Strategies for construction hazard recognition
Measuring hazard recognition and communication performance by shadowing work crews
Download 2.75 Mb. View original pdf
|
| Measuring hazard recognition and communication performance by shadowing work crews As indicated, our primary goal was to improve worker hazard recognition and communication via the use of the SMQM model and the cognitive retrieval mnemonics. To empirically measure the proportion of hazards recognized and communicated we developed a protocol and a relevant metric, the hazard recognition and communication index (HRC index. The method of computing the HRC index is shown in Equation 1. 𝐻𝑅𝐶 = 𝐻 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑤 𝐻 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 (1) Where H crew represents the total number of hazards identified and communicated by the crew during the planning phase for each task and H total represents the total number of identifiable hazards the crew was exposed to during work which was identified through field observations by a site-based panel. To compute the HRC index, we set a specific repeatable protocol for measuring the proportion of hazards identified and communicated prior to work. To measure H crew , we observed the pre-task meeting and recorded the hazards that were identified and discussed before work began. To ensure completeness, the site leadership also observed meetings and validated the observations. In comparison, measuring the total hazards that the crew was exposed to was more difficult. Rather than attempting to measure all possible hazards onsite, we focused on measuring the total number of identifiable hazards, which is defined as the total number of hazards identified by all workers, managers, and researchers before, during, and after the work. It is important to note that the risk associated with identifiable hazards was 92 not quantified for the purpose of this study. Rather, any identifiable hazard that could potentially harm workers was used in the computation of the HRC index in accordance to the possible outcome. For example, if a worker was observed to be working on an edge (i.e. potential for fall, this was regarded as an identifiable hazard. Similarly, if an electrician was working with power lines (i.e. potential for electric shock, this identifiable hazard was used while computing the HRC index regardless of the risk level. To enhance reliability and validity, two members of the site leadership with advanced safety training and education (safety managers) worked with the researchers to conduct observations of the work as it was performed. The goal of this team was to independently identify all of the hazards that the workers encountered during work which was used to compute H total after consensus was achieved. Additionally, the three observers formed a catalog of hazards that were encountered to add consistency and refined the catalog at the end of each work period. While it is unlikely that the three individuals would identify all hazards in every work period, such a protocol helped us to maintain consistency in the observation process. In total, the observers studied 16 work periods for each project and each crew (96 work periods per project. Typically, a work period was the four-hour period before or after the lunch break. The observers compared their results to ensure internal consistency and reliability. Download 2.75 Mb. Share with your friends:
|