leading indicators of occupational health and safety: highlights … · 2015-07-23 · survey...

Helen De Cieri, Tracey Shea, Brian Cooper, Cathy Sheehan, Ross Donohue

Contact: [email protected]

1

July 17 2015

Leading Indicators of Occupational Health and Safety: Highlights from Workplace Surveys

© Monash University 2015


WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE SUPPORT OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS IN THE RESEARCH §  Monash University §  WorkSafe Victoria §  ISCRR §  Safe Work Australia §  safesearch Executive GM Safety Forum §  Employers §  Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (Victorian Branch) §  Australian Education Union (Victorian Branch) §  Employees §  Institute for Work and Health, Canada

2

© Monash University 2015 3

“a general consensus exists for the use of leading indicators as a measure of OHS performance”

(Sinelnikov et al., Safety Science, 2015: 240).

OHS leading indicators

OHS Performance

WHS LEADING INDICATORS


What are the important ‘leading indicators’ of OHS in your workplace?

§  Measures of the positive steps that organisations and individuals take to prevent an OHS incident

§  Resources that are available in the workplace and that impact OHS performance

(References: Christian et al., 2009; Geldart et al., 2010; Laitinen et al., 2013; Reiman & Pietikäinen, 2012; Sinelnikov, Inouye, & Kerper, 2015; Wachter & Yorio, 2014)

What keeps your workplace healthy and safe?

OHS LEADING INDICATORS

4

WHAT ARE OHS LEADING INDICATORS?: BROAD AREAS OHS systems

(policies, procedures, practices)

Management commitment and

leadership

OHS training, information, tools

and resources

Consultation and communication

about OHS

Workplace OHS inspections and

audits

Prioritisation of OHS

OHS accountability

OHS empowerment &

employee involvement in

decision making

Positive feedback and recognition

for OHS

Risk management

(De Cieri et al., 2012, see www.iscrr.com.au or www.ohsleadindicators.org )

5


To develop a tool to measure OHS leading indicators that is:

þ  Simple

þ  Practical

þ  Reliable & valid

þ  Suitable for Australian workplaces

6

OUR RESEARCH AIM


Literature review to identify measures of leading indicators of OHS:

The “Organizational Performance Metric” (OPM), developed at the Institute for Work and Health, Ontario Canada, is a simple and practical tool to measure leading indicators. We have adapted and tested the OPM for use in Australian workplaces.

See Research Reports on www.iscrr.com.au or www.ohsleadindicators.org

7


ORGANIZATION PERFORMANCE METRIC (OPM)

•  The OPM is an eight-item questionnaire that asks a participant to respond to a set of statements about aspects of health and safety in his/her workplace.

•  OPM scores can range from 8 to 40

•  A higher score reflects that the respondent agrees that OHS leading indicators are present in his/her workplace

8


1440 Victorian workplaces compared with Workcover claims •  The OPM is a reliable and valid measure of OHS leading indicators

and was improved by some minor changes.

•  The OPM can be completed by an OHS manager or Health and Safety representative in a workplace… but asking everyone will give you a clearer picture.

•  The link with Workcover claims is complicated by other factors.

PILOT SURVEY

9


• Six industries • Six organisations • 66 workplaces • 3,605 responses (35% response rate)

170 managers (5%)

694 Supervisors (19%)

2741 workers (76%)

10

WORKPLACE SURVEYS 2013-15



Characteristic Outcome

Workplaces Recruited 66 workplaces from six organisations

Response rate 10,362 individuals targeted, 3,605 responded (35% RR); Male 61%

Location of respondents

Victoria 56% New South Wales13% Western Australia 19% Queensland 10% Northern Territory 1% South Australia 1%

Industry Arts & Recreation 26% Healthcare 25% Construction 19% Mining 11% Transport Postal & Warehousing 17% Electricity, Gas, Water, & Waste 2%

11


► Survey includes adapted OPM, safety climate, OHS leadership, OHS-related attitudes and behaviours, self-reported OHS outcomes

► Responses compared against workplace-level OHS outcomes (lagging indicators, e.g., injury rates) for the three months following the survey.

12



OPM comparison across industries

28.9

29.9

28.5

31.1

30.3

28.0

20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

Transport, Postal and Warehousing

Mining

Healthcare and Community Service

Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste

Construction

Arts and Recreation Services

The average score on the OPM = 29.0

(SD = 5.8)

OPM scores can range from 8 to 40 A higher score reflects that the respondent agrees that OHS leading indicators are present in his/her workplace

13


OPM comparison across employment level

32.7

29.8 28.5

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Manager level Supervisor level Employee level


(SD = 5.8)

14


30.3

26.7

29.8 30.5

28.9 28.5

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Org A Org B Org C Org D Org E Org F


(SD = 5.8)

OPM comparison across six organisations

15


25.3

27.6

30.5 29.1

24.3

20.9

23.5

30.3

27.4

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

A B C D E F G H I

OPM comparison across Organisation B’s workplaces

Average score on the OPM in

Org B = 26.7

Workplaces with lower OPM scores: •  Casual workforce •  Host/client worksites

16


12.1$9.1$

21.7$

7.3$

14.5$

0.0$5.0$10.0$15.0$20.0$25.0$

Incidents$reported$

Near$misses$reported$

Hazards$reported$

LTIFR$ MTIFR$


Average OHS incidents and frequency rates at the workplace level (n = 66 workplaces) for the three

months following survey administration

17


Key findings •  OPM score is associated with workplace OHS outcomes:

•  OPM scores aggregated at workplace level •  Higher scores on the OPM were associated with a lower:

•  lost-time injury frequency rate (r = -.30, n = 46, p = .041); and •  medical-treatment injury frequency rate (r = -.30, n = 45, p= .010)


OHS leading indicators

OHS Performance

(lagging indicators)

18


Does OHS leadership make a difference?

•  OHS Leadership scale (12 items) •  Manager’s perceptions of own capacity for OHS leadership, e.g., prioritisation of safety. •  Self-reported by managers and supervisors

OHS leadership is negatively associated with reported incidents and

lost time injury frequency rate at the workplace level. Active transactional leadership has stronger relationships with OHS

outcomes than does transformational leadership. …but both are important!

(also see Clarke, 2013, J Occ & Org Psych)

19


Preliminary analyses: In workplaces with OPM > 36/40 and high

safety compliance behaviour by employees Ø  significantly reduced OHS incidents (82% of

employees had no incidents) Where OPM scores are mid-range (25-31/40),

lower work overload is associated with reduced OHS incidents.

Where OPM scores are low (< 24/40) and

work overload is high, Ø  OHS incidents are highest (63% of

employees had OHS incidents).

What keeps your workplace healthy and safe?

20


Shift the focus from counting the cost of injuries and illness to:

•  work practices that prevent incidents •  OHS leadership •  Resources for health and safety.

•  The adapted OPM can be used: •  As part of a suite of measures for OHS •  To identify areas for OHS improvement •  To identify groups at risk in the workplace •  To identify steps to prevent OHS incidents •  To benchmark within and between organisations

PRACTICAL OUTCOMES

21


Thank you!

For more information:

•  contact the researchers at: [email protected] •  Visit www.ohsleadindicators.org or www.iscrr.com.au

leading indicators of occupational health and safety: highlights … · 2015-07-23 · survey...

Documents