The things that hurt people are not the same as the things that kill people: Key differences in the proximal causes of low- and high-severity construction injuries

The safety profession has been shaped by the assumption that there is a fixed ratio of low- to high-severity injuries and the notion that injuries of all severity levels share the same general causes. There is now very strong empirical evidence that this ratio is not fixed, which has led to a new hypothesis that serious injuries and fatalities (SIFs) happen for different reasons than lower-severity injuries and the idea that a targeted approach is needed for SIF prevention. To better understand this phenomenon, this study explored the question: what, if anything, is different about the causes of SIFs? To answer this question, a research team of construction safety experts and academics hypothesized seven factors that may be unique to high-severity injuries. Concurrently, details of serious injuries and fatalities (SIF, n=13), potential serious injuries and fatalities (PSIF, n=12), and low-severity injuries (LSI, n=13) were collected from utility, oil and gas, commercial, pipeline, and specialized construction trades. Blind to each injury outcome, the team assessed the presence or absence of the seven potential differentiators. The samples were then compared using Fisher's exact test to determine if any factors explained the differences among the injury types. Although there were no differences between SIF and PSIF cases, two factors differentiated LSI and PSIF/SIF: (1) absent direct controls; and (2) absent or not followed work plan. Surprisingly, no human factors were significant. The results indicate that the control of high-energy hazards through effective work planning, discipline, and execution is vital for targeting SIFs, supporting the theory that a differentiated approach is needed to avoid the concerning plateau in the rate of construction fatal injuries.