Unit of Marine Technology and Engineering Accident causation factors in the food industry in...

Unit of Marine Technology and Engineering

Accident causation factors in the food industry in Portugal

Working on Safety – WOS06

The Eemhof, 12-15 Sep 2006

Jacinto, C., Pereira, Z., Canoa, M.,

Fialho, T., Antão, P. and Guedes Soares, C.

Jacinto, C., Pereira, Z., Canoa, M.,

Fialho, T., Antão, P. and Guedes Soares, C.

Presenter: Celeste Jacinto


Objectives

Methodology

Brief characterization of the food sector

Main Results of the study

Conclusions – Proposal of a new variable for “causes”

Overview of presentation


Objectives

This study is part of a wider research project to identify the most relevant causation factors of accidents at work in Portugal.

Aim: finding not only the immediate causes of accidents, but also the organisational and management factors contributing to them

Food & Beverages Sector (in Portugal)

Context and scope


Methodology

“Broad picture” based on national statistics

Insight into causes based on in-depth analysis:

Case–study approach (30 accidents investigated in situ)

Analytical framework: WAIT technique


Analysis method: WAIT technique (standard output table)

Active failures(accident events) Workplace factors Individual and Job factors Organi. & Manag. Conditions

Event 1

Influence A

Influence B

Problem I (individual)

Problem J (job / task)

Problem J (also job)

Condition X

Condition W

Condition Y Condition Z Condition W

Event 2 ………………… …… …………

…………

…… …… ……

Final event

Contact or Mode of injury + Material Agent

HUM, E&B, HAZ, LOR, NAT WPF O&M - 5 groupsThe consequences

Accident at work?

Fatal ? Serious /Reportable?Not reportable?

Near miss?

in-depth analysisbasic investigation

Event …N (= Deviation)

IND + JOB

victim details type of injury part of body days lost

harmonised EUROSTAT variables incorporated in WAIT


Briefing on the Sector

- 9% of national GNP

- more than 105 000 workers

- 8 500 enterprises (~16% of total number of enterprises)

- EU-15: ~13% of total number of enterprises

Food Industry - Economic relevance (FIPA, 2006)


Accident Statistics - National

Year Fatal Non-fatal Trend % Incidence Rate

(per 100 000)

2002 8 9 106

↑15%

7 760

2001 68 251

7 326

2000 177 925

6 811


In-depth analysis of 30 cases• 9 enterprises of different sizes

• Activity: slaughter houses, manufacture of meat products; starch and faculae, bread production; pastry; dairy products; beverages and liquors

• Injured people (interviewed): from both sexes and their ages ranged from 18 - 61 years old.

• Days lost: varied from no days lost to more than 6 months.

• Application of the WAIT Technique:– Active failures (the immediate causes)– Influencing factors – workplace factors (WPF)– The individual and job factors (IND & JOB)– Organizational and Management conditions (O&M)


analysis of 30 cases – active failures

(65%) Human failures

(25%) Equip. & Buildings

Of the human erroneous actions

only 8 were violations(26%)

Active failures by nature (%) (N=48 in 30 accidents at work)

NAT0%

HAZ8%

LOR2%

HUM65%

E&B25%

Violations in HUM Active Failures (N=31)

Violations26%

Optimising0%

Necessary or Exceptional

0%

Routine26%

Not sure10%

No violation or Not Aplicable

64%


analysis of 30 cases – “deviation”Deviation N=30 / last deviant event

D4039%D50

17%

993%

D607%

D803%

D207%

D000%

D100%

D7017%

D307%

"Deviations"

related to humans(n=24 ~ 80%)

Deviation - National Statistics in 2002003%

D7021%

990%

D304%

D100%

D207%

D801%

D4034%

D5019%

D6012%

The Top 3:

D40 – Loss of control: of machine, tool, means of transport or

handling equipment, object, animal (39%)

D50 – Slip, stumbling, fall of persons (17%)

D70 – Body moment under or with physical stress (17%)


analysis of 30 cases – “contact”Contact or Mode of Injury N=30

C3026%

C407%C50

27%

C6013%

C7017% 3%

C200%

C107%

C000%

Contact - National Statistics in 2002

C4014%

C801%

C200%

C106%

C3024%

990%

C7022%

003%

C5021%

C6010%

The Top 3:

C50 – Contact with sharp, pointed, rough Material Agent (27%)

C30 – Horizontal or vertical impact with or against a stationary (26%)

C70 – Physical or mental stress (17%)


analysis of 30 cases – the injuryType of Injury (Top 3)

Class Relative Frequency(%)

C010 – Wounds and superficial injuries 54

C030 – Dislocations, sprains and strains 23

C020 – Bone fractures 13

Part of body injured (Top 3)

Class Relative Frequency(%)

C50 – Upper Extremities 47

C60 – Lower Extremities 13

C30 – Back, including spine and vertebra in the back

13

Top 3(2002)

C010 – 48%

C050 – 12%

C030 – 11%

Top 3(2002)

C50 – 40%

C60 – 22%

C10 – 11%


In-depth analysis – Workplace FactorsDistribution of influencing factors (WPF) (N=121, in 30)

NAI1%

GROUP C36%

GROUP A 15%

GROUP B48%

( A ~ 15%)Work physicalenvironment

( B ~ 48% ) Task/Job-related

( C ~ 36%) Information,

Communication & Equipment

Poor proceduresPoor maintenance

Plant Layout

High workloadMonotonous and repetitive work

Inexperience


In-depth analysis of 30 casesOrganisational & Management Conditions (O&M)

(N=201)

E- Safety-specific

22%

D- Training 20%

C- Technical20%

B- Procedural25%

A-general management

13%

Hiring and placing; management of change

Poor procedures & working practices

Problems with maintenance; design of facilities

Training (either insufficient or badly designed)

Risk assessment & Risk communication


Conclusions (1/3)Sample is not statistically representative, but overall, the results agree

with national statistics (common variables)

contact with sharp, pointed objects (27%) or falls (26%), caused by loss of control of something (39%) resulting in superficial injuries (54%)

on upper and lower extremities (60%)

poor layout, monotonous and repetitive work, inadequate procedures,

high workload, “risk-taking” behaviours

“typical” accident in the sector (Eurostat variables):

The main pitfalls / workplace factors / physical environment:


Conclusions (2/3) The main pitfalls / organisational and management level (O&M):

hiring and placing; poor procedures & supervision

problems with facilities (space & layout);

training (either insufficient or badly designed);

lack of, or superficial assessment of risks

There are differences between SME and large enterprises

on the extension of these problems


Conclusions (3/3)Two specific problem-areas were identified in this Sector

(with negative impact on H&S)

High Seasonality hiring temporary workers without giving them training (or only very basic / insufficient training)

Compliance with HACCP (food hygiene & safety)typically is “top” priority, relegating H&S to second place confusion between HACCP risks and occupational risks


Proposal of a new variable for “causes” Why? better identification of underlying causes – at least at workplace level (WPF)

APhysical working

environment

BTask, job-related

CInformation and

Equipment

- Noise or vibration

- Illumination

- Thermal discomfort

(temperature

extremes, too dry or

too humid)

- Poor housekeeping

- Dangerous place

(confined space)

- Insufficient space,

inadequate layout

etc …

- High task demand /

multiple tasks, or

insufficient time

- Monotonous or

repetitive work

- Irregular working hours

or not the usual ( “on

call”).

- Shift work / night work

- Inexperience / not

familiar with task or

technology, etc …

- Inadequate procedures

- Mislabelling (not

labelled, incorrect,

ambiguous, difficult to

read)

- Ambiguous

communications or

signals between people

- Tolerated “risk taking”

behaviours; complacency

etc …


Research funded by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Portugal – contract PIQS/SOC/50062/2003-FCT.

Acknowledgements

Accident causation factors in the food industry in Portugal

Working on Safety – WOS06 The Eemhof, 12-15 Sep 2006

Celeste Jacinto

Unit of Marine Technology and Engineering Accident causation factors in the food industry in...

Documents

Transcript of Unit of Marine Technology and Engineering Accident causation factors in the food industry in...