skip to main content
10.1145/2788412.2788430acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesecceConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Construction of an "activity sharing space" to improve healthcare safety

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 July 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

Preventive approaches in risk management assume that the first step is risk analysis. However, an important basis for this work is the prior identification of risks. Our critical analysis of the "Failure Mode and Effects Analysis" method (FMEA) has shown that risk identification is not self-evident. Risk identification is not intuitive especially when risks are not apparent, as in Radiotherapy. We assume that the classical models are incomplete. In this way, the first step for reflection groups is the identification of the risks. We suggest changing both the composition of the classical reflection groups and the object of reflection that standard methods propose. We also suggest carrying out an experiment with multi-trade reflection groups. Participants have to share the real work or their activities from the "particular situation" of work -- defined later in the text - in order to improve the treatment safety.

References

  1. Amalberti, R. Piloter la sécurité -- théories et pratiques sur les compromis et les arbitrages nécessaires. Paris, Springer (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Aven, T. What is safety science? Safety Science 67 (2014), 15--17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Beguin, P. Innovation et cadre sociocognitif des interactions concepteurs-opérateurs: une approche développementale. Le travail humain. Vol. 70 (2007), 369--390.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Carroll, J., & Fahlbruch, B. "The gift of failure: New approaches to analyzing and learning from events and near-misses." Honoring the contributions of Bernhard Wilpert. Safety Science, 49(1) (2011), 1--4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Daniellou, F., Le Gal, S. & Proméé, M. Organisational simulation: anticipating the ability of an organisation to cope with daily operations and incidents. Nordic Ergonomics Society Annual Conf. (2014), 781--785.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Dassens, A. & Launay, R. ÉÉtude systémique de l'analyse de risques - Présentation d'une approche globale. Techniques de l'ingénieur (2008), 215--236.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. De Bovis, C., Baret, C. & Ientile-Yaenios, J. Les apports du concept «« d'organisation à haute fiabilité » à l'amélioration de la sécurité et de la qualité des soins dans les services de soins aigus. Communication au 1er congrès de l'ARAMOS, Paris. (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Detchessahar, M. « Pour une théorie de l'espace de discussion - Quand discuter c'est produire ». Revue Française de gestion (2001a), 32--43.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Detchessahar, M. Le «dire » et le «faire » : Contribution à l'étude des nouvelles formes d'organisation. Revue de gestion des ressources humaines, no.39, (2001b), 43--56.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Detchessahar, M. L'avènement de l'entreprise communicationnelle. Revue française de gestion, (2003), 65--84.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Dien, Y., Dechy, N., & Guillaume, E. Accident investigation: From searching direct causes to finding in-depth causes -- Problem of analysis or/and of analyst? Safety Science, 50(6) (2012), 1398--1407Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Escande, J. & al. Signaux faibles : un concept pertinent? Réécents progrès en Génie des Procédés, 104 (2013). Ed. SFGP, Paris, France.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Fassert, C., Faye H. Que faire de la culture de sécurité? In A. Garrigou et F. Jeffroy (Eds.). L'ergonomie à la croisée des risques. Actes du 46eme congrès de la SELF (2011), 171--177.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Hollnagel, E. Barriers and accident Prevention. Aldershot, Royaume-Uni : Ashgate (2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Hollnagel, E. Risk + barriers = safety? Safety science, 46(2) (2008), 221--229.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Leplat, J. Risque et perception du risque dans l'activité. In D. R. Kouabenan, B. Cadet, D. Hermand & M. T. Munoz Sastre (Eds.), Psychologie du risque : identifier, éévaluer et prévenir (2006), 19--33).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Macrae, C. Interrogation the unknown: Risk Analysis and sensemaking in airline Safety Oversight. In the centre for analysis of risk and regulation. Discussion paper no.43 (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Marc, J., & Rogalski, J. How do individual operators contribute to the reliability of collective activity? The case of a French medical emergency center. In C. A. Owen, P. Béguin & G. Wakers (Eds.), Risky Work Environments: Reappraising Human Work within Fallible Systems (2009), 129--147.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Meyrieux, C. & al. Analyse des risques a priori du processus de prise en charge des patients en radiothéérapie : exemple d'utilisation de la méthode Amdec. Revue Cancer / Radiothérapie, 16 (2012), 613--618.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Mollo, V., & Falzon, P. The development of collective reliability: a study of therapeutic decision-making. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 9(3) (2008), 223--254.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Nascimento, A., & Falzon, P. Jugement difféérentiel d'acceptabilité et cultures de sécurité en radiothérapie. Le travail humain, 77(4) (2014), 325--349.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Osorio, C., & Clot, Y. L'analyse collective des accidents du travail : Une mééthode d'analyse pour intégrer la dimension subjective et développer le genre professionnel. Activités, 7(2) (2010)28--41.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Peretti-Watel, P. La société du risque. Paris, La découverte, Coll. Repères, no. 321 (2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Rocha, R., Mollo, V., & Daniellou, F. Work debate spaces: A tool for developing a participatory safety management. Applied Ergonomics, 46 (2015) 107--114.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Roux-Dufort, C. Les dirigeants à l'école de l'ignorance. In P. Lagadec (dir.). Ruptures créatrices, Paris, Vuibert (2000).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Schöbel, M., & Manzey, D. Subjective theories of organizing and learning from events. Safety Science, 49(1) (2011), 47--54.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Tanzi, T. J. & Delmer, F. Ingéénierie du risque. Hermes science publication (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Thellier, S., & Jeffroy, F. L'éétude des risques en radiothérapie : état des lieux et perspectives d'amélioration. Rapport IRSN/PSN-SRDS/SFOHR no 2014-01 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., Obstfeld, D. Organizing for high reliability: processes of collective mindfulness. In B. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 21 (1999) 81--123.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Construction of an "activity sharing space" to improve healthcare safety

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          ECCE '15: Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2015
          July 2015
          185 pages
          ISBN:9781450336123
          DOI:10.1145/2788412

          Copyright © 2015 ACM

          © 2015 Association for Computing Machinery. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 1 July 2015

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • short-paper
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate56of91submissions,62%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader