Considerations for a Balanced Scorecard of Leading and Lagging Indicators for Your Electrical Safety Program Leading and Lagging Indicators

LOST TIME ELECTRICAL INJURIES ARE AMONG the rarest injuries in the workplace, contributing less than 0.2% of all workplace injuries in the United States. Yet, contact with electrical energy is among the top 10 causes of occupational fatalities. These two attributes, wry low frequency and very severe consequence, create a serious challenge in measuring the effectiveness of electrical safety programs. The traditional measurement of injury rates, a lagging indicator, may blind an organization to future injury potential . The low frequency of electrical injuries may result in an organization having insufficient data points to be statistically valid. This article explores opportunities to complement traditional methods of measuring safety performance with leading indicators to provide a balanced scorecard of lagging and leading indicators to drive continual improvement in reducing the risk of electrical injuries. The article will incorporate recent advancements in regulatory guidance and voluntary standards in safety performance measurement. Specific references will include Work Safe Alberta, Leading Indicators in Workplace Safety and Health (published in 2015) [20] and U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Using Leading Indicators to Improve Safety and Health Outcomes (published in 2019) [15]. The article will include a method for an organization to benchmark current metrics for its electrical safety program against advanced practices to measure and manage continual improvement.

Automated summary

Lost time electrical injuries are rare in the workplace but can have severe consequences. Traditional measurement methods may not effectively evaluate the effectiveness of electrical safety programs. This article explores the use of leading indicators to measure safety performance and reduce the risk of electrical injuries.