PSA: THE BIGGER PICTURE
FOR THE GREATER GOOD There’s a well-researched and widely shared theory that, for every 300 workplace incidents categorised as near misses, there are 29 minor injuries and 1 major injury. In order to prevent those major injuries, we really should be looking at reducing the amount of the minor incidents, the near misses. Of course, if we don’t know they’re happening, we can’t do much about them. That’s where incident reporting comes in, and we don’t seem to be very good at it. Maybe it’s a time thing, maybe it’s a fear thing, we don’t really know. Luckily, Samantha Gruskin wanted to know more and researched incident reporting in theatre, we thought we’d better hand over the reins so she can explain her findings.
Working in stage management across a variety of theatres, I was always underwhelmed by the standard of incident report. In many instances, the report form didn’t exist. If it did, it was totally inadequate, or sat on someone’s desk unconsidered. Although sometimes blown off as just another procedure, incident & near-miss report forms are valuable tools that, when acted upon properly, can directly improve the safety of a working environment. I saw there could be a lot to gain by improving this area of procedure, and went out into the industry to find out what was getting in the way of effective incident report. Why did people not report and what would make them more likely to do so? What were the practical barriers? What were the cultural barriers? Looking into the working practice of theatre and speaking to practitioners directly, I found that we must address both the procedure itself and the culture surrounding it. The report form must be well engineered, but of equal importance is cultivating an environment in which reporting is encouraged and valued. Luckily, there’s a lot we can do to improve incident report, most of it requiring very little effort. There’s useful research in psychology about how the brain processes information related to adverse events and how we notate that on something like an incident report form. Simply by incorporating these principles, we can improve the data we get from the report. I joined that research with the practical experience of those working in the industry, to come up with an understanding of what the issues are, what we can do better, and recommendations that anyone can apply to get the most out of their reporting procedure. When I asked practitioners what they found most difficult about incident report, a common response was they felt that they needed to tell a story. Even if they weren’t sure of elements related to the event, or the cause, they felt they had to explain it. This is completely natural as the brain’s natural tendency is to form a narrative of information, especially when there’s been an adverse event and we feel there’s something to account for. Unfortunately, this need to form a narrative often results in the reporting of false information, which can taint the reliability of the data. The report should only concern factual statements, even if there is no clear link between them at the time. Assuring the respondent that they don’t have to connect the dots in the information they provide not only increases the reliability of the report, but puts them at ease, which also addresses the issue of anxiety brought about by blame culture. Unfortunately, fear and blame culture are among the first things that come to mind when incident report is discussed. In a comprehensive Norwegian study, “fear of disciplinary action as a result of blame culture, or of other people’s reactions” was listed as the first of five primary factors in why people do not report. Speaking with stagehands and technicians across theatres in London, the same was true in my findings. Members of an organisation are afraid to report because of either the managerial or social implications. This is perfectly understandable, but unfortunate. The purpose of incident is not 116
