Some organizations use near misses as leading indicators, while others use them as lagging indicators. To understand the difference, let’s first briefly define lagging and leading indicators.The former measure what has already occurred (injuries, days away from work, etc.). The latter measure proactive initiatives to improve safety performance and prevent incidents (training hours, safety meetings, inspections, etc.). An Aberdeen report on leading indicators gives this great description: “Leading indicators assist in improving safety by providing early warning signs of potential failures.”
Regarding the definition of a near miss, I like to use this formula:
Incidents = Accidents (Fatalities + Injuries + Illnesses + Property Damage) + Near Misses
I like this formula because there are still too many instances where incidents and near misses are described as two different things. A near miss is an incident. The difference is, unlike an accident, a near miss is an incident that did not result in a fatality, injury, illness, or property damage. Think about a misplaced hammer that falls on the ground. If it hits the foot of a construction worker and results in injury, it’s an accident. If it misses the worker’s foot, it’s a near miss.
And the Answer Is…
Are near misses lagging or leading indicators? The answer depends on how you use the information. Let’s start with some context from the Campbell Institute’s white paper “Elevating EHS Leading Indicators: From Defining to Designing.” For some research participants, near misses do not provide a clear indication of the state of an organization’s safety management system. If an organization has an increase in near miss reporting, it may simply mean workers are becoming more observant and vigilant. Others argue that near misses, while still events with consequences, can be leading indicators for major incidents resulting in injuries. The whitepaper offers this sound conclusion:
“If the intent is to treat near misses as ‘actual incidents’, especially when it comes to mandatory reporting, the near miss itself can be seen as an event with negative consequences and considered more of a lagging indicator. If the intent of tracking near misses is to find weaknesses in a safety management system and improve organizational safety performance, then near misses become more leading in nature.”
The Aberdeen report on leading indicators makes a good point to help determine if near misses are used as lagging or leading indicators in your organization. The report says, “The most important part of a safety program is to have corrective actions to prevent adverse events from happening again.” If you analyze near misses to identify weaknesses, and implement corrective and preventive action plans to address them, then you are using near misses as leading indicators.
Finally, here’s another question: If you are using near misses as lagging indicators, should you take steps to make them leading indicators instead? Based on your safety performance, industry, or type of occupational hazards, you may decide it is worthwhile to change your safety management practices and leverage near misses as leading indicators.