Agreed. Preventable injuries and deaths are not acceptable in the workplace, or elsewhere.  Sanjay Gupta’s brief essay about what is happening in the non-work sphere (and likely at the workplace as well) in Puerto Rico says this eloquently: http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/health/gupta-puerto-rico-essay/index.html

Bob Orford,

Scottsdale, AZ

From: MCOH-EH [mailto:mcoh-eh-bounces+rorford=mayo.edu@mylist.net] On Behalf Of Vaughn, Andrew I., M.D., M.P.H.
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2017 6:39 AM
To: mcoh-eh@mylist.net
Subject: Re: [MCOH-EH] Benchmarking employee injury rate

There is no reason why benchmarking should imply that some level of injuries is "ok".  Benchmarks are not goals. The goal is always zero injuries and zero harm. 

Benchmarking allows identification of those organizations that have found ways of reaching, or at least most closely approaching the goal. The next step, obviously, is to study what they are doing that is effective and identify improvement opportunities for implementation at home.

Andrew I S Vaughn, MD, MPH | Medical Director, Rochester Employee Health & Safety

Mayo Clinic | 200 First Street SW | Rochester, MN 55905 | www.mayoclinic.org

From: MCOH-EH [mailto:mcoh-eh-bounces@mylist.net] On Behalf Of william hyman
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 9:40 PM
To: mcoh-eh@mylist.net
Subject: Re: [MCOH-EH] Benchmarking employee injury rate

An interesting thing about benchmarking injury rates is the implication that some level of injuries is "ok" and that if our rate is no lower than that then we are doing well. We might ask "ok with whom" since it probably isn't ok with the injured worker. We also might not want to argue (testify) that yes he got hurt but his injury was ok because it was within our accepted injury rate which is no worse than everyone else's.