Journal of Safety Research 48 (2014) 63–70

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Safety Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsr

Severity of electrical accidents in the construction industry in Spain Manuel Suárez-Cebador a,⁎, Juan Carlos Rubio-Romero b, Antonio López-Arquillos a a b

University of Málaga, E.T.S.I. Industriales, C/Dr. Ortiz Ramos, s/n (Teatinos), 29071 Málaga, Spain Cátedra de Prevención y Responsabilidad Social Corporativa, University of Málaga, Spain

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 28 May 2013 Received in revised form 14 November 2013 Accepted 5 December 2013 Available online 20 December 2013 Keywords: Electrical accidents Construction Severity Safety Variables

a b s t r a c t Problem: This paper analyzes the severity of workplace accidents involving electricity in the Spanish construction sector comprising 2,776 accidents from 2003 to 2008. Method: The investigation considered the impact of 13 variables, classified into 5 categories: Personal, Business, Temporal, Material, and Spatial. Results: The findings showed that electrical accidents are almost five times more likely to have serious consequences than the average accident in the sector and it also showed how the variables of age, occupation, company size, length of service, preventive measures, time of day, days of absence, physical activity, material agent, type of injury, body part injured, accident location, and type of location are related to the severity of the electrical accidents under consideration. Summary: The present situation makes it clear that greater effort needs to be made in training, monitoring, and signage to guarantee a safe working environment in relation to electrical hazards. Practical applications: This research enables safety technicians, companies, and government officials to identify priorities and to design training strategies to minimize the serious consequences of electrical accidents for construction workers. © 2013 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Workplace accidents are a serious problem and a significant challenge for companies, administrations, workers, and society in general (Haslam et al., 2005). Among occupational sectors, the construction industry has always had a high rate of workplace accidents (Dufort, Kotch, Marshall, Waller, & Langley, 1997; Koh & Jeyaratnam, 1998; Ore & Stout, 1996; Salminen, 2004). Despite the gradual improvement in statistics during recent years (Cawley & Brenner, 2012; Haslam et al., 2005; Xiuwen & Platner, 2004), construction still has a disappointing incidence rate (Chen & Fosbroke, 1998) with enormous consequential costs (Waehrer, Dong, Miller, Haile, & Men, 2007). A number of studies attribute this situation to the natural complexity and continuous changes peculiar to the work environment in the construction industry (Pollack & Chowdhury, 2001; Pollack, Griffin, Ringen, & Weeks, 1996; Ringen, Englund, Welch, Weeks, & Seegal, 1995). The “special” circumstances of this work environment require a detailed analysis of the different risks to which construction workers are exposed. This analysis provides useful information that could lead to a reduction in workplace accidents (Chau et al., 2008; Dong, Vaughan, Sullivan, & Fletcher, 1995; Hatipkarasulu, Saginor, & Tibrewala, 2009). Workplace accidents involving electrical contact stand out because of the severity of the injuries (Chen & Fosbroke, 1998) and the disproportionate number of fatalities (Cawley & Homce, 2003). The seriousness of these accidents is made evident in OSHA's estimation that ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 633 888 093. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Suárez-Cebador), [email protected] (J.C. Rubio-Romero), [email protected] (A. López-Arquillos).

about 350 deaths caused by electrical contact take place annually in the construction sector in the United States (OSHA, 2010). Studies from several countries reveal the importance of the incidence of electrical accidents in construction compared to other kinds of accidents. Some studies indicate that electrical accidents, after falls, occupy the second and sixth places (Cawley & Homce, 2003; Chen & Fosbroke, 1998; Chi, Yang, & Chen, 2009; Janicak, 2008; Loomis, Dufort, Kleckner, & Savitz, 1999; McCann, Hunting, Murawski, Chowdhury, & Welch, 2003; Wang, 1999). However, many investigations found that electrical accidents are the major cause of injury and death in the construction industry (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1997; Janicak, 2008; Jenkins et al., 1993; Kisner & Casini, 1998; Kisner & Fosbroke, 1994; Loomis et al., 1999; McVittie, 1995; Ore & Casini, 1996; Robinson, Petersen, & Palu, 1999; Rossignol & Pineault, 1994). A study in the United States revealed that between 1992 and 1998 there were 2,287 fatal accidents in the workplace due to electrical causes, which equates to one death per day (Cawley & Homce, 2003). Another study conducted in the United States between 2003 and 2006 drew attention to the number of electrical accidents in the construction industry (Janicak, 2008). Janicak's study showed that 49% of a total of 997 fatal accidents caused by electrical contacts took place in the construction industry. Janicak highlighted a potential for improvement that could lead to the prevention of 125 deaths a year with the aid of efficient programs and correct isolation of electrical circuits and systems. In an analysis of the proximal causes of an occupational accident, there is no doubt that working conditions and work environment are important (Cheng, Leu, Lin, & Fan, 2010; Melamed, Yekutieli, Froom, Kristal-Boneh, & Ribak, 1999). However, a series of worker-related factors can also increase the risk of accidents: age (Bastide, 1994; Chau

0022-4375/$ – see front matter © 2013 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2013.12.002

64

M. Suárez-Cebador et al. / Journal of Safety Research 48 (2014) 63–70

Table 1 Economic activities related to the construction industry.

Table 3 Classification of accidents by severity of the injury.

Code

Description

Severity of the injury

Accidents

451

Preparation of construction sites (Demolitions, earth moving, land survey, excavations, etc.) Construction of buildings and civil construction (Buildings, civil works, electrical nets, etc.) Fit out of construction work (Partitions, acoustic, electrical, plumbing, etc.) Completion of construction works (Painting, glazing, wood, etc.)

Light Serious Very serious Fatal Total

2,583 139 10 44 2,776

452 453 454

et al., 2008; Kingma, 1994; McCaig, Burt, & Stussman, 1998), training (Wong, 1994), experience (Chau et al., 2008; Salminen, 2004), risk perception, mindset, behavior (Chau et al., 2004; Maiti & Bhattacherjee, 1999), and so forth. For example, some studies on this subject show interesting results in relation to the occupation of the workers who had electrical accidents in the construction industry. The study conducted by Cawley in the United States (Cawley & Brenner, 2012) reveals that about 32% of fatal electrical accidents are related to five occupations: “electricians,” “construction laborers,” “roofers,” “painters,” and “carpenters.” Another study also from the United States (Chen & Fosbroke, 1998) reveals that the highest electrocution rate is that of electricians, four times higher than the average for all construction workers; followed by steel frame workers and bricklayers. These studies show the gravity of electrical accidents in construction and make evident the need to obtain relevant information on the causative factors in order to prevent and control possible risks (Cawley & Brenner, 2012; McCann et al., 2003; Williamson & Feyer, 1998). The specific aim of this paper is to characterize construction workplace accidents caused by electrical contact. First, the influence of the variables involved in this kind of accident is identified. This information would help workers, technicians, and safety officials responsible for assessment, prevention, and protection to significantly reduce this type of accident and the serious consequences.

2. Methodology

The occupational health authorities in Spain have to diagnose the severity of each accident according to medical criteria based on the severity of the injuries. Table 3 gives an itemized overview of the cases divided into the corresponding groups of severity. 2.2. Design of the analysis As in other methodological research on the subject (Cameron, Hare, & Davies, 2008; Camino, Ritzel, Fontaneda, & González, 2008; Cawley & Homce, 2003; Chi et al., 2009; Haslam et al., 2005), the analysis focused on the characterization of electrical accidents in the construction industry. The analysis of the accident variables aimed at identifying any possible co-relation between variables and accident severity. In a preliminary approach we analyzed all variables included in the accident notification form (57 variables) elaborating contingency tables. In some variables the contingency tables did not reach a statistical significance of 95% in order to reject the hypothesis of independence of variables, and we could not confirm the existence of more than a random influence for severity-variable. Accordingly, only 13 variables with a statistical significance b 0.05 were selected for this paper to answer questions as: Who is most exposed to hazards?, What were the work conditions?, When did the accident take place?, What caused the accident?, Where did the accident take place? For this, the classification suggested by Camino et al. (2008), which groups the different variables, was used (as shown in Table 4).

2.1. Data 2.3. Statistical analysis The European Directive 89/391 dealing with the application of measures aimed at improving health and safety in the workplace, transposed to Spanish legislation through the Ley 31/1995 de Prevención de Riesgos Laborales, called for harmonization of the data related to workplace accidents. As a result, the Orden TAS/2926/2002 created the Sistema de Declaración Electrónica de Accidentes de Trabajo [System of Electronic Notification of Occupational Accidents] (Delt@) in Spain. This has been the compulsory mechanism for the notification of workplace accident reports since 2003. Thus, all accidents that result in an absence from work of one or more days must be notified through this system, filling an Official Workplace Incident Notification Form. For this investigation the Ministerio de Empleo y Seguridad Social provided data from the 1,162,598 registered workplace accidents in construction from 2003 to 2008. As seen in Table 1, these data refer to activities in the construction industry, as coded in the Clasificación Nacional de Actividades Económicas (CNAE-93). From this only the data relating to direct and indirect electrical contact as expressed in the deviation codes associated with the accidents were taken (Table 2). The selection produced a total of 2,776 accidents. Table 2 Type of deviation. Code

Deviation

11 12

Electrical indirect contact Electrical direct contact

In order to identify the correlation between accident severity and each of the variables described above, contingency tables for the statistical Chi-square test were used. The aim was to reject with a statistical significance of 95% (sig. b 0.05) the null hypothesis of independence of the accident severity from the associated variables. Different factors associated with each variable and the classification of the injuries that indicates the severity of the accident were used in the contingency tables. For a better description of the samples, information in the form of rates obtained from percentage frequencies was incorporated. These rates are: TAR (Total Accident Rate), LAR (Light Table 4 Variables under consideration. N

Question

Group

Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Who?

Personal

Which?

Business

When?

Temporal

What?

Material

Where?

Spatial

Age Occupation Company staff Length of service Preventive organization Time of accident Days of absence Physical activity Material agent Injuries Body part Accident location Place of accident

M. Suárez-Cebador et al. / Journal of Safety Research 48 (2014) 63–70

By contrast, this trend is very different in the group of workers over 45. In addition, it is significant that in this age group the percentages of light accidents and total accidents are very similar (LAR: 15.37%; TAR: 15.92%), whereas the percentage of severe or fatal accidents increases considerably (FSAR 23.32%), to the extent that workers over 45 are the group most vulnerable to accidents with serious consequences (FSAR/TAR = 1.46). Particularly revealing are the results of the group of workers under 25. Young workers show the highest percentage of fatal accidents (FAR 27.27%) and the second highest percentage of accidents with serious consequences (FSAR 22.28%), only after the group of workers over 45. This case has a special relevance when compared to other research that considers any type of accident in construction. Thus, in LópezArquillos et al. (2012) these ratios showed lower values (FAR: 10.79%; FSAR: 13.64%). It means that, according to this research, electrical accidents in workers under 25 years old increase these ratios by 252% and 63%, respectively.

Table 5 Electrical accidents versus total accidents in the construction industry in Spain (2003–2008). Ratio

LAR FSAR TAR

Electrical accidents

Total accidents

N

%

N

%

2,583 193 2,776

93.05% 6.95% 100%

1,145,126 17,472 1,162,598

98.50% 1.50% 100%

65

Electric/total

0.9 4.6 1.0

Accident Rate), SAR (Severe Accident Rate), VSAR (Very Severe Accident Rate), and FAR (Fatal Accident Rate). Electrical accidents are typically accompanied by serious consequences. Our characterization of the seriousness of electrical accidents in the construction industry, as proportional to the severity of the corresponding injury, led us to divide them into the two following groups: (a) light accidents (LAR), and (b) severe, very severe, and fatal accidents (FSAR). It is important to note that the analysis refers to rates obtained from the frequency percentages of accidents in the past and therefore cannot take into account the number of workers involved in the work activity on any particular day for lack of information. Thus, the research provides an accurate estimation of the probability that an accident by direct or indirect electrical contact in the construction industry has light or serious consequences, but not an estimation of the probability of occurrence of these accidents. SPSS vs.15 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) was used for processing and analyzing the data.

3.1.2. Occupation The variable Occupation reflects the worker's professional qualification as defined in Spain by the Clasificación Nacional de Ocupaciones (CNO). Obviously, electricians are the workers most exposed to electrical accidents. As can be seen in Table 7, the percentage of total accidents for electricians is over 30% (TAR 30.58%). However, statistics show that there are also other professional groups highly vulnerable to this type of accident, for example, building laborers (TAR 14.70%) or bricklayers (TAR 12.61%). These three occupations claim over half of the electrical accidents and, separately, each of them presents similar TAR, LAR, and FSAR values. As for the rest of professional groups, the records for foremen and team managers are particularly significant. Although they show a low TAR value (1.66%), their FSAR value is almost double: 3.11%. This situation of high records of severe and fatal accidents combined with low records of light accidents can also be found in the two groups of workers entrusted with structural works (TAR 3.85%, FSAR 6.22%; TAR 3.78%, FSAR 5.18%). Unlike other investigations (Cawley & Brenner, 2012), our results reveal a low rate of fatal and severe accidents (FSAR 2.05%) compared with the corresponding rate of total accidents (TAR 5.84) among completion workers.

3. Results and discussion Electrical accidents in construction are typically accompanied by serious consequences due to the severity of the injuries (Cawley & Brenner, 2012; Chen & Fosbroke, 1998; Chi et al., 2009). Table 5 compares electrical accidents with other occupational accidents in the Spanish construction industry. The likelihood of an electrical accident having fatal or serious consequences is more than 4.6 times higher than the average. This situation led to the analysis of the different variables that have an impact on the severity of this type of accidents.

3.2. Occupational variables 3.2.1. Company staff The results obtained (Chi-square: 25.930, d.f.:7, Sig.: 0.001) show that there is a dependence relation between the number of company workers and the severity of the electrical accidents. There are studies that endorse the assertion that the larger the company, the less frequently severe accidents occur. These studies directly co-relate company size with higher safety standards (Fabiano, Curro, & Pastorino, 2004; Hinze & Gambatese, 2003). The results of our analysis of electrical accidents in the construction industry certainly show that companies with less than 25 workers have more than 65% of the total number of

3.1. Personal variables 3.1.1. Age The analysis of the variable Worker's age indicates that there is a dependence relationship with accident severity (Table 6). Results reveal that the likelihood of an electrical accident with serious or fatal consequences decreases as age increases (up to 45 years old). This trend is the opposite of the one found in other studies on construction accidents, which considered all types of accident (Camino et al., 2008; LópezArquillos, Rubio Romero, & Gibb, 2012). Table 6 Electrical accidents in the construction industry by age and severity. Spain (2003–2008). Chi-square = 11.630, d.f. = 5, Sig = 0.040 Age

b25 years old 25–30 years old 31–35 years old 36–40 years old 41–45 years old N45 years old

Total accidents

Light

Fatal and serious

FSAR/TAR

Only fatal

FAR/TAR

N

TAR %

N

LAR %

N

FSAR %

N

FAR %

2,776

100%

2,583

93.05%

193

6.95%

44

1.59%

656 670 448 332 228 442

23.63% 24.14% 16.14% 11.96% 8.21% 15.92%

613 629 421 305 218 397

23.73% 24.35% 16.30% 11.81% 8.44% 15.37%

43 41 27 27 10 45

22.28% 21.24% 13.99% 13.99% 5.18% 23.32%

12 9 7 7 2 7

27.27% 20.45% 15.91% 15.91% 4.55% 15.91%

0.94 0.88 0.87 1.17 0.63 1.46

1.15 0.85 0.99 1.33 0.55 1.00

66

M. Suárez-Cebador et al. / Journal of Safety Research 48 (2014) 63–70

Table 7 Electrical accidents in the construction industry by occupation and severity. Spain (2003–2008). Chi-square = 21.951, d.f. = 7, Sig = 0.003 National classification occupations (CNO)

Electricians Construction workers Masons Completion workers Structure & concrete Other structural workers Managers–team leaders Other occupations

Total accidents

Light

Fatal and serious

FSAR/TAR

Only fatal

FAR/TAR

N

TAR %

N

LAR %

N

FSAR %

N

FAR %

2,776

100%

2,583

93.05%

193

6.95%

44

1.59%

849 408 350 162 105 107 46 749

30.58% 14.70% 12.61% 5.84% 3.78% 3.85% 1.66% 26.98%

799 383 333 158 95 95 40 680

30.93% 14.83% 12.89% 6.12% 3.68% 3.68% 1.55% 26.33%

50 25 17 4 10 12 6 69

25.91% 12.95% 8.81% 2.07% 5.18% 6.22% 3.11% 35.75%

0.85 0.88 0.70 0.36 1.37 1.61 1.88 1.33

16 5 4 1 1 1 2 14

36.36% 11.36% 9.09% 2.27% 2.27% 2.27% 4.55% 31.82%

FSAR/TAR

Only fatal

1.19 0.77 0.72 0.39 0.60 0.59 2.74 1.18

Table 8 Electrical accidents in the construction industry by H&S preventive organization and severity. Spain (2003–2008). Chi-square = 20.292, d.f. = 5, Sig = 0.001 Health & safety preventive organization

External advisory service Own or joint service Internal advisor Owner responsibility Other combinations Without organization

Total accidents

Light

N

TAR %

N

LAR %

Fatal and serious N

FSAR %

N

FAR %

2,776

100%

2,583

93.05%

193

6.95%

44

1.59%

1,826 527 67 55 172 129

65.78% 18.98% 2.41% 1.98% 6.20% 4.65%

1,712 490 56 54 151 120

66.28% 18.97% 2.17% 2.09% 5.85% 4.65%

114 37 11 1 21 9

59.07% 19.17% 5.70% 0.52% 10.88% 4.66%

24 11 4 0 4 1

54.55% 25.00% 9.09% 0.00% 9.09% 2.27%

accidents with serious consequences. Contrary to the conclusions of other studies mentioned above, but in line with the recent study by López-Arquillos et al. (2012), special mention must be made of the fact that the likelihood of an accident having fatal or serious consequences is higher in companies with 100 workers or more. These companies present the highest FSAR/TAR and FAR/TAR quotients. 3.2.2. Length of service The results of the variable Length of service (Chi-square: 29.278, d.f.:17, Sig.: 0.032) also testify to a dependence relationship with accident severity. As in other studies, such as the one conducted by Horwitz and McCall (2004), over half of the fatal or severe electric accidents are suffered by workers with less than one year of service. Within this group of workers, special attention should be paid to new employees with less than 1 month of service. They show the highest rates of accidents in all categories (TAR 16.10%; FSAR 16.58%; FAR 18.18%). Likewise, the conclusions drawn in relation to the “misjudgment of hazards,” described in previous investigations (Huang & Hinze, 2003) are also confirmed in this case: workers with N 10 years of service are more likely to suffer more serious injuries in this type of accident (FSAR/TAR = 1.87, FAR/TAR = 3.15). Efficient training and

0.90 1.01 2.36 0.26 1.76 1.00

FAR/TAR

0.83 1.32 3.77 0.00 1.47 0.49

tutoring of workers is vital for the prevention of accidents and the reduction of serious consequences when accidents do occur (Gervais, 2003; Xiuwen, Entzel, Men, Chowdhury, & Schneider, 2004). 3.2.3. Preventive organization In Spain the transposition of the Framework Directive 89/391/ECC into the Ley 31/1995 de Prevención de Riesgos Laborales and the Reglamento de los Servicios de Prevención RD 39/1997 imposes on all companies the compulsory development of a System for Occupational Risk Prevention with a preventive organization model of some kind. This entails the implementation of a risk prevention plan including organizational structure, definition of staff competences, procedures, and all the necessary resources for preventive actions. According to our analysis of the electrical accidents in the construction industry, there is a dependence relationship between the preventive organization adopted by companies and the severity of the accidents (see Table 8). Most of the accidents tend to occur in companies that have external advisory services for health and safety policies. This is not surprising since outsourcing is common practice in construction companies. Much more revealing is that the accidents that take place in companies with an inhouse preventive organization (TAR 2.41%; FSAR 5.70%; FAR 9.09%) or

Table 9 Electrical accidents in the construction industry by year and severity. Spain (2003–2008). Year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Total accidents

Light

Fatal and serious

FSAR/TAR

Only fatal

FAR/TAR

N

TAR %

N

LAR %

N

FSAR %

N

FAR %

2,776

100%

2,583

93.05%

193

6.95%

44

1.59%

563 401 407 406 511 488

20.28% 14.45% 14.66% 14.63% 18.41% 17.58%

522 370 386 379 479 447

20.21% 14.32% 14.94% 14.67% 18.54% 17.31%

41 31 21 27 32 41

21.24% 16.06% 10.88% 13.99% 16.58% 21.24%

9 6 5 9 4 11

20.45% 13.64% 11.36% 20.45% 9.09% 25.00%

1.05 1.11 0.74 0.96 0.90 1.21

1.01 0.94 0.78 1.40 0.49 1.42

M. Suárez-Cebador et al. / Journal of Safety Research 48 (2014) 63–70

67

Table 10 Electrical accidents in the construction industry by day time and severity. Spain (2003–2008). Chi-square = 22.095, d.f. = 12, Sig = 0.036 Day time

From 8:00 to 8:59 From 9:00 to 9:59 From 10:00 to 10:59 From 11:00 to 11:59 From 12:00 to 12:59 From 13:00 to 13:59 From 14:00 to 15:59 From 16:00 to 16:59 From 17:00 to 17:59 From 18:00 to 18:59 From 19:00 to 19:59 From 20:00 to 20:59 Rest of hours

Total accidents

Light

Fatal and serious

FSAR/TAR

Only fatal

FAR/TAR

N

TAR %

N

LAR %

N

FSAR %

N

FAR %

2,776

100%

2,583

93.05%

193

6.95%

44

1.59%

105 214 337 347 403 179 182 194 242 166 49 17 341

3.78% 7.71% 12.14% 12.50% 14.52% 6.45% 6.56% 6.99% 8.72% 5.98% 1.77% 0.61% 12.28%

94 201 320 323 377 165 164 172 231 155 43 14 324

3.64% 7.78% 12.39% 12.50% 14.60% 6.39% 6.35% 6.66% 8.94% 6.00% 1.66% 0.54% 12.54%

11 13 17 24 26 14 18 22 11 11 6 3 17

5.70% 6.74% 8.81% 12.44% 13.47% 7.25% 9.33% 11.40% 5.70% 5.70% 3.11% 1.55% 8.81%

6 1 5 3 5 6 2 6 3 2 2 1 2

13.64% 2.27% 11.36% 6.82% 11.36% 13.64% 4.55% 13.64% 6.82% 4.55% 4.55% 2.27% 4.55%

with variable combinations of in-house and outsourced prevention services (TAR 6.20%; FSAR 10.88%; FAR 9.09%) are more likely to have serious or fatal consequences. 3.3. Temporal variables In the last two decades there has been a progressive decrease in workplace accidents in the construction industry in the EU and in Spain, both in the number (López-Arquillos et al., 2012) and in the severity of the injuries (Camino et al., 2008). However, the data on accidents caused by electrical contact show the opposite trend (see Table 9). In fact, during this period the accidents of the last year show the highest percentages of serious or fatal consequences. 3.3.1. Time of day As can be seen in Table 10, 79.36% of all accidents by electrical contact and 80.83% of fatal and severe accidents tend to occur during the regular working day, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. According to the results, the frequency of accidents increases over time up to the usual meal break in Spain. Almost 40% of all accidents and almost 35% of fatal and severe accidents occur in the 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. interval. Significantly, the accidents that occur in the first hour in the morning and in the hours before and after the meal break are most likely to have serious or fatal consequences. As for the accidents that take place outside the regular working day, in an industry characterized by “frequent overtime hours” (Merlino, Rosecrance, Antón, & Cook, 2003), accidents occurring between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. present the highest rates of fatal and severe accidents, which coincides with the results of previous studies (Goldenhar, Hecker, Moir, & Rosecrance, 2003; Haslam et al., 2005).

1.51 0.87 0.73 0.99 0.93 1.12 1.42 1.63 0.65 0.95 1.76 2.54 0.72

3.61 0.29 0.94 0.55 0.78 2.11 0.69 1.95 0.78 0.76 2.58 3.71 0.37

3.3.2. Days of absence The results obtained for the dependence relation between Days of absence and severity of electrical accidents in the construction industry are Chi-square: 1,009.558, d.f.: 7 and Sig.: 0.000. The most remarkable results correspond to accidents with one day of absence. This high percentage is undoubtedly biased, because if the accident is fatal and the worker dies immediately or during that day, the accident is written down with one day of absence. As with the results obtained by López-Arquillos et al. (2012), the group of accidents with 16 to 30 days of absence represents over a third of the total of electrical accidents. 3.4. Material variables 3.4.1. Physical activity This variable refers to the specific physical activity that the worker was performing immediately before the accident. The results shown in Table 11 reveal that 73.06% of these types of accidents with serious consequences occur during the handling of objects (FSAR 50.26%) or when hand tools are being used (FSAR 22.80%). Significantly, the accidents that occur when the worker is in movement (walking, running, going up or down, etc.) are more likely to have serious (FSAR/TAR = 1.69) or fatal consequences (FAR/TAR = 2.06). Consequently, it is extremely important to identify and clearly sign the areas with potential electrical hazards. 3.4.2. Material agent The results obtained in our analysis of the material agent associated with the deviation that causes the electrical contact are Chi-square: 36.040, d.f.: 14 and Sig.: 0.001. The material agent that claims the highest frequency of accidents corresponds to the group of engines,

Table 11 Electrical accidents in the construction industry by physical activity and severity. Spain (2003–2008). Chi-square = 15.402, d.f. = 6, Sig = 0.017 Physical activity

Handling objects Using manual tools Using machines Movement Manual transport Driven transport Others

Total accidents

Light

Fatal and serious

N

TAR %

N

LAR %

N

FSAR %

2,776

100%

2,583

93.05%

193

6.95%

1,187 864 356 153 50 48 118

42.76% 31.12% 12.82% 5.51% 1.80% 1.73% 4.25%

1,090 820 336 135 47 43 112

42.20% 31.75% 13.01% 5.23% 1.82% 1.66% 4.34%

97 44 20 18 3 5 6

50.26% 22.80% 10.36% 9.33% 1.55% 2.59% 3.11%

FSAR/TAR

1.18 0.73 0.81 1.69 0.86 1.50 0.73

Only fatal

FAR/TAR

N

FAR %

44

1.59%

23 7 6 5 1 0 2

52.27% 15.91% 13.64% 11.36% 2.27% 0.00% 4.55%

1.22 0.51 1.06 2.06 1.26 0.00 1.07

68

M. Suárez-Cebador et al. / Journal of Safety Research 48 (2014) 63–70

Table 12 Electrical accidents in the construction industry by body part injured and severity. Spain (2003–2008). Chi-square = 340.147, d.f. = 13, Sig = 0.000 Body part injured

Hand Eye All body Arm Fingers Legs Forearm Face Back Head Chest/organs Multiple parts Neck Others

Total accidents

Light

Fatal and serious

FSAR/TAR

Only fatal

FAR/TAR

N

TAR %

N

LAR %

N

FSAR %

N

FAR %

2,776

100%

2,583

93.05%

193

6.95%

44

1.59%

621 497 286 244 244 185 162 140 86 83 59 56 44 69

22.37% 17.90% 10.30% 8.79% 8.79% 6.66% 5.84% 5.04% 3.10% 2.99% 2.13% 2.02% 1.59% 2.49%

602 493 198 234 235 177 154 128 86 77 49 50 44 56

23.31% 19.09% 7.67% 9.06% 9.10% 6.85% 5.96% 4.96% 3.33% 2.98% 1.90% 1.94% 1.70% 2.17%

19 4 88 10 9 8 8 12 0 6 10 6 0 13

9.84% 2.07% 45.60% 5.18% 4.66% 4.15% 4.15% 6.22% 0.00% 3.11% 5.18% 3.11% 0.00% 6.74%

0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 9

0.00% 0.00% 68.18% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.55% 6.82% 0.00% 0.00% 20.45%

transmission mechanisms, and energy-storing devices (TAR 38.22%). In addition, the high rates of accidents with serious (FSAR/TAR = 1.4) or fatal consequences (FAR/TAR = 1.9) are highly significant in this group. The use of hand lamps and wire extension cords is a good example among this group of agents: the analysis reveals a low frequency of accidents (TAR 2.88%), but the corresponding rate of fatal accidents is almost four times higher (FAR 11.36%). In order to reduce or minimize the serious consequences of accidents, it is necessary to pay careful attention to the design and selection of tools, equipment, material, and the conditions of use (Gibb, Haslam, Hide, Gyi, & Duff, 2006). 3.4.3. Type of injury The results of the analysis of the type of injuries suffered in accidents by electrical contact in the construction industry are Chi-square: 209.709, d.f.: 10 and Sig.: 0.000. A number of studies confirm that these accidents are usually followed by serious consequences (Cawley & Brenner, 2012; Chen & Fosbroke, 1998; Chi et al., 2009). In our investigation, over 80% of these types of accidents with serious consequences can be grouped together with the following types of body injuries: burns (FSAR 51.81%), traumatic shock (FSAR 18.13%), multiple injuries (FSAR 7.25%), and concussion with internal injuries (FSAR 6.22%). The last three types of injury are extremely serious, because they are the most likely to be fatal. 3.4.4. Body part injured Table 12 shows the results of the analysis of the body parts injured in accidents by electrical contact in the construction industry. As can be seen, most of these accidents involve injuries to the hands (TAR 22.37%), although these injuries rarely have serious consequences

0.44 0.12 4.43 0.59 0.53 0.62 0.71 1.23 0.00 1.04 2.44 1.54 0.00 2.71

0.00 0.00 6.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.52 3.21 0.00 0.00 8.23

(FSAR/TAR = 0.44). An accident is most likely to have serious consequences if it affects multiple body parts (FSAR 45.60%; FSAR/ TAR = 4.43), facial area (FSAR 6.22%; FSAR/TAR = 1.23), and trunk and internal organs (FSAR 5.18%; FSAR/TAR = 2.44).

3.5. Spatial variables 3.5.1. Accident location In Spain, workplace accident reports must indicate whether the accident took place in the usual workplace. This information is particularly relevant in our case, because construction workers typically move from one building site to another (López-Arquillos et al., 2012). Table 13 shows the results of the analysis of this variable in relation to the severity of electrical accidents. As can be seen, the highest accident rates correspond to the usual workplace (TAR 77.59%; FSAR 53.89%; FAR 61.36%). However, if the accident occurs when the worker was working at a workplace that was not his/her usual one (TAR 17.76%), the accident is much more likely to have serious (FSAR 37.28%) or fatal consequences (FAR 31.82%).

3.5.2. Type of location The variable Type of location identifies the work environment or particular work site where the worker was when the accident occurred. Table 14 shows the results of the analysis concerning this variable. The conclusion to be drawn here is that over a half of the electrical accidents take place in buildings under construction (TAR 34.15%) or in building sites on industrial estates (TAR 25.54%). In statistical terms, an accident most likely to have serious or fatal consequences occurs in high places on construction sites and in construction work on farm land. Of no

Table 13 Electrical accidents in the construction industry by accident location and severity. Spain (2003–2008). Chi-square = 70.632, d.f. = 3, Sig = 0.000 Accident location

Usual workplace Moving between work areas Going or coming from worksite Non-usual workplace

Total accidents

Light

N

N

TAR %

Fatal and serious LAR %

N

FSAR/TAR

FSAR %

2,776

100%

2,583

93.05%

193

6.95%

2,154 87 42 493

77.59% 3.13% 1.51% 17.76%

2,050 74 39 420

79.37% 2.86% 1.51% 16.26%

104 13 3 73

53.89% 6.74% 1.55% 37.82%

Only fatal N

0.69 2.15 1.03 2.13

FAR/TAR FAR %

44

1.59%

27 3 0 14

61.36% 6.82% 0.00% 31.82%

0.79 2.18 0.00 1.79

M. Suárez-Cebador et al. / Journal of Safety Research 48 (2014) 63–70

69

Table 14 Electrical accidents in the construction industry by place of accident and severity. Spain (2003–2008). Chi-square = 98.477, d.f. = 10, Sig = 0.000 Place of accident

New building constructions Demolition, renovation, etc. Other types of constructions Industrial areas Public zones Homes Tertiary activities High places Farming and forest areas Hospitals or sport centers Other places

Total accidents

Light

Fatal and serious

N

TAR %

N

LAR %

N

FSAR %

N

2,776

100%

2,583

93.05%

193

6.95%

44

1.59%

948 197 282 709 202 180 120 38 29 26 45

34.15% 7.10% 10.16% 25.54% 7.28% 6.48% 4.32% 1.37% 1.04% 0.94% 1.62%

900 187 258 675 178 166 105 23 23 26 42

34.84% 7.24% 9.99% 26.13% 6.89% 6.43% 4.07% 0.89% 0.89% 1.01% 1.63%

48 10 24 34 24 14 15 15 6 0 3

24.87% 5.18% 12.44% 17.62% 12.44% 7.25% 7.77% 7.77% 3.11% 0.00% 1.55%

13 1 4 8 5 5 1 4 3 0 0

29.55% 2.27% 9.09% 18.18% 11.36% 11.36% 2.27% 9.09% 6.82% 0.00% 0.00%

minor importance are the data concerning fatal or severe accidents in public places, private homes, or places intended for tertiary activities. 4. Conclusions Electrical accidents in the construction industry are an important problem. When compared with all the accidents occurring in the industry, the likelihood of an electrical accident having serious or fatal consequences is almost five times higher than the average. In addition, contrary to the development of average records of total accidents in the construction industry, which have progressively decreased over time, electrical accidents have increased in the last few years of our study period, particularly accidents with serious or fatal consequences. Accordingly, the investigation of causative factors and efforts to guarantee a safe working environment free from electrical hazards must be given top priority. The electrical accidents we have studied co-relate well with the variables that we have labeled as Personal, Business, Temporal, Material, and Spatial. The main conclusions of this research are as follows: • Age. Up to 45 years of age, the higher the age, the less likely an accident is to have serious or fatal consequences. The question is why this trend does not continue into the group of workers over 45 and whether it is due to the so-called “misjudgment of hazards” effect or whether there are other causes involved. At all events, younger workers and older workers seem to be more vulnerable in terms of the severity of electrical accidents. Consequently, training programs and initiatives concerning electric hazards should concentrate on these two age groups. • Occupation. Electricians suffer almost a third of all electrical accidents in the construction industry. However, it is significant that almost a third of the victims of these accidents are building laborers and bricklayers. Consequently, it is necessary to reinforce the training in electric hazards for these two trade groups. • Preventive organization. More than 80% of companies in the Spanish construction industry use external advisory services for the prevention of occupational risks (INSHT, 2009). Then, it is expected that this model presents the highest accident rate. However, the companies that adopt the in-house consultant model or a combination of different models are the most severely affected by electrical accidents. This situation suggests there should be more research on the subject in order to provide companies with the model of preventive organization best suited to their requirements. • Time of day. Fatal and severe accidents are more likely to occur in the hours immediately before and after the meal break. On the other hand, a high percentage of accidents occur during overtime. This requires specific analysis to see whether there are other causative factors, such as lack of concentration or accumulation of stress or fatigue.

FSAR/TAR

0.73 0.73 1.22 0.69 1.71 1.12 1.80 5.68 2.98 0.00 0.96

Only fatal

FAR/TAR LAR %

0.87 0.32 0.89 0.71 1.56 1.75 0.53 6.64 6.53 0.00 0.00

• Physical activity and material agent. The handling of objects and the use of hand tools are the activities with the highest rates of electrical accidents. This situation shows how important it is to check isolation standards and that the equipment and tools are the most suitable. On the other hand, accidents with fatal or serious consequences tend to occur when the worker moves from one place to another. Therefore, the areas with potential electrical hazards should be well signalized. Finally, the group of material agents associated with physical phenomena and natural elements shows the highest severity rate in these types of accidents. On building sites, the use of protection devices against these agents needs no further justification. • Body part injured. In most electrical accidents the hands are injured and the severity of the injuries is relatively low. By contrast, fatal or serious consequences are most likely to occur when damages affect multiple body parts, the facial area, or the trunk. To reduce or minimize the serious consequences of this type of accident, it is extremely important to pay careful attention to the adequate selection and use of protective equipment, either personal (gloves, goggles, helmets, clothes, etc.) or general (ground fault circuit interrupters, earthing system, lightning protection, etc.). • Accident location. Most of the electrical accidents take place in the usual workplace. However, we need to investigate why the accidents that happen on worksites other than the usual one are more than twice as likely to have serious or fatal consequences. 4.1. Impact on industry Electrical accidents usually result in serious injuries. As a result, workers, companies, and society in general must assume heavy costs, both in economic and in human terms. The results of our investigation can help to reduce this kind of accident and minimize the serious consequences for construction workers. With the aid of the variables we have analyzed, safety officials will be able to identify the more vulnerable groups of workers, and design new measures and strategies for more efficient training of workers, according to their particular profile (age, occupation, experience, etc.). Likewise, government officials will be able to identify priorities and develop monitoring and consulting plans according to the profile and policies of the particular companies, such as size, preventive organization, or workers' mobility. 4.2. Future research The prevention of electrical accidents in the construction industry requires further investigation of some of the factors associated with the variables analyzed in this study. It is particularly important to study the accidents suffered by workers with less than a month of service, since this group claims a large number of incidents.

70

M. Suárez-Cebador et al. / Journal of Safety Research 48 (2014) 63–70

In addition, the efficiency and suitability of the preventive organization chosen by the company and all the current training programs focused specifically on electrical hazards should also be studied. 4.3. Limitations Our analysis deals with the characterization of the seriousness of electrical accidents once they have occurred, but not with the probability of their occurring in the future. References Bastide, J. C. (1994). Accidents at work according to age [Accidentabilité du travail selon l'âge]. Cahiers de Notes Documentaires, 156, 361–364. Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS] (1997). Fatal workplace injuries in 1995: A collection of data and analysis—April 1997. Report 913. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Cameron, I., Hare, B., & Davies, R. (2008). Fatal and major construction accidents: A comparison between Scotland and the rest of Great Britain. Safety Science, 46, 692–708. Camino, M.A., Ritzel, D. O., Fontaneda, I., & González, O. J. (2008). Construction industry accidents in Spain. Journal of Safety Research, 39(5), 497–507. Cawley, J. C., & Brenner, B. C. (2012). Occupational electrical injuries in the US 2003–2009. IEEE paper no. ESW-2012-24. Cawley, J. C., & Homce, G. T. (2003). Occupational electrical injuries in the United States, 1992–1998, and recommendations for safety research. Journal of Safety Research, 34, 241–248. Chau, N., Gauchard, G. C., Siegfried, C., Benamghar, L., Dangelzer, J. L., Francais, M., et al. (2008). Relationships of job, age, and life conditions with the causes and severity of occupational injuries in construction workers. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 77(1), 60–66. Chau, N., Mur, J. M., Benamghar, L., Siegfried, C., Dangelzer, J. L., Français, M., et al. (2004). Relationships between certain individual characteristics and occupational injuries for various jobs in the construction industry: A case–control study. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 45, 84–92. Chen, G. X., & Fosbroke, D. E. (1998). Work-related fatal-injury risk of construction workers by occupation and cause of death. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 4(6), 1371–1390. Cheng, C. W., Leu, S. S., Lin, C. C., & Fan, C. (2010). Characteristic analysis of occupational accidents at small construction enterprises. Safety Science, 48, 698–707. Chi, C. -F., Yang, C. -C., & Chen, Z. -L. (2009). In-depth accident analysis of electrical fatalities in the construction industry. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39, 635–644. Dong, W., Vaughan, P., Sullivan, K., & Fletcher, T. (1995). Mortality study of construction workers in the UK. International Journal of Epidemiology, 24(4), 750–757. Dufort, V. M., Kotch, J. B., Marshall, S. W., Waller, A. E., & Langley, J.D. (1997). Occupational injuries among adolescents in Dunedin, New Zealand, 1990–1993. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 30, 266–273. Fabiano, B., Curro, F., & Pastorino, R. (2004). A study of the relationship between occupational injuries and firm size and type in the Italian industry. Safety Science, 42(7), 587–600. Gervais, M. (2003). Good management practice as a means of preventing back disorders in the construction sector. Safety Science, 41(1), 77–88. Gibb, A. G. F., Haslam, R. A., Hide, S., Gyi, D. E., & Duff, A.R. (2006). What causes accidents. Civil engineering. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 159(2), 46–50. Goldenhar, L., Hecker, S., Moir, S., & Rosecrance, J. (2003). The “Goldilocks model” of overtime in construction: Not too much, not too little, but just right. Journal of Safety Research, 34, 215–226. Haslam, R. A., Hide, S. A., Gibb, A. G. F., Gyi, D. E., Pavitt, T., Atkinson, S., & Duff, A.R. (2005). Contributing factors in construction accidents. Applied ergonomics, invited paper, special edition on ergonomics in building and construction, 36 (4). (pp. 401–416). Hatipkarasulu, Y., Saginor, J., & Tibrewala, K. (2009). Project level targeting of occupational risk areas for construction workers using OSHA accident investigation reports. http://ascpro0.ascweb.org/archives/cd/2009/paper/CPRT168002009.pdf Hinze, J., & Gambatese, J. (2003). Factors that influence safety performance of specialty contractors. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management-ASCE, 129(2), 159–164. Horwitz, I. B., & McCall, B. P. (2004). Disabling and fatal occupational claim rates, risks, and costs in the Oregon construction industry 1990–1997. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 1(10), 688–698. Huang, X. Y., & Hinze, J. (2003). Analysis of construction worker fall accidents. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management-ASCE, 129(3), 262–271. INSHT (Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo) (2009). Encuesta Nacional de Gestión de la Seguridad y Salud en las empresas. Available in: http://www.oect.es/Observatorio/Contenidos/InformesPropios/Desarrollados/Ficheros/ Informe_%20ENGE%202009.pdf Janicak, C. A. (2008). Occupational fatalities due to electrocutions in the construction industry. Journal of Safety Research, 39, 617–621. Jenkins, E. L., Kisner, S. M., Fosbroke, D. E., Layne, L. A., Stout, N. A., Castillo, D. N., et al. (1993). Fatal injuries to workers in the United States, 1980–1989: A decade of surveillance, national profile. Cincinnati, OH: DHSS [NIOSH] (publication number 93–108). Kingma, J. (1994). Causes of occupational injuries. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 79, 1025–1026.

Kisner, S., & Casini, V. (1998). Epidemiology of electrocution fatalities in worker death by electrocution: A summary of NIOSH surveillance and investigative findings. Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 9–19. Kisner, S. M., & Fosbroke, D. E. (1994). Injury hazards in the construction industry. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 36, 137–143. Koh, D., & Jeyaratnam, J. (1998). Occupational health in Singapore. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 71, 295–301. Loomis, D., Dufort, V., Kleckner, R. C., & Savitz, D. A. (1999). Fatal occupational injuries among electric power company workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 35, 302–309. López-Arquillos, A., Rubio Romero, J. C., & Gibb, A. (2012). Analysis of construction accidents in Spain, 2003–2008. Journal of Safety Research, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr. 2012.07.005. Maiti, J., & Bhattacherjee, A. (1999). Evaluation of risk of occupational injuries of underground coal mine workers through multinomial logit analysis. Journal of Safety Research, 30, 1–9. McCaig, L. F., Burt, C. W., & Stussman, B. J. (1998). A comparison of work related injury visits and other injury visits to emergency departments in the United States, 1995–1996. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 40, 870–875. McCann, M., Hunting, L. K., Murawski, J., Chowdhury, R., & Welch, L. (2003). Causes of electrical deaths and injuries among construction workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 43, 398–406. McVittie, D. J. (1995). Fatalities and serious injuries. Occupational Medicine: State of the Art Reviews, 10, 285–293. Melamed, S., Yekutieli, D., Froom, P., Kristal-Boneh, E., & Ribak, J. (1999). Adverse work and environmental conditions predict occupational injuries. American Journal of Epidemiology, 150, 18–26. Merlino, L., Rosecrance, J., Antón, D., & Cook, T. (2003). Symptoms of musculoskeletal disorders among apprentice construction workers. Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 18(1), 1–8. Occupational Safety & Health Administration [OSHA] (2010). Construction eTool, electrical incidents. (Washington, DC. http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/ construction/electrical_incidents/mainpage.html) Ore, T., & Casini, V. (1996). Electrical fatalities among U.S. construction workers. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 38, 587–592. Ore, T., & Stout, N. A. (1996). Traumatic occupational fatalities in the U.S. and Australian construction industries. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 30(2), 202–206. Pollack, E. S., & Chowdhury, R. T. (2001). Trends in work-related death and injury rates among U.S. construction workers, 1992–1998. Silver Spring, MD: Center to Protect Workers' Rights. Pollack, E. S., Griffin, M., Ringen, K., & Weeks, J. (1996). Fatality in the construction industry in the United States, 1992 and 1993. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 301, 325–330. Ringen, K., Englund, A., Welch, L., Weeks, J. L., & Seegal, J. L. (1995). Why construction is different. Occupational Medicine, 10(2), 255–259. Robinson, C. F., Petersen, M., & Palu, S. (1999). Mortality patterns among electrical workers employed in the U.S. construction industry, 1982–1987. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 36, 630–637. Rossignol, M., & Pineault, M. (1994). Classification of fatal occupational electrocutions. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 85, 322–325. Salminen, S. (2004). Have young workers more injuries than older ones? An international literature review. Journal of Safety Research, 35, 513–521. Waehrer, G. M., Dong, X. S., Miller, T., Haile, E., & Men, Y. (2007). Costs of occupational injuries in construction in the United States. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39, 1258–1266. Wang, E. (1999). Mortality among North Carolina construction workers, 1988–1994. Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 14(1), 45–58. Williamson, A., & Feyer, A. -M. (1998). The causes of electrical fatalities at work. Journal of Safety Research, 29, 187–196. Wong, T. W. (1994). Occupational injuries among construction workers in Hong Kong. Occupational Medicine (Oxford), 44, 247–252. Xiuwen, D., Entzel, P., Men, Y., Chowdhury, R., & Schneider, S. (2004). Effects of safety and health training on work-related injury among construction laborers. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 46(12), 1222–1228. Xiuwen, D., & Platner, J. W. (2004). Occupational fatalities of Hispanic construction workers from 1992 to 2000. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 45, 45–54. Manuel Suárez-Cebador has a PhD and is an Electrical Engineer and Industrial Organization Engineer. He got his doctorate in 2011 in management and development of electrical infrastructure. Since 1996 he has worked as Project Manager in “Proyectos y Contratas Ocaña, S.A.” and from 2001 to 2011 as Manager of an “Endesa Service Point”. Currently he is Associate Lecturer in “Safety at work” in the University of Málaga and he is also working in a Research Group “Operations and Sustainability: Quality, TICs and Risk Prevention at Work”. Juan Carlos Rubio-Romero has a PhD and is an Industrial Engineer and an Associate Professor in “Industrial Organization” in the School of Industrial Engineering of the University of Málaga. He got his PhD in 2000, and at present directs the Cátedra de Prevención y Responsabilidad Social Corporativa in the University of Málaga and also a Research Group, “Operations and Sustainability: Quality, and Labor Risk Prevention”. Dr Rubio has spent more than 14 years researching into industrial organization and workplace health and safety and has published various manuals and papers, especially on management. Antonio López-Arquillos is an Industrial Engineer, Industrial Organization Engineer and Technician in Prevention of Occupational Risk. He has a full time research grant, and he is elaborating his doctoral thesis about health and safety in construction.