Accident Causation Models - Term Paper Example

Accident Causation Models Student’s Name Course Professor Date Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Heinrich Domino Theory (1931) 3 3.0 Multiple causation model (Gordon, 1949) 4 4.0 Comparison: Heinrich vs Gordon 5 5.0 Contrast: Heinrich vs. Gordon 6 6.0 Conclusion 8 References 9 1.0 Introduction Understanding accident causation is critical to ensure they are successfully prevented. Over the years, different authors have come up with various conceptual models shedding light on accident phenomenon. Some are linear suggesting that one factor lead to the other leading to an incident and accident while others are complex and non linear indicating multiple factors that act concurrently. In turn, the combined influence of multiple factors leads to an accident. This essay reviews two major accident causation models and then compares and contrasts both models to identify their commonalities and differences. In turn, it will lead to a personal understanding of accidents. The essay concludes that, at first glance, the models appear diverse but a closer analysis reveals that they relate by identifying their common themes. However, in application, multiple causation models can better address accident incidences in an organization. 2.0 Heinrich Domino Theory (1931) The model purport that preventable injury occurs as a result of culmination of some series of events or circumstances that occur in a logical or fixed order; an accident is linked to the chain of events. In turn, it highlights some five factors that are lined up sequentially as elaborated further in Hosseinian & Torghabeh (2012): The social environment or ancestry- highlights the process that lead to acquire knowledge of skills and customs in a workplace. In case the worker lacks skills to perform the tasks, inappropriate environmental and social conditions lead to fault of person. Fault of person- carelessness is always a negative feature in a person’s personality or acquired in an environment. Unsafe acts and mechanical or physical condition- the errors or technical failures that cause an accident Accident – accidents result from unsafe conditions or acts leading to injuries Injury- injuries are consequences of accidents When the first factor falls, the other follows until the last one which is an accident as illustrated below: Fig. 1.0: Domino model of accident causation (adopted from Toft, Dell, Klockner & Hutton (2012, p.5) The accident can only be stopped by disturbing the chain of consequence. The efforts of the theory emphasizes on: 1) people who are main reasons for accident occurrence; (2) Management that assumes the responsibility to prevent the accidents through their power and authority. The theory asserts that accident happen in a linear way and to prevent the accident, it only needs to look at the root cause to eliminate them or put a barrier to disturb the causes. 3.0 Multiple causation model (Gordon, 1949) The theory attribute accident as resulting from complex and random interaction between a victim, an agent which is injury deliverer and the environment after which they combine together in random manner to cause an accident. The environment- involves the physical, psychological and social attributes that highly cause accidents. When the environment is unsupportive, it weakens defences. Agent- involves the deliverer, its amount or type. Host is the victim affected by the accident. Di Sabatino & Corazza (2009) uses different terms to elaborate the model in a health care or morbidity by noting that accidents involve a trigger (wheat that causes allergies), cofactors (drugs and infant-feeding practices) and host (genes). 4.0 Comparison: Heinrich vs Gordon Accident: Lung cancer among demolition workers Domino Theory - one act Multiple Causation Social environment/ancestry The workers are unaware that old buildings contain asbestos fumes and dust. Inhaling and ingestion of such fumes affect the respiratory system and highly cause cancer after a very short-term. The environment Of all the materials used in the building, how many are potential to cause of asbestos dusts and fumes? How old the building and risk factors involved with its dusts? (older buildings primarily those build in 20th century used asbestos as its carcinogenic effects were not noted) (Clement & Vallance, 2010) How was the layout of the site, including identified ventilation and clearance of hazardous objects? What exposures would occur due to increased heat and winds causing dispersion of asbestos dusts? Fault of the person Failure to know affect the level of protection and caution for individuals and group of workers. They might not put masks when working. Agent What demolition methods were used? The type of risk control measures Were there safe work method statements? Did the contractor provide appropriate amenities? Are there procedures to deal with such emergencies? Did the supervisor identify hazards Did the demolition workers made it necessary for the contractor to assess the risks associated with demolition hazards? Did they consider the right method of demolition? Did they scheduling of work reduce the risk? Did all the stakeholders implement risk control measures? How did they maintain and review the effectiveness of the set risk control measures items and equipment used –large structures would require scaffolding and machines to demolish What equipment, the skill and experience required making the demolition workers safe? Stockpiling arrangements- identify the location to throw the piles and control dust at demolition site. Safe transportation of demolished material, the time taken and nature of haul route, load shifting equipment to use. (Safe Work Australia, 2011) Unsafe acts, mechanical and physical hazards Demolition workers continued to work for long (over three months) without using any protective gear. Accident Workers show or complain of symptoms: loss of appetite, headache, colic, nausea, constipation, excessive tiredness The symptoms are not usual but distinct to asbestos dust and fumes. Host The worker has a history of smoking The worker did not go for check-up after the symptoms showed-up. The worker did not indicate to the health care provider that s/he worked as a demolition worker to relate the causes. Injury The patient developed lung cancer. His history shows that he worked as demolition worker for sometimes. 5.0 Contrast: Heinrich vs. Gordon The environment is confined at a single person. Lack of knowledge and skills, or due to short time the person has spent in an accident prone environment. The environment extend to the person (may be a new employee), The groups (the way a certain department understands precautions and handles accidents), Physical (the features of a building that made it impossible to apply high level caution e.g. too old, congested area making it impossible to throw away materials far from workers) Psychological (the pressures that workers experienced to carry out the work fast and so it would be hard to be cautious). The person did not see the extent of a potential accident. Multiple causation will extend from a person who experienced an accident to look at co-factors like: The way precautions was communicated Were there physical signs and writing about the dangers? What measures were taken into account to control accidents like, continuous removal of dust piles, determining the number of hours and days in a week each worker would carry out the demolition and so on. Error in written warning, too small letters, not conspicuous or unavailable at all. Host Too much dust and fumes breathed and ingested. Delayed seeking medical attention Domino linear model can be applied to simply analyse how an accidents like a fall occurred. Although the author claimed that removing one of the factors would prevent the accident from occurring, multiple causation models would disapprove it. In large organization, an accident can result from multiple factors and even after removing one of the factors, it will still occur. For instance, fall may result from a slippery ground. In case the slippery material is replaced by a rough one fall can still occur for other reasons like congestion or distraction along the path (Katsakiori, Sakellaropoulos, & Manatakis, 2009). Domino model argues that an accident occur in a linear model. However, sometimes it might not be so. For instance, a worker who is unaware of the effects of leaving a certain chemical open or carelessly leave it may not be the one who is injured at the end. The chemical may affect another worker who took all precautions. Using linear model, it is impossible to identify the root cause and eliminate the problem. In such a case, multiple causation models can be applicable for better identification and elimination of the problem. The agent might involve so many people who out of negligence affect another person and thus, an accident is not directly related to the carelessness of the person injured as in domino theory. 6.0 Conclusion Accident causation models differ with some being simplistic linear models while others are complex non-linear models. Each model systematically ascertains the causes of accidents. Both the domino theory and Gordon’s multiple causation models reveals that an accident is a complex coincidence of phenomena in a specific time and space. However, these two models differ in determining the causes that lead to an accident. While domino model attempt to understand that factors that lead to an accident in a linear model, Gordon’s shows that determining the causes can be quite difficult since there are various variables to consider. References Ali, A. S., Kamaruzzaman, S. N., & Sing, G. C. (2010). A Study on causes of accident and prevention in Malaysian construction industry. EDITORIAL BOARD/SIDANG EDITOR. Clement, D., & Vallance, D. (2010, November). Towards a Safe Asbestos Free Environment Summary of Presentations at the National Asbestos Summit. InCancer Forum (Vol. 34, No. 3, p. 177). Di Sabatino, A., & Corazza, G. R. (2009). Coeliac disease. The Lancet,373(9673), 1480-1493. Hosseinian, S. S., & Torghabeh, Z. J. (2012). Major theories of construction accident causation models: A literature review. International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, 4(2). Katsakiori, P., Sakellaropoulos, G., & Manatakis, E. (2009). Towards an evaluation of accident investigation methods in terms of their alignment with accident causation models. Safety Science, 47(7), 1007-1015. Safe Work Australia, September, 2011, ‘Demolition Work: Draft Code of Practice. Toft, Y., Dell, G., Klockner, K. K., & Hutton, A. (2012). Models of causation: safety. Safety Institute of Australia, Tullamarine, Victoria. Read More