139 receiving the intervention and the post-test was administered after the last work-period for all crews.
Similar to the MBT study, we developed a relevant metric to measure proportion of hazards identified and communicated as shown in Equation 4. We then conducted two-sample comparative tests to determine the impact of the intervention.
𝐻𝑅 =
𝐻
𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑤
𝐻
𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑤
+𝐻
𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑙
(4) Where H
crew is the number of
hazards identified by the crew, and H
crew
+ H
panel is the total number of hazards identified by the crew and the research expert panel.
RESULTS Case 1 description Major maintenance work at a food processing facility The first study was conducted at a food processing facility involving major maintenance located at the Southeastern United States. The annual revenue of this facility surpassed $13 Million and the number of worker-hours exceeded 278,370.
At the time of our visit, twelve crews representing diverse trades were actively involved in the project.
For the purposes of this study, three crews –
mechanical, electrical and civil – were selected to participate from a stratified population. The upper management identified two highly experienced safety managers with a total of 46 years of practical experience to facilitate data collection and coordinate the integration of the HIT strategy. The size of the selected natural work crews ranged between 9 and 12 workers.
Share with your friends: 
