STEP ONE…How to analyze the OSHA-300 injury records: 

(see www.osha.gov for details on this form)

All companies must keep an OSHA 300 log, recording their injury claims.  It is a simple record to understand and analyze. 

We look at the OSHA 300 log for the current year plus the two previous years so we may identify ongoing trends.

We first seek out those claims that relate to MSD... neck-arm MSD’s, then lower back MSD’s. 

We seek the number of REPORTED CLAIMS, LOST TIME CLAIMS, LOST TIME DAYS, RESTRICTED DUTY CLAIMS, RESTRICTED DUTY DAYS.   These are data very easy to identify from the OSHA-300 log.

These data can suggest implications as to types of problems (safety, reportability, policy, case management, attitude, etc.)  the company may have.

This log lists in its columns these data: worker name; job title; injury description; check if lost time; number of days lost; check if restricted duty; number of days restricted. 

Identify those listed injuries pertaining to low back and neck-arm MSD.  These are CLAIMS. 

Then note those claims that lost time.  These are LOST-TIME CLAIMS. 

Count the number of days lost for these problems.  These are LOST DAYS.  Calculate the average days lost per lost time claims, indicating severity. 

Then note those claims that were placed on restricted duty.  These are RESTRICTED DUTY CLAIMS. 

Count the number of RESTRICTED DUTY DAYS.  Calculate the average number of days on restricted duty per claim. 

Record these numbers on a table to illustrate your findings. 

Now... what do these data imply? 

What conclusions or suspicions may be drawn from the numbers.   These is a potential wealth of information here.  Here is how we analyze and assess.

Note the number of total MSD claims versus the number of lost time MSD claims.  Are there plenty of claims but very few lost time claims?  That is generally good, implying that reporting is encouraged, with claims reported early enough to manage them without lost work days.   But if most claims end up as lost time claims, this implies claims are not made until they are bad enough to cause lost work days, or there is typically conflict that drives the worker out of work, or there is inadequate restricted duty availability to keep the worker on some job, or the medical community and the company do not cooperate for rehabilitation of the worker.   There are several possible problems to consider.   Further interviews with affected parties in the workplace will likely clarify what the number actually mean at your workplace.

Look at the number of MSD lost days.  Only a few lost days per lost-time claim indicates early reporting, good early intervention, available restricted duty, good medical management, rehabilitative policies, and cooperative attitudes.   High lost days per claim imply lack of restricted duty, hostile attitudes, resistive policies, poor medical management.  Many companies have a 100 percent policy: that is, the injured employee cannot come back to work until 100 percent able to do the job without complaint.  This policy is a problem; it costs big $$ and way too much suffering!

Look at restricted duty claims and days.  Lots of lost time claims but very few on restricted duty indicates non-availability of restricted duty, for whatever logistical or political reasons, or a punitive atmosphere for those on restricted duty.  Many days on restricted duty indicates poor management of restricted duty, placed and then forgotten.

Put all these numbers on a graph or grid to get a concise but clear picture.  You may be surprised at what you learn.   This may then call for a discussion among parties as to what you see and what should be done for interventions.

One other note... all this assumes your OSHA 300 data is being honestly and legally recorded!!   We have encountered problems with this at some workplaces... presenting a whole new issue!

What are good numbers? 

We cannot point to research studies that precisely give us this answer.  But we can point to the experience of our clients.  One large food-manufacturing corporation with several factories throughout the US aggressively implemented comprehensive prevention tactics from our No-Lost-Time program.  They experienced excellent success in reducing all their numbers.  So we use their final numbers a reasonable targets to identify “good” numbers.  They showed, once these efforts were implemented, an average number of eight lost days per lost time claim.  Workers who ended up on restricted duty demonstrated an average nine days on restricted duty.   We, therefore, suggest these as good numbers to strive for.   And here are more suggested targets based on workplace success stories...

A.Claims

The number of claims is not a valid measure of safety, taken all by itself. Is reporting of  pain problems encouraged, discouraged, penalized?   Many companies pressure supervisors to have no clams.  This pressure can lead to false record-keeping rather than no claims.  We want claims, reporting as early as possible, so we can fix the worker and the risks.   Do not use claims as the yardstick for safety!!  Lost time is the better measure.  Incentive programs to have zero claims are not appropriate.  It is better to strive for No-Lost-Time.

B.Lost time claims

What proportion of claims become lost-time claims? The goal should be less than 20-25% of claims ending up as lost time claims.  When more than 25% of claims become lost time claims we must ask: Are injuries severe?  Is reporting delayed and, thus, injuries severe at time of report?  Are workers with claims harassed and thus seek to be taken out of workplace to avoid hassles on the job?  Do your community’s physicians improperly take all injured workers out of work until healed?     These physicians may not understand to importance of restricted duty as a recovery strategy.  Is there a history of conflict between the physicians and the workplace over injured worker management?  We have seen this issue virtually crush some workplaces.   Several political issues may be at fault.

C.Lost time days per lost time claim

This reflects severity of injuries, or severity of counter-productive company policies, or poor medical management, or lack of restricted duty, (cannot return to work until 100% recovery?).  See item B above

D.Restricted duty claims

Is restricted duty available?  Is it punitive?  Are workers harassed, so they avoid restricted duty? Do department budget rules inhibit restricted duty program? Lack of restricted duty or ineffective restricted duty policies or conflict over restricted duty can increase these problems.

E. Restricted duty days per restricted duty claim

Are workers put on restricted duty then forgotten?   RD should be an actively progressive process.   Lack of medical oversight or lack of workplace skills at managing and progressing workers on restricted duty can all increase these numbers to unmanageable levels... resulting in canceling restricted duty policies altogether, increasing costs and lost time.

These numbers may create a preliminary picture of what problems the company may have.  We can guess at the implications.  But we do not reach conclusions until we go into the workplace to look at jobs, talk to workers and supervisors to get a full picture of the workplace issues.  There may be ignorance and mis-management of injuries in the workplace, mis-management by the medical community,  hostile political conflicts over injuries, counter-productive policies, etc.

Your analysis of your OSHA 300 logs is an essential part of any “ergonomics” or MSD prevention program.  Ergonomics or stretching or whatever prevention tactics you may employ will not be effective unless these issues are examined and addressed.