Introduction: The purpose of this study was to study risk management approaches for machinery in selected hospitals of Tabriz and Tehran. This study also examined the status of risk management among the participating groups in the study, compared them with each other and prioritized preventive measures to improve the safety of machinery. Because of the significance of incidents related to the machinery at different sections, the risk management approaches for machinery safety at industrial sections are somehow known and documented. Yet, there are a few information and knowledge about the significance of the risks related to the machinery and their management approaches at different parts of the hospital. Methods: For the study, which was a descriptive-analytic cross-sectional one, 14 hospitals of Tabriz and Tehran were visited. This study was carried out with 48 supervisors/managers of physical installation and maintenance and repairs, supervisors/managers of laundry services, supervisors/managers of food services and health and safety experts (HSE) in 2018 at 12 selected hospitals of Tabriz and Tehran. The research instrument consisted of a questionnaire, which was designed and performed by Jean-Claude Tremblay and colleagues in 2017, which was translated according to the local conditions and was used under questionnaire of the machinery risk management approaches. This questionnaire consisted of two parts of demographic information and subscales (Q1 dimension [machinery risk management], Q2 [Machinery safety], Q3 [tagout and lockout], Q4 [machinery inspection], Q5 [training]) and included 41 questions. Results: The status of the risk management approach for the machinery of the selected hospitals showed that among the four participated groups, Q4 dimension (machine inspection) had the highest mean score and the lowest mean score belonged to Q5 dimension (training). In the meantime, HSE experts had the highest risk management scores among the other three groups. Conclusion: According to the visit to hospitals and the comments of the participants in this study, it was found that no risk assessment method was carried out on the machinery. It is worth noting that during the visit, some machinery and equipment were unprotected. It was also found that inspection of machinery, instructions, and procedures for the safety of machinery, tagout and lockout and training about machinery (such as risk prevention, risk assessment, etc.) are in critical and very low status.
Etherton JR, Myers ML. Machine safety research at NIOSH and the future directions. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 1990 Sep 1;6(2):163-74.
Lyon BK, Hollcroft B. Risk assessments: Top 10 pitfalls & tips for improvement. Professional Safety. 2012 Dec 1;57(12):28-34.
Harper C, Virk G. Towards the development of international safety standards for human robot interaction. International Journal of Social Robotics. 2010 Sep 1;2(3):229-34.
Aneziris ON, Papazoglou IA, Konstandinidou M, Baksteen H, Mud M, Damen M, Bellamy LJ, Oh J. Quantification of occupational risk owing to contact with moving parts of machines. Safety science. 2013 Jan 1;51(1):382-96.
Gravel S, Vergara D, Katherine Lippel K, Dubé J, Ducharme JF, Legendre G. Santé et sécurité des travailleurs qui cumulent des précarités: la lutte aux inégalités de santé attribuables au travail. 2016.
Pratt SG, Kisner SM, Helmkamp JC. Machinery-related occupational fatalities in the United States, 1980 to 1989. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine. 1996 Jan 1;38(1):70-6.
Etherton J, Main B, Cloutier D, Christensen W. Reducing risk on machinery: a field evaluation pilot study of risk assessment. Risk Analysis: An International Journal. 2008 Jun;28(3):711-21.
Smits AJ, Giannakopoulos GF, Zuidema WP. In response: Disability after nondisplaced and minimally displaced radial head fractures [Injury 45 (2014) 2110–2119]. Injury. 2015 Dec 1;46(12):2522.
Akdur O, Ozkan S, Durukan P, Avsarogullari L, Koyuncu M, Ikizceli I. Machine-related farm injuries in Turkey. Annals of agricultural and environmental medicine. 2010;17(1):59-63.
Backström T, Döös M. Problems with machine safeguards in automated installations. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2000 Jul 1;25(6):573-85.
Dei Svaldi D, Charpentier P. Une étude des accidents en automatisme à partir de la base de données EPICEA. Hygiène et sécurité du travail-Cahiers de notes documentaires. 2004(196):3.
Luken K, Paridon H, Windemuth D. ND 2261-Bypassing and Defeating Protective Devices of Machines: a Multidimensional Problem. Cahiers de Notes documentaires. 2006(205):55.
Tweedy JT. Healthcare hazard control and safety management. CRC Press; 2014 Mar 12. .
Cordero CA, Sanz JL, Wiña PL. Measurement of machinery safety level in the European market: A real case based on market surveillance data. Safety science. 2009 Dec 1;47(10):1351-8.
Neuss MN, Polovich M, McNiff K, Esper P, Gilmore TR, LeFebvre KB, Schulmeister L, Jacobson JO. 2013 updated American Society of Clinical Oncology/Oncology Nursing Society chemotherapy administration safety standards including standards for the safe administration and management of oral chemotherapy. Journal of Oncology Practice. 2013 Mar;9(2S):5s-13s.
Ziam S, Lakhal S, Laroche E, Alderson M, Gagné C. Application des pratiques préventives par les infirmières et infirmiers: la perspective innovante de la capacité d’absorption. 2017.
Sêcco IA, Robazzi ML, Shimizu DS, Rúbio MM. Typical occupational accidents with employees of a university hospital in the south of Brazil: epidemiology and prevention. Revista latino-americana de enfermagem. 2008 Oct;16(5):824-31.
Gorman T, Dropkin J, Kamen J, Nimbalkar S, Zuckerman N, Lowe T, Szeinuk J, Milek D, Piligian G, Freund A. Controlling health hazards to hospital workers: A reference guide. NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy. 2014 Feb;23(1_suppl):1-69.
Tremblay JC, Gauthier F. Safety of machinery in hospitals: An exploratory study in the province of Quebec, Canada. Safety science. 2018 Mar 1;103:207-17.
Cronbach LJ, Shavelson RJ. My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educational and psychological measurement. 2004 Jun;64(3):391-418.
Tremblay MS, Aubert S, Barnes JD, Saunders TJ, Carson V, Latimer-Cheung AE, Chastin SFM, Altenburg TM, Chinapaw MJ. Sedentary Behavior Research Network (SBRN)-Terminology Consensus Project process and outcome. The International Journal of Behav-ioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2017;14(1):75. doi: 10.1186/s12966-017-0525-8