Using Cognitive Work Analysis Techniques to Identify Human Factor Hazards

Hassall, Maureen; Sanderson, Penelope

doi:10.1177/154193121005400401

Cited by 4 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, patient education, the suitability of the premises and the correct functioning of the coagulometer were omitted from the process map and from the SWIFT and HFMEA analyses. A cognitive work analysis framework based on functions that need to be fulfilled, rather than task steps to be completed, may be more useful [ 26 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the validity of prospective hazard analysis methods: a comparison of two techniques

Potts

Anderson

Colligan

et al. 2014

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundProspective Hazard Analysis techniques such as Healthcare Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (HFMEA) and Structured What If Technique (SWIFT) have the potential to increase safety by identifying risks before an adverse event occurs. Published accounts of their application in healthcare have identified benefits, but the reliability of some methods has been found to be low. The aim of this study was to examine the validity of SWIFT and HFMEA by comparing their outputs in the process of risk assessment, and comparing the results with risks identified by retrospective methods.MethodsThe setting was a community-based anticoagulation clinic, in which risk assessment activities had been previously performed and were available. A SWIFT and an HFMEA workshop were conducted consecutively on the same day by experienced experts. Participants were a mixture of pharmacists, administrative staff and software developers. Both methods produced lists of risks scored according to the method’s procedure. Participants’ views about the value of the workshops were elicited with a questionnaire.ResultsSWIFT identified 61 risks and HFMEA identified 72 risks. For both methods less than half the hazards were identified by the other method. There was also little overlap between the results of the workshops and risks identified by prior root cause analysis, staff interviews or clinical governance board discussions. Participants’ feedback indicated that the workshops were viewed as useful.ConclusionsAlthough there was limited overlap, both methods raised important hazards. Scoping the problem area had a considerable influence on the outputs. The opportunity for teams to discuss their work from a risk perspective is valuable, but these methods cannot be relied upon in isolation to provide a comprehensive description. Multiple methods for identifying hazards should be used and data from different sources should be integrated to give a comprehensive view of risk in a system.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the validity of prospective hazard analysis methods: a comparison of two techniques

Potts

Anderson

Colligan

et al. 2014

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The HumHID process developed by Hassall et al (2010) was made for identifying human factor hazards and therefore focuses on the activities with a high risk (defined as likelihood and consequences) of not being completed in a correct way. A key difference between the activity prioritization method and that of Hassall et al is that activity prioritization applies at an earlier stage of analysis—that is, before conducting decision ladders.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alternatively, the high-level risk assessment process by Hassall et al is based on the CAT and decision ladders. In the activity prioritization method, the frequency of an activity is included, instead of frequency of not completing an activity correctly (as per Hassall et al, 2010). We recognize that the approach by Hassall et al could be an alternative to provide the prioritization another focus.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hassall, Sanderson, and Cameron (2010) developed a process for identifying human factors hazards by prioritizing activities for hazard analysis, called the HumHID process. The process combines methods from the CWA framework and a methodology for identifying potential hazards associated with human activity.…”

Section: Prioritization Of Analyzing Effortmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Decision ladders are then conducted for the strategy steps associated with significant risk, and the hazard analysis is conducted based on information from the decision ladders. The high-level risk assessment is a simple method of ensuring efficiency of the analysis work by focusing the HumHID process on activities possessing significant risk (Hassall et al, 2010). Additionally, Hassall et al argue that their case study was focused on anticipated situations, whereas hazard could also arise from unanticipated situations.…”

Section: Prioritization Of Analyzing Effortmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Activity Prioritization to Focus the Control Task Analysis

Bodin

Krupenia

2016

Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We describe a structured method for decreasing the gap between cognitive work analysis (CWA) and sociotechnical systems design within industrial contexts. Key to closing this gap is reducing the volume of data collected during initial CWA stages so as to focus further development effort on the key determinants of system performance. The goal of the current study was to develop a method to accompany control task analysis (ConTA; and associated contextual activity templates [CATs]). The method developed, "activity prioritization," involved a multifaceted procedure for prioritizing activities to identify each activity's overall impact on system performance. Using three key values, each activity receives a priority score that is ordered to create an activity priority list. For the prioritization, the functions described in the CAT were the purposerelated functions identified via a work domain analysis of long haulage trucking. The method described was used to guide development of highly automated trucks within a recently completed industrial project (methods for designing future autonomous systems [MODAS]).

show abstract

A formative approach to the strategies analysis phase of cognitive work analysis

Hassall

Sanderson

2012

Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strategies Analysis, the third phase of Cognitive Work Analysis, helps investigators consider the range of ways in which workers can perform control tasks. Most existing approaches to Strategies Analysis identify a limited number of domain-specific strategies. We present a two-phase formative Strategies Analysis method intended to expose the range of strategies possible within a work system and the likelihood that different types of strategies will be selected in different contexts. The first phase, the preparatory phase, identifies generalised constraints that affect the range and selection of strategies, and the categories of strategies that may be applied to any domain. In the second phase, the application phase, investigators use the outputs of the preparatory phase to explore the impact that different work situations, tasks and workers have on the categories of strategies most likely to be adopted.

show abstract

Using Cognitive Work Analysis Techniques to Identify Human Factor Hazards

Cited by 4 publications

References 11 publications

Assessing the validity of prospective hazard analysis methods: a comparison of two techniques

Assessing the validity of prospective hazard analysis methods: a comparison of two techniques

Activity Prioritization to Focus the Control Task Analysis

A formative approach to the strategies analysis phase of cognitive work analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About