Are your near misses telling you the truth?
𝟰𝟬% 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿-𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹.
That's the headline finding from new research by J. Lezdkalne, and perfectly summarised (as always) by Ben Hutchinson (PhD), that I've been chewing on for a few days.
The study reanalysed 62 incident investigation reports using a bespoke tool that combines energy-based thinking, barrier analysis, and human factors analysis (HFACS).
Here's what stood out to me.
- 𝟯𝟵 𝗼𝗳 𝟲𝟮 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 (𝟲𝟯%) 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱. Twenty-five (40%) were under-classified, originally recorded as minor accidents or near misses despite involving credible fatal potential. Fourteen (23%) were over-classified.
- 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿-𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻. They were characterised by degraded, bypassed, or human-dependent controls, with frequent procedure-to-practice gaps. The barriers were there in the paperwork. They weren't there in the work.
- 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗹𝘂𝗻𝘁: misclassification is "𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭". The way investigators handle human and organisational factors during classification is a big part of why.
Now connect that to the Qld mining context.
Since 2000, we've had 𝟱𝟴 𝗼𝗳 𝟲𝟬 𝗳𝗮𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 in Qld mines and quarries as single-fatality events. Each of those events almost certainly had precursors that walked through the system as near misses or minor incidents first. If 40% of those precursors were under-classified, then officers, SSEs, and risk owners were receiving incident information that systematically understated the fatal risk.
Two uncomfortable questions worth sitting with.
- When was the last time you reviewed a "near miss" in your operation and asked, honestly, whether the energy and barrier degradation present meant it could have killed someone?
- Are your investigators competent to assess fatal potential separately from realised injury severity, or are they classifying by what happened rather than what could have happened?
The research closes with a recommendation worth quoting: 𝘙𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘫𝘶𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘧𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭. Events with no injury may still represent high fatal risk if energy exposure and barrier degradation are present.
That's a different lens to the one most mining incident systems are built on.
If you want a pressure test on how your investigation process actually classifies fatal potential, give me a call.
Check out my carousel here: PFI
Scott Graham
Founder and Managing Director, Mineplex
0400 820 250
sgraham@mineplex.com.au


