Systemic safety management in anesthesiological practices

Patriarca, Riccardo; Gravio, Giulio Di; Costantino, Francesco; Fedele, Lorenzo; Tronci, Massimo; Bianchi, Valentina; Caroletti, Fabrizio; Bilotta, Federico

doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2019.08.021

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…83 Considering medical staffs and equipment also as stakeholders in healthcare, Patriarca et al define the consequences of accidental events as: 1) patient is injured, 2) patient dies, 3) equipment ais damaged, and 4) staff is injured. 84 In this study, we consider adverse events mainly related to patient safety, and some negations like higher treatment cost or patient dissatisfaction, can be regarded as the lighter consequences. In a common sense, severe consequences are related to higher [41,54] Hazard in contact Discharge Toxic release Bad design of sensors Instrument aging Patient injury [5,50] Hazards in cyber Hazard in data transmission…”

Section: Causal Likelihood and Consequence Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk management of smart healthcare systems: Delimitation, state-of-arts, process, and perspectives

Liu

2022

Journal of Patient Safety and Risk Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sensing, communication, computation, and control technologies are facilitating smart healthcare to improve efficiency and effectiveness of medical treatment and care. This study focuses on the risk issues relevant with the adverse events where novel technical systems do not serve as expected. We discuss the unique challenges, define the scope of risk management in healthcare and review the state-of-art research on diverse topics under the framework widely used in risk management. Then, we present a systematic approach to identify the hazards to patients and other asset of interest in the perception, cyber communication, and execution of smart technologies and their operational contexts. We also investigate different methods for scenario, likelihood, and consequence analyses for specifying the risks of adverse events, and categorize the approaches of risk reduction, as the main strategy of treating risks of smart healthcare systems, into four groups of design, operation, organization, and legislation. At the last, the article proposes some research perspectives responding to the developing trend of smart healthcare.

show abstract

Section: Causal Likelihood and Consequence Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk management of smart healthcare systems: Delimitation, state-of-arts, process, and perspectives

Liu

2022

Journal of Patient Safety and Risk Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The systemic approaches have previously demonstrated their usefulness in several other socio‐technical systems (e.g., evidence available from recent literature on FRAM (Patriarca et al, 2020; Salehi et al, 2021), or from several recent cases in various safety and ergonomics domains applying STAMP and its associated techniques (Li et al, 2019; Patriarca et al, 2019; Stanton et al, 2019), or EAST (Stanton et al, 2018). FRAM and STAMP are in essence qualitative safety analysis approaches, although in the case of FRAM some quantitative extensions (Patriarca et al, 2017; Patriarca, Falegnami, et al, 2018), including the application of Fuzzy Logic (Hirose & Sawaragi, 2020; Slim & Nadeau, 2020), have been described.…”

Section: About Systemic Safety Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaming with industrial cobots: A socio‐technical perspective on safety analysis

Adriaensen

Costantino

Gravio

et al. 2021

Hum Ftrs & Erg Mfg Svc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collaborative human–machine interaction will be progressively intensified in industrial applications. The aim of this article is to examine current approaches to cobot safety by showing that these approaches can additionally benefit from systems thinking methods. The first part of this article covers a narrative literature review on predominantly techno‐centric robot safety approaches, with a strong focus on containing kinetic energy and ensuring separation with humans. The second part introduces systems thinking methods to analyze a socio‐technical perspective on cobot safety, including joint cognitive systems and distributed cognition perspectives. This explorative research dimension is expected to overcome an overly narrow interpretation of safety issues, anticipating the challenges ahead in ever more complex cobot applications. This article embraces a socio‐technical perspective to explore the potential of Joint Cognitive Systems to manage risk and safety in cobot applications. Three systemic safety analysis approaches are presented and tested with a demonstrator case study concerning their feasibility for cobot applications: System‐Theoretic Accident Model and Processes (STAMP); Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM); and Event Analysis of Systemic Teamwork (EAST). These methods each provide interesting extensions to complement the traditional understanding of risk as required by current and future industrial cobot implementations. The power of systemic methods for safer and more efficient cobot operations lies in revealing the distributed and emergent result from joint actions and overcoming the reductionist view from individual failures or single agent responsibilities. The safe operation of cobot applications can only be achieved through alignment of design, training, and operation of such applications.

show abstract

“…System eoretic Process Analysis (STPA) is a system hazard analysis based on the STAMP model. It identifies hazards by analyzing unsafe behaviors in the STAMP control model [37][38][39][40]. e STPA Handbook defines the steps of STAMP and STPA as follows [41]:…”

Section: Stpamentioning

confidence: 99%

System Hazard Analysis of Tower Crane in Different Phases on Construction Site

Jiang

Zhao

Zhang

et al. 2021

Advances in Civil Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tower crane accidents frequently occur in the construction industry, often resulting in casualties. The utilization of tower cranes involves multiple phases including installation, usage, climbing, and dismantling. Moreover, the hazards associated with the use of tower cranes can change and be propagated during phase alternation. However, past studies have paid less attention to the differences and hazard propagations between phases. In this research, these hazards are investigated during different construction phases. The propagation of hazards between phases is analyzed to develop appropriate safety management protocols according to each specific phase. Finally, measures are suggested to avoid an adverse impact between the phases. A combined method is also proposed to identify hazard propagation, which serves as a reference and contributes to safety management and accident prevention during different tower crane phases in the construction process.

show abstract

Systemic safety management in anesthesiological practices

Cited by 15 publications

References 52 publications

Risk management of smart healthcare systems: Delimitation, state-of-arts, process, and perspectives

Risk management of smart healthcare systems: Delimitation, state-of-arts, process, and perspectives

Teaming with industrial cobots: A socio‐technical perspective on safety analysis

System Hazard Analysis of Tower Crane in Different Phases on Construction Site

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About