A safety analysis of industrial accidents. Accident records of major coal producing countries are analysed to obtain fatal and non-fatal accident rates. Significant factors influencing these rates are identified with efficacy of preventive measures.
KeywordIndustrial health and safety
Coal mining hazards
Human Factors in engineering
Measurement of safety performance
Accident statistics and measures
The University of Bradford theses are licenced under a Creative Commons Licence.
InstitutionUniversity of Bradford
DepartmentDepartment of Industrial Technology
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractA comprehensive study of accident records which have occured in Coal Mining Industries of Europe and U. S. A are analysed. The intention of the research was to establish relationships between the various accidents and prevention methods adopted by each country are evaluated and to assess the impact of industrial legislation in these various countries on accident rate are examined. The study analyses in paricular the fatal accident rate, and major and minor rate. The Major health hazards associated with coal mining are described in detail and discusses together with the Measurement of safety performance and its application in the Safety field. The study also examines the role of human factors in accidents also includes a summaries of fatal and major injury rates for 46 countries. Arising from the research a number of recommendations for improving safety are requires further research are indentified.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Evaluating the PRASE patient safety intervention - a multi-centre, cluster trial with a qualitative process evaluation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.Sheard, L.; O'Hara, J.K.; Armitage, Gerry R.; Wright, J.; Cocks, K.; McEachan, Rosemary; Watt, I.S.; Lawton, R. (2014-10-29)Background Estimates show that as many as one in 10 patients are harmed while receiving hospital care. Previous strategies to improve safety have focused on developing incident reporting systems and changing systems of care and professional behaviour, with little involvement of patients. The need to engage with patients about the quality and safety of their care has never been more evident with recent high profile reviews of poor hospital care all emphasising the need to develop and support better systems for capturing and responding to the patient perspective on their care. Over the past 3 years, our research team have developed, tested and refined the PRASE (Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment) intervention, which gains patient feedback about quality and safety on hospital wards. Methods/design A multi-centre, cluster, wait list design, randomised controlled trial with an embedded qualitative process evaluation. The aim is to assess the efficacy of the PRASE intervention, in achieving patient safety improvements over a 12-month period. The trial will take place across 32 hospital wards in three NHS Hospital Trusts in the North of England. The PRASE intervention comprises two tools: (1) a 44-item questionnaire which asks patients about safety concerns and issues; and (2) a proforma for patients to report (a) any specific patient safety incidents they have been involved in or witnessed and (b) any positive experiences. These two tools then provide data which are fed back to wards in a structured feedback report. Using this report, ward staff are asked to hold action planning meetings (APMs) in order to action plan, then implement their plans in line with the issues raised by patients in order to improve patient safety and the patient experience. The trial will be subjected to a rigorous qualitative process evaluation which will enable interpretation of the trial results. Methods: fieldworker diaries, ethnographic observation of APMs, structured interviews with APM lead and collection of key data about intervention wards. Intervention fidelity will be assessed primarily by adherence to the intervention via scoring based on an adapted framework. Discussion This study will be one of the largest patient safety trials ever conducted, involving 32 hospital wards. The results will further understanding about how patient feedback on the safety of care can be used to improve safety at a ward level. Incorporating the ‘patient voice’ is critical if patient feedback is to be situated as an integral part of patient safety improvements.
Developing a reliable and valid patient measure of safety in hospitals (PMOS): A validation studyMcEachan, Rosemary; Lawton, R.; O'Hara, J.K.; Armitage, Gerry R.; Giles, S.; Parveen, Sahdia; Watt, I.S.; Wright, J.; Yorkshire Quality and Safety Research Group (2014-07)Introduction Patients represent an important and as yet untapped source of information about the factors that contribute to the safety of their care. The aim of the current study is to test the reliability and validity of the Patient Measure of Safety (PMOS), a brief patient-completed questionnaire that allows hospitals to proactively identify areas of safety concern and vulnerability, and to intervene before incidents occur. Methods 297 patients from 11 hospital wards completed the PMOS questionnaire during their stay; 25 completed a second 1 week later. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) safety culture survey was completed by 190 staff on 10 of these wards. Factor structure, internal reliability, test-retest reliability, discriminant validity and convergent validity were assessed. Results Factor analyses revealed 8 key domains of safety (eg, communication and team work, access to resources, staff roles and responsibilities) explaining 58% variance of the original questionnaire. Cronbach’s α (range 0.66–0.89) and test-retest reliability (r=0.75) were good. The PMOS positive index significantly correlated with staff reported ‘perceptions of patient safety’ (r=0.79) and ‘patient safety grade’ (r=−0.81) outcomes from the AHRQ (demonstrating convergent validity). A multivariate analysis of variance (MAMOVA) revealed that three PMOS factors and one retained single item discriminated significantly across the 11 wards. Discussion The PMOS is the first patient questionnaire used to assess factors contributing to safety in hospital settings from a patient perspective. It has demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity. Such information is useful to help hospitals/units proactively improve the safety of their care.
Medicines Reconciliation: Roles and Process. An examination of the medicines reconciliation process and the involvement of patients and healthcare professionals across a regional healthcare economy, within the United Kingdom.Armitage, Gerry R.; Blenkinsopp, Alison; Marshall, Kay M.; Morgan, Julie D.; Urban, Rachel L. (University of BradfordSchool of Pharmacy, 2015-06-22)Medication safety and improving communication at care transitions are an international priority. There is vast evidence on the scale of error associated with medicines reconciliation and some evidence of successful interventions to improve reconciliation. However, there is insufficient evidence on the factors that contribute towards medication error at transitions, or the roles of those involved. This thesis examined current UK medicines reconciliation practice within primary and secondary care, and the role of HCPs and patients. Using a mixed-method, multi-centre design, the type and severity of discrepancies at admission to hospital were established and staff undertaking medicines reconciliation across secondary and primary care were observed, using evidence-informed framework, based on a narrative literature review. The overall processes used to reconcile medicines were similar; however, there was considerable inter and intra-organisational variation within primary and secondary care practice. Patients were not routinely involved in discussions about their medication, despite their capacity to do so. Various human factors in reconciliation-related errors were apparent; predominantly inadequate communication, individual factors e.g. variation in approach by HCP, and patient factors e.g. lack of capacity. Areas of good practice which could reduce medicines reconciliation-related errors/discrepancies were identified. There is a need for increased consistency and standardisation of medicines reconciliationrelated policy, procedures and documentation, alongside communication optimisation. This could be achieved through a standardised definition and taxonomy of error, the development of a medicines reconciliation quality assessment framework, increased undergraduate and post-graduate education, improved patient engagement, better utilisation of information technology and improved safety culture.