Improving safety climate through a communication and recognition program for construction: a mixed methods study

Abstract

Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a safety communication and recognition program (B-SAFE), designed to encourage improvement of physical working conditions and hazard reduction in construction. Methods A matched pair cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted on eight worksites (four received the B-SAFE intervention, four served as control sites) for approximately five months per site. Pre- and post-exposure worker surveys were collected at all sites (N=615, pre-exposure response rate of 74%, post-exposure response rate of 88%). Multi-level mixed-effect regression models evaluated the effect of B-SAFE on safety climate as assessed from surveys. Focus groups (N=6–8 workers/site) were conducted following data collection. Transcripts were coded and analyzed for thematic content using Atlas.ti (version 6). Results The mean safety climate score at intervention sites, as measured on a 0–50 point scale, increased 0.5 points (1%) between pre- and post-B-SAFE exposure, compared to control sites that decreased 0.8 points (1.6%). The intervention effect size was 1.64 (3.28%) (P-value=0.01) when adjusted for month the worker started on-site, total length of time on-site, as well as individual characteristics (trade, title, age, and race/ethnicity). At intervention sites, workers noted increased levels of safety awareness, communication, and teamwork compared to control sites. Conclusions B-SAFE led to many positive changes, including an improvement in safety climate, awareness, teambuilding, and communication. B-SAFE was a simple intervention that engaged workers through effective communication infrastructures and had a significant, positive effect on worksite safety.

A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial of a Total Worker Health® Intervention on Commercial Construction Sites

“…While we have had past success with a worksite safety program integrated within the complex structure associated with multiple employers, a large barrier to a systems approach ergonomics program was the challenge faced by subcontractors to make changes, even those changes that could improve site safety on their own worksite. Unlike our previous program that was designed to re-enforce existing safety practices [ 36 ], the ARM program required subcontractors to implement new, or modify existing practices and tools, that may be specific to their trade. Our program focused on simple ergonomics solutions that individual workers could implement to their own work [ 39 ].…”

“…Each pair of worksites was matched based on approximate size, scope, and phase of construction. This ensured that each matched pair consisted of similar organizational and worksite factors, such as similar existing company health and safety management systems [ 36 ]. Within each matched pair, one site was randomly assigned to either an intervention or a control group.…”

“…Worksite Inspections and Feedback: The inspection process utilized a standardized worksite walkthrough inspection process augmented from an existing safety inspection process adapted from the successful Building Safety for Everyone program [ 18 , 36 ]. Photographs were taken of the injury hazards and ergonomic solutions which could be uploaded through an internet-based platform.…”

“…Trade was categorized into the following four categories based on workers’ job demands: (1) mechanical; (2) finishing; (3) ironwork; and, (4) labor. These categorizations have been used previously [ 36 ].…”

Integrating worksite health protection and health promotion: A conceptual model for intervention and research

“…Job tasks and demands , including the extent to which high physical exertion is a requirement of the job, work hours and shift, and the pace of work, have been shown consistently to influence a range of safety and health outcomes (Heaney and Fujishiro, 2005; Karsh et al, 2005; Lipscomb et al, 2002; Trinkoff et al, 2001). Health and safety climate —workers’ shared perceptions about organization practices —is associated with work satisfaction, injury and accident risk, and enterprise outcomes (Beus et al, 2010; Christian et al, 2009; Hemingway and Smith, 1999; Hofmann and Mark, 2006; Huang et al, 2006; Law et al, 2011; Probst et al, 2008; Sparer et al, under re-review; Zohar and Polachek, 2014). Changes in the conditions of work may ultimately contribute to transformational change in the organization toward a culture of worker safety, health and wellbeing (Sorensen et al, 2013), by which we mean one that anticipates and mitigates potential workplace health risks, encourages worker identification and reporting of health and safety concerns without fear of reprisal, and provides health supportive programs, policies, and practices.…”