No abstract

No abstract

Implementing safety management (ISM Code) aims to promote a good safety culture in the maritime industry. However, although this has improved safety, it has also paradoxically increased bureaucracy and overlooked operative personnel. At the same time, safety science has undergone a paradigm shift from Safety-I, which is traditional and error based, to Safety-II, which focuses on the potential of the human element. To determine whether Safety-I is dominant in the prevailing culture, or whether any Safety-II ideas are emerging, we studied the current thinking and the prerequisites for improving maritime safety culture and safety management. We interviewed 17 operative employees and 12 safety and unit managers (n = 29), both individually and in groups, in eight Finnish maritime organisations representing the maritime system (shipping companies, authorities, vessel traffic service, association). We also analysed 21 inspection documents to capture practical safety defects. To the employees, safety culture meant openness and well-functioning, safe work. However, this was not always the case in practice. Safety management procedures were portrayed as mainly technical/ authority focused, and as neglecting the human element, such as the participation of operative personnel in safety improvements. We also found several factors that support improving maritime safety culture. The ISM code seems to have supported traditional methods of safety management (Safety-I), but not the creation of a positive safety culture, which the Safety-II paradigm has highlighted. System-wide safety improvement, participation of the operative personnel and open sharing of safety data were the areas in need of development. These were already being created in and among maritime organisations. To improve maritime safety culture in a concrete way and to achieve Safety-II in practice, we need a new focus and competence. Policy, procedures, and practical tools and models should use the human element as potential.

BackgroundThe construction industry has a high risk of occupational accidents and injuries. More randomised controlled trials are needed to identify effective techniques for improving the occupational safety of construction sector workers. New technologies such as virtual reality (VR) offer the potential to develop engaging learning tools for safety training. Although the number of VR applications in occupational safety training is increasing, only a few studies have evaluated the learning outcomes of VR safety training. Furthermore, previous studies indicate that learning to recognise human factors at work has positive outcomes for safety skills. However, there is lack of knowledge regarding the efficacy of human factors-related training in the construction industry.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and the implementation process of a VR-based safety training and a human factors-related safety training.MethodsIn Finland, 8 study organisations and approximately 130 construction sector workers will participate in a randomised controlled trial. The study participants will be randomly assigned to one of four intervention arms: (1) immersive VR safety training alone, (2) lecture-based safety training alone, (3) combined immersive VR safety training and HF Tool training or (4) combined lecture-based safety training and HF Tool training. We will test the efficacy of the safety training processes in these four arms. Randomisation of study participants is stratified by work experience. Baseline assessment will take place before randomisation. The short-term follow-up measurements of all study participants will be conducted immediately after the VR safety training and lecture-based safety training. The study participants will complete second measurements immediately after the HF Tool training approximately 1 month after previous safety training. The second measurement of the intervention arms 1 and 2 study participants will be conducted during the same week as that of the intervention arms 3 and 4 participants, who will not take part in the HF Tool training. Finally, semistructured individual interviews will be conducted to evaluate the learning process.Outcome measuresOutcome measures include safety knowledge, safety locus of control, safety self-efficacy, perceived control over safety issues, safety-related outcome expectancies, safety motivation and safety performance.DiscussionStudy results will provide knowledge on the efficacy of VR safety training and human factors-related safety training. Furthermore, study provides knowledge on pedagogical techniques that can be used to guide future intervention plans and development.Trial registration numberISRCTN55183871.

No abstract