of Plant operator Take more care Planning supervisors should be required to obtain NEBOSH as a minimum, at present they are not required to have any qualifications. Control measures were all in place - acceptable level of risk, greater care and possibly additional personnel could have been utilised. Unforeseeable accident - more caution and vigilance Take more personal care More care by IP Due diligence Increase awareness of hazards More care with heavy steel equipment, stress that even the most experienced people should take care at all times

d13

126

I1 / I2 I3 I4 d4 /

d4 d4 d4 d4 d4 d4 d4 d4 d4 d4 d4 d4 d4 d4

d4 d1 d4 d4 p2

d4 o3 d4 p1

d4 d4

d4 d4 d4 d4 d4 d5 d4 d4 d4 d4 d4 d4 d4 d4 d4 o7 p5

d4

Notifier suggestions recommendations Yes, safe system of working rules in force in company and greasy wet feet not recommended. More care required at all times. Awareness Be more careful Take more care and increase awareness More vigilance. Hand rail changes in scaffold elevation d13 More care with manual handling No - carelessness on part of ip Better coordinated awareness Don't stand too close to risk areas. Awareness Care and attention, and work tidy. d11 More awareness and tidiness. d11 More care. Keep hands behind sharp tools. More care and awareness by IP Increase safety awareness. Ensure that those on site do not have too much faith in the driver. Concentration and suitable experience. More care More awareness on part of employee Client should have provided better access More care, use proper lifting methods and procedures. People should be more vigilant. Ensure that all contractors adhere to the same level of health and safety, this would help to prevent accidents occurring to other contractors. Be more careful Take more care on site Do not take short cuts Housekeeping Provide signs of workplace dangers

d11

Just Carelessness More due care and attention Vigilance and more care No, other than awareness More awareness and concentration is required, especially in young workers. Instill more care into the workforce More care and attention Not really except care & attention. No. Concentration More individual care. No. Other than awareness. More care and awareness More care on part of IP Pay attention Concentrate on tool box talks Management to work to increase employee awareness More care. Be aware of dangers

127

I1 / I2 I3 I4 d4 d4 d4 d4 o4 d4 o4

d4 d4 o4

d4 o4 d4 d4

d4 d4 d4 d4 d5

d4 d4 o6 d4 d4 o4

d4 d4 d4 d4

d4 d4 o4 d4 d4 d4 d4

d4 d4 d5 ) d5

d5 d5

jd9 o4

d5 d6 d4

Notifier suggestions recommendations More care. More care More care. Better housekeeping. d11 Just awareness. Check site for hazards. Increase awareness Different approach to work No. Must be more aware. Unsure if tripping hazards address in RA Daily RA required to be undertaken prior to starting working in morning to include trip and slips. Basically care and attention Assess weight before moving No, more care on IP's behalf Increase awareness/concentration Reduce complacency Be more aware of what he's doing and wear gloves at all times. d14 More care & attention Take extra care No. Lack of concentration / care. Under influence of drugs. More care and awareness. Put one foot on stairs and one on platform Awareness and supervision More awareness of tripping hazards. General awareness. Complacency is a problem Risk assessment of activities More awareness and care. More care and awareness of potential dangers More care by employees Human error accident. He had been trained in use of abrasive wheel not long before - down to complacency. Prevent carelessness More awareness. Sequencing of activity More care. Stairs were clear. More awareness. More Care. Watch where you are going, be observant Hard hat policy.

d14

Check for obstructions. More awareness and care. No (except more concentrationVery hot conditions and operatives were taking breaks every 2 hours, however operative was too hot and tired. This was unavoidable for this job.

d12

Prevention of substance abuse. Was working in overtime - 2hrs per night Mon to Thurs. Should have followed the MS more closely, or done ob hazard analysis if he was varying from method statement. Deviated from preferred method of installation Reduce alcohol consumption the night before Eye Tests for employee. More care.

128

I1 / I2 I3 I4 d6 d6 d5

d6 d6 d6 d6 j

d6 d6

d7

d7 d7 o5

d7 d7 o6

d7 /

d9

d7 d7 d7 o4 d7 d8

d7 ( ).

o2 o7

d7 d7

d7

d7 ( o7

d7 o6

d7 d7 o7 o4 d8

d7 o4

d7 d8 o7

Notifier suggestions recommendations No, IP may have already had a contributory condition No - fully boarded scaffolding, scaffold pole that he fell onto was tied so it could not be removed, clean site, not obstructed, access restricted re: working areas. IP unsteady on feet, overweight 16/17st, accident was possibly due to alcohol. No - this was aggravation of previous injury Regular medicals should be carried out No. IP had weak back. IP had previously in ured ankle at previous employment, so his ankle was weak, 50 yrs old too. One of those things, was fit for work, not walking on unstable ground, not carrying load. Wear and tear - thought to be long-term health Old injury. Should have been using power tool.

d13

Menu & Tool Box Talks. Ensure operator aware of your presence before approaching machine. Barriers not feasible. Try to segregate pedestrian routes from operations.

d11

Tool box talks to increase awareness Toolbox talk to people in yard. Should have been maintaining standard of housekeeping in yard. As a result of discussions with him the standard of housekeeping has improve greatly.

d11

More tool box talks on following procedures Improve coordination of other trades activities other contractors should not put hazards in place Improve literacy of employees Increase compliance of safety regulations policies Use safety equipment provided More tool box talks Refresher toolbox talks Other trades not considering other people. Risk identification is important. Reiterate tool box talks, and supply extra info on working from ladder, reinforcing need for footing and stabilising. More Tool Box Talks. Provide information. Modified induction more briefingEncourage employees to slow down. Where one team is following up the work of another team, the first should brief the latter on H&S issues. Better communication between operative and machine operator. Operation could have been conducted mechanically.

d13

Have Tool Box Talk prior to similar activity not a long time before). Employees that are holding equipment should wear non-slip gloves

d14

Conduct regular toolbox talks Provide instructions on proper operations Lack of communication between different operations. Reviewed accident. He should have asked for assistance. Constant discussion and communication about safety. Memos out that reiterate what should be done. Regular tool box talks. Revise Risk Assessment. Put memos in pay packets. Introduce a more structured way of working. Constant revision of procedures and ways of working. Bespoke course on groundworking and other areas. Tool box talks about how to store items Risk assessment updated On location Tool-Box talks. Operatives to seek advice when needed.

129

I1 / I2 I3 I4 d7 o6

d8

d9 d9 o3

d9 d9 o3 d9

d9 (d9 o8 o3 o6

d9 o3 d4 d9 o3

d9 d9 d9 d9 d9 o3

d9 d9 o3 d9 d9 d9

d9 d9 d9

d9 o1 d1

d9 d9

jd9 o7

d9 d9 d9 o3 d9 d9

Notifier suggestions recommendations Increase communication. Supervisor disciplined for not giving adequate instructions Moved into new premises and was some confusion as to which ladders were the correct ones to take and he took the wrong ones resulting in the accident. Need better understanding of which ladders were which. IP should have used mechanical lifting equipment Rig should be bolted down Method statements must be followed Operative is to follow instruction and carry out task as trained Use proper procedures & consider consequences of actions. Very hard to prevent employees climbing up scaffold instead of using ladders Hard to ensure that they should use ladders, when available, more than they do. Should use Class 1 Steps which would not fit into IP's car). d13 Follow procedures - do not work alone. Culture and behaviour. Do not use relations as supervisors. IP should follow method statement. More awareness IP should stick to job he was employed to do use method statement Carry out normal practice as IP was doing something not correctly. Should follow instructions Had neglected to chain both sides of roller, IP admitted negligence Follow instruction Follow Method Statement (which required de-pressurising if there were leaks). Do not rush to leave site earlier. No, but shouldn't have stood on cage. IP should follow procedures and method statements Should have dusted area down. Equipment should be securely fixed before using it. d13 Steps should be erected in the correct position Obstacles should be moved

d11

Use ladder provided to exit vehicle Do not put hand on blade side. Follow instructions given. Should use hammer and chisel. But this was not working efficiently. Should use blunt instrument. Should stop work until situation safe. Site Personnel should speak English. Immigrant labour standards not safe. Nothing. Own fault as had been trained in how to use Chisel but did his own way. Single stage platform didn't really warrant any steps, but basically he shouldn't have been umping off the platform.

Both were informed about manual handling, both knew they should not have been doing the task without mechanical handling aid. Tool box talks and memos were distributed dealing with the issue. Should follow instructions. Should be wearing hat d14 Should follow procedures and wear goggles d14 Use steps on the vehicle to enter Should not have done it - not doing manual work - have people employed for manual work.

130

I1 / I2 I3 I4 d9 d9 / o3

d9 o3 d9 o4 p2 o6

d9 o3 d9 o3 d9 d9 d9 o3 d9 d9 o3

d9 d3 o7

d9 o7 o5

d9 o2

d9 o3 d9 d9 d9 p4 d9 d9

d9 d1

d9 d9 d9 d9 o3 d9 d9

d9 o3 d9

Notifier suggestions recommendations Make use of facilitates provided to descend Follow instructions guidelines Avoid heavy materials unless absolutely necessary Follow the method statement. Wear PPE as instructed in Method Statement. d14 Ensure that employees do not lift more than they should Assess and understand work and identify requirements on site (e.g. mechanical lifting) Increase awareness of managers responsibilities before work commences IP should follow method statement. Should not enter excavations until safe Should follow procedures, no shortcuts Should have used rigid platform as per method statement Should have been using alternative tools Follow method statement details Place feet on correct supports. Follow Method Statements Use 'bean-bags' for fall protection, these velcro together and are fixed to IP

d14

Should have been using mechanical equipment which was available. Given manual handling techniques and videos in induction. Rotate staff to do different pieces of manual handling who are suited to lifting various things. Tool box talks about manual handling and if things are heavy use equipment provided. Use accident statistics to show employees that accidents do happen with manual handling. Should have pulled pipe onto a level surface and not on to a bank. Held discussion with everyone on site as to what had gone wrong and what could have been done to prevent it - tool box talk. Operators should take more responsibility for their actions Educate operators from a younger age Use youngman boards. Procedures were not followed Should have used a jigsaw and not a knife. Operatives should have accessed working platform using appropriate equipment General care, make sure subcontractors follow procedures. IP should have washed boots immediately Freak accident, IP not sure what happened, but acknowledged should have footed ladder Noted that the grandfather rights to the CSCS scheme should remain open, so that anyone who can prove that they are a time served skilled labourer can join, the scheme should not be closed. Try to get people to follow instructions. (Shortage of good labour) Quality of Agency staff very poor.

d10

Didn't follow instructions. Use your own tools, don't borrow them. d13 Storage is the responsibility of IP Employees must follow method statements Main contacter should be switched off during relocation Some doubt as to account of accident. Was doing something that supervisor told him not to do - was told by subcontractor to do it as a favour. If been instructed by foreman would have been given task talk and accident could have been prevented - comes back to risk assessment and method statements being used correctly. Follow Method Statement Follow instructions Use tools - drills and hammers Exclude body force to open doors

d13

131

I1 / I2 I3 I4 d9 o3 d9

d9 d9 d9

d9 o3 d9 d9

d9 d9 d9 job d9 o6 d9

o4 o4

o6 o4

N

o6

d4

Notifier suggestions recommendations Employees should follow method statement. Everything was in place, a safe route had been provided, but shouldn't have been on site and hadn't been instructed to carry out the task. He was taking a shortcut to the skip which had also been coned off (road cone). Employees should not over-reach and ensure that ladder evenly footed. Use tools you are used to rather than borrowed' ones which function in a different way. d13 Have had ARC meeting - accident review committee meeting - this was identified as manual handling incident - repeatedly instructed how to lift them - not to toss, and lift one at a time. Trying to do quick job rather than take time and do carefully. Will be retrained in man hand. Given tool box talks once per week. Should follow method statement. Nothing - down to his own negligence. IP should not have been up ladder Do not do favours for others Operatives should use correct access facilities No, employees should follow instructions Should use correct equipment to do the d13 Should follow instructions. Closer supervision. Shouldn't wear overshoes on stair case.

d10 No - cannot stop using work experience operatives as the industry relies on them, and difficult to influence their attitudes.

d10 More personnel to support potentially dangerous structures. d10 More hands on site. Drilling plant rather than hand tools. d10 None. Could put board down but then could not do the work. d10 Unfortunate accident - 18 stone person working on mobile tower - wrong person to do task. d11 Signs to be placed on windows informing others that weights are not fitted

Window weights to be fitted sooner d11 Manhole should be cornered off. d11 othing to offer Notifier was not familiar with the site and is unsure whether floor was slippy or

if manhole cover needed replacing d11 Believed that top stair was slightly under the cabling reducing the depth of the tread, but never

been problematic and never identified as a hazard. Stairs could have been repositioned, but were later replaced in concrete.

d11 The hazard should have been covered with steel plates. d11 Install hard-core to give a firm surface. d11 Ensuring that leaks are fixed. Notices are posted if hazard identified - i.e. attention wet floor.

One of those things. d11 Maintaining good access. Housekeeping d11 Site tidier, wearing knee pads d14 d11 Install guard rails at slopes on site. d11 Ensure temporary coverings can't skid d11 Maintaining safe access to and from the point of work d11 Install dry access to ladders d11 Provide more cover to exposed joists. d11 Keep site tidy and improve awareness. d11 Yellow caps on protruding bars to protect employees d11 Keep materials tidy

132

I1 / I2 I3 I4 o6

d1 o3

o4 d4

d4

o4

o3

p5

d4

hazards. d4

o7

o4 o7 o4 o6

d4

Notifier suggestions recommendations d11 Site management to ensure that site is kept clean and tidy and that materials are not stored in

working areas d11 Improved housekeeping. Signing In and Out of cartridges. Improve Competence . (Lapse of

procedure). d11 Very unfortunate. The use of polythene cannot be avoided, and it was possibly slightly damp d11 Loft access modified (completely) accident potential eliminated. d11 Anti slip mats on stair cases

increase awareness d11 Improve housekeeping d11 Ensure site tidiness. Site was 'aggravated' by fly tipping d12 d11 Better pedestrian routing on site. Self awareness. d11 Trip free access as far as possible. d11 No, Housekeeping was good. The change in level could have been painted with tiger stripes. d11 Install screening as soon as possible

Use signs d11 Housekeeping d11 Ensure protective boards are secured with screws or nails d11 Do not use bubble wrap for protection

Have dedicated pedestrian routes d11 Make stairs less steep if possible, but was not possible in this case due to space restrictions d11 Housekeeping

Main contractor should act on CDM and Health and safety policy rather than focusing on 'little / easy ' things

d11 Step ladder slipped on floor. Use of non-slip surface under ladder. d11 Good housekeeping

Cage area to contain scaffold tubing d11 Do not leave unprotected holes.

Provide covers and barriers. d11 Spillages may have made floor wet, however this is unknown. Perhaps an alternative material

should have been used for the flooring, as Gorrex may not have been suitable o12

d11 Make pathways wider d11 Ensure that work surfaces are not slippery

Don't rush d11 Difficult, ground was typical of a normal construction site - uneven, excavations, etc. d11 Cover boards should be fully fixed to floor and spray painted to make operatives aware of

d11 Improved warnings for uncovered holes. People being more vigilant of the risks around them. d11 Proper attention to roping off areas of potential danger d11 Tripping hazard created by the difference between levels, not sure if it would have been

possible to avoid d11 Housekeeping error, not making full use of storage facilities. Communicated through tool box

talks d11 Clearer access, consider alternative access routes and possibly better scheduling d11 Continual improvement - reminder to keep sites kept tidy. d11 Ensure that people are kept clear of FLT operations

Pre-separate split loads d11 Hole covered with 'polystyrene'. Should have metal cover and marking cone. d11 Allow space for work - be aware.

133

I1 / I2 I3 I4

d4

d4

o4

( )

/ d4 o5

o4

o6

Notifier suggestions recommendations d11 Try to keep surfaces dry. d11 Dry the floor before deploying ladder d11 Use non-slip floor or mats d11 Not preventable

Make sure footway is flat and level d11 Door should be locked (secured) back d11 Housekeeping d11 Better housekeeping, stepped onto piece of timber from a packing case, could have been

prevented with some care and tidying up. d11 Provide correct access. d11 Improve housekeeping d11 Planks covering hole should be fixed

Do not cover man-hole covers with temporary fittings, put proper man-hole cover on. d11 Better housekeeping , being vigilant. d11 Mark out walkways. Keep site tidy. d11 Additional working lights d11 Don't leave manholes uncovered d11 Housekeeping, to avoid trips d11 Keep the site tidy

Debris should not be in close proximity to the employee. If it does fall it will be less likely to strike the worker

d11 Remove kerbs. (2 accidents in a month). More awareness / different awareness is needed for a city centre site.

d11 Keep sites tidy. d11 Damp area should have been treated (cleaned etc)

Fence the risk area d11 Remove rubble immediately

Walk around rubble rather than take shortcuts d11 Improve housekeeping d11 More care and attention, more awareness, switch room access could have been improved with

fixed steps and impose restrictions on entry to room. d11 Improve general tidiness. d11 Warning barriers around holes d11 Deploy more warning signs d11 Access routes and ground conditions should be kept clear d11 Improve housekeeping particularly near laddersd11 When covering temporary openings, boards should be fixed down securely d11 Possibly remove raise scaffold in door area. d11 Site tidiness checks. More awareness.

Offenders that leave hazards should be disciplined d11 Review removal of surplus materials - and consider possible mechanisation of unloading d11 Improve lighting

Make surface more grippy d11 Improve site tidiness and awareness of surroundings d11 Monitor state of floor. Remove any standing water. d11 Site housekeeping. (Effectiveness of site management). More frequent site walking.

134

I1 / I2 I3 I4 d7

d1

o4 o7

d5

d1

p4 o3

d7

o3

o4

o4 o4

Notifier suggestions recommendations d11 Site housekeeping. People should act themselves or advise their management of dangerous

conditions. d11 Padding to protect upstands/ corners etc of hop ups. d11 Ensure ladders are put on clear ground

Improve lighting d11 Stress Subcontractor to continually clear areas.

More barriers. Segregate trades. d11 Diesel spills should be cleaned d11 Housekeeping

Increased alertness d11 Housekeeping, keep dust sheets flat. d11 Fill holes temporarily or plywood d11 Install temporary closures to floor openings flush with surface. Do not let floor protection

reduce visibility of openings. d11 Better lighting and more barriers d11 Improve housekeeping d11 Better housekeeping by principal contractor d11 Keep access routes clear. d11 No, due to ground conditions. d11 Avoid walking on rubble, clear as you work d11 Keep floor dry d11 Use non slip surfaces to steps d11 Keep site tidier (not untidy site), just happened that combination of things caused accident d11 Inspect for small floor differences d11 Not really, crate was temporary step into the house which was set up by home owner, but was

unstable. Written risk assessment and method statements were not applicable to the work.

d12 Tie/Fix ladders when in use Senior Management support for H&S

d12 They looked at the steps and they were in good order. IP's safety shoes had mud on them which could have been a factor. They are making sure shoes are clean of mud when they come inside, this is covered in their toolbox talks.

d12 Skip should have been cleaned and emptied in the evening so that it did not fill with water d12 Tie cladding panels down when in storage d12 Fasten door so that it cannot be blown d12 Should have been two men to lift because of the wind. d12 Beware of windy conditions. d12 More notice of environmental conditions. d12 Don't normally work at height with glass, but wind got up whilst working, and strong gust came

out of blue, caught the unit and twisted IP around. Basically keep a better eye on weather d12 No, was felt to be a freak accident, no-one knew why the wall fell down. Possibly due to a gust

of wind. d12 Salt and grit workplace during winter d12 Skip lids should be tied in high winds.

Manufacturer notified d12 No could not have been helped, just slipped on wet soil d12 Conditions were icy - slip

135

I1 / I2 I3 I4

d3

o6 o6 d4

o4

o3

d5

None - one off accident.

d1

o3

/o4

d4

Notifier suggestions recommendations d12 Designated footway for icy conditions

Salt pathway d12 Do not lift board when windy

Seek help from colleague d12 Don't access work face in unsuitable weather d12 Salt car park and access routes in icy weather d12 Remove materials to stop them blowing in the wind d12 More careful observation of weather conditions. d12 Weather prediction different d13 Possibly safer to cut ties on scaffolding.

More care from IP d13 Replace ramps with lighter version

Should use two operatives, not one. d13 Better anti-slip on access ladders.

Couldn't use scissor-lift on ceramic tiles. d13 Use wooden mallets to install fittings (not hammers) and if necessary cut pipe to remove rather

than try to extract it d13 Possibly fix boards to scaffold. d13 Avoid using canopies

Push stakes in further d13 Use scaffold (appropriate access) rather than a hop-up. d13 Install a non-slip ladder d13 Complete work platform so that 'stepping down is not required. d13 Should have used a tower, not a ladder d13 Foam protection on lagging

Redesign dog-leg bracing Easier to reduce severity than prevent accident

o12

d13 Better equipment or alternative procedure d13 Secure boarding to channel to ensure even floor surface - carried out following accident d13 Wherever possible use trolleys to transport metal. d13 Use of scaffolding as opposed to ladder d13 All given gloves. Invent tool to put blocks in, or ensure they are paying attention when putting

the blocks in. d13

Ropes on hiab to prevent swinging could have prevented accident. d13 Doors had been fitted for security purposes so that areas could be closed off, however the

hydraulic arm had not been adjusted properly, this was done following the accident. d13 Use equipment that can detect cabling 20mm below ground d13 Ban mobile phones on site. d13 Use an alternative tool where appropriate d13 Don't use starter handle - use electrical start d13 Mechanical equipment for cutting

No moving M C near bar Take off area

d13 Use proper access equipment d13 Use hand grabs on machine

Reduce complacency d13 Could use a lift and shift.

136

I1 / I2 I3 I4

(PPE)

Mechanical hoist

)

o4

d1

d1

o7

d3

Notifier suggestions recommendations d13 Use ring spanners - open enders fly off

Wear glovesd14

d13 Use mechanical plant for this type of activity d13

Reduce size of deck plate o12

d13 Do not use manual labour d13 Scaffold board should lift to fascia board. d13 Bundle boards and lower with hoist where practical (or use craned13 Ensure that the top on steamer is fitted correctly

Re-design steamers d13 Use appropriate dumper relative to ground conditions d13 This type of insulation was supposed to be used to cover rafters where there are no joints. Use

fall nets. d14

d13 Circles weren't fully fitted. Measure clip prior to fitting an is fully seated. Use correct parts.

d13 Carry debris in buckets d13 Holding down bolts should have cover to prevent similar accident. Could be painted Hi-Viz. d11 d13 If thread goes on screw don't use, should have used fresh one, as the groove had worn away. d13 Minimise steps in scaffolds (if steps essential put them on external corners). d13 Small scale 'sock' if available might help but did not seem to be available. d13 Improve fastenings for gate

Need system for driver to advise site management on gate requirements d13 Use of air lance may be effective d13 Torque devices don't work. No suggestions d13 Use of lifting equipment such as a beam could have prevented the 'spin'

Used safety awareness talks & tool box talks. d13 Use machine to lift beam rather than handle manually. d13 Increase the leverage of the heel bar rather than using excessive force.

Use mechanical force Ask colleague for assistance

d13 Don't use scaffold board to block window frames. (Bricklayers tend to use scaffold boards for temporary props). Now prohibited.

d13 Ladder must be secured/tied d13 Foot / tie ladder

Use steps d13 Re-position scaffolding to remove first hazard

Remove timber (trip hazard). d13 Use other apparatus to carry materials d13 Better securing of ladder base when located on PVC membranes. E.g. ladder stops. d13 Prohibit use of side boards, use of step ladders and use of stable landing points d13 Make sure that ladder is level

Secure it at bottom d13 Use electric starter d13 Mechanical handling of equipment d13 Use of correct youngman boards and do not remove guard rails d13 Use Safety catches on hooks to prevent it from disengaging

137

I1 / I2 I3 I4 d3 o2

d3 o3

o4

d9

o6

d4

d5

d8

)

d4

Wear PPE )

Notifier suggestions recommendations d13 Reinforce training - immediately

Improve footing of ladder for 1 person usage Try and allow employees to work in twos

d13 Use fixed access ladders or a second man to foot ladder. d13 Don't work off ladders use scaffolding or cherrypicker d13 Use mechanical movers d11 d13 Possible use of mechanical lifters d13 Better use of ladder, or use of scaffold. d13 Doors did have catches which were supposed to keep door open but did not work. They have

fitted doors with catches to hook open the door so the wind can blow without closing the door. d13 Just "Act of God". Could use foot ladder. d13 Possible additional guard.

Should mount mixer away from trip hazard d13 Use small tower scaffold for repetitive tasks. d14 Wear hard hats d14 Remove boots/ clean boots to stop slippage d14 He had a written warning about this and had inductions, safety workshops and toolbox talks but

continued to wear trainers to work. Now they have tightened up on PPE and if they are wearing wrong PPE they are sent home and not allowed to work. Tightened up on procedures.

d14 Wear safety glasses d14 Goggles issued. Supervise to ensure eye protection worn where necessary. d14 People should wear appropriate PPE d14 Better, more appropriate footwear.

Awareness of site conditions d14 Safety equipment to be used d14 Improve protection

Regular breaks d14 Goggles to be worn to prevent foreign matter entering eyes

previously unaware that plaster contained so much lime d14 Eye protection should have been worn. d14 Should wear PPE (Hard hatd14 Kneeling pads might help. d14 Should have known better anyway, but both gloves should be kept on until all work is

completely finished. d14 Wear gloves wherever possible d14 IP should wear gloves for this type of activity d14 Ensure that safety gloves are worn d14 Wear gloves. d14 Supplying goggles.

General Awareness. d14 Should have been wearing gloves, are provided. d14 d14 Goggles (though not ideal

138

I1 / I2 I3 I4

j

Wear goggles d1

o3

o4 d4

Wear goggles

d4

d4

Wear goggles

/

Notifier suggestions recommendations d14 Seek to identify source:

Correct footwear? Slippy - oil, water, grease etc Adequate notices and also increase vigilance

d11

d14 'Seat belt' to attach IP to ladder to stop him umping d14 Wear Gloves (PPE) d14 Wear high visibility clothing d14 Get correct consistency for concrete

d14 No possibly wear gloves d14 Wear safety glasses d14 Wear gloves. d14 Revised the PPE. Gloves being worn were inadequate. d14 Wear gloves d14 Straight forward accident, no build up, using working methods as specified, and was supervised.

Was wearing helmet, which fell backwards as he slipped and he hit his head on pipework. d14 Wear eye protection

Improve method of working d14 Use safety screens or undertake operations in protected area d14 Wear gloves. Ensure tools not worn, avoid complacency. o10 d14 Wear eye protection for this type of activity d14 All accidents investigated. Cause was identified as a faulty boot. New boots issued. d14 d14 More supportive boots d14 Wear PPE. d14 Wear helmet

Be more observant d14 Not likely to re-occur

Safety footwear d14 Were goggles really being worn? (as claimed) d14 Internal investigation on incident. Wearing PPE as specified, footwear, glasses, hat, dusk mask,

overalls, gloves, etc. PPE added to accident - in mist of clearing floor, stepped back and slipped, put hand down to stop fall. If he had not been wearing it all, he would have been aware of bracketing on floor. All barracked off. Glasses misted up a bit due to face mask. Floor had been painted, other areas composite tile, but as painted offered less resistance to aluminium so acted as a banana skin. Could not come up with what could be better. Have done a lot of high risk work on this contract without any hitches but a low risk task caused the accident.

d14 Put pair of gloves on, had gloves available. It is general practice to wear gloves but did not for some reason.

d14 Wear cut resistant gloves d14 Wear gloves

Increase awareness of problems d14 d14 Ensure vehicle lights are working

Check footwear PPE for abrasions/soiling/grease. o10

139

I1 / I2 I3 I4

o4

Wear protective clothing d4

o1

o1 o1 o1 d9

o1 02

o1 d6

o1 e2

o2 o2 o3 o7

o2 o7

o2 o2 d4 o2 o2 o4

o2 o7

o2 o2 o4 o2 d4

o2 o2 o2 o3 d4

Notifier suggestions recommendations d14 Clean steps/boots. d14 Put offices at ground level

PPE for office staff when on site High ankle protection - more support

d14 Heavy gloves to stop jamming fingers d14 Wear PPE - gloves. d14

Be sensible d14 Gritter access reviewed. Ankle support boots now specified as mandatory. d11

Don't employ a "Brian" (reference to first name of IP - 3 accidents and only reportable accidents by company)! Don't employ idiots! Main contractor to employ English speaking personnel Vet and assess who is employed. Identify why IP was up scaffolding when he should not have been Down to workforce to improve general housekeeping, the site foreman goes around and keeps reminding them to tidy up site. More aware of general housekeeping - more training towards housekeeping. Missing apprentices which are not college trained - need when finish school and train them from there - so that they are aware of surroundings. Need to learn from day one ­housekeeping Need common sense from people working on site

d11

Ensure that employees are given a medical before they are employed - the activities they perform can then be specified so as to prevent possible injury National Register of contract personnel to select staff. Gaps in CDM regulations do not address quality of staff sufficiently. Manual handling training Train machine operators More precise specification of procedures Tool box talks Not in this case. Generally: Encourage induction training. Toolbox talks where appropriate. Working to complete workforce being CSCS card holders by end 2003. Training / experience. Better training of sub-contractors, more awareness Education about safe use of steps Improve manual handling training Reduce the distance that materials have to be carried. As a result went through issues associated with working from ladders - training not to work solely from a ladder, tied off, etc. - tool box talk. Not 3 metres off ground. Keep up training Change training arrangement. Revisit risk assessment Retraining. Operative awareness. Better training- beware loose clothing. Raise awareness of slip hazards. 'Time windows' may be too tight for safe working. More training, more care, do not rush

140

I1 / I2 I3 I4 o2 o7

o2

o2 o2 d4 o2 o2 o2

o2 o6

o2 o2 o2 CSCS courses o8 d4

o2

o2

o2 o3

o2 o2 p5 d4 o6

o2 Training o2 o7

o2 o2

o2 Reinforce good practice o2 o3

o2 o6 o2 o6 o7

o2 o2 o3 p2

o2 o4

o2

Notifier suggestions recommendations Manual handling lifting training toolbox talks Safety leaver should be operated on the digger. Training to the above Keep emphasising manual handling Increase manual handling training. Work within limitations and to know limitations More in depth training Manual handling training Raise general level of awareness Have pre-made lifting trusses to avoid similar accidents

o12

Training on how to lift send advisors to assist Show how to use stilsons Increase manual handling training

General safety awareness Told that he had to be retested. Regained qualification - and then was re-inducted CSCS to increase awareness Site induction should be improved - make them aware More training on 'confined space' problems Should follow procedures H&S awareness training Better training of foreman and people in charge. Challenge is to educate those who have been in industry for a long time and take advantage of the risks as they are more familiar and have done it a certain way before and got away with it. Younger foreman are more vigilant of the risks than the older foreman.

Manual Handling training Briefings Self responsibility Improve manual handling training Refresher course of manual handling - machine specific Use legs, not body to turn rather than twist

Training for personnel Need a safer method of pouring agent into container Reinforce manual handling training. Ensure sufficient personnel are available to assist lifting. CSCS cards Site inductions should be improved, need supervisors' support - keep reminding employees Training should be given earlier in course. College teaching 'out-dated' methods. Make sure that a safety induction is held before work starts or is allowed on site. No one should be within close proximity of such a large load (20 tonnes) being lifted. More client contact of awareness - planning, knowledge of what risks, operations, and procedures are involved - all contracted people should be aware. Improve manual handling training Do not put heavy loads upstairs Better training

141

I1 / I2 I3 I4 o2

o2 o2 o2 o2 o9

o2 d4

o2

o2 o2 o2 d4

o2 o2 o2 o2 o3 o9

o2 o3

PPE p5 o7

o3 o3 o3 o3 o9

o3 o3 o3 d9

o3

o3 o4 o3 o2 d5

o3 o4

o3 / o4 o6

Notifier suggestions recommendations Additional training on manual handling, including the possibility of aggravating of old injuries. More experience is required in knowing when to use manual force or continue cutting through lintel. Manual handling training Training of personnel. Training in lifting weights Manual handling refreshers. Fit lifting devices to vehicles to reduce manual handling. Re-educate to be more careful when moving on site Increase awareness of immediate surroundings Be more careful when on foot CITB courses H & S courses Signs and procedures & equipment

d14

No, only manual handling training. Refresher training of ladders Manual handling training Encourage PPE wear Be vigilant

d14

'Health and Safety training' Raise awareness and training of workforce Refresher course that uses a new style of presentation. Further training. Substitute drilling for hammer work Better, more stable work platforms Convinced CSCS cards going along right route and can only do good. Write method statements

Ensure that subcontractors are working inline with PCs H&S policies Issue copies of H&S policies to contractors

d14

Transport the plasterboard flat. Briefing note on how to store equipment Issue instructions - use steps, fully extended, use equipment properly Generator should be switched off for refuelling Hose to be correct length More robust grill design Band sleepers prior to loading. Do not forklift when other personnel are not visible I.P should follow procedures. Scaffolding should be secure. Sent memo to all supervisors stating that all debris and material left by other trades should be removed before the structure is dismantled. More control measure. R.A from ground level forget 2 metre limit. Firm up on working practices in moving machines e.g. must have a banks man to operate. Highlight dangers at induction stage, wear high-visibility where possible. Maintenance of concentration, ref to "Jaguar approach" emphasis on method statement - will be pleased to speak further on this if we would like. Very keen to keep in touch with BOMEL.

d14

Focus more on how work is sequenced so that employees work from platform rather than ladders - difficult to do with re-work Follow site plan - the activity concerned was not part of the contract. Better policing supervision

142

I1 / I2 I3 I4 o3 o3 o3 o3 o3 )o3 o3

o3 o3 d4 o3

o3 o3 o3 o3 o4

o3 o3 o7 o3 o3

o3

o3

o3 o3

o3 o6

o3 o3

) o3 o7

o3 o3 o3

o4

o4

Notifier suggestions recommendations Do not handle steel when craned - if necessary, hold the outside of the flange. Appropriate specification QA of joist hangers. Different arrangement of slinging load Do not carry too much Change procedure to use mechanical equipment (e.g. hydraulic turfors to lower other tackle. Not a risk until he did it. Belts pallet instruction Offload way round they are loaded. Wear gloves

d14

Do not work in mud. Keep PPE clean. d10 d12 Looked at particular operation, modified procedure increase awareness. Underlying cause was the suspension of works due to the arrival of utilities. Before works recommenced the workforce was reallocated. In the interim the contractor had inadvertently mislaid the utilities plans and site foreman (who should had done detection of utilities) had not obtained new utilities plans, had sourced the domestic supplies but not the 11kV. Proceeding without drawings on site was main problem. Window should have been spilt into two so would have been two loads instead of one big one. Need a procedure for working at height with Dry Boards etc. Change method statement Recommendations - reviewed risk assessments and included instructions relating to procedure in lifting man hole covers, given info around about where can obtain manhole cover keys, general warning for staff. Job will be "one man only" and procedures will be emphasised. Make sure aluminium plate held firmly in jig. Tool box talks. Keep machine clean to prevent jamming. Use cushion between hammer and pin. o10 Drums shouldn't be stacked 3 high Improved materials handling procedures. All new cables are unwrapped beforehand off site Maintain the use of gloves, goggles, hard hats etc.

d14

Do not load bogey so that plates can trap personnel. Floor plates have been redesigned to reduce the size for improved handling.

012

Do not use trestles without H/Rails and youngman boards. Revise method statement Remove old glass from a distance Avoid manipulating damaged parts - turn gas off and replace faulty component Seek support from supervisor Clamping components being cut Do not use mobile scaffold for this height and activity - mobile elevated platform would be more suitable. (eliminates repositioningDismantle equipment and carry upstairs Tool box talk Report to site management when plant arrives Disconnect breaker from hose during transport Update method statement Use ladders to provide access to scaffolding Provide board under ladder if soft ground or grass. Greater use of mechanisation, however this is restricted by working space. Try to mechanise as much as possible Improve basic safety assessments.

143

I1 / I2 I3 I4 o4

o4 d4 o4 o4 o4 o4 o4 o4 o4

o4

o4 d7

o4 o4 o4

o4

o4 o4 o4 o3 o4 o4 p1

o4 o9

o4

o4 o4

o4 o4 o4 d4

o4 o4

o4 d8

o4 o4

Notifier suggestions recommendations Checklist for all aspects with Yes/No tick boxes, e.g. what PPE is needed. Any special conditions? Used for all jobs. Need to know operational information for equipment what hazards - awareness. Make a good survey for potential hazards. Floor works should have been completed or barriered. Do not improvise. Properly designed Lifting points should be incorporated and used. o12 Work off stilts- intermediate step up now employed Board out hazards as early as possible. Close road when works are in progress Review procedures of vehicle movement on site, certain areas have now been cordoned off and traffic routes have been changed. Changes agreed with Prison Service Two-stage quick hitch current in use, could make use of one-stage system instead which would ensure that all work could be done by 1 person in cab. This would remove the need for a second person and the need to jump from cab. More strategic planning of material arrivals on site Reduce manual handling Check scaffolding Ask for assistance

d13

Change the order of work so that access can be improved Work should be carried out progressively, avoid standing on loose material, keep eyes open More thought in layout of site in design. Fast track sites don't allow enough room for stacking materials, etc. No room for skip etc.

d11

Segregate deliveries from arrivals Improve housekeeping

d11

Check ladders before use. More planning with main contractor to allow mechanical handling Insist mortar delivered within the site compound. Do not manual handle. Inspection of area prior to shoring Improve risk assessments and methodology Specialist/ diamond company brought in to do drilling Risk assessment Mobile tower/ step ladder to access work place. Minimise manual handling Shorten the route More planning - use scaffolding if preferred Limited space on site, difficult access issues, should have been specifically instructed about gaining access - I.e. go on hand and knee as opposed to bending back

d11

Yard layout redesigned, so Hiab could make direct pick eliminating manual handling Revise Risk Assessment to consider strength of wind. d12 Risk assessment on door that relates to wind conditions. Individual should take more personal care. Level of container should be changed

d12

Have material offloaded where it is needed, rather than transporting them across site Do not locate material piles 180 degrees from mixer. Should be alongside to eliminate twisting. Possibly lower site mixer. Cone locations were dangerous. More awareness content in induction This type of work should only be done when house is unoccupied then power tools can be used. See if there is another way of doing job and choose the better option.

144

I1 / I2 I3 I4 o4

o4 o5 o5 o2 o9

o5 d4 o5 (

o5 o6 d4 d8

o5 o5 d4

o5 o8 o5 d4 o6 d4 o6 o6 p4 o7

o6 o6 o6 d6

o6

o6 o6 o6 p4 o4

o7 o7 o4

o7

o7 d4 o7 o7 o7

Notifier suggestions recommendations Crane roller into place rather than use ramp Wear fewer layers of clothes to increase manoeuvrability

d14

Correct documentation. Installation was badly wired. Recall this particular incident and point out how and why it happened Minimise exposure to the risk Train employees to move away Remote/laser measurement of piling progress Review incidents and stress need for crew and site observation Stairway had been looked at and decided that it was not a risk only 3 steps). Now they cover over anything over 3 stairs high and make a platform so that people do not fall. Employer should report accident Review supervision procedures Understanding of health and safety materials Greater awareness of young persons shortcomings Extra tool box talks - don't walk backwards. Clear barriers from outside Safe system of work - take in all known incidents - Keeping awareness up - Get assistance Site safety awareness. Ensure risks for other S/C are managed. Incident analysis. More care & attention More supervision and care Changing behaviour. People revert when not supervised. Managers have too much pressure - sends labour down to work without a proper explanation of how, who, what, where, when the work is to be done. etc Senior management should guide the process More supervision from principal contractor re slippery surfaces More supervision - There was better access available than that used. Reinforce instructions on handling objects, but IP had weakened back condition from years of incorrect lifting procedures Constant monitoring Regular checks Should instruct that it's one man job Supervision of young persons. Executing tasks in safe areas. Better management from main contractor. Timescales were too short and all finishing trades were trying to get into flats at one time causing overcrowding. Materials were being stored in the flats too far in advance of work being carried out. Main contractor had been requested to move carpets on several occasions but no action had been taken. Tool box talk Told people that they should be doing an 'on-site' Risk Assessment and if there is any added risk involved e.g. the weather is bad, they should consider its effects. This was formally disseminated to the workers and minuted at their site safety meeting. Toolbox talks explain more about human body and limits Education by Tool-Box. More Care. Increase ladder safety - talks with employees. People shouldn't use unsafe scaffolds - main contractor must act on s/c comments. More communication between trades on site.

145

I1 / I2 I3 I4 o7 o4

o7

)

o2 o9

o7 p5

o7 p5 d9

o7 o7 o7 o2 o7

o7 d4 o7 o4

o7 o2 o7 o7 d4 o8 d4

o8 e4 o7

o8 o8 o8 d4

o8

o9 o9 o9 o9

Notifier suggestions recommendations Inform workforce of hazards, held toolbox talks using the IP as an example and to deliver the talk. Look for potential shortcuts prior to works commencing and whilst identifying possible hazards, eliminate the short cuts where possible, if not possible then inform work force of hazards and instruct them only to use safe routes. Tool box talks Manual handling training Shorten length of scaffold tubes (they already do this) Take advice from independent body (NASCTool box talks on site - describe different types of plants - where have evidence show it including photos of injury - explain what happened and why accident happened. Real-time Site Safety and Environmental Guide - describes all operations company does and what personnel do, all kinds of protection - Part of site induction - have to read it and sign to say read it and understands - makes people more aware of the risks and what can happen, makes them more careful. They talked about it with the IP and other person present - what went wrong, why it happened, what can be done to prevent it - got them involved in solving the problem. Conclusion was that they will now use steel bars to manoeuvre the pins in future cases similar to this. Main contractor should ensure other trades do not go up on scaffold or remove things from scaffolding. Had documentation in place but removal / replacement of boards and tie bars was still happening after this accident (could have killed IP). Tool box talks Toolbox talks Issued warning to educate, must ensure that gloves are worn, toolbox talks now include this d14 Improved tool box talks Had attended safety awareness course ladder stays

d13

Tool box talks. Self awareness Gave all tool box talk. Down to planning etc. Using mechanical equipment rather than hand held - tell employees when to use each through tool box talks and briefings and work specific briefings. Tool box talk. Use of PPE. Training analysis d14 Tool box talks regarding slips, trips & falls and manual handling. Communicate around the site. Try to improve awareness. Do not take short cuts Always take care when cutting equipment Safety awareness at home - training course given to enact a change in safety attitudes at home and work - the idea being to change overall lifestyle attitudes to safety. toolbox talks were given on ladder awareness More attention to safety Do not rush Be proactive, not reactive Be vigilant Should have been a two man life, a culture change required. Stop them thinking they are stronger than they are through training and education. Maybe use company not client's ladder Redesign cutters with an autostop/ brake and or protector to cover blade Deliver blocks that are well banded Crate materials rather than use banding.

146

I1 / I2 I3 I4 o9

o9 / semi steel o9

o9 o9

access. 04

o9 o9 o9 o9 o9 o9 o9 /o9 o9 ( )

jo4 d4

o9

o9

o9 o9 o2

o9 o9 o9

shop. o9 o3

o9

o9 o3

o9 o9 o9

answer) o9

o9 o4 o2

o9

Notifier suggestions recommendations Have already improved vehicle design: when tipper is up and vehicle attempts to move a speaker informs the driver that the tipper is up. After 5 metres of movement, an external speaker announces the same message to others in the vicinity Improve quality of ramps - semi woodDon't use stirling boards* to cover manholes - use plywood or similar. * When wet loses strength. Better quality tools. Learning cheapest and least expensive are two different things. Work practices - towers are not worker friendly and access is often difficult. Design for safety

Working towards mechanising the process of lifting but it is very expensive. Power failure disabled the lights. Use back power? Provide torches. Mesh type gates should be used as they do not react to wind to the same extent as solid ones. Recommend that all boxes fitted with restraint arms to prevent the lids from falling down. Possible use of mechanical handling Suppliers must ensure safe packaging and inspection prior to shipping Better stronger banding strapping for heavier loads Vehicle cabs are too high to step down from. Lighter weight sign re-designUse vans, not flat beds to discourage/ remove need to ump Increase awareness training Manufacturers should think about not using shields. Deploy tougher glass so that there would be not need for the use of shields Trestles not to be used, recommend scaffolding. Better house-keeping.

d11

Modified tooling so that platform is not more than 300mm below opening. Produce kerbs in smaller sizes. Upgrade manual handling training (refreshers) - train as a team. Should be a mechanical handling activity Re-manufacture Mastic blocks so that they do not stick together. Could clamp a block to door to prevent need to reverse drill. Could be pre-drilled in machine

Improve state of skips Improve loading specifications for skips Manufacturers are to notify holding clip which suffers from V.V degradation. Replaced with rubber component. No longer using timber chocks, now using metal chocks. Use of power tools and torque setting has revised procedures. Should have been using mobile tower. Change material chevron board so that it doesn't go brittle when cold Redesign compressors so outlets are high up and not at knee height. More investment in mechanical handling equipment (Manual handling training is not the

Discontinue use of this type of scaffolding. (This type not used on site generally.) Proper manual handling assessment of the work that is required Consider possible lifting aids Consider what training and instructions are needed

d13

Not really in this case, other than not making ceiling hangers so sharp, but that could not have been predicted.

147

I1 / I2 I3 I4 o9

o9

o9 d4

o9 04

o4

o9 d4

o2

(

d9 o5

d4

/

j

Notifier suggestions recommendations The quantity in which banded supplies are delivered should be reduced to ensure they are more stable - like to see max of 4 Using set of 18 stilsons, recommend using longer tool to take hands further away from point of impact Take care not to drop components. Should not modify manufactured goods.

o10 Maintain temporary access/steps etc appropriately o10 Better inspection of scaffold boards o10 Defective vehicles & plant must be repaired before use. o10 Weekly scaffolding inspections o10 Proactive inspection. o10 Ensure scaffold boards are fit for purpose o10 Periodic inspection of cabin on long duration sites o10 Possibly could have had some grease, but type of activity that is done every day, maintenance

not generally a problem. o10 Ensure timber treads are fit for purpose. o10 Tightened up on checking on conditions of trailer - weekly inspection o10 More frequent risk assessments would have identified that the tractor was not the correct engine.

Redesign of the components involved. o10 Keep vehicle stock to a minimum

Give instructions to workers not to hold excessive materials in stock. o10 Ensure all faulty equipment is promptly reported and not used. o10 Replace faulty equipment,

Do not extend (lean) too far. o10 Checks on equipment prior to use + training & supervision to ensure that equipment is

maintained properly. Possible use of electrical starter. o11 Incentive schemes to encourage long term service. A key issue for safety is long term service o11 Have breaks away from workplace o12 Slots for handle grips re-design) o12 Prefer to route services at high level.

Not below false floor which is exposed during construction. o12 Improve scaffold design

If a hazard has been identified, it must be rectified Follow safety advisors warning

o12 Design that allows panels to be directly installed by crane. o12 More consideration of the operation to be done.

Risk assessment on concrete finishing PPE to be modified.

d14

o12 Design positioning of hydraulic struts should be reviewed. o12 Issues with Severn Trent Water:

Recess for grating over weir increased from 1" to 2" for increased stability Improved regime of securing grating, ensuring that all brackets are in place

o12 Make a bigger sub-assembly at ground level o12 Force use of scaffolding for this type of activity o12 This particular part of the sequencing was due to a design change enforced by the programme, if

programming and sequencing had remained unchanged he would not have had to do it - therefore programming issue overall. Other than that ust considered unfortunate accident

o12 No. This type of lamp-post gradually being replaced.

148

I1 / I2 I3 I4 p1 p5 o2 p7

p1 p2 o7 p2

p4 p4 p4

stage p5 o9

p5 o7

p5

p5 o7 o2 d4

p5 p5 p5 o4

p5 d4 p5

p5 p7 o7 o1

e1 e2

e2 o6 d9

Notifier suggestions recommendations Get clients to recognise and pay for health and safety. Resources for training - availability of fully skilled personnel training and education Principal Contractor should enforce H & S Regs. with Subcontractors. Increase toolbox talks to show senior management commitment to safety Temporary accommodation on sites must be sound, secure and checked regularly for damages. Main contractor should take responsibility for their equipment/facilitates.

o11

Principal Contractor should ensure groundworks completed and tidy prior to other activities Too much fragmentation, single point contact would allow better understanding of conditions Lies in hands of main contractor, should not allow work to take place above or beside operator working in particular area, had been handed over so work should have been completed by this

Weighing up cost and time of H&S against risk. Tight programmes. Told to wear goggles which are supplied, but can be taken by someone else, which encourages the operative to take a chance. Could have been prevented by supplying hard hats with built in visor, this provides a situation where labourers have no excuse not to wear goggles.

d14

Make operatives aware of safety - by using CDM. If anything is observed that could be of a hazard the operatives are made aware immediately. Management system failure. Damage to vehicles had been reported. Scheduled for repairs. But was used before carried out.

o10

Independent company to visit sites and produce report about anything they see - acting as quality officer. Give tool box talks on what they see. Site supervisors course Eternal vigilance - all know what they should be doing but they do not do it. Very serious problem - site safety Use health and safety consultants for advice Principal contractor should make regular inspections to ensure Site Safety. Main contractor/ statutory authorities should not 'tear the ground up' once scaffolding comes down - I.e. services should be installed when scaffolding is up. "H & S People Ltd" do weekly audits, lift cables to high level, raise awareness. Managers should not engage in physical work as they are responsible for H&S, if they are off work, they cannot fulfil their H&S responsibilities Regular policing Less money pressure. Less time pressure. Communication of Method Statements. No, the condition of council properties often very poor. Need a proactive approach from HSE, to offer affordable advice. Wear toe Protectors

d14

Accidents in general on site: HSE should start prosecuting individuals on site who are breaking the law (e.g. not wearing hard hats), e.g. fining people £50 would get rid of problem in 2 months. Word of mouth will eradicate problem. Site managers are daily telling people to wear hard hats, glasses, harnesses, etc - up hill struggle. Also have a go at site as well but focus on individuals as well - will change culture of sites and prevent accidents. 1st offence £50, 2nd offence £100, 3rd offence £500, 4th offence £1000 and after that send people to prison.

149

I1 Notifier suggestions / recommendations I2 I3 I4 e2 Keep all trades men at home - can not eliminate accidents.

He has spent a lot of time and money in sending all personnel on a number of safety training and awareness courses. He has purchased all kinds of PPE and has ensured it is used, but accidents have still happened. Lack of concentration / awareness. He has had 3 accidents in 19 years. He believes that HSE should target small companies which do not know what method statements and risk assessments are and educate them.

o4

e2 Legislate to ensure that employees do not step into open access scaffold.

150

Printed and published by the Health and Safety ExecutiveC30 1/98

Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive C1.10 10/03

ISBN 0-7176-2724-1

RR 139

9 78071 7 627240£20.00