Over the past decade, improved software and the move to accountability has led organisations to measure and analyse every part of the business. The health and safety of staff needed to be represented in statistical terms, so the Total Recordable Injury Frequency Rate (TRIFR) was developed. Once the data was available, organisations started comparing one accounting period to another and comparing its performance over time.
What is the Total Recordable Injury Frequency Rate (TRIFR)?
The TRIFR is the number of injuries (excluding fatalities) requiring medical treatment per million hours worked within an organisation.
To calculate the TRIFR in Australia, we divide the number of recordable injuries in a 12-month period, by the number of hours worked by all staff in the same 12-month period, then multiply this figure by one million:
But the TRIFR isn’t the only statistic organisations use in calculating injuries. Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate is another popular measure.
What is Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (LTIFR)?
Some organisations prefer to measure their performance by another calculation called the Lost Time Injury Frequency Rates (LTIFR. The method for calculating the LTIFR is the number of lost time injuries in an accounting period divided by the total number of hours worked in the same period multiplied by one million. The million multiplier is used because the number of lost time injuries per hours worked is tiny. Multiplying the number makes it easier to interpret. An accounting period can be one month or one quarter, whatever the organisation determines.
Safe Work Australia prefaced their LTIFR calculator with a disclaimer that industry benchmarks are likely to be underestimated due to workers’ compensation claims not being made for minor injuries.
Problems with Using TRIFR or LTIFR
While it sounds ideal to be able to represent workplace injuries and fatalities as a measurable number, it has its drawbacks such as:
- Injured workers can feel pressured not to report their injury because it will negatively impact the company’s statistics.
- Supervisors will make their own call on whether to record a worker’s injury or not.
- There is little consistency in what is registered as an injury and what isn’t.
The register creates a system of blame. Questions are asked if the injured worker was at fault, or was it their supervisor who should be held accountable or did the organisation not do enough to keep the worker safe?
To emphasise the importance of the TRIFR, organisations tied staff and management KPIs to the rate. Staff pay increases and bonus structures were also negatively impacted when the rate went up.
Before long only severe injuries and fatalities were recorded because they couldn’t be hidden. The TRIFR became a farce because it wasn’t an accurate reflection of the organisation’s injury rate.
Nevertheless, companies promoted incredibly low TRIFR as a badge of honour, telling anyone who will listen to their amazing ‘Looking Good Index’. Competitors did the same, and the industry standard was also fudged.
Inaccurate data is also dangerous. Management can make decisions on staffing and safety based on the false rate. Why spend time, money and resources on an area that was already near perfect? It’s hard to justify a return on investment when the stats show almost no improvement can be made.
With all these known problems with the rate, what’s the answer?
RELATED: Chasing the 0: Are all accidents really preventable?
What is the Alternative to the TRIFR?
Stop recording minor injuries. Some of the largest organisations in high-risk industries no longer record the majority of injuries. At first, it seemed counter-intuitive. When everyone in the organisation has been drilled on the importance of the TRIFR for so many years, and staff could quote the organisation’s rate at any given time, it seemed a little crazy.
No longer would the organisation compare its rate from one period to the next, it didn’t need to check on the industry rate, and staff bonuses were reliant on non-safety related KPI’s.
“Organisations are scrapping these registers and concentrating on recording serious injuries only. A worker hitting their thumb with a hammer isn’t a recordable injury because it won’t help the organisation improve its safety standards,” Corrie Pitzer, CEO of SAFEMap International said.
Organisations knew the number wasn’t accurate and an artificially deflated rate doesn’t improve safety anyway. Hiding minor injuries and only recording the ones that can’t be hidden means no one has a clear picture of the real situation. Minor injuries often act as a warning sign that there is a problem and the next time could be far more severe. Now that there is no need to hide these injuries from the register, action can be taken to improve a situation if necessary.
RELATED: How to Make Safety Invisible and Fully Integrated Into Your Organisation
Besides, the inaccurate data was dangerous. Management could use the data to make decisions on safety staff and training. They would ask themselves why spend time, money and resources on an area that was already near perfect? Where is the ROI in that?
Now the TRIFR is disappearing, the only stat these organisations are interested in is serious injuries. There’s no need to keep up pretences, the ‘Looking Good Index’ has gone.
Want to know how your organisation can change its focus on safety? Get in touch with our team today, and we’ll be able to help you out.