Should prevention take an all-round view of occupational accidents triggered by movement disturbance?

The literature overlooks many occupational accidents including cases, in which the victim jams a hand in a door or window, collides with an element of the environment or finds himself/herself off-balance because a wrench slips when tightening a bolt. In common with extensively analyzed “Slips, Trips and Falls” (STFs), this type of occupational accident is triggered by a movement disturbance. Joint consideration of occupational accidents triggered by movement disturbance (OAMDs) effectively highlights accidents that are rarely targeted by research and prevention practices despite their frequency and seriousness. But, is combined analysis of such accidents truly valid from a prevention standpoint? This conference paper addresses this issue by explaining not only the advantages of grouping together all OAMDs, but also the ensuing requirement for greater understanding of worker movement.
All OAMDs possess a specific injury mechanism acting at the end of the accident process. This mechanism involves the hazard concept, which is often characterized by an intrinsic property of an element likely to cause damage to a vulnerable person. It would appear that OAMD-related injury is directly caused by the energy of the victim’s disturbed movement combined with an element in the environment. In many cases, this element is encountered every day (e.g. a wall struck by an arm) and it does not appear to be inherently harmful. Risk assessment and protection strategies are developed based on hazard characteristics, so it would seem helpful, from a risk assessment and protection standpoint, to offer a fresh insight into accidents involving movement disturbance. While manifesting themselves through movements performed at work, OAMDs risk reveal root causes rather than clumsy or careless behavior. Indeed, movements at work and hence their injury-causing risk are determined by working conditions combined with worker characteristics and pursued objectives. Distinguishing slips or trips places the focus on the triggering event (i.e. environmental factors and behavior), without necessarily taking into account the whole working context behind the event and behavior. If we consider a wider accident genesis, systemic in-depth analysis of OAMDs reveals that similar combinations of generic OAMD factors (formalized by recurring scenarios) result in different kinds of movement disturbance: a trip, a misstep or collision, for example. It therefore makes sense to adopt a systemic approach, which involves considering together different types of movement disturbance and infers extension of possible prevention actions.
Movements performed at work effectively depend on both occupational situation requirements and complex controls implemented by the operator to ensure production, while safeguarding health and safety. A broader insight into OAMD genesis therefore requires us to consider not only the movement's biomechanical dimension, but also its cognitive, psychological or organizational dimensions among others.