In labs, the risk of serious accidents often develops over time, marked by early warning signs that can be easy to miss. These indicators—known as serious injury and fatality (SIF) precursors—are observable conditions or behaviors that signal elevated risk but frequently go unrecognized or unaddressed.

Understanding how to detect and respond to these precursors is one of the most effective ways lab leaders can protect their teams. A presentation delivered by Don Martin, a global expert in SIF prevention, during the 2025 Lab Manager Leadership Summit offered a practical framework for identifying SIF potential, building leading indicators, and shifting safety culture from reactive to proactive.

Biosafety and Biosecurity Course

Get training in Biosafety and Biosecurity and earn CEUs.

One of over 40 IACET-accredited courses in the Academy.

What follows are key takeaways from the session—insights lab managers can use to elevate their safety programs, engage staff, and strengthen their organization’s defenses against the worst-case scenarios.

Understand and identify SIF precursors

Martin introduced the concept of SIF precursors: observable conditions or behaviors that, if left unaddressed, can lead to a life-threatening or life-altering event. These precursors are typically detectable before an incident—but too often, no one recognizes them.

For lab professionals, precursors might include missing PPE, faulty fume hoods, or risky behaviors that go uncorrected. Martin emphasized the need to study near misses and recordable injuries to uncover patterns that reveal underlying SIF potential. According to his research, 25 percent of such cases show that only one small change would have resulted in a fatal or life-altering outcome.

Build a portfolio of leading indicators

Rather than waiting for incidents to occur, lab managers should prioritize leading indicators—measurable actions that are within the team’s control and predictive of safety outcomes. Martin suggests tracking:

• The number of near misses reported, particularly those with SIF potential
• The presence and performance of critical controls
• The frequency and intensity of high-risk exposures (e.g., working with high voltage or hazardous chemicals)

These indicators can help construct tools like a SIF Pareto chart to guide where safety resources should be focused.

Make critical controls visible and non-negotiable

A critical control, Martin explained, is a behavior or condition that must be in place 100 percent of the time to prevent serious harm. In a lab, this could include working fume hoods, emergency eye wash stations, arc flash protection, and appropriate PPE.

“If a critical control is missing or underperforming,” he said, “the only conclusion you can draw is that the person’s life is in jeopardy. You must stop the job.”

Lab managers must verify—not assume—that these controls are in place and functioning. Field verifications and checklists must move beyond transactional compliance to transformational engagement.

Engage leadership through SIF-focused metrics

Martin noted that many executive teams don’t know their organization’s vulnerability to SIFs, nor do they track exposure frequency or verify the presence of critical controls. To address this, he recommends reframing safety conversations around:

• Vulnerability to SIF events – What portion of reported incidents could have resulted in a fatality?
• Exposure to SIF risk – How often are lab workers performing high-risk tasks?
• Critical control verification – What evidence proves safety systems are in place and performing?

When leaders are shown data, they become more engaged and willing to invest in prevention through design and system-level changes.

Move beyond checkboxes: Make safety conversations real

Martin challenged lab managers to transform routine safety activities like pre-task briefings and observations into conversations that engage teams meaningfully. Instead of simply checking forms, ask workers:

• What are you doing today?
• How could you get hurt or killed?
• Do you have everything you need to protect yourself?

This kind of engagement fosters ownership, reveals gaps in understanding, and builds trust. It also strengthens “stop work authority”—a critical safety mechanism that allows workers to pause unsafe work without fear of retaliation.

Shift the culture from compliance to care

Safety culture, Martin emphasized, isn’t built on rules alone—it’s built on values. Instead of viewing safety as a shifting priority, leaders should communicate that safety is a core ethical value.

He offered several reframes to shift the culture:

• From rules to commitments: Replace rigid rules with personal commitments to protect yourself and others.
• From compliance to ownership: Encourage reporting and learning rather than punishing mistakes.
• From investigation to learning: Swap blame-based investigations for root cause analysis that leads to meaningful, system-level fixes.

Martin also stressed the role of psychological safety in empowering workers to speak up about risks. When leaders ask better questions and show genuine curiosity, workers respond with honesty—and that honesty saves lives.

Start small, but start now

Martin concluded by encouraging labs to select just one or two leading indicators to begin with—such as tracking near misses with SIF potential or verifying critical controls during lab walkthroughs.

His message to lab managers was clear: serious injury and fatality prevention isn’t just a technical challenge. It’s a leadership responsibility, a cultural shift, and a long-term commitment to creating a safer, more resilient lab environment.

Key Takeaways:

• SIF precursors are often visible before incidents—but only if you know what to look for.
• Leading indicators like near miss reports, control verifications, and SIF exposure frequency guide proactive safety action.
• Effective lab safety culture requires engaged leadership, accurate risk perception, and critical control verification.
• Safety success depends on personal ownership and psychological safety—not just compliance.
• Reframing safety language—from rules to values—can transform behavior and culture.