practitioner awareness of the hse’s slips and trips .../media/documents/books and resources... ·...

Slips, trips and fallsPractitioner awareness of the HSE’s Slips andTrips Priority Programme

Contents

Acknowledgements 4

Executive summary 5

Background 7

Method 10

Results 12

Discussion and conclusions 20

References 22

AppendicesAppendix A Slip and trip awareness survey 23Appendix B Text of email 1 26Appendix C Text of email 2 27Appendix D Cross-tabulation 28

List of tables and figuresTable 1 Fatal, non-fatal major and over-three-day injuries to employees due to slips, trips and falls

on the same level between 1999/2000 and 2003/2004 8Table 2 Fatal and reported non-fatal injuries to members of the public due to slips, trips and falls

on the same level between 2001/2002 and 2004/2005 8Table 3 Total IOSH membership by grade 9Table 4 Number of respondents by employment sector 13Table 5 Reported usefulness of sources and tools 17Table 6 Respondents’ attendance at and opinions of HSE events 18Table D1 Time spent on OSH cross-tabulated with membership category 28Table D2 Size of organisation cross-tabulated with membership category 28Table D3 Slip and trip reduction policy cross-tabulated with size of organisation 28Table D4 Slip and trip reduction policy cross-tabulated with employment sector 29Table D5 Summary table for slip and trip control cross-tabulated with size of organisation 29Table D6 Summary table for slip and trip control cross-tabulated with employment sector 29Table D7 Slip and trip reduction consideration at design, refurbishment or other changes

cross-tabulated with employment sector 30Table D8 Summary table for effectiveness of HSE publicity areas cross-tabulated with size

of organisation 30Table D9 Respondents’ attendance at and views on HSE slip and trip reduction events by

size of organisation 30Table D10 Respondents’ attendance at and views on HSE workplace transport events by

size of organisation 30Table D11 Respondents’ attendance at and views on HSE falls from height events by

size of organisation 30Table D12 Respondents’ attendance at and views on HSE slip and trip reduction events by

employment sector 31Table D13 Respondents’ attendance at and views on HSE workplace transport events by

employment sector 31Table D14 Respondents’ attendance at and views on HSE falls from height events by

employment sector 32Table D15 Respondents’ attendance at and views on HSE slip and trip reduction events by

membership category 32Table D16 Respondents’ attendance at and views on HSE workplace transport events by

membership category 32Table D17 Respondents’ attendance at and views on HSE falls from height events by

membership category 32Table D18 Respondents wanting more sector-specific guidance cross-tabulated with employment sector 33

Figure 1 Planned allocation of resources in the Priority Programmes block 7Figure 2 Respondents by IOSH membership category 12Figure 3 Respondents’ level of influence in their organisations 13Figure 4 Slip and trip reduction policy as a function of size of organisation 14Figure 5 Slip and trip reduction policy as a function of employment sector 15Figure 6 Implementation of control measures 16Figure 7 Respondents’ views on effectiveness of HSE publicity areas 17Figure 8 Respondents’ views on what the HSE should do to reduce slips and trips 19

4

AcknowledgementsThe Technical Affairs department would like to thank all the respondents who took part inthis study for sharing their views and experiences of the effectiveness of the HSE Slips andTrips Priority Programme. We would also like to thank Richard Snodgrass and PaulBeaumont of the Health and Safety Laboratories for their contribution to the questionnairedesign, the IOSH members who participated in the pilot survey for their constructivecomments, and the IOSH IT and Membership departments for their helpful assistance withthe project.

Report prepared by Murray Clark and Dr Luise Vassie

IOSHThe GrangeHighfield DriveWigstonLeicestershire LE18 1NNUKwww.iosh.co.uk

21 December 2005reissued 12 December 2007

Executive summaryThis report presents the findings of a joint Institution of Occupational Safety and Health(IOSH) and Health and Safety Executive (HSE) survey into the effectiveness of the HSE Slipsand Trips Priority Programme in raising awareness of the slips and trips issue. The aims ofthe survey were to ascertain whether the programme is:• communicating to managers and professionals in industry • doing this effectively.

The sample group chosen for the survey was made up of UK-based IOSH members at bothCorporate and non-Corporate membership grades. Staff at the Health and SafetyLaboratories (HSL) developed the survey questionnaire jointly with the Technical Affairsdepartment at IOSH. A draft version of the questionnaire was piloted among selected IOSHmembers and modifications were made in line with the feedback received. Thequestionnaire comprised two key question sets. Questions 1 to 8 sought information onrespondents’ demography, such as the level of IOSH membership, time spent on OSHactivities and the sectors in which they worked. Questions 9 to 15 sought information onrespondents’ awareness of HSE guidance and publicity on slips and trips, the usefulness ofsuch guidance, and the approaches to slip and trip reduction in the organisationsrespondents worked in or did work for.

Of the 3,767 recipients who received the URL, 1,035 returned the questionnaire. Threequestionnaires contained no data and these were deleted from the total, leaving an overallresponse total of 1,032 completed questionnaires, equivalent to a final response rate of27.3 per cent.

The results of the survey indicated that less than 50 per cent of respondents had a risk-based slip and trip reduction policy in the organisation they worked in or did work for;however, larger organisations were more likely to operate a slip and trip reduction policy,which may reflect greater OSH awareness and resources to develop and implementtargeted improvements in larger organisations. Analysis by sector of employmentindicated that slip and trip reduction policies were more likely to be found in theconstruction, leisure/hospitality and government sectors. While respondents indicatedrelatively low levels of policy, all organisations, irrespective of size, indicated a high levelof use of a range of measures to control slip and trip hazards. However, just under a thirdof respondents indicated that such consideration in respect of slip and trip hazards alwaystook place.

HSE publicity appeared to be most effective in raising respondents’ awareness of guidanceon slips and trips and least effective in raising respondents’ awareness of the PriorityProgramme. However, large organisations (more than 10,000 direct employees) were mostaware of the Revitalising health and safety strategy. Only half the respondents felt that HSEpublicity was effective in keeping them informed about whether slips and trips were a majorissue in their sector.

Guidance on slips and trips provided by the HSE was the most useful source of information.On the other hand, the HSE speakers’ pack, which is available from IOSH branches, had notbeen seen by the majority of respondents, and half of those that had looked at it did notfind it helpful. However, it is possible that although some respondents have not seen theresource, they are nevertheless aware of it – they may not have needed or wanted to openit and therefore cannot comment on its usefulness.

Attendance figures for HSE events show that slip and trip reduction events are the worstattended. Irrespective of size of organisation, the falls from height events were the bestattended. Analysis of attendance at slip and trip reduction events as a function ofemployment sector showed that respondents from the healthcare, local authority and retailsectors attend these events most often. In contrast, respondents from the healthcare andretail sectors reported the lowest number of slip and trip reduction policies.

In general, respondents indicated that the HSE should publicise the Priority Programmemore, produce more sector-specific guidance and organise more workshop events in order

5

6

to reduce injuries from slips and trips in the workplace. However, it is not possible toascertain from the existing survey data whether the HSE needs to consider providing moreof the same publicity to promote the Priority Programme and workshops, or whether itshould change its approaches to publicity.

7

BackgroundThe Priority ProgrammeThe Health and Safety Commission (HSC), the HSE and the government are committedthrough the Spending Review 2000 Public Service Agreement (PSA) (HSE 2003a) toachieving half of the 2010 Revitalising health and safety targets by 2004 against a baselineof 1999/2000. These interim targets are to: • reduce the number of working days lost per 100,000 workers from work-related injury

and ill health by 15 per cent• reduce the incidence rate of fatal and major injury incidents by 5 per cent • reduce the incidence rate of cases of work-related ill health by 10 per cent.

In order to meet these targets, the HSC Strategic Plan 2001–2004 (HSC 2001) identifiedeight Priority Programmes, which were divided into five priority hazard areas and threepriority sector areas. These Priority Programmes aim to tackle the most significant hazardsand industries, where:• large numbers are employed• the incidence rate of injuries or ill health is high• there are levers to deliver success.

The five priority hazard areas are (HSE 2004a): • slips and trips• falls from height• workplace transport• musculoskeletal disorders• work-related stress.

The three priority sectors are:• construction• agriculture• health services.

These programmes provide the vehicle for action to be taken in order to achieve theimprovements necessary to meet the national targets outlined in the PSA. The HSC/EBusiness Plan 2003–2004 budgeted £33 million in HSE staff resources for delivering thePriority Programmes; these resources are allocated as illustrated in Figure 1 (HSE 2003b).

Figure 1

Planned allocation of staff resources in the Priority

Programmes block

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Stress

Slips and trips

Health sector

MSDs

Agriculture

Workplace transport

Falls from height

Construction

5%

6%

7%

11%

13%

14%

16%

28%

% resource allocated

8

Slips and trips – programme of workSlip and trip accidents account for the highest number of major injuries and occur across allindustry sectors; however, they are often perceived as insignificant and unavoidable.According to the HSE, 33 per cent of major injuries are reported as slips and trips, andmany more accidents that are reported under other categories such as falls from height areoften initiated by a slip or a trip. HSE statistics (HSE 2004b) also show that on average slipsand trips were responsible for:• 20 per cent of over-three-day injuries to employees• two fatalities per year• 50 per cent of all reported accidents to members of the public.

Table 1 shows the fatal, non-fatal and over-three-day injuries to employees due to slips, tripsand falls on the same level over the period 2001/2002 to 2004/2005. Table 2 shows similardata for members of the public (but note that non-fatal injuries are classified differently fornon-workers: all cases where the victim is taken to hospital direct from the incident arereportable, but accidents resulting in members of the public taking time off work are notrecorded per se). In financial terms, recent research by Peebles et al. (2003) showed thatslips and trips were the main type of compensation claim handled by unions, and the HSEestimates that the annual costs to employers and the NHS are £512 million and £133million respectively. In human terms, the cost of slips and trips is incalculable (HSE 2004b).

Injury type 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005

Fatal 2 0 4 6

Non-fatal major 10,268 10,458 11,341 10,790

Over-three-day 30,106 30,316 30,919 27,359

Total 40,376 40,774 42,254 38,155

Injury type 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005

Fatal 9 9 10 11

Non-fatal 5,649 4,846 5,321 5,634

Total 5,658 4,855 5,331 5,645

Table 1

Fatal, non-fatal major and over-three-day injuries to

employees due to slips, trips and falls on the same

level between 2001/2002 and 2004/2005

Table 2

Fatal and reported non-fatal injuries to members of

the public due to slips, trips and falls on the same

level between 2001/2002 and 2004/2005

The Slips and Trips Priority Programme aims to change attitudes and offer practical solutionsto reduce slips and trips through research, publicity and focused enforcement activity.Approximately £1.98 million was allocated to the Slips and Trips Priority Programme tosupport these activities. The objective of the programme was a 5 per cent reduction in fataland major injuries caused by slips and trips by 2004 and a 10 per cent reduction in theincidence rate of all injuries from slips and trips by 2010 (HSE 2004c). In order to achievethese targets, the programme sought to:• develop knowledge of the causes of slips and trips and how to prevent them• communicate this knowledge to duty-holders, HSE and local authority staff, health and

safety professionals and workers• motivate employers to reduce slips and trips.

In February 2004, IOSH offered to assist the HSE in assessing the effectiveness of the Slipsand Trips Priority Programme, as part of IOSH’s input to the work of the PriorityProgramme Board. The HSE sought to establish whether it was getting its messagesacross to managers and professionals and whether it was achieving this effectively. IOSHagreed to participate in this initiative by sending a questionnaire to a random selection ofIOSH members (Appendix A). This report presents and discusses the findings of thissurvey.

Membership of IOSHAt the time of the survey (May 2004), IOSH had nearly 28,000 members and these weredivided into two categories of membership, Corporate and Non-corporate. Full Corporatemembership grades are:• Fellow, denoted by the post-nominal FIOSH• Member, denoted by the post-nominal MIOSH.

9

Table 3

Total IOSH membership by grade. All membership

information in this report was generated by the IOSH

Membership department on 28 May 2004

IOSH membership categories No. members

Fellow 607

Life member 282

Member 12,600

Retired member 310

Subtotal Corporate 13,799

Graduate 329

TechSP 4,068

Associate 5,918

Affiliate 3,792

Honorary member 31

Subtotal Non-corporate 14,138

Total 27,937

Corporate members could apply to become Registered Safety Practitioners (RSPs) and werethen entitled to use the designatory letters RSP. The criteria for RSP status were that amember must:• have been a Corporate member of the Institution for a minimum of one year• have worked professionally in health and safety practice for at least three years since

achieving the academic requirements for Corporate status• possess the competence and capability to undertake the range of activities outlined in

the RSP application form.

The Non-corporate IOSH membership grades were Affiliate, Associate, Graduate, TechnicianSafety Practitioner (TechSP) and Honorary Member. Table 3 shows the total number of IOSHmembers by grade at May 2004.

10

MethodThis section describes the sample group, the questionnaire design and procedures forimplementing the survey.

Sample groupThe sample group chosen for the survey was made up of UK-based IOSH members at bothCorporate and Non-corporate membership grades who had supplied an email address aspart of their IOSH membership details. Honorary, retired and unemployed members werefiltered out of this group in order to focus on those who were most likely to be activelyengaged in dealing with slip and trip issues. In addition, members who worked for the HSEwere also excluded from the sample, as it was presumed they would have a higher thanaverage knowledge of the work of the HSE, including the Priority Programmes. A total of9,778 email addresses remained following these filtering processes, which were distributedacross the following membership categories:• 420 FIOSH (4.4 per cent)• 8,032 MIOSH (82 per cent)• 155 Graduates (1.6 per cent)• 1,171 TechSP (12 per cent)

Of the 9,778 email addresses available for the survey, 4,674 (48 per cent) were selected atrandom and, therefore, the distribution of membership grades within the selected group isnot known.

Questionnaire designStaff at the HSL developed the survey questionnaire jointly with the Technical Affairsdepartment at IOSH. A draft version of the questionnaire was piloted among selectedIOSH members and modifications were made in line with the feedback received. Thequestionnaire comprised two groups of questions. Questions 1 to 8 sought informationon respondent demography, such as the level of IOSH membership, time spent onoccupational safety and health (OSH) activities and the sectors in which they worked.Questions 9 to 15 sought information on respondents’ awareness of HSE guidance andpublicity on slips and trips, the usefulness of such guidance, and the approaches to slipand trip reduction in the organisations respondents worked in or did work for. Thequestionnaire was designed to be easy to complete and was made up of a selection ofmainly closed and multiple-choice questions, with some options for respondents to offera free-text response (Appendix A).

ProceduresThe final version of the survey was uploaded to a website called Safesurveys.info. Thisdomain is owned by IOSH and is used to post online surveys and consultation documents.Only members who have been sent the URL to a document or survey can access theinformation in this area.

Each selected member was sent an email requesting their participation in the survey andexplaining the background, purpose and method of the survey (Appendix B). Recipientscould then consider whether they wished to take part in the study. In addition, the emailalert helped to reduce the risk of the second email with the survey link being treated asjunk mail, as the addressee was expecting the survey email. The number offailed/returned email alerts also gave an indication how many of the email addressescontacted were still current and therefore prevented the second email being sent todefunct email addresses.

In total, 10 email alerts were sent; nine of these contained 500 names and one contained174 names. The limit of a maximum 500 names per email was set by the IOSH ITDepartment due to the capacity of the IOSH email server. This limit also acted as a securitymeasure, as it reduced the possibility of exposing a large number of IOSH members tounwanted email traffic in the event that the email was intercepted in some way. Onerandomly selected address was used as the named recipient and the remaining addresseswere pasted into the 'blind copy' box. This ensured that the majority of addressees wereprotected and, therefore, that their data could not be used for commercial purposes.

11

One working week after the first email was distributed, a second email containing the URLof the survey (www.safesurveys.info/slipsntrips2.htm) was sent to the selected members(Appendix C). Of the 4,674 messages sent, 3,767 (81 per cent) reached their intendedrecipient. 907 (19 per cent) failed to reach the intended recipient and were returned eitheras ‘undeliverable’ or with an ‘out of office’ message.

Response data were coded and analysed to identify frequency distributions for theresponses to each question. In addition, some cross-tabulations were performed in order toexplore response data as a function of company size, employment sector and/ormembership category.

12

ResultsOf the 3,767 recipients who received the URL, 1,035 returned the questionnaire. Threequestionnaires contained no data and these were deleted from the total, leaving an overallresponse total of 1,032 completed questionnaires, equivalent to a final response rate of27.3 per cent. However, some respondents did not supply answers to all questions; thus theresponse rate to individual questions may in some cases be lower than the base response of1,032.

The results of the study are presented in two parts. The first part shows demographicinformation and the second presents the data on slip and trip awareness and management.Summary data tables to support the description of results can be found in Appendix D.

DemographicsThe distribution of respondents among the membership categories included in the survey isshown in Figure 2. The largest group of respondents, 704 (68.2 per cent), describedthemselves as MIOSH grade, while the second largest group of respondents, 238 (19.7 percent), described themselves as TechSP grade. Of the combined MIOSH and FIOSH graderespondents (765), 179 (23.4 per cent) were also RSPs. In total, nearly three-quarters of allrespondents indicated that they held full corporate membership of IOSH.

Mem

bers

hip

cate

gorie

s

Number of respondents

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Graduate

TechSP

RSP

MIOSH

FIOSH

22

238

179

704

61

Figure 2

Respondents by IOSH membership category

The ratio between Corporate and Non-corporate survey respondents does not reflect thetotal membership of IOSH as a whole, where 50.6 per cent of all members are Non-corporate. However, a large section of Non-corporate members were excluded from thesample group and therefore higher categories of IOSH members were disproportionatelyrepresented in the random selection process. In addition, members at Non-corporate levelare often just starting their careers and may not have felt they had access to enoughinformation to complete the questionnaire. Alternatively, it may be the case that the higherthe grade of IOSH membership, the more willing the member is to share their knowledgeand opinions; this may account for the disproportionately high level of response from FIOSHgrade members (10 per cent), of whom sharing of knowledge is expected.

The majority of respondents (890, 86 per cent) indicated that they were employed as OSHpractitioners. In addition, the majority of respondents (805, 78 per cent) spent 75 per centor more of their time on OSH activities. Those employed as OSH practitioners and spendingless time on OSH activities may have other responsibilities in addition to OSH. Analysis ofthe amount of time spent on OSH by membership category shows that all grades ofmembership spend high proportions of their time on OSH. Members in the Non-corporategrades of TechSP and Graduate tend to spend less time on OSH than the Corporate gradesof membership (Appendix D: Table D1).

The majority of respondents (1,006, 98.2 per cent) considered that they had theopportunity to influence decision-makers in their organisation. Figure 3 shows that themanager and director levels were considered to be the main levels at which influence couldbe exerted, while the least influence was exerted at the designer and purchaser levels.Respondents were able to select more than one area of influence, as appropriate. The

13

other/specify option was selected by 258 respondents. The information supplied by 74 ofthese could have been described by levels of influence provided on the questionnaire. Atotal of 186 respondents provided other areas of influence not covered by those listed onthe questionnaire, of which staff and employees was the most frequently cited (45respondents).

Employment sector No. respondents % of total sample

Construction 275 26.6

Manufacturing 245 23.7

Local authority 174 16.9

Education 162 15.7

Government 105 10.2

Chemical/pharmaceutical 99 9.6

Healthcare 92 8.9

Finance/business services 89 8.6

Food 89 8.6

Retail 88 8.5

Leisure/hospitality 82 7.9

Extractive 36 3.5

Agriculture/fishing 27 2.6

Other 228 22.1

Table 4

Number of respondents by employment sector

Leve

l

0 200 400 600 800

Other

Designer

Purchaser

MD/CEO

Supervisor

Director

Manager

186

263

310

435

488

636

716


Figure 3

Respondents’ level of influence in their organisations

Respondents were asked to provide information on the number of direct employeesemployed by the organisation they worked for or typically did work for. The largest group ofrespondents (319, 30.9 per cent), according to number of direct employees, worked inorganisations with more than 1,000 but fewer than 10,000 direct employees. Of theserespondents, 78.4 per cent were Corporate IOSH members. A total of 283 respondents(27.4 per cent) worked in small or medium-sized organisations (1–249 direct employees); ofthese, 68 per cent are Corporate IOSH members. The third-largest group of respondents(254, 24.6 per cent) worked for organisations with between 250 and 1,000 directemployees. Of these respondents, 71 per cent were Corporate IOSH members (Appendix D:Table D2). These data suggest that it is more likely for Corporate IOSH members to work forlarge organisations.

Respondents were asked to indicate what employment sector(s) they were employed in ortypically did work for. The distribution of responses across the sectors provided on thequestionnaire and other sectors specified by respondents is shown in Table 4. The numberof responses was greater than the number of respondents, as 224 respondents indicatedthat they did work in more than one sector. Almost three-quarters of respondents worked

14

in or did work for the construction (26.6 per cent), manufacturing (23.7 per cent) or localauthority sectors (16.9 per cent).

Slip and trip awareness resultsOrganisational policies and practicesRespondents were asked to indicate whether a risk-based slip and trip reduction policy wasin operation in the organisation they worked for or did work for. Just under half of thoseresponding to this question (494, 48.4 per cent) indicated that there was such a policy inplace, while 473 (46.4 per cent) indicated that such a policy was not in place. Theremainder, 54 (5.2 per cent), did not know of such a policy.

Analysis of these responses as a function of the size of the organisation shows that (seeFigure 4 and Appendix D: Table D3):• 41.0 per cent of respondents working for SMEs have a slip and trip reduction policy in

operation, 52.6 per cent do not, and 6.4 per cent don’t know.• 50.1 per cent of respondents working for organisations with 250–1,000 direct

employees have a slip and trip reduction policy in operation, 47.4 per cent do not, and2.4 per cent don’t know.

• 51.8 cent of respondents working for organisations with more than 1,000 directemployees have a slip and trip reduction policy in operation, 42.2 per cent do not, and6.0 per cent don’t know.

Size

of

orga

nisa

tion

Number of respondents0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

<50

50–249

250–1K

>1K

>10K

57

91

119

140

63

8

10

6

17

12

25

90

126

158

91 YesNoDon’t know

Figure 4

Slip and trip reduction policy as a function of size of

organisation

These results indicate that respondents who work in larger organisations are more likely tooperate a slip and trip reduction policy, and this likelihood decreases with the decreasingsize of the organisation.

Analysis of these responses as a function of employment sector (Figure 5) shows that thesectors with the highest number of slip and trip reduction policies in operation areconstruction (50.5 per cent), leisure/hospitality (47.5 per cent) and government (46.6 percent). The sectors with the lowest number in operation are local authorities (32.2 per cent),agriculture/fishing (33.3 per cent) and the finance/business services sector (35.2 per cent).On average, 41.1 per cent of organisations covered by the survey respondents have a slipand trip reduction policy in operation (Appendix D: Table D4).

Participants were also asked to provide information on the control measures implementedby the organisations they worked for. All the control measures presented to respondentswere used in the majority of organisations; however, the most popular control measure,

15

which was selected by 96.3 per cent of respondents, was maintenance of plant and thework environment. The least popular of the listed control measures, albeit selected by 78per cent of respondents, was effective and appropriate flooring (Figure 6).

The size of the organisation does not have an effect on the choice of most popular andleast popular control measures. Overall, control measures are more likely to be implementedin medium and large organisations than small organisations (Appendix D: Table D5).Although under 50 per cent of respondents indicated that the organisations they worked inor did work for had a slip and trip reduction policy, the majority of organisations hadintroduced several control measures to reduce risks of slips and trips.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

% of respondents0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Agriculture/ Fishing

Extractive

Leisure/ hospitality

Retail

Food

Healthcare

Chemical/ pharmaceutical

Finance/ business services

Government

Education

Local authority

Manufacturing

ConstructionYesNoDon’t know

Figure 5

Slip and trip reduction policy as a function of

employment sector

16

Examination of use of control measures as a function of employment sector indicated that,while high proportions of respondents in all sectors used the listed control measures, theretail sector had the lowest use of safe design of workplace; the finance/business servicesector had the lowest use of effective training and supervision and suitable footwear; andthe construction sector had the lowest use of effective and appropriate flooring (AppendixD: Table D6). Use of effective and appropriate flooring is likely to be limited by the nature ofconstruction work.

Given the importance of considering safety issues at the design and modification stage ofequipment and processes, participants were asked whether slip and trip reduction isconsidered when design, refurbishment or other changes are planned in their organisation.However, only 30.8 per cent of respondents indicated that slip and trip reduction is alwaysconsidered in their organisation at these times, while over half the respondents indicatedthat this issue was sometimes considered. A further 12.2 per cent of respondents indicatedthat they rarely or never considered slip and trip reduction. Analysis of these responses as afunction of employment sector indicated that the agriculture/fishing and food sectors arethe least likely to consider slip and trip reduction on every occasion at this critical stage,while the chemical/pharmaceutical and construction sectors are most likely to do so.Responses from five sectors indicated a very small proportion of organisations that neverconsider these issues – of these, the chemical/pharmaceutical and government sectors hadthe largest proportion of respondents (approximately 3 per cent) indicating that slips andtrips were never considered (Appendix D: Table D7).

Respondents were asked to indicate the main strength(s) of slip and trip management intheir organisation. The most popular option was that it raised employees’ awareness of theissue, which was selected by 732 respondents. The next most popular option was thepositive effect it had on management commitment to the issue (534 respondents), followedby the positive impact it had on planning and preparation of work activities (420respondents).

A total of 106 respondents provided 114 other comments on the main strengths – but alsothe weaknesses – of slip and trip management in their organisations which were notcovered by the options provided on the questionnaire. Over half the comments related tothe positive impact of a slip and trip reduction policy on risk assessment, hazardidentification and near miss identification (46) and the incorporation of slips and trips intotraining programmes (14). The main weaknesses identified were poor employee/management commitment (5) and the reactive introduction of improvements only as aresult of an accident (2).

Number of respondents0 200 400 600 800 1000

Goodhousekeeping

Suitablefootwear

Effective andappropriate

flooring

Effective trainingand supervision

Safe design ofworkplace andwork activities

YesNo

Management ofspillages and

cleaning regimes

Maintenance ofplant and the

work environment

921

951

969

909

901

901

774

82

68

36

100

98

98

175

Figure 6

Implementation of control measures

17

Awareness of publicity and informationThe survey examined respondents’ views on the effectiveness of HSE publicity in keepingthem informed about the Revitalising health and safety strategy, the Priority Programme toreduce slip and trip accidents, HSE guidance on slip and trip prevention and whether slipsand trips were a major issue for the employment sector in which they worked. The resultsindicated that HSE publicity has been most effective in keeping respondents informed onguidance on prevention, while it has been least effective in informing them about thePriority Programme to reduce slip and trip accidents (Figure 7).

YesNo

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Priority Programme

Major issue

Revitalising health and safety strategy

HSE guidance

515

694

724

461

458

292

282

510


Figure 7

Respondents’ views on effectiveness of HSE publicity

areas

Respondents from all sizes of organisation except those with more than 10,000 directemployees indicated that they were most aware of the HSE guidance on slip and tripprevention. For the larger organisations, the publicity area with the highest response wasthe Revitalising health and safety strategy. The Priority Programme to reduce slip and tripaccidents is considered to be the least effective publicity area for respondents in all sizes oforganisation (Appendix D: Table D8).

Respondents were asked to indicate whether they had found any of the following useful: • HSE Slips and Trips Priority Programme webpages• HSE guidance on slip and trip prevention• HSE speakers’ pack on slips and trips available from their IOSH branch• information on slip and trip prevention from other sources.

The distribution of responses among the options available is shown in Table 5 and indicatesthat the most useful option was the HSE guidance on slip and trip prevention. The HSEspeakers’ pack on slips and trips had not been seen by 80.4 per cent of respondents. Ofthose who had seen it, nearly half did not find it helpful. This resource was provided on CDwith explanatory guidance to IOSH branches in 2003.

A total of 218 respondents provided 261 other sources of information on slips and trips thatthey had found useful. Of these, the most common were health and safety publications(29.9 per cent), health and safety organisations (14.1 per cent), company/product literature (13.0 per cent) and government departments (11.9 per cent).

OptionsRespondents’ opinion of sources or tools (%)

Useful Not useful Not seen No reply

HSE Slips and Trips PriorityProgramme webpages

27.2 9.1 59.6 4.1

HSE guidance on slip and tripprevention

69.1 7.4 21.8 1.7

HSE speaker’s pack on slipsand trips available from IOSHbranches

8.0 6.1 80.4 5.4

Information on slip and tripprevention from other sources

34.8 14.7 39.9 10.6

Table 5

Reported usefulness of sources and tools

18

Respondents were asked to indicate whether they had found any of the following HSEevents useful: • slip and trip reduction• workplace transport• falls from height • other events.

Overall, the majority of respondents had not attended the HSE events. Of those that had,the largest number of respondents (23.5 per cent) had attended the falls from heightevents. The lowest number of respondents had attended the slip and trip reduction events(Table 6).

EventRespondents’ opinions

Useful Not useful Not attended

Slip and trip reduction 151 (15.4%) 16 (1.6%) 812 (82.9%)

Workplace transport 164 (16.8%) 16 (1.6%) 796 (81.6%)

Falls from height 233 (23.5%) 11 (1.1%) 748 (75.4%)

Table 6

Respondents’ attendance at and opinions of

HSE events

Analysis of these responses as a function of size of organisation showed that (Appendix D:Tables D9, D10 and D11): • of respondents who work for or in SMEs (organisations with between 1 and 249 direct

employees), 26.7 per cent attended the falls from height events, 18.9 per cent attendedthe workplace transport events and 12.8 per cent attended the slip and trip reductionevents

• of respondents that work in organisations with between 250 and 1,000 directemployees, 23.8 per cent attended the falls from height events, 18.2 per cent attendedthe workplace transport events and 16.1 per cent attended the slip and trip reductionevents

• of respondents that work in organisations with more than 1,000 but fewer than 10,000employees, 21.9 per cent attended the falls from height events, 14.3 per cent attendedthe workplace transport events and 15.5 per cent attended the slip and trip reductionevents

• of respondents that work in organisations with more than 10,000 direct employees,20.7 per cent attended the falls from height events, 15.1 per cent attended theworkplace transport events and 17.5 per cent attended the slip and trip reductionevents.

Analysis of these responses as a function of employment sector shows that the highestattendance at the slip and trip reduction events, workplace transport events and falls fromheight events was from the respondents employed in or doing work for the local authority,retail and construction sectors respectively. Of the three kinds of event, the slip and tripreduction events had the lowest mean average attendance (16.4 per cent of respondents)and the falls from height events had the highest (24.9 per cent) (Appendix D: Tables D12,D13 and D14). Analysis of event attendance as a function of membership categoryindicated that Corporate IOSH members were more likely to attend these events (AppendixD: Tables D15, D16, D17).

A total of 111 respondents made comments or specified other events they had attended. Intotal, 30 other events were cited. The largest proportion of these respondents, 22.5 percent, attended events given by local health and safety groups or associations, while 12.6per cent attended events concerned with asbestos. The specified areas with the nexthighest number of respondents were events covering stress and construction, both of whichwere cited by 6.3 per cent of respondents.

Finally, respondents were asked to indicate what else they thought the HSE could do to helpreduce slips and trips. The most popular options were to ‘publicise Priority Programmesmore’ and to ‘produce more sector-specific guidance’ (Figure 8).

19

Respondents gave 117 comments that were not covered by the options provided on thequestionnaire. There were 27 general comments and many of these described situationswithin a respondent’s workplace or sector and the relevance of slips and trips to that work.Several of the comments were directed at the HSE rather than the question topic. Thesecomments ranged from support for the work the HSE is doing to criticism of the HSE’sapproach, and other comments made points about resource or strategic issues.

Of the comments that provided suggestions about what else the HSE could do to helpreduce slips and trips, the most frequent were those that suggested that the HSE shouldtarget its information at specific groups (such as building managers, designers andcontractors) or specific sectors, such as SMEs. Respondents also felt that the HSE shouldconsider gathering together examples of best practice and making these available in paperand/or electronic publications.

Some respondents also commented on the need for more research, and suggested that datagathering would help reduce slips and trips, as would working in partnership and moretraining and awareness-raising activities. Others felt that the HSE should be more specificabout flooring types and personal protective equipment such as footwear, for example bydefining suitability for certain sectors or activities.

Analysis as a function of sector of the respondents (542, 52.4 per cent) who indicated thatthey required more sector-specific guidance showed that respondents from the extractive,healthcare, leisure/hospitality and retail sectors were most likely to be interested in this(Appendix D: Table D18).

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Other

Nothing

Organise more workshops

Publicise priority programmes more

Carry out more inspections

Produce more sector specific guidance

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Other 117

Nothing

346

503

542

554

40




Produce more sector- specific guidance


Figure 8

Respondents’ views on what the HSE should do to

reduce slips and trips

20

Discussion and conclusionsThe aims of the survey were to ascertain whether the HSE’s programme to promoteawareness of slips and trips in industry is:• communicating to managers and professionals • doing this effectively.

A 27.3 per cent response rate was achieved amongst a cross-section of IOSH Corporate andNon-corporate members, which is a reasonable response rate for a survey of this type. Thekey points arising from the survey have been grouped into two categories below: thoserelating to slip and trip reduction practices and those relating to views on HSE publicity.

Views on slip and trip reduction practices:• fewer than 50 per cent of respondents had a risk-based slip and trip reduction policy in

the organisation they worked in or did work for. Given the magnitude of the problemwith slips and trips, as outlined in the introduction to this report, this figure might havebeen expected to be higher. It may be that organisations regard slips and trips as atrivial issue or, alternatively, that they integrate this risk issue into other policies withinthe organisation. Given the high level of implementation of control measures to dealwith this issue, it appears that the latter may be the case

• larger organisations were more likely to operate a slip and trip reduction policy, whichmay reflect greater OSH awareness and availability of resources to develop andimplement targeted improvements

• slip and trip reduction policies were most likely to be found in the construction,leisure/hospitality and government sectors. In the construction sector, slips and trips arethe second commonest cause of major injuries, while in the leisure/hospitality andgovernment sectors, slips and trips are the commonest cause of major injuries

• all organisations used a similar range of control measures to control slip and triphazards, irrespective of organisation size. However, the retail sector had the lowest useof safe workplace design; the finance/business service sector had the lowest use ofeffective training and supervision and suitable footwear; and the construction sectorhad the lowest use of effective and appropriate flooring (this is likely to be limited bythe nature of construction work)

• the consideration of OSH issues in any change or refurbishment process ensures thatsuch issues are integral to the solution. However, just under a third of respondentsindicated that such consideration in respect of slip and trip hazards always took place.Only a sixth of respondents from the agriculture sector indicated that suchconsiderations took place, which is likely to reflect poor OSH performance in this sector.The chemical/pharmaceutical and construction sectors were most likely always toconsider these issues. Conversely, the government and chemical/pharmaceutical sectorshad the highest proportions of respondents reporting that such considerations nevertook place.

Views on HSE and other publicity:• HSE publicity appeared to be most effective in raising respondents’ awareness of

guidance on slips and trips and least effective in raising respondents’ awareness of thePriority Programme. However, large organisations (more than 10,000 direct employees)were most aware of the Revitalising health and safety strategy. Only half of therespondents felt that HSE publicity was effective in keeping them informed aboutwhether slips and trips are a major issue in their sector

• HSE guidance on slips and trips was the most useful information source, while the HSEspeakers’ pack, which is available from IOSH branches, had not been seen by themajority of respondents and, of those who had seen it, nearly half did not find ithelpful. However, it is possible that respondents who indicated that they had not seenthe resource were nevertheless aware of its existence but did not need or want to use itand therefore could not comment on its usefulness. Further examination of thepromotion of this resource within IOSH branches would be of use

• slip and trip events are the least well attended of the HSE events mentioned. Irrespectiveof size of organisation, the falls from height events have been the best attended.Consideration of attendance at slip and trip events as a function of employment sectorshowed that respondents from the healthcare, local authority and retail sectors have the

21

highest attendance at these events. In contrast, respondents from the healthcare andretail sectors reported the lowest number of slip and trip reduction policies

• in general, respondents indicated that the HSE could publicise the Priority Programmemore, produce sector-specific guidance and organise more workshops in order to reduceslip and trip injuries in the workplace. However, it is not possible to ascertain from thesurvey data whether the HSE needs to consider providing more of the same publicity topromote the Priority Programme and workshops or whether it needs to improvepublicity of the Priority Programme and workshop events. Respondents from theextractive, healthcare, leisure/hospitality and retail sectors had the highest proportions ofrespondents indicating the need for more sector-specific guidance.

The survey results suggest that the Priority Programme is having less effect than other HSEinformation sources and publicity on slips and trips in communicating the importance ofaction on slips and trips to stakeholders. Respondents indicated higher levels of awarenessof other HSE publicity and information sources on slips and trips. However, respondentssuggest increasing the publicity of the Priority Programme and the production of sector-specific guidance, and holding more workshop events; this implies that they attach someimportance to the reduction of slips and trips. In addition, HSE events for falls from heightand workplace transport have achieved a higher average attendance. The lower level ofattendance at slip and trip reduction events may be related to the greater perceived risk ofserious injury from falls from height and workplace transport than from slips and trips.However, the implementation of a wide range of control measures indicated that themajority of organisations represented by the survey respondents were actively managing slipand trip risks.

22

ReferencesHealth and Safety Commission (2001). Strategic plan 2001–2004.

www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/plans/hscplans/plan0104.htmHealth and Safety Executive (2003a). HSE business plan 2003–2004 – introduction

www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/plans/hscplans/plan0304-04.htmHealth and Safety Executive (2003b). HSE Business Plan 2003-2004 – Priority Programmes.

www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/plans/hscplans/plan0304-05.htmHealth and Safety Executive (2004a). Priority Programmes.

www.hse.gov.uk/lau/priorityprogrammes.htmHealth and Safety Executive (2004b). Slips and trips. www.hse.gov.uk/slips/index.htmHealth and Safety Executive (2004c). Slips and trips – programme of work.

www.hse.gov.uk/slips/programme.htmHM Treasury (2000). Spending review 2000: new public spending plans for 2001–2004.

Prudent for a purpose: building opportunity and security for all. www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/spending_review/spending_review_2000/spend_sr00_index.cfm

Peebles L, Heasman T and Robertson V (2003). Analysis of compensation claims related tohealth and safety issues. RR070, HSE Books, Sudbury.www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr070.htm

23

Appendix A: Slip and trip awareness surveyThank you on behalf of IOSH and the HSE for your interest in this short survey. Its purpose isto gather anonymous information to enable the HSE’s Slips and Trips Priority ProgrammeBoard to gauge current levels of management and awareness of slip and trip hazards andthe efficacy of HSE publicity and initiatives. We have used a random sample of membershipemail addresses, so the first seven questions are of a general nature, helping us to establishthe respondent group profile and cross-section. Please complete the form by clicking theappropriate buttons or entering your comments. When you reach the end of the formplease click ‘submit’ to send your response to us. IOSH will enter the information receivedinto a database, and no other party will have access to the questionnaires. The informationyou provide is totally anonymous and responses are not attributable to individuals. Oncethe data are collected and analysed, the results of this survey may be published.

Q1. Please tell us about your IOSH membership. Please indicate which of thefollowing applies to you:

Membership categories: FIOSH MIOSH RSP TechSP Graduate

Q2. Is your employment role that of an OSH practitioner?

Yes No

Please indicate:

Q3. Approximately how much of your working time is spent on OSH?

Less than

100% 75% 50% 25% 25%

Please choose one option:

Q4. Do you have the opportunity to influence decision-makers regarding OSH?

Yes No

Please indicate:

Q5. If yes, what level is this influence at? Please delete whichever of the followingoptions that do not apply:

MD/CEO Supervisor

Director Purchaser

Manager Designer

Other – please specify:

Q6. How many direct employees does your organisation, or a typical organisationyou do work for, employ?

<50 50–249 250–1k >1k >10k

Please choose one option:

Q7. What employment sector(s) do you work in or typically work for? Pleaseindicate whichever apply:

Agriculture/fishing Government

Chemical/pharmaceutical Healthcare

Construction Leisure/hospitality

Education Local authority

Extractive Manufacturing

Finance/business services Retail

Food


24

Q8. Does the organisation you work in, or a typical organisation you do work for,have a risk-based slip and trip reduction policy in operation?

Yes No Don’t know

Please indicate:

Q9. Does the organisation you work in, or a typical organisation you do work for,implement control measures such as:

Yes No Don’t know

Safe design of workplace and work activities

Effective training and supervision

Effective and appropriate flooring

Suitable footwear

Maintenance of plant and work environment

Good housekeeping

Management of spillages and cleaning regimes

Q10. When design, refurbishment or other changes are planned in yourorganisation or in a typical organisation you do work for, is slip and trip reductionconsidered? Please choose one option.

Always considered

Sometimes considered

Rarely considered

Never considered

Don’t know

Q11. What do you feel are the main strengths regarding slip and trip managementin your organisation or those organisations you do work for? Please indicate anythat apply.

None

Management commitment

Employee awareness

Planning and preparation

Don’t know


Q12. Please indicate whether you consider HSE publicity has been effective inkeeping you informed about:

Yes No

The Revitalising health and safety strategy

The Priority Programme to reduce slip andtrip accidents

HSE guidance on slip and trip prevention

Whether slips and trips are a major issue forthe employment sector(s) you work in

25

Q13. Please indicate whether you have found any of the following useful:

Yes No Not seen

HSE Slips and Trips Priority Programme webpages

HSE guidance on slip and trip prevention

HSE speakers’ pack on slips and trips, available from your IOSH branch

Information on slip and trip prevention from other sources

If yes to other sources, please specify:

Q14. Please indicate any of the following HSE events that you have found useful:

Yes No Not attended

Slip and trip reduction

Workplace transport

Falls from height

Other event

If yes to other event, please specify:

Q15. What else do you think the HSE could do to help reduce slips and trips? Pleaseindicate any option that applies or specify:

Produce more sector-specific guidance




Nothing

Other (please specify):

Thank you for your assistance with this project

26

Appendix B: Text of email 1Dear IOSH Member

Slip and trip accidents are responsible for a significant number of injuries across all industrysectors. In an initiative to reduce such accidents, the Health and Safety Executive haslaunched a Priority Programme aimed at increasing awareness of slip and trip issues, with itsmain objective being to reduce such accidents across industries.

IOSH is lending its support to the HSE, in helping to find out whether the PriorityProgramme promoting slip and trip awareness across industry is getting its messages acrossto managers and professionals and, just as importantly, whether it is doing so in the bestway. We are supporting the HSE by surveying the opinions of randomly selected IOSHmembers and you have been selected to take part in this survey.

At the end of this week you will be sent a link to short questionnaire asking for yourcomments on slip and trip hazards in the particular organisation/industry in which you work.By taking part in this survey you will be helping IOSH and the HSE understand the issuesrelating to slip and trip hazard management in various industries and how best to tacklethese issues.

This questionnaire is entirely confidential and no responses will be attributable to anyindividual. All you need to do to take part is to click on the link and complete the surveyonline.

Please help us by taking a few minutes to complete and return the questionnaire. May Itake this opportunity to thank you, on behalf of the HSE, for your assistance.

Kind regards

Murray Clark Researcher

IOSH The Grange Highfield Drive Wigston Leicestershire LE18 1NN UK t +44 (0)116 257 3100 f +44 (0)116 257 3101 www.iosh.co.uk

27

Appendix C: Text of email 2Dear IOSH Member

Earlier this week you received an email explaining that you had been randomly selectedfrom the IOSH membership to take part in a joint IOSH–HSE survey to find out whether theHSE Priority Programme promoting slip and trip awareness is getting its message across tomanagers and professionals, and whether it is doing this in the best way. This is acompletely confidential survey and no response will be attributable to any individual. Theresults of the survey will be made available on the IOSH website and through the Safety andHealth Practitioner magazine.

If you would like to contribute to this survey, please click on the link below. This will openan online form, which will take only a couple of minutes to complete. Once completedplease click 'submit' and the form will automatically be sent to me. After this, please closethe page.

www.safesurveys.info/slipsntrips2.htm

I hope you will find this is a speedy and simple method of participating in the survey, but ifyou have any problems opening or submitting the form, please do not hesitate to contactme on my direct dial number, 0116 257 3151.

I would like to thank you in advance on behalf of IOSH and HSE for your participation inthis project.

Kind regards

Murray Clark Researcher

IOSH The Grange Highfield Drive Wigston Leicestershire LE18 1NN UK t +44 (0)116 257 3100 f +44 (0)116 257 3101 www.iosh.co.uk

28

Appendix D: Cross-tabulation

Base No replyTime spent on OSH

100% 75% 50% 25% <25%

Base 10323

0.3%642

62.2%163

15.8%117

11.3%68

6.6%39

3.8%

No reply 3 – –1

33.3%1

33.3%1

33.3%–

FIOSH 61 –45

73.8%9

14.8%5

8.2%1

1.6%1

1.6%

MIOSH 7042

0.3%456

64.8%115

16.3%66

9.4%42

6.0%23

3.3%

RSP 1792

1.1%136

76.0%25

14.0%11

6.1%5

2.8%–

TechSP 2381

0.4%125

52.5%33

13.9%43

18.1%23

9.7%13

5.5%

Graduate 22 –11

50.0%5

22.7%2

9.1%2

9.1%2

9.1%

Mem

ber

ship

cat

ego

ry

Base No replySize of organisation (number of employees)

<50 50–249 250–1k 1k–10k >10k

Base 10328

0.8%90

8.7%193

18.7%254

24.6%319

30.9%168

16.3%

No reply 3 –1

33.3%2

66.7%– – –

FIOSH 61 –8

13.1%13

21.3%5

8.2%23

37.7%12

19.7%

MIOSH 7047

1.0%59

8.4%113

16.1%175

24.9%227

32.2%123

17.5%

RSP 1792

1.1%19

10.6%28

15.6%39

21.8%60

33.5%31

17.3%

TechSP 238 –18

7.6%62

26.1%68

28.6%59

24.8%31

13.0%

Graduate 22 –1

4.5%4

18.2%6

27.3%8

36.4%3

13.6%

Mem

ber

ship

cat

ego

ry

Base No replySize of organisation (number of employees)

<50 50–249 250–1k 1k–10k >10k

Base 10328

0.8%90

8.7%193

18.7%254

24.6%319

30.9%168

16.3%

No reply 11 – –2

18.2%3

27.3%4

36.4%2

18.2%

Yes 4944

0.8%25

5.1%90

18.2%126

25.5%158

32.0%91

18.4%

No 4733

0.6%57

12.1%91

19.2%119

25.2%140

29.6%63

13.3%

Don’tknow

541

1.9%8

14.8%10

18.5%6

11.1%17

31.5%12

22.2%

Table D1

Time spent on OSH cross-tabulated with

membership category

Table D2

Size of organisation cross-tabulated with membership

category (NB: One respondent indicated that he/she

was an RSP without ticking either the FIOSH or the

MIOSH boxes)

Table D3

Slip and trip reduction policy cross-tabulated with

size of organisation

Slip

an

d t

rip

red

uct

ion

po

licy

29

Table D4 above

Slip and trip reduction policy cross-tabulated with

employment sector

Table D5 left

Summary table for slip and trip control cross-

tabulated with size of organisation. Where the yes

and no percentages do not equal 100, the remainder

represents respondents who did not answer one or

both of the questions in the cross-tabulation

Table D6 below

Summary table for slip and trip control cross-

tabulated with employment sector. Where the yes

and no percentages do not equal 100, the remainder

represents respondents who did not answer one or

both of the questions in the cross-tabulation

Employment sector

Base 103227

2.6%27

2.6%99

9.6%275

26.6%174

16.9%36

3.5%89

8.6%89

8.6%105

10.2%92

8.9%82

7.9%162

15.7%245

23.7%88

8.5%252

24.4%

No reply 111

9.1%–

19.1%

218.2%

– –1

9.1%1

9.1%– – –

19.1%

327.3%

19.1%

327.3%

Yes 494 15 9 42 138 66 16 31 37 49 33 39 52 110 35 121

No 473 10 17 49 119 101 18 47 42 48 53 36 100 118 43 106

Don’t know 54 1 1 7 16 7 2 10 9 8 6 7 9 14 9 22

Slip

an

d t

rip

red

uct

ion

po

licy

Ag

ricu

ltu

re/

fish

ing

Bas

e

No

rep

ly

Ch

emic

al/

ph

arm

aceu

tica

l

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Edu

cati

on

Extr

acti

ve

ind

ust

ries

Fin

ance

/b

usi

nes

s se

rvic

es

Foo

d

Go

vern

men

t

Hea

lth

care

Leis

ure

/h

osp

ital

ity

Loca

l au

tho

rity

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g

Ret

ail

Oth

er

Control measuresSize of organisation (number of employees)

<50 50–249 250–1k 1k–10k >10k

Safe design of workplace and work activities

Yes % 77.8 86.5 89.4 92.5 92.3

No % 15.6 10.4 9.4 4.4 6.0

Effective training and supervisionYes % 77.8 86.0 88.2 89.7 92.3

No % 16.7 11.9 10.6 7.5 6.5

Effective and appropriate flooringYes % 58.9 70.5 73.6 81.8 80.4

No % 23.3 21.8 19.3 12.5 11.3

Suitable footwearYes % 82.2 88.8 89.8 87.8 86.3

No % 12.2 10.4 7.1 9.1 10.1

Maintenance of plant and the work environment

Yes % 86.7 93.3 93.3 96.9 94.0

No % 4.4 4.7 4.3 1.6 3.6

Good housekeepingYes % 83.3 91.2 91.7 95.0 92.9

No % 10.0 8.8 7.1 4.7 5.4

Management of spillages andcleaning regimes

Yes % 73.3 85.0 87.8 90.9 89.9

No % 18.9 11.9 10.2 7.2 5.4

Control measures

Employment sector (number of respondents)

(27) (99) (275) (174) (36) (89) (89) (105) (92) (82) (162) (245) (88)

Safe design of workplaceand work activities

Yes % 81.5 94.9 89.5 85.1 97.2 80.9 85.4 89.5 83.7 81.7 83.3 87.3 79.5

No % 18.5 4.0 7.6 10.9 2.8 14.6 10.5 7.6 12.0 13.4 13.6 9.8 12.5

Effective training andsupervision

Yes % 81.5 83.8 89.5 82.2 91.7 76.4 83.1 86.7 80.4 81.7 86.4 85.7 79.5

No % 18.5 4.0 7.6 10.9 2.8 14.6 10.5 7.6 12.0 13.4 13.6 9.8 12.5

Effective and appropriateflooring

Yes % 70.4 83.8 61.1 75.9 80.6 73.0 68.5 70.5 72.8 70.7 69.1 76.3 67.0

No % 25.9 11.1 26.5 14.9 13.9 16.9 24.7 19.0 14.1 19.5 21.0 17.1 20.5

Suitable footwearYes % 74.1 90.9 92.7 79.3 88.9 67.4 83.1 81.9 81.5 76.8 79.0 89.4 78.4

No % 22.2 5.1 5.1 16.1 8.3 30.0 12.4 12.4 12.0 19.5 14.2 7.8 18.2

Maintenance of plant andthe work environment

Yes % 85.2 97.0 93.5 90.8 94.4 86.5 88.8 92.4 89.1 89.0 93.2 93.9 86.4

No % 14.8 2.0 2.2 5.2 2.8 6.7 6.7 5.7 8.7 4.9 4.3 4.5 8.0

Good housekeepingYes % 77.8 93.9 93.1 89.7 94.4 88.8 91.0 89.5 90.2 95.1 87.0 93.1 88.6

No % 2.2 6.1 4.7 8.0 5.6 9.0 6.7 9.5 9.8 3.7 11.1 6.5 9.1

Management of spillagesand cleaning regimes

Yes % 81.5 89.9 82.5 81.1 94.4 80.9 87.6 81.9 79.3 90.2 81.5 85.7 79.5

No % 18.5 10.1 12.7 13.7 2.8 13.5 9.0 13.3 17.4 6.1 13.6 10.6 13.6

Ag

ricu

ltu

re/

fish

ing

Ch

emic

al/

ph

arm

aceu

tica

l

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Edu

cati

on

Extr

acti

ve

ind

ust

ries

Fin

ance

/b

usi

nes

s se

rvic

es

Foo

d

Go

vern

men

t

Hea

lth

care

Leis

ure

/h

osp

ital

ity

Loca

l au

tho

rity

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g

Ret

ail

30

Consideration of slip and trip reduction measures (%)

No replyAlways

consideredSometimesconsidered

Rarelyconsidered

Neverconsidered

Don’t know

Base (1032) 0.6 30.8 50.7 10.6 1.6 5.7

No reply (27)

Agriculture/fishing (27) – 14.8 63.0 22.2 – –

Chemical/pharmaceutical (99) – 32.3 49.5 10.1 3.0 5.1

Construction (275) 1.1 33.8 49.1 10.2 0.7 5.1

Education (174) 0.6 19.5 61.5 11.5 – 6.9

Extractive industries (36) – 30.6 55.6 11.1 – 2.8

Finance/business services (89) 1.1 24.7 55.1 11.2 – 7.9

Food (89) 1.1 15.7 62.9 13.5 – 6.7

Government (105) 1.0 24.8 50.5 14.3 2.9 6.7

Healthcare (92) – 25.0 54.3 13.0 1.1 6.5

Leisure/hospitality (82) – 20.7 58.5 12.2 – 8.5

Local authority (162) 1.2 21.0 56.2 13.0 – 8.6

Manufacturing (245) 1.2 22.4 58.8 10.6 1.2 5.7

Retail (88) 1.1 18.2 61.4 11.4 – 8.0

Other (252) 0.8 31.0 51.6 9.5 2.0 5.2

Emp

loym

ent

sect

or

(nu

mb

er o

f re

spo

nd

ents

)

Table D7 above

Slip and trip reduction consideration at design,

refurbishment or other changes cross-tabulated with

employment sector

Table D8 right

Summary table for effectiveness of HSE publicity

areas cross-tabulated with size of organisation.

Where the yes and no percentages do not equal 100,

the remainder represents respondents who did not

answer one or both of the questions in the cross-

tabulation

HSE publicity areaSize of organisation (number of employees)

<50 50–249 250–1k 1k–10k >10k

Is HSE guidance on slip and tripprevention effective?

Yes % 70.0 66.8 72.8 72.7 64.3

No % 25.6 32.1 26.0 23.2 33.3

Is the Revitalising health and safetystrategy effective?

Yes % 61.0 61.6 65.7 71.7 70.2

No % 33.3 32.6 30.7 23.8 26.7

Are slips and trips a major issue foryour employment sector?

Yes % 51.1 46.1 48.0 53.3 50.6

No % 43.3 46.1 47.2 40.4 46.4

Is the Priority Programme to reduceslips and trips effective?

Yes % 45.5 40.4 46.9 47.6 39.3

No % 47.7 53.3 48.4 45.5 56.0

Did you find the HSE slip and tripreduction events useful?

Size of organisation (number of employees)

<50 50–249 250–1k 1k–10k >10k

Yes 9 25 39 47 28

No 4 3 4 4 1

Did not attend 73 152 199 252 131Num

ber

ofre

spon

dent

s

Did you find the HSE workplacetransport events useful?


<50 50–249 250–1k 1k–10k >10k

Yes 15 35 44 44 24

No 5 4 2 4 1


ber

ofre

spon

dent

s

Did you find the HSE falls fromheight events useful?


<50 50–249 250–1k 1k–10k >10k

Yes 21 51 58 67 34

No 2 2 3 2 2


ber

ofre

spon

dent

s

Table D9

Respondents’ attendance at and views on HSE slip

and trip reduction events by size of organisation

Table D10

Respondents’ attendance at and views on HSE

workplace transport events by size of organisation

Table D11

Respondents’ attendance at and views on HSE falls

from height events by size of organisation

31

Table D12


and trip reduction events by employment sector. The

sectors with the highest attendance are highlighted

Table D13


workplace transport events by employment sector.

The sectors with the highest attendance are

highlighted

Employment sector

Did you find the HSE slip and trip reductionevents useful? (number of respondents)

Sectorattendance

(%)Yes No Did not attend

Agriculture/fishing 2 0 24 7.6

Chemical/pharmaceutical 7 3 86 7.2

Construction 40 8 198 16.2

Education 33 3 128 20.1

Extractive industries 3 0 33 8.3

Finance/business services 12 1 71 14.2

Food 16 0 68 19.0

Government 18 1 80 18.1

Healthcare 21 2 62 24.7

Leisure/hospitality 16 2 62 20.0

Local authority 41 1 114 26.2

Manufacturing 29 6 195 12.6

Retail 19 2 63 22.6

Other 32 3 212 12.9

Mean attendance – – – 16.4

Employment sector

Did you find the HSE workplace transportevents useful? (number of respondents)

Sectorattendance





Education 18 5 134 11.4



Food 18 0 64 21.9






Retail 19 2 58 24.0

Other 38 4 202 15.5


32

Employment sector

Did you find the HSE falls from heightevents useful? (number of respondents)

Sectorattendance





Education 44 2 118 26.8



Food 16 1 66 19.2






Retail 26 2 64 28.2

Other 51 5 189 20.8


Table D14

Respondents’ attendance at and views on HSE falls

from height events by employment sector. The

sectors with the highest attendance are highlighted

Table D15


and trip reduction events by membership category

Table D16


workplace transport events by membership category

Table D17

Respondents’ attendance at and views on HSE falls at

height events by membership category

Did you find the HSE slip and tripreduction events useful?

Membership category

FIOSH MIOSH RSP TechSP Graduate

Yes 7 121 42 20 1

No – 10 3 6 –


ber

ofre

spon

dent

s

Did you find the HSE workplacetransport events useful?

Membership category


Yes 12 116 36 28 4

No 1 11 5 4 –


ber

ofre

spon

dent

s

Did you find the HSE falls fromheight events useful?

Membership category


Yes 14 165 52 45 6

No 3 5 5 3 –


ber

ofre

spon

dent

s

33

Employment sector Base% of respondents wanting

more sector-specific guidance

Agriculture/fishing 27 44.4

Chemical/pharmaceutical 99 49.5

Construction 275 51.3

Education 174 59.2

Extractive industries 36 72.2

Finance/business services 89 52.8

Food 89 49.4

Government 105 56.2

Healthcare 92 59.8

Leisure/hospitality 82 59.8

Local authority 162 59.3

Manufacturing 245 49.4

Retail 88 62.5

Table D18

Respondents wanting more sector-specific guidance

cross-tabulated with employment sector

IOSHThe GrangeHighfield DriveWigstonLeicestershireLE18 1NNUK

t +44 (0)116 257 3100f +44 (0)116 257 3101www.iosh.co.uk

Institution of Occupational Safety and Health

Founded 1945

Incorporated by Royal Charter 2003

Registered charity 1096790

IOSH is Europe’s leading body for health andsafety professionals. We have nearly 32,000members worldwide, including more than11,500 Chartered Safety and HealthPractitioners.

The Institution was founded in 1945 and is anindependent, not-for-profit organisation thatsets professional standards, supports anddevelops members and provides authoritativeadvice and guidance on health and safety issues.IOSH is formally recognised by the ILO as aninternational non-governmental organisation.

AC

/729

2/LV

/121

207/

PDF

practitioner awareness of the hse’s slips and trips .../media/documents/books and resources... ·...

Documents