SAFETY SCIENCE
Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
The classi®cation of accident data
M. Lortie*, P. Rizzo
Biological Sciences, Universite du QueÂbec aÁ MontreÂal, PO Box 8888, Station Centre-ville, MontreÂal,
QueÂbec, Canada H3C 3P8
Received 7 November 1996; accepted 14 July 1998
Abstract
The objectives of this paper were to document how accident data are usually classi®ed,
whether this system makes it possible to classify all the data contained in the accident reports,
and to examine the classi®cation problems encountered. The ®rst part reviews the variables
retained and descriptors used by the accident studies published over the past 10 years. This
synopsis showed that the types of data considered and the manner in which they were classi®ed varied greatly between the studies. Data on the accident circumstances (e.g. activity and
incidents) were seldom considered, while accident and injury data were extensively analyzed.
The second part analyzes the vocabulary and data reported by injured handlers in 580 accident descriptions. Possible grouping vocabulary strategies were explored and the importance
of the implicit nature of data was evaluated. This revealed that the vocabulary used by the
injured was both rich and variable. For example, over 80 terms were used to describe one
activity. While some grouping strategies to classify data could be developed for the worksite
or incidents, it was particularly dicult to identify a logic for grouping activity data. Also, the
analysis showed that many important data are of an implicit nature. A literal or automatic
classi®cation of terms may, therefore, lead to signi®cant biases. Furthermore, although data
on incidents were frequently reported, this type of data is generally disregarded by most
accident studies. Finally, the paper discusses various classi®cation problems that emerged.
# 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Accident; First accident report; Classi®cation; Incident; Activity
* Corresponding author.
0925-7535/99/$Ðsee front matter # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S092 5-7535(98)0005 3-8
32
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
1. Introduction
Industrial accidents are very costly. For example, in Quebec, 127 883 compensatable work accidents were reported in 1995 for a direct cost of nearly $1.2 billion
(CSST, 1995). An understanding of the underlying causes of accidents is essential for
their prevention. As pointed out by Larsson (1990c) and the EUROSTAT task force
(Clarke et al., 1992), the actual collecting of accident information is insucient to
meet prevention objectives. In fact, several models have been proposed to extensively analyze accident circumstances (e.g. KjelleÂn and Larsson, 1981; Harvey, 1984;
La¯amme, 1988) in order to develop pertinent preventative actions. However, these
models rely on detailed post-accident investigations, while prevention strategies in
industry are often based on the retrospective analysis of brief accident reports,
usually completed following the injury.
These brief reports are used to build national statistics or to provide an analytical
focus on a speci®c industry, sector or job. Knowledge of a sector or job usually
allows for more sophisticated analyses. In the ®rst case, several studies have already
dealt with the di€erences between the systems, from de®ning what an accident
is (for more extensive reference and review see Clarke and Glendon, 1988; Clarke
et al., 1992), to examining the loss of information tied to how accidents are classi®ed. For example, the task force indicated the diculty in comparing falls
from heights because not every system di€erentiates falls from the same height;
some include falls from vehicles, others do not. However, their main focus was the
harmonization of statistics among countries rather than data extraction from accident reports. Which data can be extracted, how it can be organized, and the problems encountered in analyzing them are issues which are rarely discussed.
Moreover, Strandberg (1985) and Manning et al. (1988) have shown that some
types of accidents, in particular the loss of balance, were long underreported in
accident studies due to a classi®cation bias. Since only the event immediately preceding the injury was generally retained, earlier events in the accident chain,
describing a loss of balance, were lost in the classi®cation system. However, the
results of accident analysis are widely used to justify not only prevention but also
research orientations. Thus, system harmonization is only one of several problems
to be solved.
In addition, various published studies usually present only the ®nal results of the
classi®cation analysis. The scope of data actually contained in accident records and
the reasons for classifying the data in a particular manner are seldom mentioned. On
the whole, little attention has been paid to establishing a topology of problems
associated with this analysis or to possible classi®cation strategies.
The ®rst objective of this paper was to document how data were extracted from
accident reports and whether the retained variables could cover the overall data
present in these descriptions. The second objective was to document the classi®cation problems encountered. First, studies published on accident data covering the
past 10 years were reviewed (Part 1). Subsequently, a typical accident database was
analyzed in order to document the type of facts or events reported, how they could
be structured, and the classi®cation problems encountered (Part 2).
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
33
2. Part 1: Review of the accident analysis studies
2.1. Methodology
2.1.1. Selection of material
Initially, eight major journals (Ergonomics, Journal of Occupational Accidents/
Safety Science, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Journal of Safety
Research, Journal of Occupational Medicine, Occupational Medicine, Applied
Ergonomics, and British Journal of Industrial Medicine) were systematically
reviewed over a 10-year period (1986±1995) to identify studies analyzing accident
reports (n=72). Studies centered primarily on vehicle accidents, and fatalities were a
priori excluded. Secondly, only studies centered primarily on the analysis of accident
circumstances and using ®rst injury records or national databases were retained.
Studies focusing on non-occupational accidents (n=2), analyzing data obtained
mainly through detailed investigative-type questionnaires or interviews (n=17), and
dealing primarily with injury and ®nancial data (n=16) were excluded. Five studies
using a brief questionnaire, similar in format to a typical accident record, were
nevertheless included for a total of 37 articles.
2.1.2. Analysis performed on the selected studies
The articles were pooled into two groups based on whether the study used the
original accident reports or data already encoded through a national database system [e.g. SDS (Supplementary data system), ISA (Information system on accidents)]. Studies in both groups were also sub-divided into three categories according
to whether the main results presented covered all accident types, predominantly
musculo-skeletal type accidents (e.g. overexertion, manual handling, back injuries)
or speci®c accident types other than the previous one (e.g. falls).
The principal study characteristics (number of data ®les analyzed, target population, main focus of the studies) and the retained variables are presented in Table 1.
These variables refer essentially to the accident circumstances (site of the accident,
the worker activity, other) and to the injury/accident process (injured body part,
nature of injury, type of injury, source of injury, cause of injury, cause of accident,
type of accident, agency of the accident). In some cases, references have been made in
the result section to data corresponding to variables not presented in the methodology
section. Only those variables de®ned in the methodology section were retained.
2.2. Results
As can be seen from Table 1, and as was expected, no variable was systematically
used since the studies had di€erent objectives; some presented a general overview of
the accident situation, others focused on a speci®c type of injury/accident.
2.2.1. Accident site variables
In 24 of the 37 studies reviewed, at least one variable referred to the accident site.
In 17 of these, the work site was used as an independent variable to stratify worker
208
736
154
597
178
23 901
662
442
712
416
Larsson (1990b)
Norrish and Cryer (1990)
Harker et al. (1991)
La¯amme et al. (1991)
Al-Arrayed and
Hamza (1995)
Lortie (1987)
Niskanen and
Lauttalammi (1989)
Brun (1990)
Yassi et al. (1995)
417
Sullivan and Shimizu (1988)
Waller et al. (1989)
451
No. of
®les
Doyle and Conroy (1988)
Based on accident descriptions (21)
Study
nursing, tertiary
care hospital
electric utility
construction
industry
orderlies;
geriatric
hospital
various
industries
engine
workshops
various
industries
commercial
®shermen
metal workers
carpenters
law enforcement
person
farming
Target
population
Table 1
Main characteristics of the studies reviewed (headings de®ned in footnote)
2: overexertion
2: back injury
handling
x
x
x
x
2: patient
handling
2: material
handling
x
x
x
x
x
AS
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
WA
x
x
x
I
Variable on accident
circumstances
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Focus of
study
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
NI T M SI I/AC TA AA IB O
Variables on the
injury/accident process
34
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
232
657
395
83
1695
37
314
108
Inancsi and
Guidotti (1987)
Sinks et al. (1987)
Reesal et al. (1989)
Larsson (1990a)
Ma et al. (1991)
Miller (1992)
Larsson and
Rechnitzer (1994)
ToÈrner et al. (1995)
NA
NA
146
Pines et al. (1987)
Conroy (1989)
Oleske et al. (1989)
Based on national databases (16)
109
Olson and
Gerberich (1986)
automotive
parts industry
meat packing
industry
construction
industry
®shing industry
various
industries
farmers
wood-bamboo
furniture
industry
agriculture
welders
various
industries
various
industries
various
industries
1
1
1
3: serious
accident
3: forklift truck
accident
3: machinery
accident
3: mechanical
injury
3: hand injury
3: eye injury
3: cold injury
3: burns
3: traumatic
amputations
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x x
x x
x x
x
(continued overleaf)
x
x
x
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
35
No. of
®les
14 156
16 700
229
NA
26 923
7427
5647
26 450
60 000
38 000
990
8981
Study
Brewer et al. (1990)
Leigh et al. (1990)
O'Connor et al. (1993)
Kisner and
Fosbroke (1994)
Andersson et al. (1990)
Leigh et al. (1991)
Engkist et al. (1992)
Bobick and Myers (1994)
Aghazadeh and
Mital (1987)
Stout-Wiegand (1987)
Oleske et al. (1992)
Cross and
Walters (1994)
Table 1Ðcontd
coal mining
industry
various
industries
various
industries
various
industries
agriculture
nurses' aides
underground
coal mining
various
industries
construction
industry
agriculture
coal mining
various
industries
Target
population
3: vibration
back
3: foot injury
3: forklift trucks
accident
3: handtools
injury
2: sprain/strain
injury
2: overexertion
back accident
2: sprain/strain
back injury
2: overexertion
1
1
1
1
Focus
of
study
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
AS
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
WA
I
Variable on accident
circumstances
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
NI T M SI I/AC TA AA IB O
Variables on the
injury/accident process
36
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
2397
mining
industry
3: contractor
workers
24
x
25
x
3
17 10 2 12
x
13
14
x
x
13 29 8
x
Table headings: AS, accident site; WA, worker activity; I, incidents; NI, nature of injury; T, type; M, mechanism; SI, source of injury; I/AC, injury/accident
cause; TA, type of accident; AA, agency of accident; IB, injured body part; O, other. 1, All accidents; 2, musculo-skeletal injuries; 3, other speci®c focus. NA,
not available.
Total
Blank et al. (1995)
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
37
38
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
populations when comparing accident pro®les. In 12 of them, the site referred only
to the general workplace, such as the type of industrial sector (e.g. agriculture,
mining), while ®ve identi®ed departments/sections within a plant (e.g. diesel vs petrol workshop in automotive plant). Although it could be argued that this type of
variable also refers to the general work activity, it was considered here as a site
variable.
In eight studies the work site was used as a dependant variable, making it possible
to situate the worker within his workplace (e.g. bedroom or washroom on a hospital
ward) at the time of the accident. In three cases, however, no results were presented
on the accident site.
2.2.2. Activity variables
At least one such variable was present in 25 studies. As seen for the work site, an
activity variable was also used to stratify groups, essentially according to worker
occupation, with descriptors proposed by the US Census Bureau of Occupation
Codes or some equivalent (n=19). Fourteen studies considered data referring speci®cally to the activity performed at the time of the accident, eight of them using
both approaches. In most of these cases (11/14), the studies using original accident
reports were the ones which de®ned an activity variable.
It is dicult to establish general trends, since the data were classi®ed according to
di€erent study objectives. As can be seen from Table 2, the importance given to the
work activity varied, the number of de®ned variables varying between one and eight,
with seven studies de®ning at least two. The choice of variable titles was also quite
diversi®ed, with over 17 di€erent titles identi®ed (e.g. activity, main task, handling
operation, construction phase, type of work, handler's actions).
As expected, the descriptors associated with these di€erent variables were also
di€erent: data on handler's actions cannot be grouped in the same way as data on
type of work. However, an attempt was made to classify the descriptors based on
whether they described the task (the general work objectives), a sub-task (a
component of the task), or a speci®c action. Certain descriptors clearly referred to
either the task (e.g. assembling, maintenance, loading/unloading, formwork), the
sub-task (e.g. grinding, cutting, feeding into machine) or the action (e.g. holding
post, push/pull, hold back, pulling arm). In some cases, it was found dicult to
classify the descriptors without a knowledge of their contextual use (e.g. handling
can refer either to a task, a sub-task or an action). In many cases, descriptors of
di€erent natures were grouped under the same variable, rendering the contents
heterogeneous (e.g. equipment used, movement executed). Overall, while everyone
appeared to have developed his own logic for grouping data, this logic was rarely
developed.
2.2.3. Incident variables
Incidental data are the events or facts reported in the accident process that were
either unexpected or unusual to the task being performed; they often constitute the
factor initiating the accident. Only three studies de®ned an incident variable and
only few results were presented.
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
39
Table 2
Variables and descriptors used to classify activity data (n=14)
Authors
Variables de®ned and their descriptors
Olson and Gerberich (1986)
1
1: activities performed at time of injury: routine operations,
unjamming, cleaning, loading/unloading, servicing/ repairing
Lortie (1987)
4
1: handling operation: on-site handling, transfer, lift, installing
in bed
2: action: lift, pull, push, turn, hold back, etc.
3: handling site: bed, chair, other
4: equipment used: quilt, basin
Niskanen and
Lauttalammi (1989)
3
1: construction phase: excavation, foundations, frame and
roof structures, etc.
2: work operation: formwork, concrete reinforcing, heating,
plumbing, etc.
3: activity: manual/carrying, handling in storage, pushing/pulling
Reesal et al. (1989)
1
1: work activity: chipping, grinding metal particles, welding,
cutting, gouging, preparing equipment, air blast, etc.
Brun (1990)
2
1: task: material handling, equipment utilization, ascend/
descend, climb
2: equipment used at time of accident: handtool, ladder, electric
cable, etc.
La¯amme et al. (1991)
8
1: main task: handling, assembling, machining
2: sub-task: moving, carrying, handling, adjusting, ®xing,
tightening
3: movement performed: lift material, lose grip, lose balance,
manipulation of tool
4, 5, 6: object related to main task, sub-task and movement
7: type of task achieved: no examples presented
8: type of duties: no examples presented
Larsson (1990b)
1
1: activity: feeds in/takes out, adjust/cleans machine
Larsson (1990a)
2
1: type of work: woodworking, food processing, farming
2: external agency/activity: forest work, ®rewood production,
timber processing, moving of animals
Leigh et al. (1990)
2
1: type of mining: underground versus open-cut
2: activity: handling, roofbolting, equipment repair, conveyor
work, walking/running
Leigh et al. (1991)
3
1: activity: handling, roofbolting, conveyor work, equipment
repair, metal trades
2: speci®c activity: unassisted lifting, walking, pulling arm
3: type of mining: underground versus open-cut
Ma et al. (1991)
1
1: job task: woodworking operations, material handling,
maintenance
Miller (1992)
1
1: handlers' actions at the time the accident: positioning
post-driver, holding the post upright, checking the post
(continued overleaf)
40
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
Table 2Ðcontd
Authors
Variables de®ned and their descriptors
Blank et al. (1995)
1
1: activity: normal operations, maintenance and repairs,
movements on foot, carrying/lifting
ToÈrner et al. (1995)
1
1: activity: hauling of crawl, shooting of crawl, hawling other
type of gear, climbing/descending ladder or stairs, work in galley,
loading, unloading, repair work/work by the wharf, cleaning
of ship/equipment, etc.
2.2.4. Injury and accident variables
All reported variable titles containing the word `injury' and `accident' were recorded; as seen in Table 3, 26 di€erent titles were identi®ed. In many cases, the same
type of data was referred to by di€erent titles. For example, the descriptors relating
to the variables `nature of injury' and `diagnosis of injury' were identical. The titles
referring to the same data or descriptors were, therefore, grouped together to form
eight sub-groups. They are identi®ed in Table 3 by the most commonly reported
title. For the injury they are the nature, type, mechanism, source and cause; for the
accident they are the cause, type and external agency.
Since most of the studies used American National Standards Institute (ANSI,
1969) codes (voluntarily or involuntarily), at least in some form, the classi®cation
system proposed by the ANSI Z.16.2 standard was used to compare the di€erent
variables de®ned. ANSI is a classi®cation system de®ning categories (equivalent to
the term variable used in this paper), codes and subcodes (equivalent to the term
descriptor used here). In fact, most of the descriptors corresponded to ANSI codes
found under three ANSI categories: the nature of injury, de®ned as the identi®cation
of the injury in terms of its principal physical or more simply medical diagnosis; the
accident type, which identi®es the event directly resulting in the injury; and the
source of injury, which identi®es the object, substance, exposure or bodily motion
which directly produced or in¯icted the injury. Since this was insucient to cover
the descriptors reviewed, three other types of data were identi®ed: the external
agency of the accident, the activity, and the incident data. The latter two di€er from
those previously identi®ed, which were speci®cally de®ned under an activity or incident variable. The present case concerns activity or incident descriptors found under
accident or injury variables.
Two important points emerge from Table 3. First, one given variable may regroup
descriptors clearly referring to di€erent types of data. For example, the descriptors
under the `cause of injury' and `cause of accidents' can refer to the medical diagnosis, the event resulting in the injury, the object in¯icting the injury and/or the
activity at the time of the accident. Second, identical descriptors can also be found
under di€erent variables. For example, descriptors referring to the event resulting in
the injury may be found under 11 di€erent variable titles, belonging to ®ve of the
eight classes of variables identi®ed. Sometimes, authors even used di€erent titles
interchangeably within the same paper. For example, `type of injury' was found to
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
41
Table 3
Variables and data considered for the injury and accident process (n=37)
De®ned variables
Data related to:
Event
Object,
Object, Activity Particular
Medical
diagnosisa resulting equipment, equipment, at the circumstance/
in the
substance substance time of unexpected
events
injurya
in¯icting associated injury
the injurya with the
injury
Related to injury
Nature of injuryb (14)c
Diagnosis of injury (2)
16
Type of injury (11)
6
Mechanism of injury (2)
4
1
2
1
1
1
2
Source of injury (7)
Agency of injury (2)
Material causing injury (1)
Object causing injury (2)
Cause of injury (6)
Event causing injury (1)
Event preceding injury (1)
Action causing injury (1)
Related to accident
Cause of accident (3)
Main event causing
accident (1)
Type of accident (8)
Type of incident (1)
Accident event (1)
12
1
8
4
1
4
3
1
10
Principal external agency (2)
Agency of the accident (2)
Vehicle of energy
transfer (1)
Harmful agency (1)
Handtool type (1)
Equipment/vehicle
involved (1)
Reported machinery/
equipment/material (1)
Equipment or material
used (3)
External agency/
activity (1)
Total
a
b
c
25
28
19
1
1
1
1
13
1
1
15
6
4
Corresponds to the ANSI category: nature of injury, accident type, source of injury.
The most commonly reported title.
Number of studies.
42
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
be used interchangeably with `nature of injury, type of accident or mechanism
of injury'.
2.2.4.1. Injury variables. In the ®rst group, `nature of injury', all the descriptors
referred to the physical characteristics of the injury. Generally, between ®ve or six
ANSI codes or similar expressions were usedÐe.g. fractures, sprains/strains, cuts or
lacerations. The treatment of these data appeared to be very homogeneous.
In the case of `type of injury', no formal de®nition was found in the 11 studies
using this variable. However, the descriptors listed often referred to the ANSI
ones corresponding to either the nature of the injury or to the type of accident.
Between three and six descriptors were generally employed with `contusion, sprain/
strain, fracture, laceration' (nature of the injury), `struck by' and `overexertion'
(accident type) being the most common. In rare cases, the authors added other
terms to those proposed under ANSI codes, such as `manual handling', an activity
descriptor.
The `mechanism of injury' was reported only twice, without being formally
de®ned. The descriptors were also similar to those listed under the ANSI `accident
type'. Additional descriptors also referred either to the activity (e.g. transferring
patient, pushing, pulling) or to incidental events (e.g. technical shortcomings in
equipment, loss of control caused by another person, collapse of equipment).
For the `source of injury', most of the descriptors used were derived from the
ANSI source of injury category. Between ®ve and ten descriptors were generally
used.
As previously indicated, the `cause of injury' was remarkable in the sense that it
grouped together descriptors referring to data of di€erent nature, such as the event
resulting in the injury, and/or the object/equipment involved in or causing the
injury, and/or the medical diagnosis of the injury, and/or the activity performed at
the time of the accident, and/or particular circumstances or unexpected events arising during the execution of the task. No formal de®nition was presented in the studies. However, most studies used standard ANSI codes. Some also combined the
cause and the source in the same descriptor (e.g. struck by ropes). The descriptors
found under the three titles used, `event causing injury, event preceding the injury,
action causing injury', referred primarily to the `main event causing accident', which
corresponds to the ANSI de®nition of `type of accident'.
2.2.4.2. Accident variables. The `cause of accidents' (n=4) essentially grouped
together the same descriptors found under the `cause of injury'. The `type of
accident', de®ned by ANSI as the event which directly resulted in the injury or how
the object or source of injury contacted the person, was considered in ten studies,
under three di€erent titles. Most of the reported descriptors are those outlined in
ANSI codes for accident types, with the terms `falls, overexertion, struck
by/against, caught in/between' being the most commonly used. Some added
other descriptors, such as `cut/laceration, sprains/strains' and `working surface',
descriptors which are also used under other variables such as `the nature and the
source of injury'.
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
43
Finally, the last group, `external agency of the accident' (n=13), proposes similar
descriptors to those used for the source of injury, excepting that here the agent is a
factor in the accident process, which does not necessarily in¯ict the injury. Six of the
13 studies speci®cally recorded the equipment used at the time of the accident, one
included descriptors referring to the characteristics of the working environment (e.g.
unstable, wet ground; ANSI hazardous condition category).
2.2.5. Injured bodypart
An injured bodypart variable was de®ned in most of the studies (29/37), using half
a dozen or so ANSI codes. The majority of the bodypart descriptors were treated
individually. However, in 17 studies some descriptors were grouped. The groupings
of descriptors covering adjacent large body areas (e.g. lower limb vs trunk vs upper
limb), in particular the neck, shoulder and hip joints, were documented and compared to the grouping proposed by ANSI, which groups them under the trunk,
shoulders, chest, back, abdomen and hips. Most of the studies ®rst separated the
back and shoulders from the trunk. When the shoulder was grouped with other
bodyparts it was with the upper limb and/or with the cervical spine (e.g. neck±
shoulder±arm) and/or with the upper part of the trunk (e.g. shoulder±chest±arm).
The hip was mainly grouped with the lower limbs (n=6) and less frequently with the
abdomen area (n=2). The neck was included with the head, back, trunk or shoulder
girdle. Thus, the trunk could include di€erent body parts, the boundaries often
being dictated by the bodyparts which were not treated as separate data. Generally,
the neck, back and shoulders, and occasionally the chest, were treated separately.
Therefore, the trunk per se was mainly considered to be the bodypart inferior to the
back or the front part (e.g. chest, abdomen), not the whole of the body core as
de®ned in ANSI.
2.3. Discussion
The studies reviewed had di€erent objectives and analyzed both original reports
and preclassi®ed data from national databases. Since a variability with respect to the
treatment of the data was expected, comparing these studies to a given standard
would thus have been unjusti®ed. For example, studies catering to sprain/strain
injuries did not de®ne a `nature of injury' variable but instead emphasized data on
activities such as manual handling.
Generally, much emphasis was placed on the data relating to the injury and accident process, the site or activity data being used to stratify the injured workers
according to the type of industry and occupation. Analysis of the data centered on
the accident circumstancesÐmore speci®cally the activity at the time of injury, the
worksite and the incidents were less frequently covered. This focus is far from that
favored in the accident models referred to in the introduction. Essentially, these
investigative approaches are based on the identi®cation of the incidental factors
and/or unusual events that either triggered the accidental process or were associated
with it, as well as a comprehensive understanding of the activity performed at the
time of the accident. As pointed out by Larsson (1990c) and the EUROSTAT task
44
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
force (Clarke et al., 1992), the actual collecting of accident data is insucient to
meet prevention objectives. This is true on both a national and a sectorial basis. This
review shows that little attention is paid to the characterization of incidents or
activities. When using original accident reports few variables were designed to cover
activity data. In addition, the variability in the treatment of these data was such that
comparisons between studies were impossible.
As shown, ANSI codes were used in some form or other by most of the studies,
either voluntarily or involuntarily. This standard was sponsored in part by the
National Safety Council in the 1960s to provide a method of recording key facts
about work accidents in a form that could be analyzed to show general patterns of
the accident process. It was not the objective of the summaries either to indicate
speci®c accident prevention measures that should be taken or to record faults or
responsibilities. The standard de®nes eight categories: nature of injury, part of body
a€ected, source of injury, accident type, hazardous condition, agency of the accident, agency of accident part, and unsafe acts. The ®rst four categories were mentioned in the results section above. The hazardous condition classi®cation identi®es
the hazardous physical condition or circumstances which permitted or occasioned
the occurrence of the accident type (e.g. defects of agencies, environmental
hazards). The agency of the accident identi®es the object, substance or premises in
or about which the hazardous condition existed (e.g. ladders, conveyors). The
agency part is a speci®c of the agency. The unsafe act classi®cation identi®es violations of a commonly accepted safe procedure which directly permitted or occasioned the occurrence of this accident type (e.g. operating or working at unsafe
speeds). No paper retained similar variables to these last four. Also, as a system
intending to cover all accidents in all sectors, the list of codes (three digits) is of
course far more extensive than the one used in the quoted papers. However, most
papers used the same codes.
Even though similar codes or descriptors were used, in particular for the nature of
injury, injured bodypart, source of injury and accident type, their groupings were
variable. Also, many studies added other descriptors, sometimes of a similar nature,
sometimes conceptually di€erent. Few provided an explanation for the chosen classi®cation strategy. Grouping various types of data together, as in the cause of injury
may in fact have been an attempt to more e€ectively identify the accident circumstances by combining the ANSI `accident type' descriptors with those referring to
the activity and to the incidents.
The European task force, referred to in the introduction, compared how
occupational accidents were reported in 12 European countries. Only three
variables dealing the accident description material were gathered from nine or
more countries: the body parts (12), the type of injury (11), and the source
of injury (9). Therefore, anyone interested in accidents has no choice but to
develop other classi®cation systems. Unfortunately, between the investigative
models and national statistics proposals, there are few systematic proposals of
classi®cation system that would met the intermediate needs. As indicated
previously, this leads to fewer proposals and subsequent problems in comparing
studies results.
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
45
3. Part 2: Analysis of the data contained in a series of accident reports
3.1. Methodology
3.1.1. Study material
The material consisted in 580 accident reports involving manual material handlers. The main task of these handlers was to load and unload goods from vans. Subtasks involved driving lift trucks and handling various equipment or structural elements (e.g. changing the fork on the lift truck or installing the plate joining the dock
to the van). The accident reports, which were completed either by the foreman or
health and safety department employees, were literal transcriptions of the accident
process as described by the injured worker. Only those reports completed in French
(the large majority) were retained. However, they contained many English terms,
which is common in industry. These reports varied from being very brief to very
detailed. This database has already been analyzed to identify the main accident
pro®les (Lortie et al., 1996). This present study focused on the vocabulary and the
manner in which the accidents were reported by the workers.
3.1.2. Data analyzed
As reported in Part 1, most of the studies use similar descriptors for the injury,
accident and bodypart variables (e.g. accident type, nature of injury). Attention was,
therefore, focused on data describing the accident circumstances. All the terms or
expressions characterizing the worksite, the activity/object handled and the incidents
were systematically recorded. The worksite corresponds to any data making it possible to identify the worker geographically with respect to his activity. This could
include terms referring to various areas of the workplace (e.g. dock, van) or to a
piece of equipment (e.g. to be standing on a forklift truck). The handling activity
refers to what the handler was doing at the time of the accident, which implies both
an action verb (e.g. lift, push) and its direct complement or the object of the action,
generally the handled object. The incidental data includes any reported unexpected
or unusual event, in function of the work process. In this case, the events were generally reported using short sentences most often consisting of three or four words.
3.1.3. Analysis performed
3.1.3.1. Frequency and variation in vocabulary or phrases used. All di€erent terms/
phrases referring to one of these four types of data, i.e. the work site, the activity,
the object of activity and the incident, were recorded. The number of terms referring
to the same type of data for each accident description (intra-description) and for the
whole of the database (inter-description) were recorded. For example, the following
description ``while loading the van, I lifted the plate and I forced'' contains two
activity terms (loading, lifted), one handled object (plate), one site term (van) and
one incident term (I forced).
3.1.3.2. Possible grouping strategies for the terms recorded. As the recorded vocabulary was highly variable, di€erent strategies of grouping for the four data categories
46
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
were explored. First, synonyms were identi®ed. Second, terms that either were used
indi€erently (e.g. pop, van) or were essentially a speci®c of another term (e.g. van,
trailer, semi-trailer) were grouped together. Since this covered only a limited number
of situations additional grouping strategies were explored, which are explained in
the results section.
3.1.3.3. Contextual signification of the terms used. The goal was to determine whether
the meaning of a given term varied in the function of the context in which it was
used. The underlying question being: could a term be classi®ed independently of its
context? This analysis was performed for the handling activity terms only. The
context was de®ned as being the verb's direct object, essentially the handled object.
First, the identi®ed complements were grouped into ®ve classes based on whether
they referred to: a group of diversi®ed merchandise (e.g. to load the van), a group or
a sequence of a same object (e.g. to pile boxes), one given object (e.g. to tilt a drum),
handling equipment, or other objects (e.g. to lift the door). Second, these same
complements were regrouped in function of some of their descriptive characteristics
(e.g. heavy or large objects, objects cylindrical in form). In each step it was noted
whether the activity verb was used exclusively for a given class. Finally, the complements reported with the verbs `lift' and `slip' were speci®cally analyzed, since they
are frequently considered in the literature.
3.1.3.4. Analysis of the explicit and implicit nature of the data. Certain data are
implicit in the sense that they are not actually written down but they can be deduced
from the accident description. Two cases of implicit data were considered. In the
®rst, the data was deducible from another category of data. For example, in `handler
is loading merchandise', the activity data makes it possible to deduce that the
worker is inside the van, i.e. it provides work site data. In the second case, data are
explicitly reported, but their interpretation or meaning is implicit. For example, in
`handler used excessive force to lift the plate (joining the van to the shipping dock)',
which describes a incident, it can be deduced that the plate was either jammed or
defective. Of course, these analyses imply a minimum, yet not extensive, knowledge
of the workplace. Therefore, the portion of the accident descriptions which allowed
for implicitly deducing other data were extracted.
3.2. Results
3.2.1. Variability of the vocabulary used
The workers used a very extensive vocabulary when describing their accidents. 41
and 84 di€erent terms were used to describe the accident site and the activity,
respectively. From the 84 activity terms recorded, 61 referred speci®cally to manual
handling activity. Other terms mainly described worker displacements or other
marginal activities. One hundred di€erent phrases/terms were used to describe an
incident and 134 di€erent handled or manipulated objects were recorded (Appendix
A). As can be seen from Table 4 a term referring either to the accident site or to the
activity was reported in nearly 90% of the accident reports, while a term or phrase
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
47
Table 4
Frequency analysis of the vocabulary reported for the di€erent types of data
Type of data
Accident site
Activity
Handling objects
Incidenta
a
No. of
di€erent terms
reported
Percentage of
reports with at
least one term
Percentage of
reports with more
than one term
41
84
135
100
86
90
76
63
34
23
20
28
Can be short locutions.
describing the handled object or an incident was used in 76 and 63% of the cases,
respectively. Moreover, for all four data categories, 20±34% of the reports
contained at least two terms or phrases referring to the same category. In the case of
the `site' and `activity', the second term generally served to specify the ®rst (e.g. load
truck and lift box), whereas for the `incident' variable, the second phrase was often
the result of the ®rst (e.g. the ¯oor was icy and I slipped; the plate was jammed and I
forced). In the case of the handled objects, one object was usually reported except
for the following two situations. The ®rst describes situations in which the object
and equipment were handled together (e.g. drum handled with drum buggy). The
second, and most frequent, describes situations in which a dual term was used to
describe the object, usually one term referring to the object, the other to a characteristic (e.g. bundle of steel, crate of glass).
3.2.2. Grouping of the reported terms
Obvious grouping strategies were ®rst identi®ed. Certain terms, English and
French synonyms, represented between 5 and 10% of the terms reported for each
data category (e.g. dock and quai, warehouse and entrepoÃt, bundle and paquet, crate
and caisse, drum and baril). Some terms were also clearly used interchangeably (e.g.
dock and warehouse, reel and rim, drum and 45 gallons). Terms which were merely
a speci®c of another term, such as di€erent models of motorized handling equipment
or trailers (e.g. van, trailer, semi-trailer), were also considered as equivalents.
Therefore, even though 41 `work site' terms were reported, they could be easily be
regrouped into a few di€erent sites as shown in the Appendix AÐfor instance, the
dock, dock-van junction, van, or motorized handling equipment. Moreover, since
few could be considered as obviously equivalent in the case of an activity or incident,
other grouping strategies were explored.
In the case of the activity it was dicult to identify one logical basis for sorting,
the major reason being that the terms changed meaning depending on the object
handled. Despite this polysemantism (which will be developed later), some grouping
was attempted. A ®rst grouping was based on whether the term referred to the goal/
objective to be performed (e.g. pile up, load, unload, move, replace, reload) or to a
speci®c action or object displacement (e.g. push, pull, turn, tilt, roll, hold). A second
attempt was based on whether or not the handled objects maintained continuous
48
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
contact with the surface during the handling process, (e.g. drag, slide, pivot, roll,
pull vs throw, carry, deposit, pile). Other possibilities explored were based on the
phase of the handling process (e.g. pick-up, transport/transfer, deposit) or the spatial context of handling (e.g. `to gather' refers to the ground while `hang' refers to a
certain height). None of these groupings allowed for a classi®cation of the majority
of the activity terms.
In the case of the handled objects an initial simple grouping distinguished between
the nature of the objects, i.e. whether they were goods, structural elements, manual
equipment, or parts of motorized equipment. It was also easy to di€erentiate the 105
terms describing goods as boxes and objects other than boxes. As the latter represented most of the objects reported, possible grouping strategies were tested to
identify sub-classes of goods. Strategies were based on grouping the goods based on
their physical shapes/characteristics, (e.g. long, cylindrical, voluminous, bundle,
stackable objects). However, it was dicult to group the terms under these
sub-classes since many objects possessed more than one of the de®ned qualities. For
example, a bundle of pipes may be grouped according to its characteristic `bundle'
or its format `long'.
In the case of incidents a ®rst trial consisted in classing the terms into two main
categories depending on whether they described external/environmental factors or
activity related factors. As shown in Table 5, it was possible to de®ne a typology
that allowed for some logical classi®cation. The terms describing the incidents related to the working environment could be grouped according to some typology for
dysfunctioning, i.e. objects/equipment that were either defective or not as they were
planned to be, unusual or atypical ¯oor conditions, dicult access conditions and
instabilities of either the handling equipment or the merchandise (e.g. a buggy that
moved while unloading goods, a box that fell). The incidents related to the activity,
as numerous as the previous ones, could also be regrouped into di€erent classes
according to the nature of the incident, such as a problem controlling an item of
merchandise, loss of balance, an unusual e€ort, an error or omission by another
person. Most data could be ®tted into one of these classes. The question as to whether to group the terms under activity or environment categories is debatable and
will be dealt with in the discussion. As previously mentioned, two incidents may be
reported, one often being the consequence of the other (e.g. the van advanced, the
worker lost balance). This grouping strategy does not di€erentiate between cause
and consequence. However, the description usually makes it possible to identify the
relationship between the reported incidents. This data was implicit.
3.2.3. Contextual signi®cation of the terms recorded
As stated in the methodology, the handled objects were ®rst grouped into ®ve
large classes to verify the importance of the exclusivity of the terms. As can be seen
from Table 6, 23 of the 61 handling terms were used exclusively in association with
one class. For example, 15 terms were used only when referring to a single object
(e.g. to roll, to pivot, to pull). However, the 23 terms were found in less than 5% of
all the accident descriptions, non-speci®c terms such as `loading, unloading' being
used the most often. Loading or unloading was used to refer to the overall task
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
49
Table 5
Groupings of the incident related terms and phrases
Related to working environment
Related to the activity
1. Defectiveness
(a) Breakages of merchandise (e.g. wrapping
broke, bag pierced)
1. Diculty in controlling merchandise
(a) Explicitly reported (e.g. I dropped a pole)
(b) Defective or poor functioning of
equipment (e.g. plate was jammed)
(b) Implicitly reported (e.g. furniture piece
tilted during manouvre)
(c) Protruding object (e.g. piece of wood
with nail on it)
2. Floor conditions presenting diculties
2. Errors or ommisions performed by/with another
person
(a) Related to coordination (e.g. partner lifted
too fast)
(a) Slippery ¯oor (e.g. oil on the ¯oor)
(b) Objects on ¯oor (e.g. stepped on piece
of wood)
(b) With contact (e.g. X backed up with lift truck
and hit me)
(c) Holes in the ¯oor (e.g. hole on the
¯oor of the van)
(c) Without contact (e.g. X forgot to place junction
plate)
(d) Instable surface (e.g. the van advanced)
3. Instabilites
(a) Horizontal (e.g. buggy moved)
3. Unusual e€ort
(a) Explicitely reported (e.g. forcing to lift
merchandise)
(b) Vertical (e.g. a box fell)
4. Working space presenting particular
diculties
(a) Lack of space (e.g. I was squeezed between
two desks while unloading)
4. Loss of balance
(b) Dicult to access goods (e.g. box stuck
between two rolls)
(b) As a consequence of (e.g. placed foot in
hole and fell)
(a) Without apparent reason or explanation
Table 6
Exclusivity of the associations in function of the nature of the object handled
Classe of complements
No. of terms
associated to complement
No. of terms
associated exclusively
Group of various goods
Group/series of the same object
One given object
Equipment handled
Other
5
22
47
11
11
2
2
15
2
2
Total
96
23
50
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
(e.g. I was loading a van), to a series of the same object (e.g. loading tires) or to a
speci®c object (e.g. loading a drum). In a second attempt, the handled objects were
grouped according to some of their physical characteristics (e.g. stackable, heavy or
voluminous, cylindrical in form). Only 12 terms were found referring to a speci®c
characteristic (e.g. pile up, unpile, manoeuvre, roll), representing approximately
10% of the total accidents. Therefore, few terms appeared to have a speci®c
meaning.
As the terms `lift' and `slip' were frequently reported, their utilization was more
speci®cally analyzed. This analysis showed that both terms may have had several
meanings, as indicated in Table 7. Slip could refer to a loss of balance, to a displacement of an object or to a handling action. (In French, `slip and slide' are both
translated by the same word, `glisser'). The term lift, even though it always referred
to a handling process, could describe very di€erent types of handling actions (e.g. to
lift a drum, which mainly means to tilt or roll the drum; to lift a box). Therefore, in
both cases, an understanding of the context was needed to correctly interpret the
meaning of the word.
3.2.4. Implicit nature of the data
Data on the accident site, the activity and the incident could be deduced from the
accident descriptions in 30, 7 and 25% of the cases, respectively. With respect to the
work site, it was generally the reported activity that made it possible to deduce
Table 7
Possible meanings of the terms `lift' and `slip'
Context of usage
Meaning
Slip
I slipped on the deck
a loss of balance
The box slipped from above
the box moved and eventually fell
The buggy slipped
describes that the buggy moved horizontally when in it was
expected to remain ®xed
In laying down the box,
it slipped
implicitly implies a problem in the deposit phase
Slip the boxa
means to slide the box by pushing or pulling it
Lift
Lift a box
implies a complete displacement of an object usually performed in
three phases: pick-up, transfer and deposit
Lift a bundle of pipes
may refer to an object that is partially lifted and then pulled
Lift a barrel with a buggy
describes the nature of the load transfer, which consists of inserting
the buggy underneath the barrel and then to tilt it
Lift a junction plate
to pivot the plate; this is accomplished by pulling the plate, which is
fastened to a hinge, towards oneself
a
In French `glisser la boite' means to slip or slide the box.
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
51
where the worker was located. For example, `lifting the plate' implies that the
worker was close to the exterior door of the dock. As for the `activity', sometimes an
inference could be made from the object handled. For example, `lift a barrel' actually means to tilt it. In the case of incidents it was generally the data from both the
activity and the event causing the injury that permitted an inference. The loss of
control while handling objects is a typical example of such an inference. For
instance, ``while handling a gas cylinder with a trolley, my hand was caught in
between the trolley and the cylinder'', refers implicitly to a problem controlling the
handled object. As a fact, a direct reference to ``I had a control problem'' was rare.
Less frequently, it was the meaning of the reported incident that was implicit. For
example, ``I fell between the dock and the van'' refers implicitly to the fact that the
plate joining the dock to the van was not in place.
3.3. Discussion
Substantially more data on the accident circumstances were identi®ed in this analysis compared to that set out in Part 1. Assuming that these accident reports were
not qualitatively atypical, it can be acknowledged that a certain loss of data occurs
during the analysis of accident descriptions. This is particularly the case for data
pertaining to an activity or an incident.
The activity at the time of the accident was considered by less than half the studies, which generally retained less than ®ve descriptors. In this database, 84 di€erent
terms, 61 of which referred to manual handling alone were recorded. These terms
appeared to be highly informative. However, no simple grouping strategy was identi®ed, which may partly explain why these data are generally treated super®cially by
the accident studies. On the other hand, the analysis of manual handling cannot be
con®ned to only three or four generic terms without excessively oversimplifying the
information reported. If both the handling object and the activity are considered,
more data could be extracted from these accident reports.
In respect of incidents, data were practically left untreated by most of the studies,
even though the ANSI standard guidelines propose a category for its treatment.
Incidents were frequently reported in these descriptions. We may, therefore, assume
that the underreporting in literature of data on incidents may be owing to the fact
that they are simply left untreated. However, contrary to the other data, the `accident site' data was less informative here: they were highly correlated to the activity
and most of the handling of goods was performed in the van. For this database, a
worksite variable seemed to be useless.
This vocabulary analysis revealed several classi®cation problems which are surprisingly rarely reported or discussed in the literature. The ®rst problem was tied to
the considerable variability of vocabulary, which leads to the need to develop sorting strategies in order to make the data more treatable. In some cases, the grouping
was easy: some terms were either synonyms, used indi€erently or simply speci®cs of
another term. In other cases, such as concerning incidents, a reasonably coherent
typology could be developed which would make it possible to class most of the data.
The structure set out in this paper was one of many possibilities. The criteria used to
52
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
di€erentiate activity and environmental incidents is debatable, since both are often
inter-related. For example, a four-wheeled trolley that moves while a worker
unloads merchandise, was classi®ed as environmental. This may, however, be due to
several factors: the driveway slope causing the van to be unlevel, the manner in
which the handler positioned his trolley, as well as the handler's direct actions on the
trolley while handling the goods. Also, the determination of what is considered an
incident is not clear, since the accident itself is dysfunctional. In a sense, a loss of
balance without speci®c circumstances may be considered no more of an incident
than an overexertion injury. In this paper, the inclusion criteria for incidents included any unusual event prior to the mechanism of injury.
A second problem was one of choice when several terms are reported on the same
type data. In some cases the choice was simple because the second term was only a
speci®c of the ®rst. This was less obvious when the two terms belonged to di€erent
classes, such as `a bundle of pipes'. Selecting one term instead of another may result
in an unfortunate loss of data. For example, with reference to the incidents, choosing to retain only the initial event in a previous study (Lortie et al., 1996) resulted in
a loss of data regarding loss of balance, as also reported by Manning et al. (1988)
and Strandberg (1985).
A third classi®cation problem was related to the fact that the signi®cation of data
may be implicit or contextual. A ®rst implication is that the literal or automatic
classi®cation of the terms may lead to a signi®cant bias, as seen for the term lift. The
European task force (Clarke et al., 1992) reports examples where an automatic
classi®cation of terms leads to misinformation on the accident process. Also, such
loss results in the systematic exclusion of certain data which, for whatever reason,
are rarely literally reported. The loss of control while handling is an example of such
systematic exclusion. In these cases, workers report circumstances describing a problem with the control of the merchandise without actually mentioning a control
diculty. Accident studies rarely report this issue, while on-site incident observations (Lortie and Pelletier, 1996) and interviews with dock handlers (Authier and
Lortie, 1993) con®rm its importance. However, it is clear that analyzing implicit
information is more dicult than classifying `readily ascertainable facts'. The former
is probably more subjective and requires a minimum amount of knowledge of the
work performed. On the other hand, the consequences of not considering these data
outnumber those associated with their treatment.
4. Conclusion
The data present in accident reports are variable and complex. Most of the accident data studies reviewed analyzed only a portion of the data available, most often
barely treating data pertaining to incidents and activities. The analysis of an accident database revealed several important classi®cation problemsÐan issue seldom
addressed in the literature. Despite the limits and diculties associated with the
analysis of ®rst accident reports, this material remains a mine of information which
deserves closer attention.
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
53
Acknowledgements
A scholarship was awarded by the Institut de Recherche en Sante et SeÂcurite du
Travail du QueÂbec to conduct this study.
References
Aghazadeh, F., Mital, A., 1987. Injuries due to handtools. Applied Ergonomics 18(4), 273±278.
Al-Arrayed, A., Hamza, A., 1995. Occupational injuries in Bahrain. Occupational Medicine 45(5), 231±
233.
ANSI, 1969. American National Standards Method of Recording Basic Facts Relating to the Nature and
Occurrence of Work Injuries. ANSI: Z16.2-1962/R1969, New York.
Andersson, R., Kemmlert, K., Kilbom, AÊ., 1990. Etiological di€erences between accidental and nonaccidental occupational overexertion injuries. Journal of Occupational Accidents 12, 177±186.
Authier, M., Lortie, M., 1993. Assessment of factors considered to be important in handling tasks by
expert handlers. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 11, 331±340.
Blank, V.L.G., Andersson, R., LindeÂn, A., Nilsson, B.-C., 1995. Hidden accident rates and patterns in the
Swedish mining industry due to involvement of contractor workers. Safety Science 21, 23.
Bobick, T.G., Myers, J.R., 1994. Agriculture-related sprain and strain injuries, 1985±1987. International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 14, 223±232.
Brewer, R.D., Oleske, D.M., Hahn, J., Leibold, M., 1990. A model for occupational injury surveillance by
occupational health centers. Journal of Occupational Medicine 32(8), 698±702.
Brun, J.-P., 1990. De l'analyse des donneÂes aÁ une deÂmarche d'expression des travailleurs: une approche
integreÂe de la preÂvention. Journal of Occupational Accidents 12, 307±319.
Clarke, R.K., Glendon, I. 1988. How Occupational Accidents and Diseases are Reported in the European
Community. Oce for Ocial Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
Clarke, R.C, Darby, K.V., King, K.L., King, R.P., Otto, E.H., 1992. MeÂthodologie pour l'harmonisation des statistiques europeÂennes sur les accidents de travail, seÂrie E: MeÂthodes, Project
manager: Khalili-Araghi, H.. Oce des publications ocielles des CommunauteÂs europeÂennes,
Luxembourg.
CSST, 1995. Rapport annuel d'activiteÂ. Commission de la Sante et de la SeÂcurite du Travail, MontreÂal.
Conroy, C., 1989. Work-related injuries in the meatpacking industry. Journal of Safety Research 20(2),
47±53.
Cross, J., Walters, M., 1994. Vibration and jarring as a cause of back injury in the NSW coal mining
industry. Safety Science 17, 269±274.
Doyle, Y., Conroy, R., 1988. A one year survey of accidents on Irish farms and their medical outcome.
Journal of Occupational Accidents 10, 199±208.
Engkist, I.-L., Hagberg, M., LindeÂn, A., Malker, B., 1992. Over-exertion back accidents among nurses'
aides in Sweden. Safety Science 15, 97±108.
Harker, C., Matheson, A.B., Ross, J.A.S., Seaton, A., 1991. Accidents in the workplace. Occupational
Medicine 41, 73±76.
Harvey, M.D., 1984. Theories of Accident Causation. Alberta Workers' Health, Safety and Compensation, Alberta, Canada.
Inancsi, W., Guidotti, T.L., 1987. Occupation-related burns: ®ve-year experience of an urban burn center.
Journal of Occupational Medicine 29(9), 730±733.
Kisner, S.M., Fosbroke, D.E., 1994. Injury hazards in the construction industry. Journal of Occupational
Medicine 36(2), 137±143.
KjelleÁn, U., Larsson, T.J., 1981. Investigating accidents and reducing risksÐa dynamic approach. Journal
of Occupational Accidents 3, 129±140.
La¯amme, L., 1988. ModeÁles et meÂthodes d'analyses de l'accident du travail: de l'organisation du travail
aux strateÂgies de preÂvention. SyGeSa LteÂe, MontreÂal.
54
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
La¯amme, L., DoÈoÈs, M., BackstroÈm, T., 1991. Identifying accident patterns using the FAC and HAC:
their application to accidents at the engine workshops of an automobile and truck factory. Safety Science 14, 13±33.
Larsson, T.J., 1990a. Severe hand injuries among Swedish farmers. Journal of Occupational Accidents 12,
295±306.
Larsson, T.J., 1990b. Permanent occupational disabilities among Swedish metal workers in 1986. Journal
of Occupational Accidents 12, 283±293.
Larsson, T.J. 1990c. Accident Information and Priorities for Injury Prevention (Ipso Factum 21) Institute
for Human Safety and Accident Research (Ipso), Stockholm.
Larsson, T.J., Rechnitzer, G., 1994. Forklift trucksÐanalysis of severe and fatal occupational injuries,
critical incidents and priorities for prevention. Safety Science 17, 275±289.
Leigh, J., Mulder, H.B., Want, G.V., Farnsworth, N.P., Morgan, G.G., 1990. Personal and environmental factors in coal mining accidents. Journal of Occupational Accidents 13, 233±250.
Leigh, J., Mulder, H.B., Want, G.V., Farnsworth, N.P., Morgan, G.G., 1991. Sprain/strain back injuries
in New South Wales underground coal mining. Safety Science 14, 35±42.
Lortie, M., 1987. Analyse comparative des accidents deÂclareÂs par des preÂposeÂs hommes et femmes d'un
hoÃpital geÂriatrique. Journal of Occupational Accidents 9, 59±81.
Lortie, M., Pelletier, R., 1996. Incidents in manual handling. Safety Science 21, 223±327.
Lortie, M., Lamonde, F., Collinge, C., Tellier, C., 1996. Analyse des accidents associeÂs au travail de
manutention sur les quais dans le secteur transport. Travail Humain 59(2), 187±205.
Ma, W.S., Wang, M.J., Chou, F.S., 1991. Evaluating the mechanical injury problem in the wood-bamboo
furniture manufacturing industry. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 7, 347±355.
Manning, D.P., Ayers, I., Jones, C., Bruce, M., Cohen, K., 1988. The incidence of underfoot accidents
during 1985 in a working population of 10 000 Meyerside people. Journal of Occupational Accidents
10, 121±130.
Miller, K., 1992. Causes of accidents with post-drivers and their remedies. Applied Ergonomics 23(2),
101±104.
Niskanen, T., Lauttalammi, J., 1989. Accidents in materials handling at building construction sites.
Journal of Occupational Accidents 11, 1±17.
Norrish, A.E., Cryer, C.P., 1990. Work related injury in New Zealand commercial ®shermen. British
Journal of Industrial Medicine 47, 726±732.
O'Connor, T.A., Gordon, J.E., Barnett, M., 1993. Agricultural injury surveillance using a state injury
registry. Journal of Safety Research 24(3), 155±166.
Oleske, D.M., Hahn, J.J., Leibold, M., 1992. Work-related injuries to the foot. Journal of Occupational
Medicine 34(6), 650±655.
Oleske, D.M., Brewer, R.D., Doan, P., Hahn, J.J., 1989. An epidemiologic evaluation of the injury
experience of a cohort of automotive parts workers: a model for surveillance in small industries. Journal
of Occupational Accidents 10, 239±253.
Olson, D.K., Gerberich, S.G., 1986. Traumatic amputations in the workplace. Journal of Occupational
Medicine 28(7), 480±485.
Pines, A., Halfon, S.-T., Prior, R., 1987. Occupational accidents in the construction industry of Israel.
Journal of Occupational Accidents 9, 225±243.
Reesal, M.R., Dufresne, R.M., Suggett, D., Alleyne, B.C., 1989. Welder eye injuries. Journal of Occupational Medicine 31(12), 1003±1006.
Sinks, T., Mathias, T., Halperin, W., Timbrook, C., Newman, S., 1987. Surveillance of work-related cold
injuries using workers' compensation claims. Journal of Occupational Medicine 29(6), 504±509.
Stout-Wiegand, N., 1987. Characteristics of work-related injuries involving forklift trucks. Journal of
Safety Research 18(4), 179±190.
Strandberg, L., 1985. The e€ect of conditions underfoot on falling and overexertion accidents. Ergonomics 28(1), 131±147.
Sullivan, C.B., Shimizu, K.T., 1988. Epidemiological studies of work-related injuries among law enforcement personnel. Journal of the Society for Occupational Medicine 38(1±2), 33±40.
ToÈrner, M., Karlsson, R., Sñthre, H., Kadefors, R., 1995. Analysis of serious occupational accidents in
Swedish ®shery. Safety Science 21, 93±111.
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
55
Waller, J.A., Payne, S.R., Skelly, J.M., 1989. Injuries to carpenters. Journal of Occupational Medicine
31(8), 687±692.
Yassi, A., Khokhar, J., Tate, R., Copper, J., Snow, C., Vallentyne, S., 1995. The epidemiology of back
injuries in nurses at a large Canadian tertiary care hospital, implications for prevention. Occupational
Medicine 45(4), 215±220.
5. Appendix A
5.1. Accident site terms (n=41)
Van
Dock
Dock-van junction
Motorized handling Other
equipment
camion
uniteÂ
coÃte de la vanne
mur de l'uniteÂ
vanne
pop
remorque
semi-remorque
trailer
entreÂe camion
porte (numeÂro)
nom du quai
entrepoÃt
dock
quai
quai de chargement
dock oce
oce de la plateforme
espace camion-plate
jct dock-van
jct quai-camion
plaque
plateforme
plate
poteau
sortie remorque
sortie quai
chariot
chariot eÂleÂctrique
chariot eÂleÂvateur
lift
lift truck
monte-charge
tow motor
transporteur
fourches du chariot
escalier
cour
debout sur:
marchandise
palettes
skid
5.2. Activity terms (n=84)
Handling terms (n=61)
accrocher
arreÃter
attrapper
basculer
bloquer
bu€er
changer
charger
chercher
coucher (buggy)
deÂbarquer
deÂcharger
deÂfaire
manipuler
recharger
deÂpiler
manoeuvrer
reculer
deÂposer
mettre
redescendre
deÂplacer
oÃter
relever
descendre
passer
remplir
donner
piler
rentrer
embarquer
placer
renverser
empiler
poser
replacer
enlever
pousser
retenir
faire tomber march.
prendre
retirer
installer (e.g. adapteur) ramasser
retourner
lever
recevoir transport rouler
sortir
soulever
tasser
tenir
tirer
tourner
transfeÂrer
transporter
trier
utiliser (2 roues)
veÂri®er (march.)
vider
virer
56
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
Displacement terms (n=14)
Movement terms (n=3)
deÂbarquer dea
(se) deÂplacera
descendrea
embarquera
entrera
redescendrea
rentrera
sauter
sortir dea
a
grimpera
marcher
montera
passer dansa
reculer
(se)pencher
(se) relevera
(se) retournera
These terms were or could have been used as handling terms.
Other activities (n=16)
Conduire (chariot)
OpeÂrer (chariot)
stripper (vanne)
chaõÃner (voyage)
fermer
ouvrir
Casser (strapping)
DeÂcrocher (chaõÃne)
attacher (binders)
couper
travailler sur
reÂparer
deÂplier
eÂtendre (brin de scie)
laver
attendre
5.2.1. Objects handled (n=134)
Goods handled (n=105)
carton
canots
boite
bicyclette
boõÃte de poisson
de textile
gallon
de tissus
baril
de cigarettes
drum
plate d'acier
tapis
meuble
plate de meÂtal
teÂleÂvision
plateforme basculante tuyau
fauteuil
morceau d'aluminum
de plastique
bureau
de fer
tubes de plastic
classeur
pesant
longueurs de meÂtal ®lieÁre
caisse de kleenex
contenant du metal
grosse boõÃte
gallon de 45 lbs
moteur
boiÃte contenant acide chaudieÁre
soudeuse
de bicyclette
poubelle
castings
vaisselles
pieÁce de machine
bundle
transformer
boõÃte de bois
de bois
bloc de fonte
crate
de fer
essieux
crate d'arborite
de meÂtal
de meÂtal
d'aluminum
bonbonne de gaz
de vitres
de chaõÃnes
cylindre
de parebrises
planches de ceÁdre
de bois
detuyaux
reel
de machine aÁ boule paquet de chaõÃnes
reel de crop
de pelles
rim
caisse
de bois
pieÁces de fer
deÂvidoire
de coton
pieux de fer
rouleau de fer
de peinture
barres de fer
de papier
de vitres
de preÂlart
passerelles d'acier boite aÁ lettres
petit co€re fort
sacs de lait
chau€erette
de peat moss
cage
de poudre
tombe
de sulfate
poches de toxique skid
prod. chimiques palette
pneus
viande
poeÃle
frigidaire
laveuse
cadre de porte
panneau
planche/plywood
feuilles/formica
bob a porte
cric de bois
marchadise
M. Lortie, P. Rizzo/Safety Science 31 (1999) 31±57
Manual handling
equipment (n=12)
Part of an
equipment (n=6)
Structural
elements (n=6)
4 roues
dock cart
¯at
pin
pin de chariot
pin aÁ tapis
poÃle aÁ tapis
l'adapteur
fourche
plate
plaque
plate de quai
rampe
rampe de chargement
2 roues
buggy
chariot
diable
hand truck
chariot aÁ plateau
truck aÁ drum
drum buggy
trans-palette
porte de vanne
Other (n=5)
strapping
toile
bearings
binders
chaine
57