Harris, M A (2007) Developing a scorecard to evaluate the use of personal fall arrest systems. PhD thesis, University of Florida, USA.
Abstract
The structural erection of buildings and other structures is associated with a high frequency of serious fall injuries and fatalities. Routine maintenance activities such as roofing replacement are also associated with high rates of occupational fall injuries. Falls from elevation is the leading category of serious injury and fatalities in the construction industry. Annually, more than 1000 construction worker fatalities (15% attributable to falls from elevation) occur in the United States. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Construction Standard, Subpart M, Fall Protection, contains requirements for employers to follow to insure the health and safety of their employees that are exposed to fall injury hazards. Any employee working at a height of six feet or more above the walking surface is required to have fall protection. The requirements for fall protection may be satisfied by passive systems, such as 40 inch-height guardrails, or by the use of active systems. The typical equipment of an active system consists of a safety harness and lifeline assembly known as a personal fall arrest system (PFAS). By receiving the proper training and equipment, workers exposed to fall hazards may use PFASs to significantly reduce their risk of fall injury. A complete PFAS is typically defined as a full body harness (similar to a parachute harness), a lanyard to connect the harness and anchorage, and an anchorage (a heavy-duty steel alloy ring solidly connected to the structure). This study investigated the implementation of fall protection practices and policies, specifically PFASs as used in large construction companies. A scorecard was developed to assist employers in effectively evaluating the safety performance of fall protection and PFASs at either the individual project or companywide level.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Hinze, J |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | hazards; equipment; injury; replacement; health and safety; safety; training; construction worker; employee; employer; United States |
| Index terms: | health and safety, passive system, routine, injury, United States, construction company, scorecard, roofing, fall hazard, safety performance, duty, replacement, construction standard, falls, occupational safety and health, anchorage, implementation, construction industry, construction worker, fatalities |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, occupational health and safety management, health conditions and diseases, sociology, Geography, health safety and environment, energy efficiency, health risk and incident analysis, design practice, structural engineering, performance measurement, standards, contractual arrangements, materials science, practitioner, contractual role, organization |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Organizational Design, Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Legal Issues, Quality Management, Procurement, Health and Safety, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here