Skip to main content
    QHSEtech
    Updated
    All glossary terms
    Content date: · No individual check logged· AI use

    Near Miss

    Also known as: Close Call, Near Hit

    Definition

    An unplanned event with the potential for harm, where the relevant injury or damage did not occur.

    Editorial definition: The QHSE Standard, updated 3 October 2026 · https://qhsetech.com/glossary/near-miss

    Scope: Some events without injury are legally reportable dangerous occurrences. Check the relevant event category and jurisdiction.

    Example for your evaluation: Record what happened and its potential severity separately from the actual outcome.

    Sources checked: . Examples are editorial illustrations.

    How HSE and OSHA define a near miss

    HSE's guidance HSG245, Investigating accidents and incidents, separates the terms. An accident is an event that results in injury or ill health. A near miss is an event that, while not causing harm, has the potential to cause injury or ill health; for its own purposes HSG245 counts dangerous occurrences as near misses. An undesired circumstance is a set of conditions with the potential to cause harm, its example being untrained nurses handling heavy patients. Dangerous occurrences are specific events that must be reported under RIDDOR, listed in Schedule 2 of the regulations.

    HSG245 says the level of investigation should follow the potential consequences and the likelihood of recurrence, not the injury suffered on this occasion, and that near misses are easier to investigate than accidents because no one has been hurt. OSHA likewise encourages employers to investigate close calls, in which a worker might have been hurt if the circumstances had been slightly different, and suggests the word incident rather than accident.

    For processes covered by OSHA process safety management, 29 CFR 1910.119(m) makes investigation mandatory for each incident that resulted in, or could reasonably have resulted in, a catastrophic release. The investigation starts no later than 48 hours afterwards, and the report covers the date of the incident, the date the investigation began, a description, contributing factors and recommendations.

    Sources opened :

    What a near-miss record holds in software

    • What happened, where and when, in the reporter's own words, kept unchanged when the record is later edited.
    • The actual outcome (no injury or damage) recorded separately from the potential outcome and its severity rating.
    • A classification step: near miss, undesired circumstance or possible dangerous occurrence, with a check against the reporting rules that apply.
    • An investigation-depth decision based on potential severity and recurrence, followed by causes and actions.
    • Feedback to the reporter, and a reporting route that protects identity where the organisation offers one.
    • For processes covered by PSM, the investigation start date and the report fields 1910.119(m) requires.

    Near miss or unsafe condition?

    A near miss is an event: something happened and harm did not follow. An unsafe condition, HSG245's undesired circumstance, is a state that could lead to an event, such as a blocked fire exit. Some catalog tools keep them apart: Workhub's help documentation, for instance, distinguishes incident, near-miss and hazard report types. Where a tool uses one form for both, a field that separates them stops near-miss counts from absorbing hazard observations.

    A hypothetical example: a forklift and a pedestrian at a door

    This case is invented to illustrate the record and describes no real workplace. A stores assistant steps through a door between the warehouse and the packing area just as a forklift comes through the other way. The driver brakes, the assistant jumps back, and nobody is touched. The assistant mentions it to a colleague at the break and, because the site has an easy mobile form, files a report that evening.

    The report states what happened in their own words and records the actual outcome as no injury and no damage. Reading it, the safety officer rates the potential outcome as serious, since a laden truck and a pedestrian is a scenario that could have ended badly, and decides the depth of investigation from that potential rather than from the lack of harm. The review finds that the door has no vision panel, that pedestrians and trucks share the route, and that the trucks' speed was not an issue. The actions are a vision panel, a marked crossing and a conversation with the team. The reporter gets a short message saying what was changed. Two further reports of the same door arrive in the next month, which is the pattern the team would not have seen without the first.

    Common misunderstandings about near misses

    • A near miss is not a failure of the person who reported it. Treating the report as an admission of fault is the quickest way to stop reports arriving, and what the organisation learns depends on that flow.
    • Fewer reports do not show a safer site. A drop may reflect fatigue with the process, a lack of feedback or fear of blame, and it should be read next to exposure and the other measures the site uses.
    • The outcome should not set the priority. Two events with the same cause can differ only in luck, and the seriousness of what could have happened is the better basis for how much effort to spend.
    • Near misses are not only about injuries. Events that nearly caused a spill, a fire, a product defect or a damaged asset belong in the same learning loop even where no person was nearly hurt.
    • Collecting reports is not the aim. Counting them tells you how many were filed; the benefit comes from analysis, action and visible follow-through.
    • An event with no harm is not necessarily just a near miss. Some events must be reported to a regulator whether or not anyone is hurt, so a classification step should check this before the record is filed away.

    How a near miss relates to other glossary terms

    A near miss is one input among several to the same learning system, which is why it appears next to terms that cover the response and the surrounding framework.

    • PSM: for covered chemical processes, events that could reasonably have led to a major release call for investigation, which brings certain near misses into a formal process.
    • ISO 45001: expects incidents and the actions that follow them to be handled within the management system, which is where near-miss records normally sit.
    • Permit to work: a job that went outside its permit conditions without harm is a typical near-miss subject, and the findings go back into permit practice.
    • Management of change: an investigation that traces a near miss to an unreviewed change is a prompt to look at the change process itself.

    Records and evidence that usually exist for a near miss

    • The original report, with date, time, place, reporter and a description kept as first written.
    • A statement of the actual result and a separate assessment of the potential result.
    • Photographs, witness notes or sketches where they help, and any equipment or system data that applies.
    • The classification decision and the reason for it, including whether the event was checked against reporting rules.
    • The investigation, its causes and the corrective actions with owners and dates.
    • Evidence that actions were completed and, where practical, that they worked.
    • The feedback given to the reporter, and any trend review that looked at similar events together.

    What a software tool needs to capture for near misses

    • A reporting form that works in under a minute on a phone, since the effort a report takes strongly affects whether it is made.
    • Separate fields for what happened, the actual outcome and the potential severity, so the three are not merged into one description.
    • A choice of event types that keeps a near miss, an unsafe condition and an injury apart, with the ability to reclassify and keep the history.
    • Optional anonymity or restricted visibility of the reporter, with a clear statement of who can see the name.
    • Routing to the right investigator based on location, type or potential severity, and an investigation depth that follows the potential rating.
    • Links to corrective actions, with closure checks, and a way to show the reporter what happened.
    • Trend views by location, cause and type, normalised for exposure where the data allows, so counts are not read on their own.

    Catalog profiles documenting near-miss capture

    Same rule for every product: tagged “Incident Management”, “Incident Reporting” or “Near Miss Reporting”, with a sourced near-miss reporting capability in its record, or one the vendor stated to us, labelled as vendor-stated. Documented and conditional capabilities qualify; check the linked scope before treating a module as included.

    Tekmon pays for a sponsored placement (above); its place in this list follows the same rule as every entry. How lists are ordered

    All 21 matching profiles are shown. Documentation review, not hands-on testing or a claim of compliance.

    Related software

    Frequently asked questions

    Can an event without injury be reportable?

    Yes. Certain dangerous occurrences fall under reporting rules such as RIDDOR. Check the actual event category and jurisdiction.

    How is a near miss different from a hazard?

    A hazard is a potential source of harm. A near miss is an event in which the relevant harm did not occur.

    Does a rising report count mean worsening safety?

    It may reflect changed participation, exposure or event frequency. Examine the circumstances and control performance alongside the count.

    More safety terms

    Related guides