Workplace accidents remain a significant concern in high-risk industries, such as oil servicing, where employees face substantial safety risks due to complex operations and hazardous environments. This study examined the prevalence of workplace accidents, their causes, and how they occur in specific oil servicing firms in Nigeria. The issue is that safety management remains inadequate, despite existing regulations. This results in numerous accidents and health hazards at work. The study aims to identify the types of incidents and their frequency, investigate underlying causes, and suggest methods to enhance workplace safety. Grounded in Heinrich’s Domino Theory of accident causation, the research adopts a descriptive survey design to explore accident trends and contributing behaviours. Data were collected using structured questionnaires distributed to 120 respondents across four oil servicing companies. Purposive sampling ensured that participants were operational staff directly exposed to safety-critical environments. Quantitative data were analysed using chi-square tests, percentages, and frequency distribution tables to examine the relationships between safety measures and the prevalence of accidents. The findings reveal that the most common types of accidents include slips, falls, injuries from equipment, and exposure to hazardous substances. Contributing factors encompass improper use of personal protective equipment (PPE), inadequate safety training, and poor enforcement of safety regulations. There was a strong correlation between the effectiveness of safety measures and the number of accidents. The article concludes that regular training, strict enforcement of safety protocols, and investment in new safety equipment are all crucial. The study recommends strengthening regulatory oversight and cultivating a proactive safety culture to mitigate risks in the oil servicing sector.
Okon et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: