has your workplace incident been investigated properly?
GET A COPY OF YOUR WORKPLACE INVESTIGATION REPORT

The Work Health and Safety Act 2011 outlines the general health and safety duties of PCBUs, officers of companies, unincorporated associations, government departments and public authorities (including local governments), workers and other people at a workplace. These general duties require the duty holder to ensure health and safety, so far as is reasonably practicable, by eliminating risks to health and safety. If this is not possible, risks must be minimised so far as is reasonably practicable.
Investigating incidents to prevent reoccurrence helps to achieve safer workplaces
The main objective of an investigation is prevention. A good investigation aims to establish a series of events that should have taken place and compares it to what actually happened to identify areas that need changing

The team approach to investigations
The type of investigation conducted depends on the seriousness or complexity of the incident, but it is best
done as a team so all parties can contribute their skills and expertise to achieve the best result. The PCBU is
responsible for putting an investigation team together. Investigators are collectors of evidence and must base
their conclusions on that evidence. Take the time to choose the right people to conduct the investigation. The
following people should be considered for the team:
GET A COPY OF YOUR WORKPLACE INVESTIGATION REPORT

Investigation procedures
Investigation procedures need to be systematic. For any investigation the team should:
After the initial investigation is complete the team should:
Review all potentially useful information including:
reconstruct the incident (while ensuring that another incident doesn’t occur) to assist in verifying facts, identifying what went wrong and what can be done to prevent it happening again.
Look for causes, not blame. Systems fail for many reasons and the people involved are not always the cause of the incident.

What to look for
Build a chain of events to identify all the causes. For the investigation to be successful it is necessary to establish the following information:

01.
Events leading up to the accident
Investigate:
02.
Facts of the incident itself
Investigate:
03.
Facts of the incident itself
Investigate:
04.
Events leading up to the accident
To conduct an effective accident/incident investigation, it is essential to look for the design,
environment/work process, and behavioural components, such as plant, procedures and people, rather
than trying to isolate a single cause.
01.
Design components: Poor systems design may result in exposure to hazards such as:
02.
Environmental components/work processes: How people function in the work environment depends on what they experience in it. Environmental factors may be both physical and social. The way in which people do the job, the procedures they follow and the work process are important factors in incident investigation. Poor work process may lead to hazard exposure.
03.
Behavioural components: Examples include misuse of safeguards, improper use of tools and equipment, disregard of cautionary notices, failure to wear personal protective equipment, horseplay and poor standards of housekeeping. Poor practices may indicate that improved communication, further training or some other action, such as supervision, are necessary.
The common practice in industrial accident/incident investigation is to look for the cause of any
accident/incident. Searching for a single cause of an accident/incident is restrictive. It focuses
attention on only one, or at best a very few, of the essential factors while others, which may be
more easily controlled, pass unnoticed.

Establishing the facts
This list of questions may assist investigators to establish the facts. Note: Care must be exercised in obtaining answers to some of these questions, as the investigator could be accused of apportioning blame.
Who
- Was injured?
- Saw the incident?
- Was working with the injured person/s?
- Had instructed and/or assigned the job?
- Else was involved?
- Has information on circumstances/events prior to the incident?
What
- Is the injury?
- Is the damage or loss?
- Was the injured person/s doing?
- Is the work process?
- Had the injured person/s been instructed to do?
- Tools were being used?
- Machinery/ plant/ equipment was in use?
- Similar incidents have occurred previously?
- Action had been taken to prevent recurrence?
- Safety rules were violated?
- Safe systems of work, permits to work, isolation procedures were in place?
- Training had been given?
- Were the contributing causes of the accident/incident?
- Communication system was in use?
When
- Did the accident/incident occur?
- Did the damage become evident?
- Did the injured person/s start the job?
- Was an explanation of the hazards given?
- Did the supervisor last see the injured person/s?
- Was something seen to be wrong?
Why
- Did the injury occur?
- Did communication fail?
- Was training not given?
- Were there unsafe conditions?
- Was the hazard not evaluated?
- Was the system of work inadequate or inappropriate?
- Was personal protective equipment not provided?
- Was protective equipment not used?
- Was there no safe system of work, permit to work or isolation procedure operating?
- Were specific safety instructions not given?
- Was the supervisor not consulted when things started to go wrong?
- Was the supervisor not there at the time?
Where
- Did the accident/incident occur?
- Did the damage occur?
- Was the supervisor at the time?
- Were the witnesses at the time?
How
- Did the injury occur?
- Could the incident have been avoided?
- Could the injury have been avoided?
- Could the supervisor have prevented the incident?
- Could better design of plant or systems of work help?
GET A COPY OF YOUR WORKPLACE INVESTIGATION REPORT

Determining recommendations and conclusions
This checklist may help the investigators when determining the recommendations.

What systems failed?
What does the system do?
What is the purpose of the person’s action?
What could we do instead?
Which persons failed?