Pub Date : 2017-01-02DOI: 10.1080/14773996.2016.1266439
Natalie Purcell, Eric Shovein, C. Hebenstreit, Michael D. Drexler
Abstract Worldwide, violence in healthcare settings is a common occurrence, causing stress, injury, and burnout among healthcare workers, and impacting their ability to provide safe, effective care for patients. Using focus group data from a large, public veterans’ healthcare system in the United States, this article examines how Veterans Affairs (V.A.) workers experience violence and aggression on the job, and how they describe the causes of and contributors to violence in their workplace. Across seven focus groups, 65 workers reported regular experiences of verbal aggression and less frequent exposure to physical violence. Perceived institutional contributors to violence included internal processes that are frustrating and difficult to navigate, workload concerns that increase stress, and safety deficits in the physical environment. Perceived cultural contributors included an absence of consequences for low-level patient aggression against healthcare workers and the need for a stronger ethos of teamwork. Many workers felt that the broader U.S. political context, including critical news media coverage and the public perception that the V.A. system is failing veterans, amplifies their vulnerability to abuse at work. Their experiences illustrate how broader sociopolitical and cultural dynamics can impact how safe workers feel and whether they feel supported in addressing and preventing workplace violence.
{"title":"Violence in a U.S. Veterans Affairs healthcare system: worker perspectives on prevalence, causes, and contributors","authors":"Natalie Purcell, Eric Shovein, C. Hebenstreit, Michael D. Drexler","doi":"10.1080/14773996.2016.1266439","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14773996.2016.1266439","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Worldwide, violence in healthcare settings is a common occurrence, causing stress, injury, and burnout among healthcare workers, and impacting their ability to provide safe, effective care for patients. Using focus group data from a large, public veterans’ healthcare system in the United States, this article examines how Veterans Affairs (V.A.) workers experience violence and aggression on the job, and how they describe the causes of and contributors to violence in their workplace. Across seven focus groups, 65 workers reported regular experiences of verbal aggression and less frequent exposure to physical violence. Perceived institutional contributors to violence included internal processes that are frustrating and difficult to navigate, workload concerns that increase stress, and safety deficits in the physical environment. Perceived cultural contributors included an absence of consequences for low-level patient aggression against healthcare workers and the need for a stronger ethos of teamwork. Many workers felt that the broader U.S. political context, including critical news media coverage and the public perception that the V.A. system is failing veterans, amplifies their vulnerability to abuse at work. Their experiences illustrate how broader sociopolitical and cultural dynamics can impact how safe workers feel and whether they feel supported in addressing and preventing workplace violence.","PeriodicalId":43946,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","volume":"15 1","pages":"38 - 56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14773996.2016.1266439","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42604498","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-01-02DOI: 10.1080/14773996.2017.1305704
Drake, C., Haslam, R. and Haslam, C. (2017). Facilitators and barriers to the protection and promotion of the health and safety of older workers, Policy and Practice in Health and Safety. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14773996.2017.1289453 The abstract of this article has been reformatted from the original version which was published online. The change will be visible in both the print and online versions of the article.
{"title":"Corrigendum","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/14773996.2017.1305704","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14773996.2017.1305704","url":null,"abstract":"Drake, C., Haslam, R. and Haslam, C. (2017). Facilitators and barriers to the protection and promotion of the health and safety of older workers, Policy and Practice in Health and Safety. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14773996.2017.1289453 The abstract of this article has been reformatted from the original version which was published online. The change will be visible in both the print and online versions of the article.","PeriodicalId":43946,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","volume":"15 1","pages":"(84) - (84)"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14773996.2017.1305704","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48990572","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-01-02DOI: 10.1080/14773996.2016.1275497
Christopher Peace, V. Mabin, C. Cordery
Abstract The failure of boards and individual directors to engage with and accept accountability for work health and safety (WH&S) has frequently been commented on as a contributory cause of high injury and fatality rates. New Zealand has been no exception to this record, having poor fatal accident rates when compared with other OECD countries. One mining accident in New Zealand in 2010 triggered the introduction of new legislation in New Zealand, requiring ‘due diligence’ of ‘officers’ of workplace health and safety. This paper reviews the background to the law change, highlights its focus on due diligence, and explores the meaning of ‘officer’. A decision tree is presented to help show the relationship of the due diligence requirement to companies’ legislation and other requirements. The wider duties of directors are briefly analysed before presenting a range of ‘reasonable steps’ that might enable an officer to claim they had exercised due diligence to ensure compliance with the WH&S responsibilities of a business or undertaking. The relationship of these options to knowledge management and potential for application of management by objectives is described before discussing compliance problems arising for officers in smaller businesses.
{"title":"Due diligence: a panacea for health and safety risk governance?","authors":"Christopher Peace, V. Mabin, C. Cordery","doi":"10.1080/14773996.2016.1275497","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14773996.2016.1275497","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The failure of boards and individual directors to engage with and accept accountability for work health and safety (WH&S) has frequently been commented on as a contributory cause of high injury and fatality rates. New Zealand has been no exception to this record, having poor fatal accident rates when compared with other OECD countries. One mining accident in New Zealand in 2010 triggered the introduction of new legislation in New Zealand, requiring ‘due diligence’ of ‘officers’ of workplace health and safety. This paper reviews the background to the law change, highlights its focus on due diligence, and explores the meaning of ‘officer’. A decision tree is presented to help show the relationship of the due diligence requirement to companies’ legislation and other requirements. The wider duties of directors are briefly analysed before presenting a range of ‘reasonable steps’ that might enable an officer to claim they had exercised due diligence to ensure compliance with the WH&S responsibilities of a business or undertaking. The relationship of these options to knowledge management and potential for application of management by objectives is described before discussing compliance problems arising for officers in smaller businesses.","PeriodicalId":43946,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","volume":"15 1","pages":"19 - 37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14773996.2016.1275497","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59822608","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-01-02DOI: 10.1080/14773996.2017.1323460
P. Waterson
Shortly after taking over as Editor of PPHS, IOSH carried out a small-scale survey of its members in March 2016. The aim of the survey was to provide us with a better idea of the type of content that IOSH members wanted to see in the journal. We received just over 2,000 responses from a spectrum of categories of IOSH members (CFIOSH, CMIOSH, Graduate, Technical, Associate and Affiliate members) working across a broad range of industries. The results of the survey indicated a roughly equal split between material focusing on policy (50% of participants) and practical (52%) aspects of OSH, with a slightly smaller percentage (44%) wanting more scientific contributions. Survey participants were also asked about specific types of content. The top five categories in this case were content covering: legal cases and legislation; good practice; industry-specific topics; construction; and health and well-being. Finally, we asked about topics that might be suitable for a PPHS special issue. In this case the top five topics were: construction; legislation; safety behaviour and culture; health and well-being; and risk management and assessment. At the beginning of this year I carried out a similar exercise, this time with our editorial board members. I asked them to suggest topics for the journal, alongside developments in the wider world of OSH that they viewed as potentially important to cover within PPHS in the next few years. A number of themes and research questions emerged from this consultation exercise. These included:
{"title":"What should we publish in PPHS?","authors":"P. Waterson","doi":"10.1080/14773996.2017.1323460","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14773996.2017.1323460","url":null,"abstract":"Shortly after taking over as Editor of PPHS, IOSH carried out a small-scale survey of its members in March 2016. The aim of the survey was to provide us with a better idea of the type of content that IOSH members wanted to see in the journal. We received just over 2,000 responses from a spectrum of categories of IOSH members (CFIOSH, CMIOSH, Graduate, Technical, Associate and Affiliate members) working across a broad range of industries. The results of the survey indicated a roughly equal split between material focusing on policy (50% of participants) and practical (52%) aspects of OSH, with a slightly smaller percentage (44%) wanting more scientific contributions. Survey participants were also asked about specific types of content. The top five categories in this case were content covering: legal cases and legislation; good practice; industry-specific topics; construction; and health and well-being. Finally, we asked about topics that might be suitable for a PPHS special issue. In this case the top five topics were: construction; legislation; safety behaviour and culture; health and well-being; and risk management and assessment. At the beginning of this year I carried out a similar exercise, this time with our editorial board members. I asked them to suggest topics for the journal, alongside developments in the wider world of OSH that they viewed as potentially important to cover within PPHS in the next few years. A number of themes and research questions emerged from this consultation exercise. These included:","PeriodicalId":43946,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","volume":"15 1","pages":"1 - 3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14773996.2017.1323460","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48958515","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-07-02DOI: 10.1080/14773996.2016.1255442
L. Borley, A. Page
Abstract Background: Health and safety regulation has been identified by the UK government as an area of over-regulation; a burden to business; and hindering economic growth. In response, recommendations have been made to government to reduce this regulation. While this seems to be the view held by government, many sources indicate that health and safety regulation has a role to play in supporting business and that ‘good regulation’ can actually help businesses and aid in their growth and economic prosperity. Guidance issued by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to Local Authorities has left Local Authority regulatory departments unable to undertake proactive inspections in medium- and low-risk workplaces, relying on intelligence to trigger reactive investigative visits. Such visits effectively only allow the prevention of future repetitions rather than preventing harm in the first place. At the same time, spending cuts have seen reductions of 28% to Local Authority funding that has forced a re-examination of how to deliver services including health and safety regulation. Method: An empirical qualitative methodology was applied to test the health and safety compliance advice required by SMEs. Semistructured interviews (n-10) were carried out with selected SME owners/managers across a range of sectors with varying exposures to health and safety regulatory interventions, in the City of Peterborough. The interviews were conducted face-to-face at the business premises, recorded and transcribed. The data were coded in order to establish themes that were used to develop emergent theory. Results: Ten themes emerged from the data. One of the strongest themes that emerged was that businesses did not feel deregulation or reduced inspection would be beneficial either at the individual business level or across the sector. Of significant note was that participants wanted to continue to have inspections on a frequent basis. They felt that fewer inspections would lead to lower compliance levels and increased accidents. In addition, SMEs indicated that they do not have the skills or capacity to self-regulate and thus wish for tailored business advice to aid in protecting their workforce. Recommendations: The presumption, which regulatory visits are negative, is questioned by the research and indeed all interviewees welcomed the support that they gain from such visits. With this in mind, it is suggested that a more business advisory approach is adopted to meet SME needs and aid growth while still protecting the workforce. A number of recommendations are made including a risk-based proactive intervention strategy based on responsive regulation principles, improvement of communication and business engagement and focus on advice provision for SMEs. The recommendations are designed to meet businesses needs and also to contribute to business growth.
{"title":"A reflection on the current local authority-led regulation model: views from small- and medium-sized businesses","authors":"L. Borley, A. Page","doi":"10.1080/14773996.2016.1255442","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14773996.2016.1255442","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background: Health and safety regulation has been identified by the UK government as an area of over-regulation; a burden to business; and hindering economic growth. In response, recommendations have been made to government to reduce this regulation. While this seems to be the view held by government, many sources indicate that health and safety regulation has a role to play in supporting business and that ‘good regulation’ can actually help businesses and aid in their growth and economic prosperity. Guidance issued by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to Local Authorities has left Local Authority regulatory departments unable to undertake proactive inspections in medium- and low-risk workplaces, relying on intelligence to trigger reactive investigative visits. Such visits effectively only allow the prevention of future repetitions rather than preventing harm in the first place. At the same time, spending cuts have seen reductions of 28% to Local Authority funding that has forced a re-examination of how to deliver services including health and safety regulation. Method: An empirical qualitative methodology was applied to test the health and safety compliance advice required by SMEs. Semistructured interviews (n-10) were carried out with selected SME owners/managers across a range of sectors with varying exposures to health and safety regulatory interventions, in the City of Peterborough. The interviews were conducted face-to-face at the business premises, recorded and transcribed. The data were coded in order to establish themes that were used to develop emergent theory. Results: Ten themes emerged from the data. One of the strongest themes that emerged was that businesses did not feel deregulation or reduced inspection would be beneficial either at the individual business level or across the sector. Of significant note was that participants wanted to continue to have inspections on a frequent basis. They felt that fewer inspections would lead to lower compliance levels and increased accidents. In addition, SMEs indicated that they do not have the skills or capacity to self-regulate and thus wish for tailored business advice to aid in protecting their workforce. Recommendations: The presumption, which regulatory visits are negative, is questioned by the research and indeed all interviewees welcomed the support that they gain from such visits. With this in mind, it is suggested that a more business advisory approach is adopted to meet SME needs and aid growth while still protecting the workforce. A number of recommendations are made including a risk-based proactive intervention strategy based on responsive regulation principles, improvement of communication and business engagement and focus on advice provision for SMEs. The recommendations are designed to meet businesses needs and also to contribute to business growth.","PeriodicalId":43946,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","volume":"14 1","pages":"144 - 162"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14773996.2016.1255442","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59822413","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-07-02DOI: 10.1080/14773996.2016.1255443
R. Rosness, T. Haavik, T. Steiro, R. Tinmannsvik
Abstract Learning from successful operations has received less attention than learning from accidents and near misses, both among practitioners and researchers. The article reports intermediate results from a project aimed at reducing this gap. We discuss (1) criteria to identify an operation as successful with regard to safety, (2) implications concerning successful operations that can be derived from current organizational theories of safety, (3) how learning from successful operations can take place in practice and (4) challenges related to learning from successful operations. The article is based on qualitative interviews with personnel in two drilling companies, document studies, observations on an offshore drilling rig, observations in a well-control simulator, and from a workshop in an oil company. Learning from successful operations can take place either through spontaneous mechanisms or through mechanisms deliberately put in place by management. We have identified several challenges related to learning from successful operations.
{"title":"Learning from successful operations – opportunities, challenges and a paradox","authors":"R. Rosness, T. Haavik, T. Steiro, R. Tinmannsvik","doi":"10.1080/14773996.2016.1255443","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14773996.2016.1255443","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Learning from successful operations has received less attention than learning from accidents and near misses, both among practitioners and researchers. The article reports intermediate results from a project aimed at reducing this gap. We discuss (1) criteria to identify an operation as successful with regard to safety, (2) implications concerning successful operations that can be derived from current organizational theories of safety, (3) how learning from successful operations can take place in practice and (4) challenges related to learning from successful operations. The article is based on qualitative interviews with personnel in two drilling companies, document studies, observations on an offshore drilling rig, observations in a well-control simulator, and from a workshop in an oil company. Learning from successful operations can take place either through spontaneous mechanisms or through mechanisms deliberately put in place by management. We have identified several challenges related to learning from successful operations.","PeriodicalId":43946,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","volume":"14 1","pages":"114 - 99"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14773996.2016.1255443","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59822443","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-07-02DOI: 10.1080/14773996.2016.1256553
K. Wasilkiewicz, E. Albrechtsen, S. Antonsen
Abstract Polish workers are the largest group of migrant workers in Norway and are particularly well represented in the construction industry. According to several studies, migrant workers are more prone to occupational accidents than the native workers are. This difference is often attributed to poor communication and lack of linguistic skills. We explored factors affecting occupational safety related to migrant workers with an emphasis on communication, culture and language through interviews with Polish and Norwegian workers. The study shows that the construction industry in Norway mainly focuses on language as an issue. Culture is seen as a contributing factor, but is somewhat neglected. Fewer measures to cope with challenges related to migrant workers were found for cultural issues as compared to linguistic. However, the study shows that cultural aspects are at least as important. This gives implications for safety management in the construction industry. This paper suggests considering cultural aspects more in safety management related to migrant workers to achieve the desired safety focus at construction sites.
{"title":"Occupational safety in a globalized construction industry: a study on Polish workers in Norway*","authors":"K. Wasilkiewicz, E. Albrechtsen, S. Antonsen","doi":"10.1080/14773996.2016.1256553","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14773996.2016.1256553","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Polish workers are the largest group of migrant workers in Norway and are particularly well represented in the construction industry. According to several studies, migrant workers are more prone to occupational accidents than the native workers are. This difference is often attributed to poor communication and lack of linguistic skills. We explored factors affecting occupational safety related to migrant workers with an emphasis on communication, culture and language through interviews with Polish and Norwegian workers. The study shows that the construction industry in Norway mainly focuses on language as an issue. Culture is seen as a contributing factor, but is somewhat neglected. Fewer measures to cope with challenges related to migrant workers were found for cultural issues as compared to linguistic. However, the study shows that cultural aspects are at least as important. This gives implications for safety management in the construction industry. This paper suggests considering cultural aspects more in safety management related to migrant workers to achieve the desired safety focus at construction sites.","PeriodicalId":43946,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","volume":"14 1","pages":"128 - 143"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14773996.2016.1256553","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59822492","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-07-02DOI: 10.1080/14773996.2016.1261814
P. Waterson
This issue of the journal represents the second one since I took over as Editor-in-Chief of Policy and Practice in Health and Safety (PPHS) at the beginning of 2016. Some readers will have noticed some changes to the journal including the appointment of new editorial board members, as well as a revised set of aims and scope. One of my ambitions for the journal is we expand the journal to four issues a year at some stage in the near future. Another goal is to publish material which increases the engagement and interest of the diverse range of stakeholders which make up the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) community. Finally, I would like to see an increase in the number of papers in PPHS written by OSH practitioners and policy experts. If we believe the evidence from other disciplines and scientific journals, then achieving these aims is unlikely to be easy. In the last few years within my own fields of expertise (work psychology and human factors/ergonomics) for example, there has been a great deal of discussion centred on the so-called ‘academic-practitioner’ divide and ‘research-practice gaps’ (e.g. Anderson, Herriot, & Hodgkinson, 2001; Chung & Shorrock, 2011). Much of this focuses on the perception that academic research findings rarely transfer into changes to practice or shape wider decision-making about policy. Similar criticisms have been made about the degree to which researchers address questions which are important to researchers (Cascio & Aguinis, 2008). Finally, there is a concern that practitioners do not read or place a high value on research (Brown & Spencer, 2004). Some of these issues, perhaps all of them, may well be lurking within the field of OSH and part of my role as Editor-in-Chief for PPHS is to facilitate dialogue between researchers, practitioners and policy makers. In many respects I believe PPHS is well placed to do this within OSH. Some of that optimism comes from the impressions I got when attending the ‘International Strategy Conference on Safety and Health at Work’ held in Dresden in March this year, as well as the IOSH Conference in June 2016. Both conferences contained a wide range of presentations covering topics such as ‘Demographic Change’, ‘Work in a Digital World’ and ‘Safety Culture’. As a full-time academic these proved to be real eye-opener. The presentations not only made use of some of the latest research findings, but were also supported by sets of ‘real-world’ case studies, many of which could translate into material suitable for publication in PPHS. One session in Dresden on ‘Vision Zero’ inspired a call for a special issue of PPHS on the topic (http://explore.tandfonline.com/cfp/est/tphs-call-for-expression-of-interest). I also expect to receive a number of submissions from other conference participants on a range of other topics within OSH. One idea I have for future issues of the journal is that we include a section explicitly devoted to practitioner viewpoints and case studies (provisionally
自2016年初我担任《健康与安全政策与实践》(Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, PPHS)总编辑以来，这期杂志已经是第二期了。一些读者会注意到期刊的一些变化，包括任命新的编辑委员会成员，以及修订了一套目标和范围。我对杂志的抱负之一是在不久的将来将杂志扩展到每年四期。另一个目标是出版材料，增加构成职业安全与健康(OSH)社区的各种利益攸关方的参与和兴趣。最后，我希望看到职业安全卫生从业人员和政策专家撰写的关于公共卫生服务的论文数量有所增加。如果我们相信来自其他学科和科学期刊的证据，那么实现这些目标就不太可能容易。在过去的几年里，在我自己的专业领域(例如工作心理学和人因/人体工程学)中，有大量的讨论集中在所谓的“学术-实践”鸿沟和“研究-实践差距”上(例如Anderson, Herriot， & Hodgkinson, 2001;Chung & Shorrock, 2011)。这在很大程度上集中在一种看法上，即学术研究成果很少转化为实践的变化，或影响更广泛的政策决策。类似的批评也出现在研究人员解决对研究人员重要的问题的程度上(Cascio & Aguinis, 2008)。最后，还有一种担心，即从业者不阅读或不重视研究(Brown & Spencer, 2004)。其中一些问题，也许是所有问题，很可能潜伏在职业安全与卫生领域，作为PPHS总编辑，我的部分职责是促进研究人员、从业者和政策制定者之间的对话。在许多方面，我相信PPHS在职业安全与卫生中处于有利地位。这种乐观情绪部分来自我参加今年3月在德累斯顿举行的“工作安全与健康国际战略会议”以及2016年6月的IOSH会议时的印象。两场会议均有专题演讲，包括“人口变化”、“数码世界的工作”及“安全文化”等。作为一名全职学者，这些都让我大开眼界。这些演讲不仅利用了一些最新的研究成果，而且还辅以了一系列“现实世界”的案例研究，其中许多案例研究可以转化为适合在PPHS上发表的材料。在德累斯顿举行的一次关于“零愿景”的会议激发了关于该主题的公共卫生服务特刊的呼吁(http://explore.tandfonline.com/cfp/est/tphs-call-for-expression-of-interest)。我还希望收到其他与会者就职业安全与卫生领域的一系列其他主题提交的一些意见。我对未来期刊的一个想法是，我们将包括一个明确致力于从业者观点和案例研究的部分(临时标题为“来自职业安全与卫生实践的观点”)。这种类型的提交将受到与期刊其他论文相同的同行评审过程和审查，然而，期望它们将更多地关注职业安全与健康政策和实践中的主题问题和辩论，而不是职业安全与健康的“纯科学”。请随时与我联系，如果你有一个想法的提交。我非常乐意帮助从初稿到最终出版的想法，并欢迎期刊读者对我们应该涵盖的主题或期刊应该委托的特别问题提出建议。
{"title":"Bridging the gap between research, policy and practice in health and safety","authors":"P. Waterson","doi":"10.1080/14773996.2016.1261814","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14773996.2016.1261814","url":null,"abstract":"This issue of the journal represents the second one since I took over as Editor-in-Chief of Policy and Practice in Health and Safety (PPHS) at the beginning of 2016. Some readers will have noticed some changes to the journal including the appointment of new editorial board members, as well as a revised set of aims and scope. One of my ambitions for the journal is we expand the journal to four issues a year at some stage in the near future. Another goal is to publish material which increases the engagement and interest of the diverse range of stakeholders which make up the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) community. Finally, I would like to see an increase in the number of papers in PPHS written by OSH practitioners and policy experts. If we believe the evidence from other disciplines and scientific journals, then achieving these aims is unlikely to be easy. In the last few years within my own fields of expertise (work psychology and human factors/ergonomics) for example, there has been a great deal of discussion centred on the so-called ‘academic-practitioner’ divide and ‘research-practice gaps’ (e.g. Anderson, Herriot, & Hodgkinson, 2001; Chung & Shorrock, 2011). Much of this focuses on the perception that academic research findings rarely transfer into changes to practice or shape wider decision-making about policy. Similar criticisms have been made about the degree to which researchers address questions which are important to researchers (Cascio & Aguinis, 2008). Finally, there is a concern that practitioners do not read or place a high value on research (Brown & Spencer, 2004). Some of these issues, perhaps all of them, may well be lurking within the field of OSH and part of my role as Editor-in-Chief for PPHS is to facilitate dialogue between researchers, practitioners and policy makers. In many respects I believe PPHS is well placed to do this within OSH. Some of that optimism comes from the impressions I got when attending the ‘International Strategy Conference on Safety and Health at Work’ held in Dresden in March this year, as well as the IOSH Conference in June 2016. Both conferences contained a wide range of presentations covering topics such as ‘Demographic Change’, ‘Work in a Digital World’ and ‘Safety Culture’. As a full-time academic these proved to be real eye-opener. The presentations not only made use of some of the latest research findings, but were also supported by sets of ‘real-world’ case studies, many of which could translate into material suitable for publication in PPHS. One session in Dresden on ‘Vision Zero’ inspired a call for a special issue of PPHS on the topic (http://explore.tandfonline.com/cfp/est/tphs-call-for-expression-of-interest). I also expect to receive a number of submissions from other conference participants on a range of other topics within OSH. One idea I have for future issues of the journal is that we include a section explicitly devoted to practitioner viewpoints and case studies (provisionally","PeriodicalId":43946,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","volume":"14 1","pages":"97 - 98"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14773996.2016.1261814","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59822549","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-07-02DOI: 10.1080/14773996.2016.1255444
N. Karanikas
Abstract This paper presents an alternative way to use records from safety investigations as a means to support the evaluation of safety management (SM) aspects. Datasets from safety investigation reports and progress records of an aviation organization were analyzed with the scope of assessing safety management’s role, speed of safety communication, timeliness of safety investigation processes and realization of safety recommendations, and the extent of convergence among SM and investigation teams. The results suggested an interfering role of the safety department, severe delays in safety investigations, timely implementation of recommendations, quick dissemination of investigation reports to the end-users, and a low ratio of investigation team recommendations included in the final safety investigation reports. The results were attributed to non-scalable safety investigation procedures, ineffective resource management, lack of consistent bidirectional communication, lack of investigators’ awareness about the overall organizational context, and a weak commitment of other departments to the realization of safety recommendations. The set of metrics and the combination of quantitative and qualitative methods presented in this paper can support organizations to the transition towards a performance-based evaluation of safety management.
{"title":"Exploiting data from safety investigations and processes to assess performance of safety management aspects","authors":"N. Karanikas","doi":"10.1080/14773996.2016.1255444","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14773996.2016.1255444","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper presents an alternative way to use records from safety investigations as a means to support the evaluation of safety management (SM) aspects. Datasets from safety investigation reports and progress records of an aviation organization were analyzed with the scope of assessing safety management’s role, speed of safety communication, timeliness of safety investigation processes and realization of safety recommendations, and the extent of convergence among SM and investigation teams. The results suggested an interfering role of the safety department, severe delays in safety investigations, timely implementation of recommendations, quick dissemination of investigation reports to the end-users, and a low ratio of investigation team recommendations included in the final safety investigation reports. The results were attributed to non-scalable safety investigation procedures, ineffective resource management, lack of consistent bidirectional communication, lack of investigators’ awareness about the overall organizational context, and a weak commitment of other departments to the realization of safety recommendations. The set of metrics and the combination of quantitative and qualitative methods presented in this paper can support organizations to the transition towards a performance-based evaluation of safety management.","PeriodicalId":43946,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","volume":"14 1","pages":"115 - 127"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14773996.2016.1255444","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59822459","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-01-02DOI: 10.1080/14773996.2016.1235832
S. Pink, P. Waterson, A. Dainty, A. Cheyne, R. Haslam, A. Gibb, J. Morgan, R. Hartley, A. Finneran, P. Bust
Abstract In this article, we argue for an interdisciplinary and pluralistic account of how occupational safety and health (OSH) is enacted in practice, informed by a critical understanding of OSH management and flow knowledge in organizations. We compare how in human factors and ergonomics, organization studies, and safety science this question is approached through different theoretical ‘lenses’, and with different analytical consequences. These approaches work with different concepts (systems, practices and behaviours) that situate human agency, and possibilities for practical intervention differently. To demonstrate this we draw on interdisciplinary research in to ‘Management of OSH in Networked Systems’, showing how mobilizing the concept of knowledge through different disciplinary frameworks can have implications for understanding safe working in networked organizations.
{"title":"Interdisciplinary research for occupational safety and health knowledge","authors":"S. Pink, P. Waterson, A. Dainty, A. Cheyne, R. Haslam, A. Gibb, J. Morgan, R. Hartley, A. Finneran, P. Bust","doi":"10.1080/14773996.2016.1235832","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14773996.2016.1235832","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this article, we argue for an interdisciplinary and pluralistic account of how occupational safety and health (OSH) is enacted in practice, informed by a critical understanding of OSH management and flow knowledge in organizations. We compare how in human factors and ergonomics, organization studies, and safety science this question is approached through different theoretical ‘lenses’, and with different analytical consequences. These approaches work with different concepts (systems, practices and behaviours) that situate human agency, and possibilities for practical intervention differently. To demonstrate this we draw on interdisciplinary research in to ‘Management of OSH in Networked Systems’, showing how mobilizing the concept of knowledge through different disciplinary frameworks can have implications for understanding safe working in networked organizations.","PeriodicalId":43946,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","volume":"14 1","pages":"22 - 33"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14773996.2016.1235832","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59822358","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：