Scholarly Activity: Calculating Lagging Indicator Metrics

Unit II Scholarly Activity: Calculating Lagging Indicator Metrics

BOS 3001, Fundamentals of Occupational Safety and Health

Columbia Southern University

Unit II Scholarly Activity: Calculating Lagging Indicator Metrics

I am very grateful for being given the opportunity and responsibility of conducting a review of the CSU Widget Factory OSHA Forms 300, 300A, and 301. I will be computing the Total Recordable Incidence Rate (TRIR); Days Away, Restricted, or Transferred (DART) rate; Lost Workday Injury and Illness Rate (LWDII rate); and Severity Rate (SR), (CSU Fundamentals of Occupational Safety and Health Unit II Study Guide, 2017). Looking at these numbers will tell us the lagging indicators measured after the incidents or events have occurred. After that I will provide, what leading indicators I would use if examining the CSU Widget Factor Safety Management System. Leading indicators are measured prior to an incident occurring, which allows your company to be proactive in preventing the incidents in the first place, (Morrison, 2014). Finally, I will provide you with a summary of my findings and my suggestions for improvements. To create and maintain an accurate and effective safety program, one must consider both leading and lagging indicators (Morrison, 2014). The calculation I spoke of earlier are as follows:

TCIR = Total Cases from OSHA Summary 300A Log, lines G, H, I, and J X 200,000

Total Hours Worked in the Calendar Year**

**200,000 relates to 100 workers working 40 hours per week for 50 weeks in the year.

What we currently know is that for every 100 employees, 10.23 employees have been involved in a recordable injury or illness (OSHA, 2013).

DART is based only on the recordable cases that resulted in a fatality, days away from work, job transfer, or restriction of duty. These numbers are also derived from the OSHA 300 A, lines G, H, and I.

DART= Total Cases from OSHA Summary 300A Log, lines G, H, and I X 200,000

Total Hours Worked in the Calendar Year**

**200,000 relates to 100 workers working 40 hours per week for 50 weeks in the year.

What we currently know is that for every 100 employees, 10.23 incidents resulted in lost or restricted days or job transfer due to work related injuries or illnesses, (OSHA, 2013).

LWDII Rate is calculated using only lines G and H (fatalities and days away from work) on the OSHA 300A log. It is calculated as follows:

LWDII= Total Cases from OSHA Summary 300A Log, lines G and H X 200,000

Total Hours Worked in the Calendar Year**

**200,000 relates to 100 workers working 40 hours per week for 50 weeks in the year.

What we currently know is that for every 100 employees, 10.23 days were lost from work due to work related injuries or illnesses, (OSHA, 2013).

Severity Rate (SR), considers a company’s incidents in terms of the average number of days lost due to injuries/illnesses in the workplace. It is calculated as follows:

SR = Total number lost workdays or OSHA Summary Log 300A Line K

Total number of recordable incidents or OSHA Summary Log 300A Line J

This rate would have given us an average of the number of lost days per recordable case, (OSHA, 2013).

When and if I am asked to review the CSU Widget Factory Management System, I would examine if there were indicators that might have potentially led to these incidents. A few of these leading indicators or questions we could ask could be: (1) Management Involvement – Is management involved in its own safety programs? Are we being held accountable and are we hold others accountable? One of the leading causes of accidents in the workplace is the failure of management to do its part to ensure a safe and healthy work environment (Goetsch, 2015). (2) Safety Training – What types of training are we providing, are they the trainings needed? Are these trainings being understood by employees? (3) Safety Checks – Are they being conducted? Are they being done correctly and timely? Have there been any improvements made from the audits? (4) Promoting Safety First Atmosphere – How are we doing this? Do we encourage employee involvement? How do we track this? These are just a few things that could be done to affect the number of accidents that a company could potentially have, (Morrison, 2014).

I have provided a rate calculation above and below each figure a gave a “what is currently know”. These figures could be might be confusing, but the important thing to remember is that all of these accidents were preventable. My recommendation is to use the above lagging indicators and the leading indicators in unison. That process will create and maintain a systematically effective safety program, (Morrison, 2014). If you only use the lagging indicators you would in effect be taking a reactive approach to safety. This means you would only be fixing issues after they have had an impact on your company. If you use the leading indicators only this would be a better approach but still only cover a wide variety of safety topics rather than company specific ones. When using both you will see the best results from your safety program and help prevent future accidents.