Скачать книгу

health discussions as they have a strongly vested interest their own well‐being and the risks that may compromise their health or safety. OPs also have a major potential disadvantage in that it is more onerous, if not outright unlikely, to inject prevention into their communication with patients as the topic of work‐related risks is often a by‐product of the discovery of existing illness or injuries. Ergonomists often face a similar hurdle in the discussions or work‐related risks as they are often called in to perform an assessment after pain, injury, or musculoskeletal diseases have already occurred. It takes a persuasive risk communication for ergonomists to inject themselves in a preventative manner. The leverage toward controlling and reducing physical exposures is often in balance with the economic disincentive, familiar to corporate board rooms and well known to seasoned EHS professionals, of the potentially high costs often associated with intervention outcomes in the absence of injury and illness. Risk communication strategies must overcome these barriers at all levels.

      2.5 EHS Generalist

      As risk communication challenges have been identified for the most common EHS professions, we are now positioned to assist field practitioners and generalists alike to identify strategies and processes to help them address work‐related risk issues as they arise. Models of occupational risk prevention are derived primarily from the safety profession and they are essential for understanding the causal pathway of accidents and incidents across EHS. These models will describe which data are relevant to collect and assist in focusing the design of risk assessments to maximize the collection of risk communication components. Together with insight into the context of the events occurring, these data can, therefore, be transformed into information, and with the aid of models, information can be turned into knowledge. This derived knowledge can then be transferred into clearly delineating the value of necessary interventions, outcomes, and acquiring the resources to ensure they remain sustainable. Knowledge on causal pathways of accidents and incidents not only provides insight in reasons why they occur but also directs efforts to prevent work‐related adverse outcomes from occurring. The scientific field dealing with occupational risk prevention, however, is relatively young, and the models used in this field of research have a status of graphic presentations, instead of a classic scientific model (10).

      3.1 Bow‐Tie Model

hyg143fgz001

      Therefore, the bow‐tie is a combination of a fault tree and an event tree, linked together by a “central event.” The central event in (Figure 1 presents a state of “loss of control”; the energy content of the hazard is released and the barriers on the right side are in place to prevent the released energy from becoming an unwanted consequence like an injury or accident. As the bow‐tie was initially developed as a model for safety science, hazards like electricity or falls from heights can clearly assist in how the bow‐tie acts as an excellent risk communication model. Left‐side barriers like training and control barriers like Lock‐Out/Tag‐Out or the right fuses to prevent electrical shocks and guard rails, parapets, or the right ladder can help avoid falls from elevation. If any of these barriers fail, the release of the central event's energy does not necessarily need to lead directly to the consequences of an accident. Right‐side barriers like GFCI or surge protectors can halt the flow of electricity into a worker and fall protection devices can reduce or eliminate the adverse outcome initiated by the initial fall from elevated surfaces. Generally, scenarios leading to consequences can occur within seconds or even less. The left side of the bowtie reflects the latent condition, which can take much more time to develop, sometimes up to several years 13).

      This way of presenting accidents, certainly those that lead to severe outcomes, has a major advantage for risk communications. The presentation focuses risk prevention activities for central events. Companies can pay their attention to central events they would like to avoid most, either guided by past experience, industry‐related occurrence statistics or guided by the notion that some central events will jeopardize their production. However, it is astonishing to see that most companies only have vague ideas on central events they need to avoid. Finally, the bow‐tie presentation has scenarios as its main component, either for major or for minor accidents and incidents. This difference between different types of incidents is important. It is a common belief that minor and major accidents share the same causes, or accident scenarios, and their consequences are largely governed by chance.

      Although the bow‐tie model is derived primarily from the safety profession and is designed for use by OS disciplines, it is also an excellent tool for use within and between EHS professionals.

Скачать книгу