Paul Brothwood: How Near-Miss Reporting Increased by 994%
By Paul Brothwood
I believe a strong reporting culture develops when employees trust that leaders will listen and act. In one area of my operational leadership work, near-miss reporting rose by 994% against the previous baseline. This represented a significant increase in employee participation.
The figure needs to be understood correctly. It did not show that workplace risk had fallen by 994%. It did not prove that every hazard had been removed. It showed that more people were identifying concerns, recording them and taking part in safety improvement.
Why low reporting worried me
A low number of reports often looks reassuring. It might reflect a well-controlled workplace with few hazards. It might also mean employees do not recognise what they should report, find the process difficult or believe nothing will happen when they raise a concern.
Fear also suppresses reporting. If people expect blame, criticism or excessive questioning, they remain silent. The organisation then loses important information about unsafe conditions, unreliable equipment and weaknesses in working practices.
A near miss gives an organisation an opportunity to learn before somebody suffers an injury. The Health and Safety Executive’s guidance on investigating accidents and incidents explains the importance of gathering information, analysing what happened, identifying suitable controls and implementing an action plan.
My priority was therefore not to make the reporting number look impressive. It was to make speaking up part of normal operational work.
Making it easier to speak up
Employees need a clear explanation of what should be reported. A near miss does not need to involve a dramatic event. It might involve an obstructed walkway, unsuitable storage, damaged equipment, poor segregation, unclear signage or a task that did not proceed as planned.
I reinforced this message through regular team conversations, operational meetings and safety forums. Reporting was presented as a positive contribution rather than evidence that somebody had failed.
The response from managers was equally important. When someone raised a concern, the first response needed to be thanks and interest. The discussion then focused on the circumstances surrounding the event.
This meant looking at equipment, instructions, planning, workload, working conditions and communication. It avoided placing the entire responsibility on the person who noticed or experienced the problem.
Turning reports into visible action
Employees quickly judge whether a reporting system deserves their time. If reports disappear without an update, participation falls. If people see action, trust grows.
Safety feedback led to practical improvements in the working environment. These included installing a physical segregation barrier in a stores area, improving personal protective equipment signage, addressing a vehicle blind spot and improving office lighting.
These were not expensive corporate programmes. They were practical responses to concerns raised by people who understood the workplace.
Closing the feedback loop mattered as much as completing the work. Employees needed to know that a concern had been reviewed, who was responsible for the response and when the action had been completed.
When an immediate solution was not available, an honest progress update still showed that the report had not been ignored.
Looking beyond the immediate cause
A near-miss investigation should go further than identifying the last action before an event.
If an item was placed in the wrong location, it is easy to say that somebody should have been more careful. A stronger investigation asks why the location was used, whether suitable storage was available, whether responsibilities were clear and whether the same conditions existed elsewhere.
This approach separates the immediate cause from the underlying causes. It also produces better actions.
Reminding one employee to take care has limited value if the same system continues to expose other people to the same risk. Changing the layout, equipment, instructions or method of work gives the organisation a more lasting response.
Using the data responsibly
The 994% increase was useful because it showed a major change in participation. The number was not treated as the final measure of success.
A crude reporting target risks encouraging low-value submissions or turning safety into a numerical exercise. The quality of the reports matters more than chasing a particular total.
I looked at whether reports contained enough information to understand the concern, how quickly they were reviewed, whether actions remained outstanding and whether similar events continued to appear.
Repeated reports about the same issue deserve particular attention. They might show that an earlier action was incomplete, poorly communicated or ineffective.
Trends also help leaders direct their attention. Several reports involving one location, task or item of equipment provide a stronger signal than one isolated entry.
Near misses and RIDDOR
Internal near-miss reporting and statutory reporting under RIDDOR are not the same.
RIDDOR covers specified dangerous occurrences and other defined work-related incidents. The HSE describes dangerous occurrences as incidents with a high potential to cause death or serious injury. The reportable categories are listed in Schedule 2 of the regulations. The HSE provides further information in its guidance on dangerous occurrences.
An internal reporting process should therefore include a route for relevant incidents to be reviewed by a competent person. This helps the organisation identify whether a legal reporting requirement applies.
A strong internal system should encourage people to report concerns even where the RIDDOR threshold has not been met. Those reports still provide valuable opportunities to identify hazards and improve controls.
What the increase meant
The 994% increase showed that more employees were willing to participate in safety improvement.
It reflected repeated communication, visible leadership and practical follow-through. People saw that reports were welcomed, reviewed and connected to action.
Leadership does not create trust through slogans. Trust develops when leaders respond consistently, explain decisions and complete agreed actions.
Near-miss reporting works best when it forms part of everyday operational management. It should connect employee experience with risk assessment, maintenance, training, planning and management review.
The real value of a report is not the entry recorded in a system. It is the conversation, investigation and action that follow it.
Further Reading
If you enjoyed this article, you might also like:
Paul Brothwood | Business Re-engineering with Health and Safety
Paul Brothwood | ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and ISO 45001 Audits
Paul Brothwood | PRINCE2: Moving with the Times
Paul Brothwood | Chartered Environmentalist
About Paul Brothwood
Paul Brothwood is an Operations Manager at National Grid Electricity Distribution and a Chartered Environmentalist. He writes about operational leadership, workplace safety, environmental management, project management and continuous improvement.
Comments
Post a Comment