We have abandoned it (sorry - not the question you asked!). We focus on the potential of the incidents that occur and the lessons we learn from investigating them. There are so many pitfalls with TRIFR and, even worse, LTIFR. The main one being that it drives people to spend all their time manipulating categories to stop things being recordable, rather than focusing on what happened, caring for whoever was hurt and how to improve.

thanks for the feedback Craig, much appreciated

We haven't quite been able to abandon it as many clients ask for it. However, we're actively trying to shift the focus from TRIFR (where a broken leg counts the same as a fatality) to severity where we focus on high risk events. When comparing benchmarks just be careful of the calculations - we divide by 1 million but some places divide by 200,00. There's some good info on the business leaders forum

We have moved away from TRIFR. It's a very flawed metric and takes the focus away from what is important, critical risks based on risk potential of incidents.

TRIFR is driven by clients and in the absence of anything else that is universal (or close to being such) we are kind of obliged to use it as a benchmarking metric. If we could all agree on some other lead indicator measure and associated definition I'd suggest we would all get rid of TRIFR. We track it but only really for client reporting purposes. The focus is much more on critical risks mitigation, HiPo events, competency, etc.