Risk scores global

The Italian study subanalysis identifies as independent predictors of VTE age > 60 years, height > 165 cm, and diastolic blood pressure > 90 mm. Also relevant is the association between high global cardiovascular risk scores and VTE incidence. This means that there is a correlation between arterial and venous risks, and consequently prevention of arterial complications will also mean lower venous risk (Decensi et al. 2005 Goldhaber 2005) (Fig. 10.9). 

The use of hazardous states was not essential, but largely a matter of convenience, depending on which parameters were best estimated by analytical methods. For a few hazards, it seemed equally reasonable to score them as hazardous states or hazardous events. In some cases, the hazard identification process had generated two hazards that combined to produce an accident. For example, vehicle parked on the hard shoulder is a hazardous state that leads to an accident if the hazardous event vehicle drives down hard shoulder when closed occurs. To avoid double counting, only one of these hazards was included in the global risk scores. To mitigate the hazard, however, measures that reduce either the incidence of vehicles parked on the hard shoulder or the incidence of vehicles driving down the hard shoulder can be equally effective. 

Given that it is possible to generate a global risk score from the risk estimates for each hazard, it is theoretically possible to generate and compare two risk scores, one for the baseline and one with ATM in place. Of course, there are practical difficulties to overcome, such as ... 

By making assumptions about the numerical value of the above scores, it is possible to construct a spreadsheet that calculates a global risk score for both the baseline and ATM versions of the motorway. This spreadsheet can also be used to test the sensitivity to other uncertainties, e.g. the effect of changing the scores for individual hazards, the effect of assumptions made about the relative value of event and state hazards, or the effect of risk reduction effort on the large scoring hazards. 

Compute a global risk score for both the baseline and ATM cases. 

This chapter presented a disruption risk assessment method for managing the supply disruptions in a global supply chain. The assessment can help practitioners to quantify risks in their supply chains based on hazards, vulnerability, and risk management practices. The disruption risk scores of suppliers facilities and transportation links can lead a company to proactively manage its suppliers. They then can use the disruption risk matrix to visualize the relative risk of all idenfified hazards. We presented a case study of a global distribution company to illustrate the application of this framework in assessing disruption risks for facilities and transportation links. This framework can be used to develop a company disruption risk profile, which in turn can be used to identify the critical network components that are prone to disruptions and to prioritize the risk mitigation activities. 

The questionnaire makes it possible to obtain a perception score for each factor Hazard, Exposure, Vulnerability, Institutions and People Perception, Earthquake perception. Considering aU these factors the global risk perception total score can be derived. The complete questionnaire is accessible at http //www.terremototest.it. 

The checks in the safe and at-risk columns of a CBC can be readily summarized in a "percent safe score." As I discussed in the previous chapter, an overall global score can be calculated by dividing the total number of behavioral observations (i.e., all checks on all CBCs) into the total number of safe observations (i.e., all checks in the safe columns of all CBCs). This provides an overall estimate of the safety of the workforce with regard to the critical behaviors targeted in the observation step of DO IT. 

If some employees are not sure of the safe way to perform a certain job, behavioral direction is needed. A global "percent safe score" is not sufficient. When the CBC is reviewed during a one-on-one coaching session, behavioral direction is provided. The worker sees what critical behaviors were observed as "safe" and "at-risk." A constructive conversation with the coach provides support for safe behavior and corrective feedback for behavior that could be safer. Often this includes suggestions for making the safe behavior more convenient, comfortable, and easier to remember. It might also include tire removal of barriers (physical and social) that inhibit safe behavior. 

---