Accident Causation Models - Assignment Example

Name: Course: Instructor: Date: Table of Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Evolution of Accident Causation Model 3 2.1 Simple Linear Models 3 2.2 Complex Linear Models 3 3 Simple Linear Models 4 3.1 Domino Theory 4 3.2 Bird’s Loss Causation Model 5 4 Complex Linear Models 6 4.1 Systematic Approach 6 4.2 Epidemiological approach 6 5 Conclusion 7 References 9 1 Introduction Accident has been defined as a sudden and unplanned event or occurrence that leads to undesirable effect or injury. Accident must be attributed to human activity and not just a natural event (Hollganel, 2004). Most accidents occur since there are no appropriate management practices that could help prevent these accidents. To prevent accidents requires prevention practices. Understanding of accidents causation is not easy since various developments occur in the working industry. With an aim of understanding and solving accident causation problems, various authors have come up with different models that help to explain events that lead to accidents. Some of the models offer practical solutions to the causes of accidents while others offer theoretical explanations (Geoff, &, Yvonne, 2012). There exist linear models that states how one factor leads to the next that results into an accident and complex linear models that puts emphasis on how various factors combine to cause accidents. Complex linear models emphasize on barriers and defenses as measures that would help reduce accidents. Accident causation models has been praised since they influence the way people think about their safety and assess factors that may cause accidents when handling various machines or equipment at the work place (Hovden, Abrechtsen, & Herrera, 2010). Occupational health safety could be enhanced if management analyses critically factors that causes accidents in their organizations. Simple linear model and complex linear models in this report provides these factors and their interpretation in order to prevent accident in an industry. This report focuses on the concept of accident causation to determine the thinking about the development causes of accidents based on the models that developed over a given period. The report explains accident causation models and how their application could enhances occupational health safety. 2 Evolution of Accident Causation Model Development of accident causation models dates back to 1920’s. The first model to be developed was simple linear model that was later followed by complex linear models (Benner, 1984). The linear models then brought about the complex non-linear models, which is the latest accident causation models (Kletz, 1993). These models are based on specific assumptions that help in enhancing occupational health safety. 2.1 Simple Linear Models Simple linear model is based on the assumption that accidents are as a result of series of events that occurs in a linear sequence (Heinrich, 1931). Events that lead to an accident (Heinrich, 1931), 2008) follow each other linearly. Simple linear models (Svenson, 2001) are based on factors such as social environment, individual’s fault, acts considered unsafe (physical and mechanical hazards), accident and injury. Simple linear models entail approaches like, Dominion theory and Bird’s loss causation model (Klein, 2009). According to this model, accidents can be prevented by doing away with one factor that causes the accident within the linear sequence. 2.2 Complex Linear Models Complex linear models assume that accidents are as a result of unsafe human acts and latent hazards factors that linearly takes place in a given system (Reason, 2008). Complex linear models (Geoff, &, Yvonne, 2012) comprises of the human error and management models which employs approaches like systematic, person, energy-damage approach, time sequence approach and epidemiological approaches to explain accidents causes and how to prevent these accidents. Complex linear models assume that accidents can be prevented by enhancing the defenses and barriers. 3 Simple Linear Models 3.1 Domino Theory Domino model is a sequential accident model based on the assumption that accidents are as a result of series of events that take place linearly. Preventable accidents are as a result of chain of events. Heinrich (1985) stated that injuries inflicted on individuals are because of accidents caused by factors attributed to human faults. In this model, Heinrich proposed five factors that sequentially results into an injury. The factors include the social environment, and individual’s fault, acts considered unsafe (physical and mechanical hazards), accident and injury. Critical analysis of the Domino factors indicates that an accident can occur when one of the factors falls or violated. Heinrich focused mostly on the human fault since it was the main factor identified to cause more accidents. To support his claims, Heinrich analyzed 75000 insurance claims where he found that 88% of the accidents were as a result of human factor, 10% of the preventable accidents were attributed to unsafe physical and mechanical factors and 2% of the accidents were found to be caused by unpreventable factors. Human factors that Heinrich attributed to accidents includes; use of unsafe equipment, working with faulty machines, operating machines at a high speed, failure to put on protective clothes while operating machines, operating machines without relevant authorities and doing unsafe placement, loading and position while operating machines (Leveson, 2004). The unsafe physical and mechanical factors that can be attributed to Domino theory includes; use of machines which unsafely designed, operating machines in darkness, operating machines in a poorly ventilated rooms, and operating in a congested environment(Deblois, 1995). Heinrich suggested that preventing accident would require removing one of the five factors in order to affect the linearity of the events that causes accidents (Luxhoj, &, Maurino, 2001). This in turn would enhance occupational health safety. Dominion approach has been used to prevent accidents in the past and today. However, it faces criticism from the fact that it only looks at accident causation factor from linear perspective. 3.2 Bird’s Loss Causation Model Bird’s loss causation model is modification of Domino theory. This model argues that to control and prevent accidents requires management commitment (Bird, &, Germain, 1985). The model (Bird, &, Germain, 1985) looks into the relationship of management and the factors that causes accidents. The model is an updated Domino theory and looks into the five factors that linearly interact to accidents. The updated five factors include; lack of control, basic causes, immediate causes, incident and loss. Inadequate program standards, personal factors or job factors, substandard procedures, contact with an equipment leads to loss of people or property (Dekker, 2011). Therefore, to prevent accidents management should ensure that its programs are up to date; people trained on the appropriate procedures for performing a task and improvement of work standards. Bird’s loss causation model does not consider non-linear factors that cause accidents. It only assumes that an event that results into accidents occurs linearly. 4 Complex Linear Models 4.1 Systematic Approach This approach attributes accidents to systems failure (Reason, 2008). The approach stresses that events and circumstances that lead to an accident is a factor of human experience and needs. Systematic models argue that accident events portray both the concurrent non-linear circumstances and sequential events. The interaction of these event after a certain period can result into an accident (Geoff, &, Yvonne, 2012). This model was developed taking into consideration how individuals relate with systems that causes accidents. However, this approach faces criticism since it does not consider closed loops of interaction among events and conditions at a higher level of individual and organizational adaptation (Geoff, &, Yvonne, 2012). The causal framework from analysis of an accident is just a past event and not an approach of the relational structure of the involved accident. It only explains accidents that occurred in the past. 4.2 Epidemiological approach To explain accident causation epidemiological approach considers three factors that include, the host, agent and the environment in which the host and agent is committed (Reason, 1987). This model acknowledges the contribution of Benner since he added to the improvement of epidemiological mischance demonstrating which moved far from recognizing a couple of causal elements to seeing how different variables inside a framework joined (Geoff, &, Yvonne, 2012). These models suggested a mischance consolidated specialists and ecological components that affect a host situation that have negative impacts on the entity. With epidemiological approach, prevention of an accident requires one to ensure safe behavior and to avoid errors and deviation from plans. However, this approach has faced criticism since to avoid errors and deviation a system must be able to withstand deviation and minimal errors. 5 Conclusion Complexity of accidents has made it difficult to understand various events that precede an accident. Since 1930’s, there has been advancements in the accidents causation models. The development of models has advanced from simple linear causation models that mainly look into an individual’s behavior to more complex linear models that looks into analysis of time sequence events, epidemiological approaches to systematic approaches that looks into obstructions and resistances of an accident. Even though people have questioned the effectiveness of these models, to ensure safety of people and equipment requires understanding the factors that causes accidents. Development of accident causation models requires understanding of the factors that causes accidents. Safety healthy practices require understanding of accident causation in order to help develop strategies that would help in controlling accidents. References Benner, L. (1984). Accident models: How underlying differences affect workplace safety. Paper presented at the International Seminar on Occupational Accident Research, Saltjobaden: Sweden. Bird, F. E. J., &Germain, G. L. (1985).Practical Loss Control Leadership. Loganville, Georgia: International Loss Control Institute, Inc. Cacciabue, P. C., Holnagel, E. (1995). Simulation of Cognition: Applications. In J.M. Hoc, P.D. Cachiabue & E. Holnagel, (Eds.), Expertise and Technology, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. DeBlois, L. A. (1985), The Application of Safety Devices, Hagley Museum and Library, Wilmington, DE Dekker, S. (2011). Drift into Failure: From Hunting Broken Components to Understanding Complex Systems. Surry: Ashgate. Geoff D., &, Yvonne T., (2012). Models of Causation; Safety, Available at http://www.ohsbok.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/32-Models-of-causation-Safety.pdf Heinrich, H. W. (1931). Industrial Accident Prevention: A scientific approach. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hollnagel, E. (1993). Human reliability analysis: Context and control. London: Academic Press. Hollnagel, E. (2004). Barriers and Accident Prevention: Aldershot:Ashgate,. Hovden, J., Abrechtsen, E., & Herrera, I. A. (2010). Is there a need for new theories, models and approaches to occupational accident prevention? Safety Science, 48(8), 950-956. Klein J (2009),Two Centuries of Safety History at DuPont, Process Safety Progress, Vol. 28 Issue 2 pp114 – 122, Wiley Interscience. Kletz, T. (1993). Lessons from disasters: How organisations have no memory and accidents recur. Warwickshire: Institution of Chemical Engineers l Leveson, N. (2004). A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Safety Science, 42, 237-270. Luxhøj, J. T., Maurino, M. (2001). An aviation system risk model (ASRM) case study: Air Ontario 1363. The Rutgers Scholar, 3. Newbold, E. M. (1926). A contribution to the study of the human factor in causation of accidents. British Industrial Health Research Board. Perrow, C. (1984). Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. New York: Basic Books Inc. Purswell, J. J., &Rumar, K. (1984). Occupational accident research: Where have we been and where are we going? Journal of Occupational Accidents, 6, 219-228. Rasmussen, J. (1982). Human errors: A taxonomy for describing human malfunction in industrial installations. Journal of Occupational Accidents, 4(311-335). Reason, J.T. (2008). The Human Contribution: Unsafe Acts, Accidents and Heroic Recoveries. Surrey: Ashgate. Svenson, O. (2001). Accident and incident analysis based on accident evolution and barrier function (AEB) model. Cognition, Technology & Work, 3(1), 42-52. Tenner, E. (1996). Why things bite back. London: Fourth Estate Limited. Read More