Division Introduction

These risk assessment guidelines distinguish between four levels of injury harm severity. It is important to realise that severity should be assessed completely objectively. The aim is to compare the severity of different scenarios and to set priorities, not to judge the acceptability of a single injury at this stage. Any injury harm that could easily have been avoided will be difficult to accept for a consumer. However, authorities can justifiably invest more effort into avoiding irreversible consequences than into preventing temporary discomfort.

In order to assess the severity of the consequences (acute injury or other damage to health), objective criteria can be found, on the one hand, in the level of medical intervention, and, on the other hand, in the consequences to the further functioning of the victim. Both could be expressed as cost, but the costs of consequences of health damage may be difficult to quantify.

Combining these criteria, the four levels may be defined as follows:

1. 1..

   Harm or consequence that after basic treatment (first aid, normally not by a doctor) does not substantially hamper functioning or cause excessive pain; usually the consequences are completely reversible.

2. 2..

   Harm or consequence for which a visit to A&E may be necessary, but in general, hospitalisation is not required. Functioning may be affected for a limited period, not more than about 6 months, and recovery is more or less complete.

3. 3..

   Harm or consequence that normally requires hospitalisation and will affect functioning for more than 6 months or lead to a permanent loss of function.

4. 4..

   Harm or consequence that is or could be fatal, including brain death; consequences that affect reproduction or offspring; severe loss of limbs and/or function, leading to more than approximately 10 % of disability.

The following table, which should be considered as a guide rather than prescriptive or complete, provides examples of injuries at all four levels. National differences may exist, either cultural or caused by different systems of health care and financial arrangements. However, deviating from the proposed classification in the table will affect uniform assessment of risks in the EU; this should be clearly stated and explained in the risk assessment report, and reasons should be given.