The minority report: Hazard reporting in an Australian University

1 Introduction

Australia has a total of 43 universities enrolled with more than a million students; they are occupied by  100,000 full-time equivalent staff who undertake over $5 billion of research activities annually [1]. Universities sustain a broad array of risk types ranging from student activities to cutting edge research in a variety of fields. Many campuses have high levels of infrastructure and many diverse services and activities that involve hazardous environments such as laboratories, animal enclosures, and fieldwork in very remote areas. Conducting safety research in these institutions is warranted. Those who work in the sector perform a range of roles and come from many disciplines. This combined with a complex risk profile, conceivably makes the university sector an interesting environment to establish an understanding of what influences individuals to report hazards and incidents.

Formal standards and guidelines for safety in the higher education sector specify student wellbeing and safety [2, 3]. In spite of this, work health and safety has not been investigated very widely, especially in the non student-related workgroups that make up a university. Investigation of work health and safety practices in this cohort has been limited to work-related stress [e.g. 4, 5], the role of safety leadership and organisational culture [6, 7], and bullying [8–10]. Cann, Baker, Hansen, Massie, & Vandervoort [11] ascribe the paucity of research regarding workplace hazards, workplace injuries and hazard and near miss reporting in a university setting to the variety of demographics that make up a university, such as office and administrative staff, caretakers, food service workers, researchers, and teachers.

Indeed much of the research conducted in a university setting has focused on injury rates rather than incident and hazard reporting. Cann et al. [11] for instance, examined 5 years of injury data from a research-intensive Canadian university and investigated types of injury according to work group. They found that most incidents occurred within food services, followed by physical plant and staff services. The most common injury type was a musculoskeletal injury and the most common location was to the hand. They also found that more injuries were sustained in those with less experience, with workers most likely to be injured in their first year of employment, a finding that was supported by [12]. Konkel, Fisher, & Harvey [13] conducted an ergonomics survey in an American university with the aim to identify risk factors associated with both faculty and staff. Staff in this study referred to a wide range of job types including facility services, public safety, food services and clerical/secretarial services. They noted that the majority of injuries occurred to staff, and mostly in the facility services, rather than in faculty. Other studies have focused on the risk profiles of particular occupational groups within a university rather than looking at differences between them. For instance, Ijadunola, Ijadunola, Onayade, & Abiona [14] investigated the occupational hazards of 350 office workers at a Nigerian university and found that the office setting was less than optimal at the university and workers were at risk of workplace injury. Flum, Siquera, DeCaro & Redway [15] used participatory research methodology to investigate workplace hazards of janitors in a US university. They found that using participatory action encouraged discussion between management and the workers and increased interest in work health and safety in the organisation. This resulted in a significant decrease in injury rates to janitors at a one year follow up evaluation.

Although research on worker health and safety in higher education is limited, the current focus is very much on the types of injury that are sustained rather than susceptibility and propensity to report. The issues deserve more attention, especially given the general rise in serious injury and the severity of some of the incidents [e.g. 16, 17], which has resulted in a general call to identify appropriate lead indicators to encourage safety changes in the higher education sector [16]. It has also pushed for students, principal investigators and administrators to work together to identity risks. However, research to date has not examined whether there is differences between departments or schools, and whether there are differences between research and teaching staff on either injury rates or propensity to report hazards or near misses. Further, research to date has not examined any of these factors within an Australian university context.

The literature associated with reporting behaviour of employees, sometimes termed employees’ safety voice [18], focuses on factors at an organisational level. There are two factors that influence reporting that consistently emerge from the literature: (a) The need for a ‘just culture’ [19–22] and (b) the design of the incident reporting system [19, 20]. A just culture is one aspect of an overall safety culture where employees feel assured that they will receive fair treatment if they report safety incidents [19]. Employees who feel that they will be blamed for an incident or would not be believed are unlikely to report a workplace incident [19, 22]. Further, employees that perceive that their managers have poor safety attitudes or perceive that their managers will not act on their safety concerns leads to underreporting [23]. However, one study [18] found that the link between perceived organisational support for safety and employees safety voice was mediated by coworker support for safety reporting. It should be noted that organisational culture can differ between workgroups in a single organisation. For instance, Lawton and Parker [24] reported differences between doctors, nurses, and midwives on likelihood to report an incident. The authors concluded that organisational and professional culture may differ between workgroups and may influence likelihood of reporting. Indeed previous research [25] has found doctors’ culture more transparent, whereas nurses operate in a protocol-driven culture.

In addition to a just culture, the design of the hazard and incident reporting system has been shown to affect how likely employees are to voice their safety concerns. In a study of psychiatric nurses, confusion around the reporting process as well as the lack of time available to make a report resulted in failure to report some incidents [19]. A study of hospital staff found the major barriers to reporting were a lack of clarity over what needed to be reported, the time needed to complete the forms and a lack of feedback from reported incidents [26]. Taking action on reports and providing feedback is essential to foster a safety culture. Crucially, this research identified that some workgroups may have different experiences of the ease of the safety reporting system. Specifically, nurses were more likely than doctors to be aware of the reporting system. Nurses who had been employed longer were more likely to report incidents than nurses who had less experience and permanent nurses were more likely to report than casual nurses. The authors cite a lack of confidence for newer staff and those precariously employed, as well as these staff being less likely to be aware of the proper channels for reporting. This is indicative of a need to investigate reporting behaviour amongst different work groups within an organisation to identify whether different interventions may be necessary to address any issues with underreporting.

2 Materials and methods

3 Results

There was a significant relationship between prior workplace injury (yes, no) and prior report of a hazard or near miss (yes, no), χ ² (1) = 8.62, p = 0.003. Those who had been injured previously were more likely to have reported a hazard or near miss (55%) than those who had not previously been injured (45%). The amount of safety responsibility (high, medium, low) was associated with likelihood of having reported, χ ² (2) = 17.89, p < 0.001. The unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for each employment type are shown in Fig. 1. This figure shows that those in a high safety role were more likely to have reported than to have not reported; those in a low safety role were more likely to not have reported than to have reported. Those in a medium safety role were no more or less likely to have reported.

There was a significant relationship between employment type (academic, professional, postgraduate student) and having previously reported a hazard, χ² (2) = 13.63, p = .001. The unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for each employment type are shown in Fig. 2. As can be seen in the figure, postgraduate students were less likely to have reported a hazard, while professional respondents were more likely to have reported a hazard. Academics were neither more nor less likely to have reported a hazard. This is in line with the self-reported injury rates for these employment types, with academics no more or less likely to have had an injury, professionals more likely to have had an injury, and post-graduates less likely to have had an injury (χ² (2) = 8.06, p = 0.018).

There was a significant relationship between work activity (teaching, research, administration, tech/specialist) and likelihood of having reported a hazard (χ² (3) = 15.71, p = 0.001). The unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for each work activity are shown in Fig. 3. As can be seen, those in research were less likely to report a hazard, while teaching-focused academics and tech/specialists were more likely to have reported a hazard than chance. Administrative employees were no more or less likely to have reported a hazard. For tech/specialists and administration employees this pattern of reporting follows the injury data with administration employees no more or less likely to have been injured previously while tech/specialists were more likely to have been injured. However, the teaching and research reporting rates are incongruent with the injury data, as teaching-focused academics and researchers are no more or less likely to have been injured (χ² (3) = 9.52, p = 0.023).

4 Discussion

The aim of this research was to investigate reporting behaviors in a university setting. While there was a high degree of intention to report, fewer respondents had actually reported a hazard. A high intention to report may be indicative of a good organisational culture that fosters hazard and near miss reporting [28]. The data revealed the likelihood of having reported a hazard was dependent on a number of work factors. While some of these are intuitive, others require deeper exploration. For instance, the finding that those in a higher safety role were more likely to have reported a hazard, and those in a low safety role were less likely to report is intuitive as those in a high safety role are intentionally looking for hazards as part of their day to day job. However, it might also indicate that those in low and medium safety roles may not have sufficient training in identifying hazards or may not know the correct procedures for reporting hazards.

The reason behind the finding that those who have been injured were more likely to have reported an injury is less clear. It is not certain whether the hazard they reported pertained to the injury they sustained, or it is possible that having an injury has made them more likely to report other hazards they encounter. It is also possible that those who had been previously injured are more aware of the appropriate reporting channels, increasing their likelihood of having reported hazard. Further research is necessary to distinguish whether prior injury increases the likelihood of future reporting, and, if so, under what conditions.

This research is the first to investigate differences between academic staff that are primarily involved in teaching from those primarily involved in research. We found that while teaching-focused academics were not more likely to have been injured at work, they were more likely to have reported a hazard or a near miss, while the opposite was true for researcher-focused academics. This is counterintuitive given that the researchers in this survey may have had a higher risk profile than teachers, as the researchers were almost exclusively in the sciences, and would have an increased likelihood of laboratory-based work. It is possible that there are different expectations on the level of safety knowledge required of the staff based on their level of responsibility of others. For instance, teaching-focused academics hold some responsibility for the work health and safety of their students, while researchers often work alone or with a few colleagues or students. It is unclear whether this expectation is imposed either explicitly or implicitly by the university, or is self-imposed by the teaching-focused academics. It is possible that cultural differences seen in other professions [20, 25] could also exist between the different professions within the university system, and that these may explain these results. However, without further qualitative investigations in the work health and safety environment of a university setting interpretation of these results remains speculative. However, it is clear that the likelihood of having reported a hazard is not based entirely on having been previously injured, but is instead contingent on the role that the individual holds within the organisation.

This research is not without limitations. The low response rate makes it difficult to generalize the findings, as does the fact that the majority of academic staff worked in the sciences. Further, the small sample size only enabled comparison between science and humanities. There may be very different risk profiles within these broad categories that were unable to be investigated here. A larger and more diverse sample is needed.

This research indicates that even where policies, systems and processes for reporting are consistent within an organisation, factors such as personal history, profession and organisational role may influence the likelihood of reporting. This adds to the knowledge base around incident reporting behaviour in particularly within the university environment which is under represented in the area of safety research [29]. Anecdotal evidence generally suggests that academics have a tendency to under-report, and it was interesting to see this observation heightened in research-focused academics in this study. This questions the role of risk perception. Research-focused academics push their boundaries and undertake non-routine activities by nature, both of which may influence risk perception and hazard reporting. Understanding what influences reporting is critical to assist in the development of effective strategies to increase reporting levels within organisations. These data add to that knowledge base and may help universities to develop strategies to increase reporting behaviour. Outcomes from this study supported similar research in Medicine and Rail [23, 26] suggesting that there are related issues with reporting behaviour in other types of industries. Further research particularly in underrepresented professions or organisations is required to determine if these issues apply to other areas. This may allow for future strategies to better target interventions to reduce the reporting biases associated with particular roles, inform policy and training to increase incident reporting.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to report.