This article is interesting enough to read in full, but we’ve not got the time….so here’s a copy of it’s own summary (unedited and in its original format)

How do workers, their material, equipment and workplace relate to construction accidents?

· Problems arising from workers or the work team, especially worker actions or behaviour
and worker capabilities, were judged to have contributed to over two thirds (70%) of the
accidents. This points to inadequate supervision, education and training.

· Poor communication within work teams contributed to some accidents, due to the physical
distance between work colleagues or high levels of background noise.

· In many cases, the accident occurred when those involved were not actually performing a
construction task, but moving around site, for example.

· Workplace factors, most notably poor housekeeping and problems with the site layout and
space availability, were considered to have contributed in half (49%) of the accident studies.
Standards of housekeeping and workplace layout with respect to safety are low in
construction when compared with other industrial sectors.

Despite poor weather often being cited as one of the reasons for construction having a poor safety record, this research found little evidence in support of this.

· Shortcomings with equipment, including PPE, were identified in over half (56%) of the incidents. Poor equipment design and inappropriate use of equipment for the task were prominent aspects of this.
Designers, suppliers and purchasers of equipment appear to give insufficient attention to the safety of users.

· Deficiencies with the suitability and condition of materials, including packaging, featured in more than a quarter (27%) of incidents. The operation of the supply/purchase chain at present appears to act as a barrier to innovation as far as safety is concerned.

· Originating influences, especially inadequacies with risk management, were considered to have been present in almost all (94%) of the accidents.

· Frequently, no risk assessment had been undertaken covering the circumstances involved in the accident. Where a risk assessment had been carried out, it was often found to be superficial and unlikely to have prevented the accident.

· It appears that PPE is relied upon habitually as a substitute for risk elimination or reduction at source.

· It was judged that up to half of the 100 accidents could have been mitigated through a design change and it was found that, despite CDM, many designers are still failing to address the safety implications of their designs and specifications.

Reference
Loughborough University and UMIST (2003) Research Report 156 : Causal factors in construction accidents cited in Recent Construction Specific Research (2015) http://www.hse.gov.u…es/research.htm(downloaded February 2015)