Contractor safety practices and injury rates in construction of the DenverInternational Airport

Background We sought to explain the variation in injury rates found for cat egories of companies and contracts involved in the construction of the Denv er International Airport (DIA) by surveying contractors about company and c ontract-level safety practices. Methods We conducted 213 telephone interviews (83% response) with represent atives of contracts with payrolls of more than $250,000. We investigated th e bivariate relationship between safety actions reported in the survey and injury occurrence by calculating the aggregate injury rates (lost work-time (LWT) rates and non-LWT rates) for the group of respondent contracts repor ting always taking the action and for the group not always faking the actio n. Using Poisson regression, we examined the association between contract i njury rates and contract safety practices while controlling for variables p reviously shown to affect contract-level injury rates. Results In Poisson regression, two actions, 1) disciplinary action always r esulting when safety rules were violated and 2) always considering experien ce modification ratings when selecting subcontractors were associated with lower LWT injury rates. Three actions or contract characteristics resulted in lower non-LWT rates: management always establishing goals for safety for supervisors, conducting drug testing at. times other than banging or after an accident, and completing the DIA contract on budget, rather than over b udget Reportedly consistent use of a number of accepted safety practices wa s associated with significantly higher injury rates in bivariate and multiv ariate analyses. Conclusions The pattern of counterintuitive results found in this study sug gests that questions reflecting agreed-upon safety practices, when asked of the person responsible for all on-site construction activities, are likely to elicit normative responses. Objective validation of reported safety pra ctices is critical to evaluating their efficacy in reducing injury rates, a long with measures of both time at risk and outcome and control for prevail ing risk of the work performed. Am. J. Ind. Med. 35:175-185, 1999. (C) 1999 Wiley-Liss, Inc.