Legislation demands that health and safety of humans at work must be secured. Today, far from every company has a functioning systematic management of occupational health and safety (OHS) in place to fulfill its legal obligations. Instead, other day-to-day tasks appear to have greater priority. The overall aim of this thesis was to investigate prerequisites and possibilities for manufacturing companies to prioritize and manage OHS, with focus on professional roles, company size, safety culture, and financial performance. Four papers (I–IV) are included in this thesis, based on three data collections. A questionnaire measuring the priority accorded to work environment was completed by 249 representatives of 142 manufacturing companies (I & II). Focus group interviews were conducted with 66 workers at a large steel-manufacturing company, discussing their experiences and perceptions of safety and risks at work (III). A questionnaire measuring OHS management practices, safety culture, and priority given to work environment was completed by 280 representatives of 197 manufacturing companies (IV). Information regarding the companies’ financial performance was retrieved from a credit bureau database. The main findings of the four papers demonstrated that profitability was considered as the most prioritized interest in the companies (I), and that trade-offs between productivity and safety is an obstacle to working safely (III). Managers generally perceived their companies to prioritize work environment factors more than the safety delegates did (I & IV). Perceptions of work environment priority did, however, not differ depending on company size (II & IV). Responsibility for safety was perceived to rest on the individual to the largest extent, and risk-taking was believed to originate from a combination of individual factors and external circumstances in the work environment (III). Larger company size, positive safety culture, and low risk in creditworthiness were found to be associated with better OHS management practices in companies (IV). Correspondingly, smaller company size, negative safety culture, and high risk in creditworthiness were found to be associated with worse OHS management practices. In summary, structural, social, and financial aspects seem to be important in companies’ possibilities for prioritizing and managing OHS. Recommendations for industry and future research are discussed. / Arbetsmiljölagen kräver att människors hälsa och säkerhet på arbetet ska tryggas genom att risker kontinuerligt ska bedömas och åtgärdas. Många företag saknar idag ett fungerande systematiskt arbetsmiljöarbete (SAM) som uppfyller lagens krav fullt ut. Istället tycks andra dagliga aktiviteter ha högre prioritet. Det övergripande syftet med denna avhandling var att undersöka förutsättningar och möjligheter för tillverkande företag att prioritera och arbeta med säkerheten och arbetsmiljön; med särskilt fokus på yrkesroller, företagsstorlek, säkerhetskultur och finansiella nyckeltal. Fyra delstudier (I–IV) ingår i denna avhandling, vilka är baserade på tre datainsamlingar. En enkät som mätte arbetsmiljöprioritering besvarades av 249 representanter vid 142 tillverkande företag (I & II). Fokusgruppintervjuer genomfördes med 66 arbetare på ett stort ståltillverkningsföretag, där deras erfarenheter och uppfattningar om säkerhet och risker i arbetet diskuterades (III). En enkät som mätte SAM, säkerhetskultur och arbetsmiljöprioritering besvarades av 280 representanter vid 197 tillverkande företag (IV). Information om företagens finansiella nyckeltal hämtades från ett kreditupplysningsföretag. De viktigaste resultaten från de fyra delstudierna kan bland annat sammanfattas med att lönsamheten uppfattades vara det mest prioriterade intresset vid företagen (I), och att avvägningar mellan produktivitet och säkerhet ansågs vara ett hinder för att kunna arbeta på ett säkert sätt (III). Chefer uppfattade generellt att arbetsmiljön prioriterades mer på företagen än vad skyddsombuden gjorde (I & IV). Uppfattningar om arbetsmiljöprioritering skiljde sig dock inte åt beroende på företagsstorlek (II & IV). Ansvaret för säkerheten på arbetet ansågs främst vila hos den enskilda individen, och risktagande betraktades komma ur en kombination av individuella faktorer och yttre omständigheter i arbetsmiljön (III). Att vara ett större företag, ha positiv säkerhetskultur och hög kreditvärdighet visade sig ha samband med att också ha ett bättre utvecklat SAM (IV). På motsvarande sätt, att vara ett mindre företag, ha negativ säkerhetskultur och låg kreditvärdighet befanns ha samband med att också ha ett sämre utvecklat SAM. Sammanfattningsvis verkar därmed strukturella, sociala såväl som ekonomiska aspekter vara väsentliga för företags möjligheter att prioritera och arbeta med säkerheten och arbetsmiljön. Detta ger uppslag till rekommendationer för industrin samt vidare forskning. / Das Arbeitsschutzgesetz verlangt, dass die Sicherheit und Gesundheit (SG) von Menschen am Arbeitsplatz gewährleistet werden muss, indem Risiken kontinuierlich überprüft und behoben werden. Vielen Unternehmen fehlt heutzutage eine systematische Handhabung von SG, die den gesetzlichen Anforderungen vollständig entspricht. Stattdessen scheinen andere alltägliche Tätigkeiten eine höhere Priorität zu haben. Das übergeordnete Ziel der vorliegenden Abhandlung war es zu untersuchen, welche Voraussetzungen und Möglichkeiten herstellende Unternehmen besitzen, SG am Arbeitsplatz zu priorisieren und handzuhaben – unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Berufsrollen, Unternehmensgröße, Sicherheitskultur und Finanzleistungen. Die vorliegende Abhandlung besteht aus vier Teilstudien (I–IV), die auf drei Datensammlungen basieren. Die Priorisierung von SG wurde mit einem Fragebogen untersucht, der von 249 Vertretern aus 142 herstellenden Unternehmen beantwortet wurde (I & II). Fokusgruppeninterviews wurden mit 66 Arbeitern eines großen Stahlherstellers durchgeführt, in welchen die Arbeiter ihre Erfahrungen und Wahrnehmungen von Sicherheit und Berufsrisiken diskutierten (III). Ein weiterer Fragebogen enthielt Fragen zur systematischen Handhabung von SG, Sicherheitskultur und Priorisierung von SG und wurde von 280 Vertretern aus 197 herstellenden Unternehmen beantwortet (IV). Angaben zu den Finanzleistungen der Unternehmen wurden einem öffentlichen Register entnommen. Die wichtigsten Ergebnisse der vier Teilstudien können unter anderem damit zusammengefasst werden, dass die Rentabilität des Unternehmens als höchste Priorität wahrgenommen wurde (I) und dass Kompromisse zwischen Produktivität und Sicherheit als Hindernis für eine sichere Arbeitsweise beurteilt wurden (III). Manager waren im Allgemeinen häufiger als die Sicherheitsbeauftragten der Unternehmen der Auffassung, dass SG priorisiert werden (I & IV). Der Unterschied in der Wahrnehmung der Prioritätensetzung hing jedoch nicht von der Unternehmensgröße ab (II & IV). Sicherheit am Arbeitsplatz wurde in erster Linie als die Verantwortung des einzelnen Mitarbeiters angesehen und das Eingehen von Risiken als eine Kombination aus individuellen Faktoren und äußeren Umständen im Arbeitsumfeld beurteilt (III). Ein großes Unternehmen zu sein, eine positive Sicherheitskultur zu haben und niedriges Risiko in der Kreditwürdigkeit, erwies sich mit einer besser entwickelten systematischen Handhabung von SG in Zusammenhang zu stehen (IV). Dementsprechend erwies es sich, dass kleine Unternehmen, eine negative Sicherheitskultur und hohes Risiko in der Kreditwürdigkeit, mit einer schlechter entwickelten systematischen Handhabung von SG in Zusammenhang stehen. Zusammenfassend scheinen also strukturelle, soziale und finanzielle Aspekte grundlegend dafür zu sein, ob ein Unternehmen die Möglichkeit hat, SG zu priorisieren und zu handhaben. Dies dient als Vorlage für Empfehlungen für die Industrie und zukünftige Forschung.

Legislators are placing increased pressure on mining companies to improve their safety performance. The importance of safety leadership is highlighted by its role in safety culture and improving safety performance. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate the impact of a coaching program on safety leadership. The main constructs namely safety culture, safety leadership and coaching was conceptualised along the humanistic paradigm, with theoretical definitions and models. In this study, safety culture is employees’ shared attitudes, beliefs, perceptions and values about safety that affect their behaviour in the workplace. Safety leadership is the interpersonal influence that a leader exercises to achieve the organisation’s safety performance goals. Coaching is an interpersonal interaction that aims to improve individual performance through increased selfawareness and action plans. A theoretical model was developed to explain the elements that constitute effective safety leadership. A coaching program was developed based on executive coaching and leadership development principles. The empirical investigation was conducted in an organisation in the South African mining industry. A nested mixed methods design was followed. In the quantitative study, a 360 degree survey was employed to assess the ratings of a purposive sample (n=54) along eight dimensions before and after the coaching. Data was analysed with descriptive and inferential analysis. Results showed statistically significant improvements on accountability, collaboration, and feedback and recognition after the coaching. The results reflected differences in 360 degree ratings according to gender, race, job level, age and geographical location. The most significant improvements were for females, Africans, management, age 51-60 years, and site 2. In the qualitative study, a semi-structured interview was employed to study four cases to investigate managers’ personal experiences and changes in attitude toward safety. Data was analysed utilising thematic analysis. The findings revealed that coaching was a positive experience and contributed to changing managers’ attitudes toward safety. The research added to the field of organisational behaviour by presenting a theoretical model that enhances the understanding of safety leadership, the development of a coaching program and providing empirical evidence that the principles of coaching and leadership development can be applied to improve safety leadership. / Industrial and Organisational Psychology / D. Admin. (Industrial and Organisational Psychology)

Submitted by Pedro Silva Filho (pfsilva@ipen.br) on 2017-11-22T16:34:17Z No. of bitstreams: 0 / Made available in DSpace on 2017-11-22T16:34:17Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 / A cultura de segurança na área nuclear é definida como o conjunto de características e atitudes da organização e dos indivíduos que fazem que, com uma prioridade insuperável, as questões relacionadas à proteção e segurança nuclear recebam a atenção assegurada pelo seu significado. Até o momento, não existem instrumentos validados que permitam avaliar a cultura de segurança na área nuclear. Em vista disso, os resultados da definição de estratégias para o seu fortalecimento e o acompanhamento do desempenho das ações de melhorias tornam-se difíceis de serem avaliados. Este trabalho teve como objetivo principal desenvolver e validar um instrumento para a avaliação da cultura de segurança de organizações nucleares, utilizando o Instituto de Pesquisas Energéticas e Nucleares como unidade de pesquisa e coleta de dados. Os indicadores e variáveis latentes do instrumento foram definidos utilizando como referência modelos de avaliação de cultura de segurança da área da saúde e área nuclear. O instrumento de coleta de dados proposto inicialmente foi submetido à avaliação por especialistas da área nuclear e, posteriormente, ao pré-teste com indivíduos que pertenciam à população pesquisada. A validação do modelo foi feita por meio da modelagem por equações estruturais utilizando o método de mínimos quadrados parciais (Partial Least Square - Structural Equation Modeling PLS-SEM), no software SmartPLS. A versão final do instrumento foi composta por quarenta indicadores distribuídos em nove variáveis latentes. O modelo de mensuração apresentou validade convergente, validade discriminante e confiabilidade e, o modelo estrutural apresentou significância estatística, demonstrando que o instrumento cumpriu adequadamente todas as etapas de validação. / Tese (Doutorado em Tecnologia Nuclear) / IPEN/T / Instituto de Pesquisas Energéticas e Nucleares - IPEN-CNEN/SP

Le 11 mars 2011, le Japon a subi un séisme suivi d’un tsunami aux conséquences terribles. Dans la centrale de Fukushima Dai-ichi s’est produit un accident nucléaire de niveau 7 (le plus élevé) sur l’échelle internationale, qui a marqué les esprits comme celui de Tchernobyl en 1986. Cet accident a laissé le monde en émoi face à ces nouvelles formes de menaces, d’autant que l’exploitant TEPCO n’a pas su maitriser la situation ni tirer les leçons du passé. Depuis Fukushima, l’échelle des fondamentaux en Europe et dans le monde a donc été bouleversée et la question de la sûreté et de la sécurité des centrales se pose avec une acuité renforcée, qui a nécessité de redéfinir en droit et en pratique certaines normes et principes au niveau national, européen et international en concordance avec ces nouvelles menaces extérieures, vers le plus haut niveau de sûreté. Mais les révisions entreprises nécessitent d’être plus ambitieuses. L’avenir du nucléaire implique dès lors : au niveau européen, une révision plus ambitieuse de la directive sûreté; la mise en place d’une autorité de réglementation indépendante de jure ; la définition d’un droit de la responsabilité civile harmonisé au sein de l’UE en faveur des victimes dans l’hypothèse d’un accident. Au niveau international, la gouvernance s’impose comme étant le vecteur d’une commune culture de sûreté et de sécurité nucléaires ; bien que la diversité des modèles nationaux de gestion et de contrôle de l’industrie nucléaire paraisse rendre a priori difficile l’évolution vers des règles communes. De même au niveau européen, dans ce même esprit, l’écriture d’un texte unique en droit de la réparation des dommages serait nécessaire. La révision de la Convention sûreté nucléaire est également un chantier important pour l’avenir. Dans l’immédiat, l’harmonisation concerne de nombreux domaines dont, pour l’essentiel : la gestion de crise pendant et après un accident nucléaire ; la mise en place des principes de sûreté et de sécurité les plus performants et les plus élevés, de la conception au démantèlement d’une installation ; la maîtrise d’une interaction adaptée entre sûreté et sécurité nucléaires. Il conviendra, par ailleurs, de veiller à l’intégration du public au processus décisionnel dans les domaines du nucléaire, condition nécessaire à l’acceptabilité de cette énergie. / On March 11, 2011, the Japan suffered an earthquake followed by a tsunami to the terrible consequences. In nuclear power plant Fukushima Dai-ichi happened a nuclear accident of level 7 (highest) on the international scale, which marked the spirits such as rivaled that of Chernobyl in 1986. This accident left the world agog with these new forms of threats, especially since the TEPCO operator did not master the situation or learn the lessons of the past. Since Fukushima, the fundamentals in Europe and worldwide has so upset been turned upside-down and this raises the question of safety and security of power plants with renewed acuity, which necessitated. It is imperative to redefine in law and in practice some standards and principles at the national, European and international level in accordance with these new threats to the highest level of safety. But the legal revisions need to be more ambitious. The future of nuclear power suggest therefore: at the European level: a more ambitious revision of the directive on nuclear safety; the establishment of a regulatory body with effective independence de jure ; the definition of a liability law harmonised throughout the EU and the IAEA for victims in the event of an accident. At the international level: the governance is necessary as a vector of a common safety culture and security culture ; although the diversity of national models of management and control of the nuclear industry appears a priori difficult to move towards common rules. As well as at the European level, the writing of a single text entitled to the repair of damages would be necessary for the same reasons already stated. The revision of the Convention on nuclear safety is also as important crucial for the future. For immediate harmonization concerns many fields, for the most part: during and after a nuclear accident crisis management; the implementation of the principles of safety and security at the most efficient and highest level from the conception to the dismantling of an installation; strengthening interaction adapted between nuclear safety and nuclear security ; but also the integration of the population in the decision-making process in the areas of nuclear is mandatory for the acceptance of nuclear energy.

No description available.

WHO tog 2009 fram en checklista för att öka patientsäkerheten i samband med operationer, SafeSurgery Checklist [SSC] eller på svenska: Checklista för säker kirurgi. Syftet med checklistan är attförebygga de risker som kan leda till vårdskador vid operationer och att förbättra operationsteametskommunikation. Detta via ett antal säkerhetsfrågor samt att alla på operationssalen presenterar sig mednamn och profession.En rad studier visar på att checklistan om den är rätt använd reducerar operationskomplikationerna.Dessvärre finns det också studier som menar att följsamheten till checklista för säker kirurgi brister.I en kartläggning på författarens arbetsplats så identifierades flera förbättringsgap. Det framkom blandannat att det i operationsteamen brister i följsamhet på flera punkter i checklistan och att det var storaskillnader i hur den genomfördes. Det visade sig också att flera professioner i mikrosystemet inte kändesig delaktiga och inkluderade när checklistan genomfördes.Författaren valde därför att genomföra ett förbättringsarbete för att få bättre följsamhet till checklistaför säker kirurgi. Förbättringsarbetet genomfördes i samband med att den ursprungliga checklistanskulle ersättas med en uppdaterad version, Checklista 2.0 framtagen av Landstingens ömsesidigaförsäkringsbolag.Med Nolans förbättringsmodell som stöd så genomfördes utbildningsdagar, workshops och dialogerunder 2020–2021. Därefter infördes Checklista 2.0 på en operationssal som ett pilottest.En majoritet av medarbetarna upplevde att de nya rutinerna förbättrat delaktigheten. Sedan november2021 så är de nya rutinerna implementerade på hela avdelningen.Under 2022 genomfördes en kvalitativ intervjustudie som undersökte operationsteamets uppfattningav vilka faktorer som påverkat följsamheten under tiden förbättringsarbetet pågick. Resultatet mynnadeut i tre teman; motivation, ledarskapets betydelse och känsla av tillhörighet.Resultatet kan användas som vägledning för framtida förbättringsarbeten och förändringar i rutiner.Det kan ge en ökad förståelse för att operationsteamets professioner har olika utgångslägen. Därförbehöver förändringar som berör flera professioner ta hänsyn till dessa utgångslägen för att bliframgångsrika.Mer forskning kring vad som påverkar patientsäkerhetskulturen inom hälso- och sjukvården behövs ochden behöver ta hänsyn till samtliga professioner som verkar inom kontexten. / In 2009, WHO introduced a checklist to increase patient safety during surgery, Safe Surgery Checklist[SSC]. The purpose of the checklist is to prevent risks that can lead to medical injuries during surgeryand to improve team communication.A number of studies show that the checklist, if used correctly, reduces surgical complications.Unfortunately, there are also studies that suggest that compliance with the checklist for safe surgery isinaccurate.In a survey at the author's workplace, several improvement gaps were identified. It emerged, amongother things, that there was a lack of compliance in surgery teams and there were major differences inhow the checklist was carried out. It also turned out that several professionals in the microsystem didnot feel involved and included when the checklists were conducted.The author therefore chose to carry out an improvement work to get better compliance to the SSC. Theimprovement work was carried out in connection with the original checklist being replaced with anupdated version, Checklist 2.0, developed by the County Council's mutual insurance company.With Nolan's improvement model as support, training days, workshops and dialogues were heldbetween 2020–2021. Then Checklist 2.0 was introduced in one theatre as a pilot test.A majority of the employees felt that the new routines improved participation. Since November 2021,the new routine have been implemented throughout the department.In 2022, a qualitative interview study was conducted that examined the surgical team's perception ofthe factors that affected compliance during the improvement work. The result resulted in three themes.Motivation, the importance of leadership and sense of belonging. The perception differed somewhatdepending on one's professional affiliation.The results can be used as a guide for future implementations and changes in routines. It can provide anincreased understanding that the surgical team's professions have different starting points and thereforechanges that affect several professions need to take these starting points into account in order to besuccessful.More research on what affects the patient safety culture in health care is needed and it needs to take intoaccount all professions that operate in the context.