Tools accidents caused

You can use the PBA and HBA tools as appropriate, but the use of physical and human barriers conceptually will provide you with a different perspective on accident causes and their solutions. Using the different perspectives of PBA and HBA helps to... 

The statistics indicate that the minor accidents leading to 0—3 days of absence are typically caused by materials, splinters and products (FAll 2014). A typical accident of this type is a minor eye accident, caused by a splinter or fragment released during material handling (e.g. welding). Other major injury causes involve hand tools, which may cause e.g. minor cuts and bruises. In general, accidents in maintenance operations can affect any body part, and the accidents may occur at any stage of disassembly and reassembly. 

Support teams are, in many cases, victims of accidents caused by machinery. Studies conducted in Norway by Bull et al (2001) show increases of the accidents during services of adjustment, cleaning, tools and machine lubrication, or during ordinary operations in machines or tools, showing rates of 1,0 in 1991 and 3,7 in 1996 for 100 thousand stakeholders. 

The development of MORT was initiated by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, and is described in Johnson (1980). MORT is a comprehensive analytical procedure that provides a disciplined method for detennining the causes and contributing factors of major accidents. It also serves as a tool to evaluate the quality of an existing safety program. 

Three major themes have been emphasized in this chapter. The first is that an effective data collection system is one of the most powerful tools available to minimize human error. Second, data collection systems must adequately address underlying causes. Merely tabulating accidents in terms of their surface similarities, or using inadequate causal descriptions such as "process worker failed to follow procedures" is not sufficient to develop effective remedial strategies. Finally, a successful data collection and incident investigation system requires an enlightened, systems oriented view of human error to be held by management, and participation and commitment from the workforce. 

In a more quantitative sense, cause-consequence analysis may be viewed as a blend of fault tree end event tree analysis (discussed in tlie two preceding cliapters) for evaluating potential accidents. A major strengtli of cause-consequence analysis is its use as a communication tool. For example, a cause-consequence diagram displays the interrelationships between tlie accident outcomes (consequences) and Uieir basic causes. The method can be used to quantify the expected frequency of occurrence of the consequences if the appropriate chita are available. 

Good housekeeping can play a major part in maintaining a safe and environmentally sound place of work. Tripping over material not tidied away causes many accidents. Another source of potential injury is in the lack of secure storage of cleaning equipment, tools, etc. 

Policy makers, practitioners, and scholars from a variety of disciplines have recently embraced a new approach to risk reduction in health care—a "systems approach"—without proposing any specific reforms of medical liability law. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) placed its imprimatur on this approach in its recent reports (Kohn et al., 2000 IOM, 2001). In its simplest form, a systems approach to risk reduction in health care posits that an injury to a patient is often the manifestation of a latent error in the system of providing care. In other words, a medical mishap is the proverbial "accident waiting to happen" because the injury-preventing tools currently deployed, including medical liability law, are aimed at finding the individuals at fault rather than the systemic causes of error. Coexistence of a systems approach to error reduction and medical liability law as a conceptual framework for policy makers implies that the latter is likely to evolve in an incremental fashion as the former makes more visible different aspects of the medical error problem. 

Logic Model Methods The following tools are most commonly used in quantitative risk analysis, but can also be useful qualitatively to understand the combinations of events which can cause an accident. The logic models can also be useful in understanding how protective systems impact various potential accident scenarios. These methods will be thoroughly discussed in the Risk Analysis subsection. Also, hazard identification and evaluation tools discussed in this section are valuable precursors to a quantitative risk analysis (QRA). Generally a QRA quantifies the risk of hazard scenarios which have been identified by using tools such as those discussed above. 

This second edition features in-depth coverage of actual response techniques and new approaches for coping with critical situations caused by criminal activity, industrial accidents, or even mini-epidemics. Augmenting its coverage of field first aid for response personnel, this edition contains up-to-date tools such as checklists and streamlined procedures for on-scene coordination. It incorporates the latest detection devices, cost/recovery and hazard analyses, diagnostic methods, pretreatments, vaccines, decontamination techniques, antidotes, and medical treatments available. This edition also adds a focused review of the progress and projected developments for military protocols and procedures. 

The sensitivity of PETN to shock was the cause of another accident. This happened when the crust of the explosive was removed from the stirrer with a steel chisel. This was against the regulation which required the use of a solvent (acetone) and either wooden or plastic tools [22]. 

Another error is the prescription that goes wrong for the patient even when, from the classical medical perspective, the prescription should have been fine. To put things in perspective, medical errors claim 44 thousand to 98 thousand lives in hospitals alone, and this makes hospitals a more dangerous killer than motor vehicle accidents. Even more disturbing is the fact that out of the 119,000 deaths caused by fatal mistakes by 700,000 US physicians in 2001, a large percentage of these deaths were unavoidable because the doctors lacked critical data and analysis tools. 

As with personal attributes, characteristics of the machinery, tools, technology, and materials used by the worker can influence the potential for an exposure or accident. One consideration is the extent to which machinery and tools influence the use of the most appropriate and effective perceptual/ motor skills and energy resources. The relationship between the controls of a machine and the action of that machine dictates the level of perceptual/motor skill necessary to perform a task. The action of the controls and the subsequent reaction of the machinery must be compatible with basic human perceptual/motor patterns. If not, significant interference with performance can occur which may lead to improper responses that can cause accidents. In addition, the adequacy of feedback about the action of the machine affects the performance efficiency that can be achieved and the potential for an operational error. 

This book suggests a new approach to engineering for safety that changes the focus from prevent failures to enforce behavioral safety constraints, from reliability to control. The approach is constructed on an extended model of accident causation that includes more than the traditional models, adding those factors that are increasingly causing accidents today. It allows us to deal with much more complex systems. What is surprising is that the techniques and tools described in part 111 that are built on STAMP and have been applied in practice on extremely complex systems have been easier to use and much more effective than the old ones. 

---