📊

Safety Incident Severity Scoring

Standardized severity scoring system for incidents with OSHA classification automation. Track incident severity trends over time.

Solution Overview

Standardized severity scoring system for incidents with OSHA classification automation. Track incident severity trends over time. This solution is part of our Safety category and can be deployed in 2-4 weeks using our proven tech stack.

Industries

This solution is particularly suited for:

Manufacturing Construction Utilities

The Need

Manufacturing, construction, and utilities operations face a critical challenge in workplace safety: inconsistent incident classification. When an employee sustains a minor cut versus a significant laceration requiring stitches, different supervisors apply different judgment standards—one reports the cut as a "first aid only" incident while another classifies it as an OSHA-recordable injury, creating inconsistent safety data that masks true organizational risk. This classification inconsistency creates severe consequences. OSHA recordability determinations are complex: injuries must be assessed against specific criteria including whether medical treatment beyond first aid was required, whether the injury involved loss of consciousness, whether it resulted in restricted work activity, or whether it involved days away from work. Supervisors operating without structured guidance misclassify incidents systematically—either over-reporting minor issues that inflate incident rates and trigger unnecessary regulatory scrutiny, or under-reporting serious incidents that violate OSHA Form 300 requirements and expose the company to penalties ranging from $1,000 to $16,000 per violation. A mid-sized manufacturing facility discovered during an OSHA inspection that they had failed to record 12 incidents on their Form 300 that should have been reported, resulting in $58,000 in penalties and a "Willful Violation" designation that increases insurance premiums for three years.

The business impact of classification inconsistency extends far beyond regulatory penalties. Companies with inconsistent incident classification cannot accurately calculate TRIR (Total Recordable Incident Rate) and DART (Days Away, Restricted, or Job Transfer) rates—metrics that insurance companies use to set workers' compensation premiums and that investors and customers use to assess organizational risk. A construction company that under-reports incidents appears to have a TRIR of 2.1 per 200,000 hours worked, creating competitive advantage in bidding and insurance pricing. Once OSHA audits reveal the true incident count, corrected TRIR jumps to 4.8, triggering insurance premium increases of 40-60% retroactively and customer contract penalties for failing to meet safety requirements. Utilities companies operating under strict safety protocols (OSHA-regulated electrical work, natural gas distribution) face even greater exposure: a single under-reported incident can result in loss of operating permits if discovered during regulatory inspection.

Trending and prediction suffer without consistent severity classification. Safety managers need to understand whether incident severity is improving or worsening. If minor incidents are reported inconsistently—sometimes captured, sometimes overlooked—safety managers cannot identify early warning signs that precede serious injuries. Research from the National Safety Council demonstrates that organizations with strong near-miss reporting and severity-based analysis prevent serious injuries at 2-3x higher rates than those without structured incident trending. A facilities maintenance company discovered that they had experienced 8 near-miss incidents (minor injuries, no lost time) in their HVAC maintenance division over three months, but under-reported them due to classification inconsistency. The ninth incident in month four resulted in a serious burn requiring hospitalization and 30 days away from work. A standardized severity scoring system would have flagged the escalating risk pattern and prompted targeted intervention before the serious injury occurred.

Corrective action prioritization is impossible without consistent severity assessment. Safety managers with limited resources must decide which incidents warrant intensive investigation and which can be handled with routine follow-up. Without standardized severity scoring, this prioritization is ad-hoc: an incident that causes minor discomfort receives the same investigation effort as a serious burn, wasting resources on low-risk issues while potentially under-investigating high-severity incidents. The result is that serious incidents recur because root cause analysis was insufficient, while minor incidents receive excessive investigation creating investigation backlog. Organizations need an objective, transparent framework that reliably scores incident severity, automates OSHA recordability determination, and enables both regulatory compliance and intelligent resource allocation.

The Idea

An Incident Severity Scoring system eliminates classification inconsistency by implementing structured, automated assessment that scores every incident against standardized criteria, automatically determines OSHA recordability, calculates injury severity metrics (TRIR, DART), and enables predictive trending to identify escalating risk patterns. When an incident is reported—whether through mobile app, web form, or email—the system begins by capturing essential context: type of incident (cut, strain, exposure, contact, etc.), body part affected (hand, back, eye, etc.), primary hazard source (equipment, tools, chemicals, motion, environment), and initial assessment of injury severity.

The system then automatically presents a structured severity assessment questionnaire aligned with OSHA recordability criteria. For each reported injury, the system asks specific questions: "Did the injury involve loss of consciousness?" "Was medical treatment beyond first aid provided?" "Is the employee expected to miss work as a result of this injury?" "Are work restrictions expected?" "Is this the employee's first injury of this type?" These questions directly map to OSHA Form 300 recordability decision logic. The system is not making judgments—it is collecting objective facts from which recordability can be determined. For example, if a supervisor reports "Employee received stitches for a laceration on the hand," the system captures this fact and automatically determines the injury is OSHA-recordable because suturing is medical treatment beyond first aid. If another supervisor reports "Employee cut hand but only needed bandage and antiseptic," the system determines this is first-aid-only and not recordable—no supervisor discretion, no inconsistency.

The system classifies incidents into severity tiers based on established occupational health standards. Severity Level 1 (First Aid Only): injury addressed with basic first aid supplies (bandages, antiseptic, ice), no medical professional consultation, no work restriction expected. Severity Level 2 (Medical Evaluation Only): injury required evaluation by occupational health provider or urgent care but did not progress to recordable medical treatment, no work restriction expected. Severity Level 3 (OSHA Recordable - Medical Treatment No Time Lost): injury requiring medical treatment beyond first aid (sutures, splinting, prescribed medication) but no days away from work expected. Severity Level 4 (OSHA Recordable - Restricted/Modified Duty): injury requiring medical treatment with modified work activities or work restrictions, no days away from work. Severity Level 5 (OSHA Recordable - Days Away): injury resulting in one or more days away from work, may involve ongoing medical treatment. Severity Level 6 (Serious/Critical Injury): life-threatening injuries requiring emergency care, potential for permanent disability or fatality. Each severity level automatically triggers appropriate investigation depth, escalation protocols, and corrective action intensity.

For near-miss incidents (incidents that could have resulted in injury but did not), the system applies parallel severity scoring based on the potential for injury rather than actual injury. A near-miss where an employee narrowly avoids contact with rotating equipment is scored based on the severity of injury that would have resulted if contact occurred—potentially Level 4-5 severity even though no actual injury occurred. This enables early warning detection: a trend of Level 4-5 potential-severity near-misses predicts serious injuries at rates 10-30x higher than random chance, enabling targeted corrective action before actual injuries occur.

OSHA form generation happens automatically. The system maintains running Form 300 (injury and illness log) with all incidents classified by recordability status (recordable vs. not recordable). When month-end approaches, the system automatically calculates Form 300A (annual summary) with required totals by injury category, body part affected, and days away from work. Form 301 (incident detail report) is pre-populated with information captured during the severity assessment, with all required fields completed. When OSHA inspection season arrives, the forms are ready for submission—no scrambling, no missing fields, no classification disputes.

Trend analysis leverages the consistent severity classification to identify patterns and predict risk. The system calculates rolling TRIR (Total Recordable Incident Rate per 200,000 hours) and DART (Days Away, Restricted, Job Transfer Rate per 200,000 hours) with confidence that data is accurate and consistent. Department-level analysis shows whether certain areas are trending toward higher severity incidents. Time-series analysis reveals whether incident severity is improving with interventions or escalating despite corrective actions. Predictive alerts identify when near-miss frequency exceeds thresholds that historically precede serious injuries, prompting proactive investigation and corrective action before actual injuries occur.

How It Works

flowchart TD A[Incident Reported] --> B[Capture Incident
Context & Details] B --> C[Answer Assessment
Questions] C --> D{Medical Treatment
Beyond First Aid?} D -->|No| E[Severity Level 1-2
First Aid or Eval Only] D -->|Yes| F{Days Away from
Work Expected?} F -->|No| G{Work Restrictions
or Modifications
Required?} F -->|Yes| H[Severity Level 5
Days Away from Work] G -->|No| I[Severity Level 3
Medical Tx, No Time Loss] G -->|Yes| J[Severity Level 4
Restricted/Modified Duty] E --> K[OSHA: Not Recordable] I --> L[OSHA: Recordable] J --> L H --> L K --> M[Assign Severity
Score 1-100] L --> M M --> N[Calculate TRIR/DART
Rates] N --> O[Trend Analysis by
Department & Type] O --> P{Near-Miss Frequency
Exceeds Threshold?} P -->|Yes| Q[Escalation Alert:
Serious Injury Risk] P -->|No| R[Routine Escalation
& Notifications] Q --> S[Auto-Generate
OSHA Forms 300/301] R --> S S --> T[Incident Trending
& Predictive Alerts]

Structured incident severity scoring workflow that applies consistent OSHA recordability criteria, calculates injury severity metrics, and enables predictive trend analysis to identify escalating risk patterns before serious injuries occur.

The Technology

All solutions run on the IoTReady Operations Traceability Platform (OTP), designed to handle millions of data points per day with sub-second querying. The platform combines an integrated OLTP + OLAP database architecture for real-time transaction processing and powerful analytics.

Deployment options include on-premise installation, deployment on your cloud (AWS, Azure, GCP), or fully managed IoTReady-hosted solutions. All deployment models include identical enterprise features.

OTP includes built-in backup and restore, AI-powered assistance for data analysis and anomaly detection, integrated business intelligence dashboards, and spreadsheet-style data exploration. Role-based access control ensures appropriate information visibility across your organization.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does automated incident severity scoring reduce OSHA recordability errors? +
OSHA recordability determinations require consistent application of complex criteria: whether medical treatment beyond first aid was provided, whether days away from work occurred, and whether work restrictions apply. Manual classification by supervisors introduces bias and inconsistency—one supervisor treats a suture as 'first aid' while another correctly classifies it as recordable medical treatment. An incident severity scoring system eliminates this inconsistency by implementing the OSHA recordability decision tree as automated logic. When a supervisor reports incident facts (e.g., 'employee received stitches requiring 15 minutes with occupational health provider'), the system automatically applies the correct classification based on those objective facts. This reduces recordability determination errors by 95% according to occupational health data, preventing the $1,000-$16,000 per-violation penalties that result from misclassified incidents. A manufacturing facility using automated severity scoring discovered they had been under-reporting incidents by an average of 3-4 per month, catching errors before OSHA inspection revealed them during form review. By automating recordability determinations, organizations eliminate the primary source of OSHA non-compliance: honest but inconsistent supervisor judgment applied to complex regulatory criteria.
What is the difference between OSHA recordability and incident severity scoring? +
OSHA recordability is a binary classification: an incident is either recordable (must appear on OSHA Form 300) or non-recordable (does not go on the form). The recordability determination focuses on specific OSHA criteria: medical treatment beyond first aid, days away from work, job transfer, restricted work activities, or other-than-first-aid treatment. An injury that caused 3 days away from work is recordable; an injury that required only over-the-counter pain relief is not recordable. Severity scoring, by contrast, measures injury severity on a continuous scale (typically 1-100 or 1-6 level scale) and encompasses factors beyond OSHA criteria. A severity score incorporates injury type (laceration versus burn), body part affected, expected recovery time, occupational impact (permanent disability versus temporary discomfort), and incident pattern (isolated incident versus recurrent hazard). Two recordable incidents can have vastly different severity scores: a minor OSHA-recordable incident (one day away from work due to minor strain) might score 25 on a 100-point scale, while a serious OSHA-recordable incident (laceration requiring emergency surgery, 90 days away from work) might score 92. Severity scoring enables intelligent prioritization: severe incidents trigger intensive investigation and executive escalation, while lower-severity recordable incidents receive proportional investigation effort. Organizations need both recordability determination (regulatory compliance) and severity scoring (resource allocation and risk assessment).
How can near-miss frequency trends predict serious injuries before they occur? +
Near-miss data provides a leading indicator of serious injury risk. The National Safety Council's research demonstrates that organizations with systematic near-miss reporting and severity analysis prevent serious injuries at 2-3x higher rates than those without structured trending. Near-miss severity scoring assesses incidents based on potential injury—the harm that would have occurred if actual contact had happened. An employee who narrowly avoids contact with rotating equipment that would cause severe laceration is scored as 'Level 4-5 potential severity' even though no actual injury occurred. When trending shows 8-10 Level 4-5 potential-severity near-misses in a department over 30 days, historical data indicates serious injuries will occur within that department within the next 30-90 days at 10-30x higher probability than baseline. This enables proactive intervention: when thresholds are exceeded, safety managers can conduct hazard assessments, implement engineering controls, and provide targeted training before actual injuries occur. A facilities maintenance company identified 8 Level 4-5 near-misses in their HVAC division within three months but did not escalate for corrective action. The ninth near-miss sequence resulted in a serious burn injury requiring hospitalization and 30 days away from work. Post-incident analysis showed that systematic near-miss trending with severity scoring would have identified the hazard pattern and prompted intervention before the serious injury occurred. Near-miss frequency, when properly scored for potential severity, functions as a predictive risk indicator enabling prevention before incidents become injuries.
What is TRIR and DART, and how does consistent incident classification improve these metrics? +
TRIR (Total Recordable Incident Rate) measures the number of OSHA-recordable injuries per 200,000 hours worked (equivalent to 100 full-time employees working one year). Formula: (Number of recordable incidents / Total hours worked) × 200,000. DART (Days Away, Restricted, or Job Transfer rate) measures a subset of recordable incidents—specifically those involving days away from work, job transfer, or work restrictions—also normalized per 200,000 hours. Insurance companies use TRIR and DART to set workers' compensation premiums and adjust ratings. A company with TRIR of 2.1 receives better insurance rates than a company with TRIR of 4.8. Investors and customers review TRIR as a safety performance metric when evaluating company risk. The critical issue: if incidents are classified inconsistently, TRIR and DART calculations are meaningless. A construction company that under-reported incidents appeared to have 2.1 TRIR; actual incidents revealed after OSHA audit showed true TRIR was 4.8, resulting in retroactive insurance premium increases of 40-60% and customer contract penalties. Automated incident severity scoring ensures consistent recordability determination, making TRIR and DART calculations reliable. A mid-sized manufacturing facility calculated TRIR of 3.4 based on manual classification. After implementing automated severity scoring, they discovered they had been under-reporting by approximately 2-3 incidents monthly; corrected TRIR was 4.1. This higher but accurate TRIR revealed the true safety performance, enabling the company to set realistic safety targets and identify which departments required intervention. Accurate TRIR and DART calculations based on consistent classification are essential for meaningful safety management and reliable insurance rates.
How do severity-based investigation depths prevent wasted resources and missed serious injuries? +
Safety managers have limited investigation capacity. A typical safety manager can conduct 1-2 comprehensive investigations per week, each requiring 10-15 hours (incident interview, hazard assessment, root cause analysis, corrective action design, documentation). A facility with 20-30 incidents per month must make prioritization decisions: which incidents warrant 10+ hours of investigation and which require only routine documentation? Without structured severity scoring, this prioritization is ad-hoc: an incident receives investigation intensity based on supervisor initiative or accident proximity, not actual severity. The consequence: serious incidents sometimes receive superficial investigation while minor incidents receive extensive investigation, misallocating safety resources. A structured severity scoring system implements investigation depth proportional to incident severity. Level 1 incidents (first aid only) require documentation and supervisor notification (0.5 hours). Level 2-3 incidents require occupational health consultation and supervisor investigation (2-3 hours). Level 4-5 incidents require safety management investigation, hazard assessment, and engineering review (8-12 hours). Level 6 incidents trigger emergency response protocols. This tiered investigation approach ensures that serious incidents receive proportional investigation effort. A facilities maintenance company tracking investigation time discovered that minor incidents received 5-10 hours investigation while serious incidents received 2-3 hours. After implementing severity-based investigation depth, they allocated 12 hours to each serious incident, discovering previously-missed root causes. Post-implementation, incidents of that type (serious laceration caused by inadequate guarding) did not recur, preventing estimated 2-3 serious injuries over 12 months. Severity-based investigation prioritization prevents both resource waste on minor incidents and missed opportunities to prevent serious injuries through comprehensive root cause analysis.
What specific cost impacts result from OSHA Form 300 violations and how can automation prevent them? +
OSHA recordability violations carry substantial penalties. First violation per Form 300 classification error: $1,000-$2,000 administrative penalty. Willful violations (systematic under-reporting or failures to record incidents that clearly meet recordability criteria): $10,000-$16,000 per violation. A manufacturing facility discovered during OSHA inspection that they had failed to record 12 incidents that met recordability criteria, resulting in $58,000 in penalties plus a 'Willful Violation' designation. Beyond direct penalties, violations trigger secondary costs: willful violation designations increase workers' compensation insurance premiums for 3 years (estimated 15-25% premium increase, totaling $30,000-$60,000+ for mid-sized facilities); customer contracts often contain safety compliance clauses, and violations can trigger contract penalties or loss of business; regulatory agencies may conduct follow-up inspections and audits, diverting management attention; audit failures can damage company reputation, making employee recruitment more difficult and customer relationships more fragile. Automated incident severity scoring eliminates the primary source of Form 300 violations: inconsistent supervisor recordability determination. By implementing the OSHA recordability decision tree as automated logic, organizations ensure that every incident is classified consistently against regulatory criteria. When a supervisor provides objective incident facts (medical treatment provided, days expected away from work), the system determines recordability automatically, removing supervisor judgment from the classification process. An occupational health consulting firm analyzing 500+ facilities found that those using automated recordability determination had 95% fewer Form 300 classification errors, preventing estimated penalties of $15,000-$35,000 per organization annually. For manufacturing and construction firms operating under OSHA regulations, automated recordability determination is a high-ROI investment that prevents both direct penalties and secondary costs from regulatory violations.
How does predictive near-miss trending integrate with corrective action planning to prevent injury recurrence? +
Traditional incident management focuses on reactive response: an injury occurs, investigation identifies root cause, corrective actions are implemented. Organizations measure success by tracking whether incidents of that type recur within 6-12 months. Predictive near-miss trending enables proactive prevention: before injuries occur, hazard patterns are identified through escalating near-miss frequency, allowing interventions before actual injuries. A utilities company implemented near-miss trending and discovered that electrical line contact near-misses in their field operations division escalated to 6-7 per month (Level 5 potential severity, since actual contact would result in serious injury or fatality). Historical data indicated serious incidents at 8-12x higher probability within following 30-90 days. Rather than waiting for an injury to occur, the company implemented engineering controls: improved line isolation procedures, equipment redesign to reduce line contact risk, and intensive field retraining. Within 2 months, near-miss frequency dropped to 1-2 per month. No serious injuries occurred during the implementation period, preventing an estimated 1-2 serious injuries and associated costs (emergency response, workers' compensation, investigation, potential regulatory exposure). Predictive near-miss trending enables corrective action planning that prevents injuries rather than responding after they occur. Integration with incident management systems ensures that corrective action effectiveness is tracked: after implementing corrective actions, are incidents of that type still occurring? If near-miss frequency for a hazard remains elevated despite corrective actions, additional investigation indicates whether corrective actions were insufficient or whether root cause analysis missed the underlying problem. This feedback loop enables continuous improvement: corrective actions are validated and refined based on subsequent incident patterns. For manufacturing and construction operations, predictive near-miss trending combined with severity scoring accelerates the movement from reactive incident management (responding to injuries) to proactive risk management (preventing injuries before they occur).

Deployment Model

Rapid Implementation

2-4 week implementation with our proven tech stack. Get up and running quickly with minimal disruption.

Your Infrastructure

Deploy on your servers with Docker containers. You own all your data with perpetual license - no vendor lock-in.

Related Solutions

⚠️

OSHA Safety Incident Tracker

Document workplace injuries and near-misses with mobile app, auto-generate OSHA 300 logs, and track corrective actions.
🎓

Operator Training & Certification Tracker

Verify employee qualifications with QR code workstation scanning and mobile app authorization checks (green/red light).
🚨

Incident Response System

Document safety incidents, security breaches, or operational disruptions with investigation tracking and root cause analysis.

Ready to Get Started?

Let's discuss how Safety Incident Severity Scoring can transform your operations.

Schedule a Demo