Does training prevent occup
ational injuries and illnesses? That pivotal question is being addressed for employers, corporate safety and health managers and others in a recent study from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in collaboration with Canada’s Institute for Work and Health.
The study, “A Systematic Review of The Effectiveness of Training & Education for the Protection of Workers,” puts the total cost of workplace training to employers and other organizations at more than $100 billion per year, offering that given the costs and time taken up with safety and health training businesses should understand whether it actually is decreasing workplace injuries and illness.
In the United States, training is an integral part of the education and outreach component of workplace safety policy that includes enforcement and standards setting – the “three-leg stool” for keeping workers safe.
Federal law prescribes safety training and refresher training for many occupations, and agencies such as OSHA and the Mine Safety and Health Administration appropriate millions of dollars annually in their budgets to the effort. In private industry, it is no secret that minions of safety consultants have been able to eke out a good living offering such services to employers.
The study defines training as “planned efforts to facilitate the learning of specific competencies,” and occupational safety and health training as often consisting of instruction in hazard recognition and control, safe work practices, proper use of personal protective equipment, and emergency procedures and preventive actions.
Three Categories of Training
It puts training engagement into three categories, low, using oral, written or multimedia presentations of information that seeks little active participation by the learner; medium, demanding a stronger degree of interactivity, such as lectures that emphasis discussion and feedback and tests and quizzes; and high, engaging the participant with significant cognitive and behavioral interaction with training materials, typically in intense face-to-face settings with trainers and goal-setting.
The report summarizes that training investments bring “positive changes in worker knowledge and skills, attitudes, and behavior” but acknowledges that the research cannot say conclusively that training “as a lone intervention has not been demonstrated to have an impact on reducing injuries or symptoms.”
ational injuries and illnesses? That pivotal question is being addressed for employers, corporate safety and health managers and others in a recent study from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in collaboration with Canada’s Institute for Work and Health.
The study, “A Systematic Review of The Effectiveness of Training & Education for the Protection of Workers,” puts the total cost of workplace training to employers and other organizations at more than $100 billion per year, offering that given the costs and time taken up with safety and health training businesses should understand whether it actually is decreasing workplace injuries and illness.
In the United States, training is an integral part of the education and outreach component of workplace safety policy that includes enforcement and standards setting – the “three-leg stool” for keeping workers safe.
Federal law prescribes safety training and refresher training for many occupations, and agencies such as OSHA and the Mine Safety and Health Administration appropriate millions of dollars annually in their budgets to the effort. In private industry, it is no secret that minions of safety consultants have been able to eke out a good living offering such services to employers.
The study defines training as “planned efforts to facilitate the learning of specific competencies,” and occupational safety and health training as often consisting of instruction in hazard recognition and control, safe work practices, proper use of personal protective equipment, and emergency procedures and preventive actions.
Three Categories of Training
It puts training engagement into three categories, low, using oral, written or multimedia presentations of information that seeks little active participation by the learner; medium, demanding a stronger degree of interactivity, such as lectures that emphasis discussion and feedback and tests and quizzes; and high, engaging the participant with significant cognitive and behavioral interaction with training materials, typically in intense face-to-face settings with trainers and goal-setting.
The report summarizes that training investments bring “positive changes in worker knowledge and skills, attitudes, and behavior” but acknowledges that the research cannot say conclusively that training “as a lone intervention has not been demonstrated to have an impact on reducing injuries or symptoms.”
Among conclusions, the report asserts that for training to be effective it also requires management commitment and investment and worker involvement in a comprehensive hazard identification and risk management program.
As many reports of this kind postulate, many gaps in the research remain in the research and more study will need to be overtaken.
Employers Need Adequate ROI
However, that leaves little comfort for those paying training invoices – employers. Trai
ning is a business expense and should have a defined return on investment, and businesses owners increasingly are demanding assurance that training can meet its stated goals of mitigating injury and illness with an adequate ROI, according to the study.
Consider this from the study: “There is insufficient evidence that a single session of high engagement training has a greater effect than a single session of low or medium engagement training on behaviors.” If that's the case, somebody somewhere must be asking why do high engagement training.
Training out not to be a feel-good, willy-nilly exercise, as it appears the study is putting forward. Perhaps in that vein, industry, labor, government and other stakeholders might be wise to invest some of the $100 billion to get to the bottom line of the subject matter.
As many reports of this kind postulate, many gaps in the research remain in the research and more study will need to be overtaken.
Employers Need Adequate ROI
However, that leaves little comfort for those paying training invoices – employers. Trai
ning is a business expense and should have a defined return on investment, and businesses owners increasingly are demanding assurance that training can meet its stated goals of mitigating injury and illness with an adequate ROI, according to the study.
Consider this from the study: “There is insufficient evidence that a single session of high engagement training has a greater effect than a single session of low or medium engagement training on behaviors.” If that's the case, somebody somewhere must be asking why do high engagement training.
Training out not to be a feel-good, willy-nilly exercise, as it appears the study is putting forward. Perhaps in that vein, industry, labor, government and other stakeholders might be wise to invest some of the $100 billion to get to the bottom line of the subject matter.
More: Review the NIOSH training study
Photos: Virsagi.com (top); National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (bottom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment