Project 10-019 Slips, Trips and Falls SURFOR, SUBFOR ... trip and fall incident rate is not...
26
1 Project 10-019 Slips, Trips and Falls SURFOR, SUBFOR, AIRFOR, NECC Data Data Range: FY00 to present (6/3/2010) Data Source: NAVSEA is the data source for shipyard OSHE data. INJTRK and SIMS databases from the Navy Safety Center. Bottom line Up Front SURFOR: There is a statistically significant increase shift in slip, trip and fall incident rates in FY03, FY06 and FY09. On duty slip, trip and fall incidents are the contributing factor to the increase shift in FY03. Both on and off duty slip, trip and fall incidents are contributing factors to the increase shift in FY06 and FY09. SUBFOR: Statistical significant increase shift beginning in FY06 and leveling out once more beginning in FY08. For AIRFOR, there is a statistical significant increase shift beginning in FY03 and a statistical significant spike in FY06. On duty mishaps are the contributing factor to the spike in FY06. Starting in the FY06, NECC slip, trip and fall incident rates are decreasing as compared to FY02 to FY05 rates. Personnel under the age of 25 have a higher probability of being involved in an on duty slip, trip and fall mishap for SURFOR, SUBFOR, and AIRFOR NECC personnel between the ages of 36 to 45 have a higher probability of being involved in an on duty slip, trip and fall mishap. Personnel under the age of 25 have a higher probability of being involved in an off duty slip, trip and fall mishap for SURFOR, SUBFOR, AIRFOR and NECC. For all TYCOMs, Personnel/Human Factors: Lack of Attention to Detail is the top causal factor identified. Staring in FY09 there is an upward trend in slip, trip and fall incident rates involving ladders for SURFOR. The current FY10 slip, trip and fall incident rate involving ladders for AIRFOR and SUBFOR are statistically significant lower than the previous five years rates. Discussion SURFOR
Transcript of Project 10-019 Slips, Trips and Falls SURFOR, SUBFOR ... trip and fall incident rate is not...
1
Project 10-019 Slips, Trips and Falls SURFOR, SUBFOR, AIRFOR, NECC
Data
Data Range: FY00 to present (6/3/2010)
Data Source: NAVSEA is the data source for shipyard OSHE data. INJTRK and SIMS
databases from the Navy Safety Center.
Bottom line Up Front
SURFOR: There is a statistically significant increase shift in slip, trip and fall
incident rates in FY03, FY06 and FY09. On duty slip, trip and fall incidents are
the contributing factor to the increase shift in FY03. Both on and off duty slip,
trip and fall incidents are contributing factors to the increase shift in FY06 and
FY09.
SUBFOR: Statistical significant increase shift beginning in FY06 and leveling
out once more beginning in FY08.
For AIRFOR, there is a statistical significant increase shift beginning in FY03
and a statistical significant spike in FY06. On duty mishaps are the contributing
factor to the spike in FY06.
Starting in the FY06, NECC slip, trip and fall incident rates are decreasing as
compared to FY02 to FY05 rates.
Personnel under the age of 25 have a higher probability of being involved in an on
duty slip, trip and fall mishap for SURFOR, SUBFOR, and AIRFOR
NECC personnel between the ages of 36 to 45 have a higher probability of being
involved in an on duty slip, trip and fall mishap.
Personnel under the age of 25 have a higher probability of being involved in an
off duty slip, trip and fall mishap for SURFOR, SUBFOR, AIRFOR and NECC.
For all TYCOMs, Personnel/Human Factors: Lack of Attention to Detail is the
top causal factor identified.
Staring in FY09 there is an upward trend in slip, trip and fall incident rates
involving ladders for SURFOR.
The current FY10 slip, trip and fall incident rate involving ladders for AIRFOR
and SUBFOR are statistically significant lower than the previous five years rates.
Discussion
SURFOR
2
Class A, B, C, and D Slips, Trips and Falls - SURFOR
117
229205
203.67
167
239
161
107 107 115
192203
499.57
385.66
324.68418.85
198.61
315.88199.90 190.98
193.29
402.70
497.78
323.35
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 FY07-09
Average
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts p
er
100K
pers
on
nel
Total Incidents Rate
Figure 1
Figure 1 graphs the number of slips, trips and falls Class A, B, C and D mishaps for
SURFOR along with the incident rates per 100,000 personnel. There does not seem to
be a consistent pattern to the rates over the eleven year period. However, there does seem
to be a number of years where the number of mishaps is over two hundred starting after
FY05. This may be due to the introduction of WESS. When statistically comparing the
rates from FY00-04 to the rates from FY05-09, there is no statistically significant
difference between the incident rates from FY00 to FY04 and incident rates from FY05
to FY09.
Class A, B, C, and D Slips, Trips and Falls - SURFOR
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
FY00-02
Average
FY03
Rate
FY04
Rate
FY05
Rate
FY03-05
Average
FY06
Rate
FY07
Rate
FY08
Rate
FY06-08
Average
FY09
Rate
FY10
Rate
Rate
Upper 95% CI of Average
Low er 95% CI of Average
Figure 2
The first portion of Figure 2 graphs the three year average SURFOR slip, trip and fall
incident rate, the FY03, FY04 and FY05 SURFOR slip, trip and fall incident rates along
with the 95% confidence interval calculated from the FY00 to FY02 data. Both the FY03
and FY04 rates are above the confidence interval indicating a statistically significant
increase in the rates from the previous rates in FY00 to FY02. It can be concluded there
is a statistically significant increase in rates being in FY03.
3
Due the statistically significant increase shift in FY03, the second portion of Figure 2
graphs the three year average rate from FY03 to FY05, the FY06, FY07 and FY08
SURFOR slip, trip and fall incident rates along with the 95% confidence interval which
has been recalculated using the data from FY03 to FY05. The rates from FY06, FY07
and FY08 are above the confidence interval again indicating a statistically significant
increase in the rates from the previous FY03 to FY05 rates. It can be concluded that
there is another statistically significant increase shift beginning in FY06.
Again due to the statistically significant increase shift in FY06, the third portion of
Figure 2 graphs the three year average rate from FY06 to FY08, the FY09 and the current
FY10 SURFOR slip, trip and fall incident rates along with the 95% confidence interval
which again has been recalculated using the data from FY06 to FY08. The rates from
FY09 and the current FY10 rates are statistically significantly higher than the rates from
the previous three years. It can be concluded again that there is a statistically significant
shift in the data beginning in FY09. Although, this statistically significant increase shift
may also be due to the decrease in SURFOR population as well as the increase in slip,
trip and fall mishaps.
SURFOR Slip, Trip and Fall Mishaps On Duty Vs Off Duty
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Nu
mb
er
of
Mis
ha
ps
Off Duty
On Duty
Figure 3
Figure 3 graphs the number of on and off duty SURFOR slip, trip and fall mishap per
fiscal year over a period ranging from FY00 to the present. The number of on duty
mishaps is greater than the number of off duty mishaps for every fiscal year graphed.
4
Class A, B, C, and D On Duty Slips, Trips and Falls - SURFOR
67
151
129 124.00
96
147
109
5647
66
112
143
186.64242.68
338.22
276.18
113.74
184.26104.62 83.89
110.93
245.16
306.17
227.78
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 FY07-09
Average
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts p
er
100K
pers
on
nel
Total Incidents Rate
Figure 4
To further analyze the data, the SURFOR data is divided into on-duty and off-duty.
Figure 3 above graphs the number and rate per 100,000 personnel of on-duty slip, trip
and fall incidents. Figure 4 tends to mirror Figure 1. There is an increase in the number
and rate in FY03, FY06 and FY09, however, when statistically comparing the rates from
FY00 to FY04 to the rates from FY05 to FY09, there is no statistically significant
differences amongst the rates.
Class A, B, C, and D On Duty Slips, Trips and Falls - SURFOR
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
FY00-02
Average
FY03
Rate
FY04
Rate
FY05
Rate
FY03-05
Average
FY06
Rate
FY07
Rate
FY08
Rate
FY06-08
Average
FY09
Rate
FY10
Rate
FY07-09
Average
FY10
Rate
Rate
Upper 95% CI of Average
Low er 95% CI of Average
Figure 5
Figure 5 is the same graph as Figure 2 except that it graphs SURFUR on duty slip, trip
and fall mishap data. It is evident from Figure 5 that there is a statistically significant
increase shift of SURFOR on duty slip, trip and fall incident rates beginning in FY03 and
another statistically significant increase shift beginning in FY06. This is the same
increase shift that is evident for the overall SURFOR slip, trip and fall mishap graphed in
Figure 2. The third portion of Figure 5 differs from Figure 2 in that the FY09 on duty
slip, trip and fall incident rate is not statistically significant higher than the three years
previous rates as is the case in Figure 2. The fourth portion of Figure 5 graphs the three
years average incident rate for SURFOR on duty slip, trip and fall mishap and the current
FY10 SURFOR on duty slip, trip and fall incident rate along with the 95% confidence
5
interval which is recalculated using FY07 to FY09 data. The current FY10 rate is above
the confidence interval indicating the current FY10 is statistically significantly higher
than the rates from FY07 to FY09. There seems to be another statistically significant
increase shift beginning in FY10.
Class A, B, C, and D Off Duty Slips, Trips and Falls - SURFOR
50
78 7579.33
71
92
5251
60
49
80
60 138.04
141.09161.35
142.66
84.88
131.62
95.28 107.09
82.36
156.91
191.61
95.57
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 FY07-09
Average
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts
0
50
100
150
200
250
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts p
er
100K
pers
on
nel
Total Incidents Rate
Figure 6
Figure 6 graphs the number and rates per 100,000 personnel of off-duty slip, trip and fall
incidents over a time period ranging from FY00 to the present. There seems to be in
increase in the numbers of mishaps starting in FY06. This may be due to introduction of
WESS. When statistically comparing the rates from FY00-04 to the rates from FY05-09,
the rates from FY05-09 are statistically significant higher than the rates from FY00-04. It
can be concluded that there is an increasing trend for off-duty slip, trip and fall incident
rates.
Class A, B, C, and D Off Duty Slips, Trips and Falls - SURFOR
0
50
100
150
200
250
FY00-02
Average
FY03
Rate
FY04
Rate
FY05
Rate
FY03-05
Average
FY06
Rate
FY07
Rate
FY08
Rate
FY06-08
Average
FY09
Rate
FY10
Rate
FY07-09
Average
FY10
Rate
Rate
Upper 95% CI of Average
Low er 95% CI of Average
Figure 7
Figure 7 graphs SURFOR off duty incident rate averages, rates, and confidence intervals
in the same manner as in Figure 2 and Figure 5. For off duty mishaps, there is not a
statistically significant increase shift in rates in FY03 as there is with the overall and on
duty rates in Figure 2 and Figure 5 respectively. There is a statistically significant
increase shift beginning in FY06 as is evident in the second portion of Figure 7 where the
FY06, FY07 and FY08 rates are above the confidence interval indicating statistically
6
significant increases in the off duty rates as compare to the rates from FY03 to FY05.
This increase shift is also seen in the overall data and the on duty data in Figure 2 and
Figure 5 respectively. When the confidence interval is recalculated after the increase
shift in FY06, there are no other statistically significant increases in off duty rates or any
other statistically significant shifts.
From the analysis on SURFOR slip, trip and fall incident rates, it can be concluded that
on duty mishaps are the contributing factor to the statistically significant increase shift in
FY03 and FY10. A combination of both on and off duty mishaps are the contributing
factors to the increase shift in FY09 for overall SURFOR slip, trip and fall incident rates
in Figure 2.
SUBFOR
Class A, B, C, and D Slips, Trips and Falls - SUBFOR
43.33
20
38 3839
5350
29
2321
3436
326.74
207.25
299.13
249.71
224.37195.81183.82
145.53130.13
276.57253.27
211.62
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 FY07-09
Average
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts p
er
100K
pers
on
nel
Total Incidents Rate
Figure 8
Similar to Figure 1, Figure 8 graphs the number of slip, trip and fall incidents and the
incident rates per 100,000 personnel for SUBFOR. There is a spike in the number and
rates in FY06 and FY07 and the number tend to level off once more after FY07.
7
Class A, B, C, and D Slips, Trips and Falls - SUBFOR
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
FY03-05
Average
FY06
Rate
FY07
Rate
FY06-08
Average
FY09
Rate
FY10
Rate
FY08-09
Average
FY10
Rate
Rate
Upper 95% CI of Average
Low er 95% CI of Average
Figure 9
To determine if the increases in FY06 and FY07 are statistically significant, the 95%
confidence interval for the time period ranging from FY03 to FY05 are calculated and the
rates for FY06 and FY07 are compared. This can be seen in the first part in Figure 9
where the FY03-05 average and the rates for FY06 and FY07 are graphed along with the
confidence interval depicted by the green lines. Both rates for FY06 and FY07 are above
the upper confidence interval boundary indicating a statistically significant increase in the
rates for both fiscal years. It can then be concluded that a statistically significant shift in
the rates has occurred starting in FY06.
The 3 year 95% confidence interval ranging from FY06 to FY08 is recalculated due to
the significant shift. The new confidence intervals are depicted by the green line in the
center of Figure 9 along with the FY06-08 average rate and the FY09 and current FY10
rates. The FY09 rate is within the confidence interval and the current FY10 rate is below
the confidence interval. This indicates that the FY09 is not statistically significant
different from the FY06-08 rates. The current FY10 rate is statistically significantly
lower than the FY06-08 rates.
The last section of Figure 9 recalculates the 95% confidence interval using the mishap
data from FY08 and FY09 and depicts the new confidence interval by the green lines. In
addition, the FY08-09 average rate and the current FY10 rate is also graphed. With the
recalculated confidence interval, the current FY10 rate is within the confidence interval
indicating no statistical significant difference amongst the current FY10 rate and the
FY08-09 rates. When FY04-05 rates are statistically compared to the FY08-09 rates,
there is no statistically significant difference in the rates. It can be concluded that the
rates beginning with FY08 are leveling back to the rates before the spike in FY06 and
FY07.
8
SUBFOR Slip, Trip and Fall Mishaps On Duty Vs Off Duty
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Nu
mb
er o
f m
ish
aps
Off Duty
On Duty
Figure 10
To further delve into the SUBFOR slip, trip and fall mishap data, the data is divided into
on and off duty. Figure 10 is a stack chart that graphs the number of on and off duty
SUBFOR mishaps per fiscal year. There tends to be a larger number of off duty slip, trip
and fall mishaps in most of the fiscal years except for FY00, FY06 and FY09 where there
seem to more on duty mishaps.
Class A, B, C, and D On Duty Slips, Trips and Falls - SUBFOR
19.00
9
1920
14
2325
17
8 8
4
15
141.79
93.26
149.57
89.64112.19
23.04
107.76
50.62 49.57
121.58133.30
88.17
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 FY07-09
Average
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts p
er
100K
pers
on
nel
Total Incidents Rate
Figure 11
Figure 11 is the same graph as Figure 8 except it only graphs on duty slip, trip and fall
mishaps. The on duty slip, trip and fall rates tend to mirror the rates in Figure 8. There
again seems to be a spike in FY06 and FY07 and then begins to level out again.
9
Class A, B, C, and D On Duty Slips, Trips and Falls - SUBFOR
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
FY03-05
Average
FY06
Rate
FY07
Rate
FY06-08
Average
FY09
Rate
FY10
Rate
FY08-09
Average
FY10
Rate
Rate
Upper 95% CI of Average
Low er 95% CI of Average
Figure 12
Figure 12 is similar to Figure 9 except it graphs the on duty slip, trip and fall rates. Much
the same as the overall slip, trip and fall rates. There is a statistical significant increase in
the rates beginning in FY06 and leveling off again in starting in FY08. This is identical
to the overall slip, trip and fall rates graphed in Figure 9.
Class A, B, C, and D Off Duty Slips, Trips and Falls - SUBFOR
24.33
11
19 18
25
30
24
1214 13
30
21
184.95
113.99
143.58
160.07
112.19
172.77
76.0688.59
80.56
155.00
119.97123.44
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 FY07-09
Average
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts p
er
100K
pers
on
nel
Total Incidents Rate
Figure 13
Figure 13 graphs the off duty slip, trip and fall data for SUBFOR. There seems to be two
increase shifts, one beginning in FY03 and the next being in FY07. There also seems to
be a downward shift beginning in FY09.
10
Class A, B, C, and D Off Duty Slips, Trips and Falls - SUBFOR
0
50
100
150
200
250
FY00-02
Average
FY03
Rate
FY04
Rate
FY05
Rate
FY03-05
Average
FY06
Rate
FY07
Rate
FY08
Rate
FY07-08
Average
FY09
Rate
FY10
Rate
Rate
Upper 95% CI of Average
Low er 95% CI of Average
Figure 14
To determine if the there is a statistical significant shift beginning in FY03, the 95%
confidence interval for FY00-02 is calculated and is graphed in the first portion of Figure
14 depicted by the green lines. In addition to the confidence interval, the first portion of
Figure 14 graphs the FY03, FY04 and FY05 rates. All three of the rates are above the
confidence interval indicating a statistically significant increase shift beginning in FY03.
Due to the statistically significant shift, the confidence interval is recalculated. The new
confidence interval is depicted by the green line in the second portion of Figure 14.
Along with the recalculated confidence interval, the second portion of Figure 14 graphs
the FY06, FY07 and FY08 rates. FY06 and FY08 rates are within the confidence interval
but FY07 is above the confidence interval indicating a statistically significant increase. A
second statistically significant increase shift occurs in FY07. The confidence interval is
again recalculated from the point of the shift in FY07. The third portion of the Figure 13
graphs the new confidence interval depicted by the green lines and the FY09 and current
FY10 rates. Both of the rates are below the confidence interval indicating both rates have
statistically significantly decreased. It can be concluded that there is another statistical
significant shift beginning in FY09 although this shift is decreasing.
AIRFOR
11
Class A, B, C, and D Slips, Trips and Falls - AIRFOR
293.33
201
323
253
304
459
271
101120 132
391
292
424.57
333.68
562.88
375.41
325.31
473.97
137.92 158.70170.77
386.88
451.56
357.20
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 FY07-09
Average
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts p
er
100K
pers
on
nel
Total Incidents Rate
Figure 15
Figure 15 graphs the number and rates per 100,000 personnel of slip, trip and fall incident
for AIRFOR for a period ranging from FY00 to the present. There seems to be an
statistical significant increase shift beginning in FY03 and a spike in FY06.
Class A, B, C, and D Slips, Trips and Falls - AIRFOR
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
FY
00-0
2 A
vera
ge
FY
03 R
ate
FY
04 R
ate
FY
05 R
ate
FY
03-0
5 A
vera
ge
FY
06 R
ate
FY
07 R
ate
FY
04-0
7 A
vera
ge - F
Y06
FY
08 R
ate
FY
05-0
8 A
vera
ge - F
Y06
FY
09 R
ate
FY
07-0
9 A
vera
ge
FY
10 R
ate
Rate Upper 95% CI of Average Low er 95% CI of Average
Figure 16
The first portion of Figure 16 graphs the three year average ranging from FY00-02 and
the rates from FY03, FY04 and FY05 along with the 95% confidence interval calculated
using the FY00 to FY02 data. All three rates from FY03 to FY05 are above the
confidence interval indicating all three rates have statistically significantly increased from
the FY00 to FY02. It can be concluded from the first portion of Figure 16 that there is a
statistically significant increase shift beginning in FY03.
Since there is a statistical significant shift, the 95% confidence interval is recalculated
starting in FY03 to FY05. The second portion of Figure 16 graphs the new confidence
interval represented by the green lines along with the rates from FY06 and FY07. The
FY06 rate is above the confidence interval indicating a statistically significant increase.
The FY07 rate falls within the confidence interval indicating no statistically significant
difference amongst the FY07 and the rates from FY03 to FY05. It can be concluded that
12
the increase in the FY06 rate is due to a spike in the number of mishaps for that fiscal
year. For this reason, the FY06 rates will be eliminated from the continuing analysis.
The next three portions in Figure 16 graph a three year rolling average along with 95%
confidence interval based on the rolling three year data and the next year rate. The FY08
rate falls within the confidence interval indicating no statistically significant difference in
the FY08 rate and the previous rates from FY04, FY05 and FY07. The FY09 rate is
above the confidence interval indicating a statistically significant increase in the rate
compared to FY05, FY07 and FY08. The statistically significant increase is due to a
decrease in the population size from previous years. The current FY10 rate is within the
confidence interval indicating no statistical difference amongst the FY10 rate and the
previous three years rates.
Class A, B, C, and D Slip, Trip and Fall Mishaps - AIRFOR
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Fiscal Year
Nu
mb
er
of
Mis
hap
s
Off Duty
On Duty
Figure 17
To further explore the data, it has been divided into on and off duty. Figure 17 is a stack
chart that graphs the number of on and off duty mishaps per fiscal year. Starting in FY03
the numbers of on and off duty mishaps tend to be relatively evenly distributed between
both on and off duty.
13
Class A, B, C, and D On Duty Slips, Trips and Falls - AIRFOR
144.67
95
169
117
148
251
115
52
7694
187
148
200.67
154.31
307.81
182.76
138.05
226.68
71.01100.51
121.61
191.11
236.26
181.04
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 FY07-09
Average
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts p
er
100K
pers
on
nel
Total Incidents Rate
Figure 18
Much like Figure 15 above, Figure 18 graphs the number and rates per 100,000 personnel
for on duty slip, trip and fall incidents for AIRFOR from FY00 to the present. The rates
tend to follow a similar pattern to the overall rates in Figure 15. There seems to be an
increase shift starting in FY03 and a spike in FY06.
Class A, B, C, and D On Duty Slips, Trips and Falls - AIRFOR
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
FY
00-02 A
verage
FY
03 R
ate
FY
04 R
ate
FY
05 R
ate
FY
03-05 A
verage
FY
06 R
ate
FY
07 R
ate
FY
04-07 A
verage -
FY
06
FY
08 R
ate
FY
05-08 A
verage -
FY
06
FY
09 R
ate
FY
07-09 A
verage
FY
10 R
ate
Rate Upper 95% CI of Average Low er 95% CI of Average
Figure 19
The same analysis is conducted for the on duty slip, trip and fall incidents as was
conducted for overall AIRFOR slip, trip and fall incident in Figure 16. The on duty
mishaps conclusions are the same as with the overall incidents. There is a statistically
significant increase shift beginning in FY03 and a spike in FY06. As with the overall
FY09 rate, the FY09 on duty rate is statistically significant higher than the previous years
due to the decrease in population.
14
Class A, B, C, and D Off Duty Slips, Trips and Falls - AIRFOR
148.33
106
154136
155
207
156
49 44 38
204
144
223.90
179.37
253.85
191.41187.26
247.29
66.9158.19 49.16
195.36
215.29
176.15
0
50
100
150
200
250
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 FY07-09
Average
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts p
er
100K
pers
on
nel
Total Incidents Rate
Figure 20
Figure 20 is similar to Figure 18 above except it graphs the off duty slip, trip and fall
mishaps for AIRFOR. The off duty tends to follow a similar pattern as to the overall and
on duty mishaps in Figures 15 and 18 respectively. There seems to be an increase shift
starting in FY03 and a spike in FY06.
Class A, B, C, and D Off Duty Slips, Trips and Falls - AIRFOR
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
FY
00-0
2 A
vera
ge
FY
03 R
ate
FY
04 R
ate
FY
05 R
ate
FY
03-0
5 A
vera
ge
FY
06 R
ate
FY
07 R
ate
FY
04-0
6 A
vera
ge
FY
07 R
ate
FY
05-0
7 A
vera
ge
FY
08 R
ate
FY
06-0
8 A
vera
ge
FY
09 R
ate
FY
07-0
9 A
vera
ge
FY
10 R
ate
Rate Upper 95% CI of Average Low er 95% CI of Average
Figure 21
In conducting the same analysis for off duty as for on duty mishaps, Figure 21 is similar
to Figure 19. There again was a statistically significant increase shift beginning in FY03.
However, there is not a spike in FY06 for off duty slip, trip and fall mishaps as there is in
the overall mishaps in Figure 16 and the on duty mishap in Figure 19. In addition, the
current FY10 off duty slip, trip and fall incident rate is statistically significantly higher
than the rates from the previous three years.
It can be concluded that both on and off duty mishaps are contributing factors to the
statistically significant increase shift beginning in FY03. On duty mishaps are the
contributing factor to the statistically significant spike in FY09.
NECC
15
Class A, B, C, and D Slips, Trips and Falls - NECC
52
137
87
196
88
53 4939
50
28
46.00
533.09
320.06 288.28
1013.11
226.8372.39
1340.57
772.51
316.04
377.28
228.74 251.18
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 FY07-09
Average
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts p
er
100K
pers
on
nel
Total Incidents Rate
Figure 22
The NECC analysis is much the same as the analyses for the other TYCOMs. Figure 22
graphs the number and rates per 100,000 personnel for slip, trip and fall mishap for
NECC from FY00 to present. There seems to be a spike in FY02 and FY04 and the
number and rate begin to taper off after the spike in FY04. When statistically comparing
the rates from FY02 to FY05 and the rates from FY06 to FY09, the rates from FY06 to
FY09 are statistically significant lower than the rates from FY02 to FY05. It can be
concluded that there is a decreasing trend beginning in FY06.
Class A, B, C, and D Slips, Trips and Falls - NECC
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
FY07-09
Average
Rate
FY10
Rate
Rate
Upper 95% CI of Average
Low er 95% CI Average
Figure 23
Figure 23 graphs the three year average rate ranging from FY07 to FY09 and the current
FY10 slip, trip and fall incident rate for NECC along with the 95% confidence interval
depicted by the green lines. The current FY10 rate is within the confidence interval
16
indicating no statistically significant difference amongst the current FY10 rate and the
three years previous rates.
Class A, B, C, and D On Duty Slips, Trips and Falls - NECC
26.67
16
322226
32
49
013
50
61
32
143.53
129.03227.79
167.69
430.15
596.90
0.00
155.20
582.25
167.19204.84
328.06
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 FY07-09
Average
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts p
er
100K
pers
on
nel
Total Incidents Rate
Figure 24
Figure 24 graphs the on duty slip, trip and fall incident numbers and rates per 100,000
personnel from FY00 to present for NECC. Figure 24 tends to mirror Figure 22. As with
the overall rates for NECC slip, trip and fall mishaps, there is a decreasing trend starting
in FY06.
Class A, B, C, and D On Duty Slips, Trips and
Falls - NECC
0
50
100
150
200
250
FY07-09
Average
Rate
FY10
Rate
Rate
Upper 95% CI of Average
Low er 95% CI Average
Figure 25
Figure 25 graphs the three year average rate and the current FY10 rate for on duty slip,
trip and fall mishaps for NECC along with the 95% confidence interval depicted by the
green lines. The current FY10 rate is within the confidence interval indicating no
statistically significant difference amongst the current FY10 rate and the previous three
years rates.
17
Class A, B, C, and D Off Duty Slips, Trips and Falls - NECC
19.33
1218
1723
21
39
6 6
37
76
20
107.6599.71
149.49
148.34
342.36
743.67
72.39 71.63
430.86
121.09115.22
205.04
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 FY07-09
Average
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts p
er
100K
pers
on
nel
Total Incidents Rate
Figure 26
Figure 26 graphs the number and rates for off duty slip, trip and fall mishaps for NECC.
Just like the on duty mishaps, the off duty mishap number and rates tend to mirror Figure
22. When statistically comparing the rates from FY02 to FY05 and the rates from FY06
to FY09, again the rates are on a decreasing trend just like the on duty mishaps.
Class A, B, C, and D Off Duty Slips, Trips and
Falls - NECC
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
FY07-09
Average
Rate
FY10
Rate
Rate
Upper 95% CI of Average
Low er 95% CI Average
Figure 27
Figure 27 graphs the 3 year average off duty rate and the current FY10 off duty rate along
with the 95% confidence interval depicted by the green lines. The FY10 rate is within
the confidence interval indicating no statistically significant difference amongst the
current FY10 rate and the previous three years rates. This is the same as the on duty
mishaps.
Navy Civilians
18
Class A, B, C, and D Slips, Trips and Falls - Navy Civlians
42.00
23
434043
57
47
3731
19
2625
21.76
25.41
35.57
27.1228.64
15.45
21.83
18.45
11.15
26.6127.31
14.67
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 FY07-09
Average
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Nu
mb
er
of
Incid
en
ts p
er
100K
pers
on
nel
Total Incidents Rate
Figure 28
Figure 28 graphs the number and rate of slip, trip and fall incidents for Navy civilians
from FY00 to the present. There is an increase in the number of incidents and the rates
beginning in FY05. This increase may be due to the introduction of WESS.
Class A, B, C, and D Slips, Trips and Falls - Navy Civlians
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40F
Y00-0
4
Avera
ge
FY
05 R
ate
FY
06 R
ate
Rate Upper 95% CI of Average Low er 95% CI Average
Figure 29
Figure 29 graphs the 5 year average rate ranging from FY00 to FY04, FY05 rate and the
FY06 rate along with the 95% confidence interval depicted by the green lines. Both
FY05 and FY06 rates are above the confidence interval indicating a statistically
significant increase for both fiscal years. It can be concluded that a statistically
significant increase shift has occurred in FY05 and the confidence interval will be
recalculated.
19
Classes A, B, C and D Electrical Shock - Navy
Civilian
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
FY07-09
Average
Rate
FY10
Rate
Rate
Upper 95% CI of Average
Low er 95% CI Average
Figure 30
The rates from FY06 through FY09 level off and remain relative consistent over that time
period. However, there is a dip in the rate in FY10 as is evident in Figure 28. When
statistically comparing the current FY10 rate to the previous three years rates, the current
FY10 rate is statistically significant lower than the previous three years rates. This can be
seen in Figure 30 which graphs the three years average and the current FY10 rate along
with 95% confidence interval. The current FY10 rate is just below the confidence
interval indicating the current rate is statistically significant lower than the previous three
years rates.
TYCOM Comparison
Finally when statistically comparing the slip, trip and fall rates ranging from FY07-09 for
each of the TYCOMs, SUBFOR rates are statistically significantly higher than the other
TYCOMs and the Navy civilian rates. SURFOR rates are statistically significantly
higher than AIRFOR, NECC and the Navy civilian rates.
AGE
SURFOR On Duty Class A, B, C, and D Slip Trip and Fall Mishaps
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Under 25 Ages 25 -35 Ages 36 -45 Ages 46 -55 Over 55
% of Total Mishaps Average % of Navy Population
Figure 31
20
To further analyze slip, trip and fall mishaps, this study will look at the age of injured
Navy personnel. Navy civilian will not be included in the age analysis. Figure 31 graphs
the percentage of total SURFOR on duty mishaps along with the average Navy
population percentages for the different age groups. The percent of total mishaps for the
age of Under-25 years old is above the average percentage of the Navy population.
When statistically comparing this age group to the navy population, personnel under the
age of 25 have a higher probability of being involved in a slip, trip or fall mishap. To
even further breakdown the data, the mishaps are analyzed by event severity
classifications. Again the Under-25 age group is above the average percentage of the
Navy population. In conclusion, personnel under the age of 25 have a higher probability
of being involved in an on duty Class C or D slip, trip and fall mishap.
SURFOR Off Duty Class A, B, C, and D Slip Trip and Fall Mishaps
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Under 25 Ages 25 -35 Ages 36 -45 Ages 46 -55 Over 55
% of Total Mishaps Average % of Navy Population
Figure 32
Figure 32 is the same type of graph as Figure 31 only it graphs off duty Class A, B, C and
D slip, trip and fall percentage of total mishaps along with the average percentage of the
Navy population for each age group over a period ranging from FY05 to present. Figure
32 mirrors Figure 31, with the percentage of total mishaps above the average percentage
of the Navy population for the Under-25 age group. The result is the same when
statistically comparing the two. As with on duty mishaps, it can be concluded that
personnel under the age of 25 have a higher probability of being involved in an off duty
slip, trip and fall mishap.
21
SUBFOR On Duty Class A, B, C, and D Slip Trip and Fall Mishaps
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Under 25 Ages 25 -35 Ages 36 -45 Ages 46 -55 Over 55
% of Total Mishaps Average % of Navy Population
Figure 33
Figure 33 graphs the percentage of total SUBFOR on duty Class A, B, C, and D slip, trip
and fall mishaps and the average percentage of the Navy population over a period ranging
from FY05 to present. The percentages for SUBFOR are nearly the same as with
SURFOR. Over 50% of the on duty slip, trip and fall mishaps involved personnel under
the age of 25. Just as with the SURFOR data, the SUBFOR data is statistically
significant when compared to the Navy population. Again, the conclusion is the same
personnel under the age of 25 have a higher probability of being involved in an on duty
slip, trip and fall mishap.
SUBFOR Off Duty Class A, B, C, and D Slip Trip and Fall Mishaps
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Under 25 Ages 25 -35 Ages 36 -45 Ages 46 -55 Over 55
% of Total Mishaps Average % of Navy Population
Figure 34
Figure 34 is the same graph as depicted in Figure 33 except it graphs SUBFOR off duty
Class A, B, C, and D slip, trip and fall mishaps. This graph differs from the previous
graphs for the fact that both ages Under-25 and Ages 25-35 percentage of total mishaps
are above the average percentage of the Navy population at those age groups. When
statistically comparing the number of mishaps to the navy population for each age group,
the conclusion is the same for the personnel under the age of 25 having a higher
probability of being involved in an on duty Class A, B, C, or D slip, trip and fall mishap.
However, the same conclusion can not be drawn for personnel between the ages of 25 to
35 years old. There is no statistically significant difference amongst the percentage of
22
total mishaps and the average percentage of the Navy population for personnel between
the ages of 25 to 35.
AIRFOR On Duty Class A, B, C, and D Slip Trip and Fall Mishaps
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Under 25 Ages 25 -35 Ages 36 -45 Ages 46 -55 Over 55
% of Total Mishaps Average % of Navy Population
Figure 35
Figure 35 graphs the percentage of total mishaps for AIRFOR on duty slip, trip and fall
mishaps and the average percentage of the Navy population per age group over a period
ranging from FY05 to the present. Nearly 70% of the total on duty slip, trip and fall
mishaps involve personnel under the age of 25. When statistically analyzing the data,
just as with the other TYCOMs, personnel under the age of 25 have a higher probability
of being involved in an on duty slip, trip and fall mishap.
AIRFOR Off Duty Class A, B, C, and D Slip Trip and Fall Mishaps
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Under 25 Ages 25 -35 Ages 36 -45 Ages 46 -55 Over 55
% of Total Mishaps Average % of Navy Population
Figure 36
Figure 36 is the same graph as Figure 34 except it graphs off duty mishaps. Again the
conclusion is the same. Personnel under the age of 25 have a higher probability of being
involved in an off duty slip, trip and fall mishap.
23
NECC On Duty Class A, B, C, and D Slip Trip and Fall Mishaps
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Under 25 Ages 25 -35 Ages 36 -45 Ages 46 -55 Over 55
% of Total Mishaps Average % of Navy Population
Figure 37
Figure 37 graphs the percent of total on duty slip, trip and fall mishaps for NECC and the
average percentage of the Navy population per age group over a period ranging from
FY05 to the present. The age group Ages 36-45 is the one age group that is above the
average percentage of the Navy population. When statistically analyzing the on duty
mishap per age group, personnel between the ages of 36 to 45 have a higher probability
of being involved in an on duty slip, trip and fall mishap.
NECC Off Duty Class A, B, C, and D Slip Trip and Fall Mishaps
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Under 25 Ages 25 -35 Ages 36 -45 Ages 46 -55 Over 55
% of Total Mishaps Average % of Navy Population
Figure 38
In the same manner as the graph above, Figure 38 graphs the off duty slip, trip and fall
mishaps for NECC by age group. The conclusion is the same for NECC as with the other
TYCOMS. Personnel under the age of 25 have a higher probability of being involved in
an off duty slip, trip and fall mishap.
Ladders
2
Slip, Trip and Fall Mishap Rate due to Ladders
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Fiscal Year
Nu
mb
er
of
incid
en
ts p
er
100,0
00
pers
on
nel SURFOR
SUBFOR
AIRFOR
NECC
Figure 39
Figure 39 graphs the rate of incident involving ladders for each TYCOM over a period
ranging from FY05 to present. NECC rates tend to remain relatively consistent over the
time period. SUBFOR rates tend to be on a decreasing trend. SURFOR rates tend to be
on an upward trend starting in FY08. AIRFOR rates are not consistent but tend to
fluctuate up and down during this time period. When statistically comparing the rates
involving ladder to those that do not involve ladder, the rates involving ladder are
statistically significantly lower than those not involving ladders for all four TYCOMs.
SURFOR Class A, B, C and D Slip, Trip and Fall
Ladders
0
50
100
150
200
FY05-07
Average
FY08
Rate
FY09
Rate
FY10
Rate
Upper 95% CI
Low er 95% CI
Figure 40
Figure 40 graphs the SURFOR three year average rate involving ladders ranging from
FY05 to FY07, FY08 rate involving ladders, FY09 rate involving ladders and the FY10
rate involving ladders along with the 95% confidence interval calculated using data from
FY05 to FY07. The FY09 and the current FY10 rates are both above the confidence
interval indicating both rates are statistically significantly higher than the rates from
3
FY05 to FY07. It can be concluded that there is a statistically significant increase shift
beginning in FY09 for slip, trip and fall mishaps involving ladders.
SUBFOR Class A, B, C and D Slip, Trip and Fall
Ladders
0
20
40
60
80
100
FY05-07
Average
FY08
Rate
FY09
Rate
FY10
Rate
Upper 95% CI
Loer 95% CI
SUBFOR Class A, B, C and D Slip,
Trip and Fall Ladders
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
FY05-
09
FY10
Rate
Rate
Upper 95% CI
Low er 95% CI
Figure 41
Although SUBFOR rates for slip, trip and fall mishaps involving ladders seems to be on a
downward trend in Figure 39, statistically the rates for FY08 and FY09 are not
statistically significantly different from the FY05 to FY07 rates. This is evident in the
first graph in Figure 41 which graphs the FY05-07 average rate, the FY08, FY09 and the
current FY10 rates along with the 95% confidence interval calculated from the FY05 to
FY07 data. Both the FY08 and FY09 rates are within the confidence interval indicating
no statistically significant difference. The second graph in Figure 41 graphs the 5 year
average rate involving ladders and the current FY10 rate along with the 95% confidence
interval that is recalculated using the data from FY05 to FY09. In both of the graphs, the
current FY10 rate is below the confidence interval indicating the current FY10 is
statistically significant lower than the previous rates. This may indicate the beginning of
statistically significant shift downward.
AIRFOR Class A, B, C and D Slip, Trip
and Fall Ladders
0
20
40
60
80
100
FY05-
09
FY10
Rate
Rate
Upper 95% CI
Low er 95% CI
NECC Class A, B, C and D Slip, Trip
and Fall Ladders
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
FY05-
09
FY10
Rate
Rate
Upper 95% CI
Low er 95% CI
Figure 42
4
The first graph is Figure 42 shows the 5 year average slip, trip and fall incident rate
involving ladders and the current slip, trip and fall incident rate involving ladders along
with the 95% confidence interval for AIRFOR. The current FY10 rate is below the
confidence interval indicating the current FY10 rate is statistically significantly lower
than the rates from the previous years.
The second graph in Figure 42 graphs the rates for NECC in the same manner as the first
graph for AIRFOR. The current FY10 slip, trip and fall incident rate involving ladders
for NECC is within the confidence interval indicating no statistically significant
difference in the FY10 rate and the rates from the previous years.
Causal Factors
Table 1: Top Causal Factor Per TYCOM
PERSONNEL/HUMAN
FACTORS On Duty Off Duty
Total
% of Total
Mishaps
SURFOR 683 406 1089 97%
SUBFOR 104 115 219 93%
AIRFOR 866 869 1735 96%
NECC 166 119 285 93%
The final analysis of this study focuses on the causal factor for each of the slip, trip, and
fall mishaps identified in WESS. For all four TYCOMs, Personnel/Human Factors is the
causal factor that is identified for over 90% of the total mishaps. Table 1 above the lists
the number of on duty and off duty slip, trip and fall mishap that have identified
Personnel/Human Factors as the causal factor along with the percentage of the total
mishaps for which the causal factor is Personnel/Human Factors for each of the
TYCOMs.
Table 2: Personnel/Human Factors Breakdown Percentage of Total Mishaps per TYCOM
SURFOR SUBFOR AIRFOR NECC
Lack of Attention to Detail 75% 75% 78% 78%
Unsafe Act 16% 12% 11% 10%
To delve further into t he Personnel/Human Factors causal factor, Table 2 list the top two
causal factors broken out from Personnel/Human factors. Lack of Attention to detail and
Unsafe Act are the two top causal factors identified for Personnel/Human Factors for all
four TYCOMs.
