Investigation into Major Injuries

Reportable injuries are divided into two categories: ‘major’ injuries and ‘over-three day’ injuries. For an injury to be ‘Major’, it must one of a number of specified injuries set out in an annex to the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences 1995 (see box).

Table 4 shows that between 1996/7 and 2000/01, the percentage of reported major injuries to workers investigated by FOD has almost doubled from 10.8% to 19.3%. This percentage also represents an increase in the actual number of major injuries investigated from 2,532 to 4,335 – an increase of 71%.

Table 4
Numbers of Reported and Investigated Major Injuries to Workers, (1996/7 – 2000/01)

Table 6 illustrates how the percentage of investigated major injuries to workers differed between industries. In 2000/01, this ranged from 41% in Agriculture to 10% in the Service Sector: a major injury to an Agricultural worker was four times more likely to be investigated than an injury to a Service sector worker. However, the higher likelihood of an investigation in the Agricultural sector was a reflection of the much lower number of reported major injuries in this Sector (647) compared to the Service Sector (9,616) – and in fact more injuries in the Service Sector were investigated (958) compared to Agriculture (262).


Table 6
Numbers of Reported and Investigated Major Injuries to Workers, by Industry, (1996/7 – 2000/01)

Table 7 shows that by far the majority of major injuries to members of the public were in the Service Sector - only 568 out of the 12,449 major injuries in 2000/1 were in the non-Service sector industries - and that the levels of investigation of injuries in this sector remained much lower than in the other sectors. However, 70% of the injuries to members of the public in ‘traditional’ industries were still not being investigated – a low level of investigation. It is interesting to note that whilst 10% of worker injuries in the Service sector were investigated, only 6% of injuries to members of the public were investigated. In the other industries, there is little difference between the percentage of investigation into injuries to workers or members of the public.

Table 7
Numbers of Reported and Investigated Major Injuries to the Public by Industry, (1996/7 – 2000/01)

As the Service Sector is the sector with both the largest number of major injuries and the lowest investigation rate (for both workers and public), Table 8 breaks down the rates of investigation into worker injuries in this sector into ten categories.

It is clear from this Table there are significant disparities in the investigation rates between categories. In ‘Wholesale and Retail’ there is an investigation rate, which is over four times greater than is the case of injuries in ‘Public administration’. It is interesting to note that the levels of investigation into major injuries in the transport sector was only 13%.

Table 8
Numbers of Reported and Investigated Major Injuries to Service Sector
Workers, (2000/01)

Consistency around the country?
The next couple of Tables look at the levels of investigation into injuries in different parts of the country. Table 9 shows wide range of investigation rates, from 26% in the Marches to 11% in Greater London. The low level of investigations in Greater London can not simply be explained by the fact that it has the highest rate of reported injuries (1929), since Scotland East, for example investigated 322 major injuries (112 more than London) and East Anglia investigated 283 major injuries (73 more than London).

Table 9
Numbers of Reported and Investigated Major Injuries to Workers by HSE Area, (2000/01)

The same sorts of discrepancies exist in relation to injuries to members of the public (Table 10), where rates of investigation range from 19% in Wales (79 of 425) to 3.6% in North Midlands (26 of 729). It is interesting to note that Scotland East and Scotland West have relatively higher rates, and Greater London and East Midlands have relatively low rates of investigation, in relation to both injuries to workers and to members of the public
.
Table 10
Numbers of Reported and Investigated Major Injuries to Members of the Public by HSE Area, (1996/7 – 2000/01)


Table 11 shows how investigation rates into major injuries sustained by workers changed in each HSE area over a five year. Rates of investigation have increased over this period in all areas. However, while in three areas – Scotland East, West Midlands, and South – they have more than doubled (from varying starting-points), in other areas, notably Greater London, the increase in the level of investigation has been much less marked.

Table 11
Numbers of Reported and Investigated Major Injuries to workers, (1996/7 - 2000/01)

Employment Status of the worker
Table 12 compares the rates of investigation over a five year period by the employment status of the worker – whether the person was employed, self employed, a trainee or involved in work-experience. It shows that in each of the years, FOD was more likely to investigate an injury to a worker who was self-employed, a trainee or in work-experience compared to one who was employed (explained in part by the greater number reports of major injuries to employees).

Further, although the rates of investigation increase over the years, it is notable that so many injuries to workers involved in ‘work-experience’ or ‘training’ remain uninvestigated, considering their particular vulnerability. Over the five years period there were 164 major injuries to people involved in ‘work-experience’ but 126 were not investigated; there was also 1,144 injuries to those involved in ‘training’ but 935 were not investigated.

Table 12
Numbers of Reported and Investigated Major Injuries to Workers by Employment Status, (2000/01)

To see next section of the Chapter

To see Previous section of the Chapter

To go back to Chapter Index

To go back to Report index

Back to the top