Designing and building a value risk-matrix for the
evaluation and mitigation of health and safety risks
with MACBETH
Diana F. Lopes, Mónica D. Oliveira and Carlos A. Bana e Costa
Centre for Management Studies of Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
Agenda
Context &
objectives
Methodological
framework
Structuring
Value
measurement
Future research
 Context and objectives
 Methodological framework
 Structuring
o
o
o
o
o
EI: Nomenclature
EII: How to identify and measure risk sources and their consequences?
EIII: Identification of impact dimensions
EIV: Impact scale construction
EV: How to estimate the consequences’ impact in each dimension?
 Value measurement
o MI: Independence test between impact dimensions
o MII: Impact value measurement (MACBETH-Choquet model)
 Future research
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
2
Risk matrix in use by the
Health Service Executive
Impact levels
Probability
Negligible (1) Minor (2) Moderate (3)
Major (4) Extreme (5)
Almost Certain (5)
5
10
15
20
25
Likely (4)
4
8
12
16
20
Possible (3)
3
6
9
12
15
Unlikely (2)
2
4
6
8
10
Rare/remote (1)
1
2
3
4
5
Prob.
×
Impact
Similar systems are used by multiple public and private
organizations…
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
3
U.S. Department of Defense
…prioritise risks that threat the health system,
organisations, business units and team and/or
patients
…prioritise risks encountered in the development,
test, production, use, and disposal of defense
systems
(OSQHC, 2005)
(US DoD, 2012)
Department of Education,
Training and Employment (DETE)
…prioritise risks that threat the health system,
organisations, business units and team and/or
patients
…managing health and safety risks in DETE
workplaces
(Figueiredo and Oliveira, 2009)
(OSQHC, 2005)
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
4
Why are risk matrices widely used?
Context &
objectives
Methodological
framework
Structuring
Value
measurement
Future research
 Allow for intuitive use, demanding for limited expertise (Cox, 2009)
 Imposed by International Standards (ISO, IEC/FDIS 31010) and
recommended by guidelines in many contexts (e.g. health and safety)
 Are included in several packages:
•
•
•
SAP (SAP AG, 2012)
Active Risk Manager (Microsoft Pinpoint, 2012)
MITRE’s risk matrix tool (The MITRE corporation, 1999)
 Provide a clear framework for systematic review of risks, enabling
organizations to prepare convenient documentation
 Allow for stakeholders participating in the process of building risk
matrices (Cox, 2008)
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
5
Key problems with risk matrices
Context &
objectives
Methodological
framework
Structuring
Value
measurement
Future research
 Cox Jr., L. A. (2008). "What’s wrong with risk matrices?" Risk Analysis 28(2): 497-512.
 Pickering, A. and S. P. Cowley (2010). "Risk Matrices: implied accuracy and false
assumptions." Journal of Health & Safety Research & Practice 2(1): 9-16.
 Linkov, I., F. K. Satterstrom, et al. (2006). "From comparative risk assessment to
multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: Recent developments
and applications." Environment International 32: 1072–1093.
 Levine, E. S. (2011). “Improving risk matrices: the advantages of logarithmically
scaled axes.” Journal of Risk Research 15(2): 209–222.
 Levine, E. S. and J. F. Waters (2013). "Managing risk at the Tucson sector of the U.S.
border patrol." Risk Analysis 33(7): 1281-1292.
 Wall, K. D. (2011). The trouble with risk matrices. Working Paper, Naval
Postgraduate School, Defense Resources Management Institute,. 2/2011.
 Smith, E. D., W. T. Siefert, et al. (2009). " Risk matrix input data biases." Systems
Engineerings 12(4): 344-360.
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
6
Key problems with risk matrices
Context &
objectives
Methodological
framework
(examples)
Value
measurement
Structuring
Future research
Use of interval scales such that the difference in attractiveness between two consecutive
impact (probability) levels is the same.
Probability
Impact levels
Negligible (1) Minor (2) Moderate (3) Major (4) Extreme (5)
Almost Certain (5)
5
10
15
20
25
Likely (4)
4
8
12
16
20
Possible (3)
3
6
9
12
15
Unlikely (2)
2
4
6
8
10
Rare/remote (1)
1
2
3
4
5
Use of the same qualitative impact scale for all the risk dimensions and characterize each
source of risk only by the worst impact level across all the dimensions, ignoring the
cumulative effects of multiple impacts
Financial losses of €3M
&
20 Deaths
=
Financial losses of €3M
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
7
Context: case study
Context &
objectives
Methodological
framework
Structuring
Value
measurement
Future research
Occupational Health and Safety Unit (OHSU) of the ARSLVT composed by an engineer,
nurses, doctors and technicians, makes use of traditional risk matrices:
Probability
of the event
Severity of the injury
1. Very low
2. Low
3. High
4. Very high
1. Unlikely
1. Very low
2. Very low
Low
4. Moderate
2. Likely
2. Very low
4. Moderate
6. Moderate
8. High
3.Quite likely
3. Low
6. Moderate
9. High
12. Very high
4. Very likely
4. Moderate
8. High
12. Very high
16. Very high
Source: (ARSLVT, 2010)
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
8
Context: case study
Context &
objectives
Methodological
framework
Structuring
Value
measurement
Future research
Occupational Health and Safety Unit (OHSU) of the ARSLVT composed by a engineer,
nurses, doctors and technicians, makes use of traditional risk matrices:
Problems with Risk
Matrices
Severity of the injury
Probability
of the event
1. Very low
1. Unlikely
2. Likely
Low
3. High
Interviews,2.reports
and
1. Very low
2. Very low
manual’s
analysis Low
4. Very high
4. Moderate
2. Very low
4. Moderate
6. Moderate
8. High
3.Quite likely
3. Low
6. Moderate
9. High
12. Very high
4. Very likely
4. Moderate
8. High
12. Very high
16. Very high
Source: (ARSLVT, 2010)
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
9
Context: Interviews, reports and manual’s analysis
Context &
objectives
Methodological
framework
Structuring
Value
measurement
Future research
Ambiguous
nomenclature
Problems in
resource
allocation
Decision makers’
opinions
incompatible with
the manual
Problems
identified
Difficulty in
identifying the
risk sources
Arbitrariness when
estimating impacts
and probabilities
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
10
Objectives
Context &
objectives
Methodological
framework
Structuring
Value
measurement
Future research
This study aims to answer the call for help from the OHSU of the ARSLVT
 Risk Assessment in health and safety at work
 Challenge: Improve risk matrices’ design to avoid inconsistencies
 Selection of corrective measures with the greatest potential to mitigate risks
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
11
Methodological framework
Context &
objectives
Methodological
framework
Structuring
Value
measurement
Risk Assessment’s context
for Health and Safety at
work
Value risk matrix, using MACBETH
Structuring
SI: Identification of issues and challenges
SII: Nomenclature
SIII: Tables match
SIV: Identification of impacts dimensions
SV: Impact scales
SVI: impacts Estimation
Multicriteria resource
allocation model
Structuring and
alocation
Mitigation actions
Value measurement
MI: Dependency test between dimensions
MII: Impact
MIII: Subjective Probability
Selection of mitigation
actions
Risk classification
Acceptability
ACTIVITIES PROPOSED
System to support risk
assessment
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
Future research
Risk
management
OUTPUTS
Multicriteria risk
impact value
and probability
for each risk
&
Classification of
risks into risk
categories
&
Selection of
mitigation
actions that
maximize value
given available
budget
Model
requisiteness
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
13
Structuring
Context &
objectives
SI
Methodological
framework
Structuring
Value
measurement
Future research
Nomenclature
Appraisal
Risk Sources
S II
Health consequences
CORRESPONDENCE
S III
Identification of relevant dimensions to assess the impact
Impact scales construction
Employee’s health
S IV
Capability to return to work
Absenteeism
Best
0 yhll
Best
ND
Best
0 days
Worst
34 yhll
Worst
ID
Worst
18 years
Nota - yhll: years of healthy life lost; ND: null disability; ID: irrecoverable total disability
SV
Impact estimation on each dimension
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
14
Following (ISO, IEC/FDIS 31010),
(ARSLVT, 2010), (Vose, 2008)
Proposed Nomenclature
Grooves on the stairs
to access the building
Fall
Expression levels
Grooves:
0 cm
2 cm
10 cm
RISK SOURCE
RISK
(…)
Expression’s levels
Foot fracture
 3,5 dhll
 RD
 1 month of
absenteeism
IMPACT
CONSEQUENCE
Nota - dhll: day of healthy life lost; RD: Recoverable Disability
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
15
Appraisal
Context &
objectives
SI
Methodological
framework
Structuring
Value
measurement
Future research
Nomenclature
Appraisal
S II
Risk Sources
Health consequences
CORRESPONDENCE
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
16
Appraisal
Context &
objectives
Methodological
framework
Structuring
Value
measurement
Future research
Problem
Difficulty in identifying and measuring the expression levels of risk sources and their
consequences
Proposal
Based on an intensive
literature review
CORRESPONDENCE
Measurement of
expression levels
• RSA
• RSB
•…
Risk sources
identification
• Pictorial
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
• CA
• CB
•…
Health
consequences
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
17
Example: Noise
Context &
objectives
Methodological
framework
Description of noise
dB
Normal breathing
10
Air conditioning
50
Home
55
Normal conversation (public
lounges, offices, cafes, bars)
60
yhllirator
70
Alarm Clock (airport wainting room)
Value
measurement
Structuring
Exposure limit
Health consequences
Without limit
Without efect
Future research
8h
Annoyance
8h
Annoyance pronounced
75
8h
An increase in hearing threshold level (TL) can
occur
Hairdryer
80
8h
Backhoe
85
8h
Possible increase int the TL’s level
Exposure Limit
87
6h
Mowing machine
89
4h30min
Sheet Metal Shop
100
1h
Hearing loss of 10-15 dB in a working period from
1 to 2 years
Hearing loss of 50 dB in the working period of
50/52 years
Ambulance siren
120
3,75 min
Very loud rock concert
130
56,25 s
Jet plane
140
14 s
Annoyance and possible increase in TL
Pain and hearing loss treatable or not treatable
Pain and acoustic trauma. Hearing loss may be
accompanied by a buzzing
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
Work from: (HCN, 1994);(Passchier et al., 2000);(Decreto-Lei 182/2006)
18
Dimensions identification
Context &
objectives
SI
Methodological
framework
Structuring
Value
measurement
Future research
Nomenclature
Appraisal
S II
Risk Sources
Health consequences
CORRESPONDENCE
S III
Identification of relevant dimensions to assess the impact
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
19
Dimensions identification
Context &
objectives
Methodological
framework
Structuring
Value
measurement
Future research
 The identification of relevant dimensions to assess the risk
impact was performed in workshops with OHSU
Final Value Tree
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
20
Impact scales
Context &
objectives
SI
Methodological
framework
Structuring
Value
measurement
Future research
Nomenclature
Appraisal
Risk Sources
S II
Health consequences
CORRESPONDENCE
S III
Identification of relevant dimensions to assess the impact
Impact scale construction
Employee’s health
S IV
Capability to return to work
Absenteeism
Best
0 yhll
Best
ND
Best
0 days
Worst
34 yhll
Worst
ID
Worst
18 years
Nota - yhll: years of healthy life lost; ND: null disability; ID: irrecoverable disability
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
21
Impact scales
Context &
objectives
Better
Worst
Methodological
framework
Value
measurement
Structuring
0 years of healthy
life lost
34 years of healthy life
lost
Employee’s Health
Better
0 (zero duration)
Worst
18 years = [Retirement age] –
[Average age of ARS’ employees]
Future research
Best: Null disability
The employee is fit for the full exercise of
his usual functions
Recoverable diss.
The employee’s usual functions are
committed but in a retrievable form
Irrecoverable
partial dis. with
return to work
Some of the normal duties of the employee
are irreversibly committed and the return to
the usual work is possible with restrictions
Irrec. Partial dis.
with No return to
work
Part of the normal duties of the employee
are irreversibly committed and the return to
work is not possible
Worst: Irrec.
disability
All the usual functions of the employee are
irretrievably committed
Capability to return to work
Absenteeism
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
22
Impact estimation
Context &
objectives
SI
Methodological
framework
Structuring
Value
measurement
Future research
Nomenclature
Appraisal
Risk Sources
S II
Health consequences
CORRESPONDENCE
S III
Identification of relevant dimensions to assess the impact
Impact scale construction
Employee’s health
S IV
Capability to return to work
Absenteeism
Best
0 yhll
Best
ND
Best
0 days
Worst
34 yhll
Worst
ID
Worst
18 years
Nota - yhll: years of healthy life lost; ND: null disability; ITD: irrecoverable total disability
SV
Impact estimation on each dimension
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
23
Impact estimation
Context &
objectives
Methodological
framework
Value
measurement
Structuring
Future research
Problem
Difficulty in estimating impacts due to the decision makers’ lack of knowledge
Proposal
Sources: (Bowie et al. ,1997);
(Mathers et al., 1999);(Murray et al., 1996);
(Stouthard et al., 1997); (U.S. Department of
Labor, 2013); …
Consequences
Employee’s Health
Capability to
return to work
Absenteeism
Amputation of a
finger (except the
thumbs)
3,5 years of healthy
life lost
Irrecoverable Partial
Disability with return to
work
26 days
Sprain
1 day of healthy life
lost
Recoverable Disability
10 days
Tuberculosis
1,6 months of
healthy life lost
Recoverable Disability
…
…
…
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
6 months
…
24
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
25
Value measurement
Context &
objectives
MI
Methodological
framework
Structuring
Value
measurement
Future research
Dependency test between impact dimensions
Impact value measurement using the MACBETH-Choquet model:
 Construction of a global descriptor that combines the various dimensions
M II
 Issues Protocol using the interactive version of Microsoft PowerPoint
 Populate the MACBETH global matrix with the judgements elicited by the
decision makers
 Determination of IC’s parameters (Shapley and interaction)
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
26
Dependency test
Context &
objectives
Methodological
framework
Value
measurement
Structuring
RD
Future research
RD
1,6 mhll
Strong
Weak
15 yhll
Employee’s
health
IPDR
Capability
to return to
work
IPDR
1 year
Absenteeism
Employee’s
health
1 year
Capability
to return to
work
Absenteeism
The capability to return to work is cardinally dependent on the employee’s health
Nota - yhll: years of healthy life lost; mhll: months of healthy life lost; IPDR: Irrecoverable Partial Disability with return to work;
RD: Recoverable Disability
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
27
Impact value measurement
Context &
objectives
MI
Methodological
framework
Structuring
Value
measurement
Future research
Dependency test between impact dimensions
Impact value measurement using the MACBETH-Choquet model:
 Construction of a global descriptor that combines the various dimensions
M II
 Issues Protocol using the interactive version of Microsoft PowerPoint
 Populate the MACBETH global matrix with the judgements elicited by the
decision makers
 Determination of IC’s parameters (Shapley and interaction)
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
28
MACBETH
Context &
objectives
Methodological
framework
Structuring
Value
measurement
Future research
MACBETH is an interactive decision support approach
 … uses qualitative judgments of differences of attractiveness…
 … based on seven qualitative categories of difference in attractiveness
 Wide applicability in MCDA:
•
Health care: (Bana e Costa et al., 2011)(de Castro et al., 2011)(Lopes, 2013)
(Oliveira et al., 2011)
•
•
•
Energy: (Bana e Costa et al., 2008)(Barin et al., 2012)
Environment: (Bana e Costa et al., 2013); (Cox et al., 2013)
Risk management: (Bana e Costa et al., 2008b);(Dall'Osso et al., 2009);
(Joerin et al., 2010); (Oliveira et al., 2004)
•
…
 Typically, MACBETH applications use an additive value model (preference
independence conditions are verified)…
…but many studies are using MACBETH with CI to model interdependencies
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
29
MACBETH-Choquet model
Proposal
Use of the MACBETH-Choquet methodology to model interdependencies
 Friendly and intuitive questioning protocol
 Judgments based on seven qualitative categories of MACBETH
 Intuitive meaning of the results
MACBETH
(Lopes et al., 2014)
Choquet
integral
Mathematical formulation
of the 2-additive CI operator:
m
1
u
VAg   si vi ( xiu )   I ij | vi ( xiu )  v j ( x ju ) |
2 i , j
i 1
i j
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
30
MACBETH-Choquet model
Context &
objectives
Levels
Methodological
framework
Structuring
Value
measurement
Future research
Descriptio
n
Levels
Description
SQ: Status quo
IN
Levels
Description
SQ: Status quo
0 anos saudáveis perdidos
RS
RTD
SQ: Status
quo
0 anos
RS
1,6 meses saudáveis perdidos
RI
IPDR
RS
1 mês
P: Pior
34 anos saudáveis perdidos
P : Pior
ITD
P: Pior
18 anos
Levels
Description
P1 P2 P3
34 anos saudáveis perdidos, inc. absoluta irrecuperável, 18
anos de ausência laboral (34yhll, ITD, 18a)
15 anos saudáveis perdidos, inc. absoluta irrecuperável, 18
anos de ausência laboral (15yhll, ITD, 18a)
15 anos saudáveis perdidos, inc. parcial irrecuperável sem
regresso ao trabalho, 18 anos de ausência laboral (15yhll,
IPDN, 18a)
Global
Descriptor
Interactive
questioning
protocol
4 anos saudáveis perdidos, inc. absoluta irrecuperável, 18
anos de ausência laboral (4yhll, ITD, 18a)
(…)
Choquet integral’s
parameters
MACBETH Global
Matrix
Shapley and
interaction’s
parameters
M-MACBETH
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
31
Global descriptor
Context &
objectives
Methodological
framework
Structuring
Value
measurement
Future research
(2) Incapability to return to work
(1) Employee’s Health
Levels
Levels
Description
SQ: Status quo
ND
UR
RD
LR
IPDR
I
IPDN
W: Worst
ID
SQ: Status quo
Description
0 days of healthy life lost
UR
1,6 months of healthy life lost
Levels
Description
X
0,5 year of healthy life lost
SQ: Status quo
0 years
Y
1 year of healthy life lost
UR
1 month
Z
4 years of healthy life lost
T
6 months
LR
15 years of healthy life lost
LR
1 year
W: Worst
34 years of healthy life lost
W: Worst
18 years
(3) Absenteeism
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
32
Global descriptor
Context &
objectives
Methodological
framework
Structuring
Value
measurement
Levels
Levels
34 yhll, ID, 18 y
4 yhll, RD, 6 m
15 yhll, ID, 18 y
4 yhll, RD, 1 m
15 yhll, IPDN, 18 y
1 yhll, IPDR, 1 y
4 yhll, ID, 18 y
1 yhll, IPDR, 6 m
4 yhll, IPDN, 18 y
1 yhll, IPDR, 1 m
15 yhll, IPDR, 1 y
1 yhll, RD, 1 y
15 yhll, IPDR, 6 m
1 yhll, RD, 6 m
15 yhll, IPDR, 1 m
1 yhll, RD, 1 m
15 yhll, RD, 1 y
1,6 mhll, IPDR, 1 y
15 yhll, RD, 6 m
1,6 mhll, IPDR, 6 m
15 yhll, RD, 1 m
1,6 mhll, IPDR, 1 m
4 yhll, IPDR, 1 y
1,6 mhll, RD, 1 y
4 yhll, IPDR, 6 m
1,6 mhll, RD, 6 m
4 yhll, IPDR, 1 m
1,6 mhll, RD, 1 m
4 yhll, RD, 1 y
No impact (0 yhll, ND, 0 y)
Future research
Nota - yhll: years of healthy life lost; mhll: months of healthy life lost; ID: Irrecoverable disability; IPDR: Irrecoverable Partial Disability with return to
work; RD: Recoverable Disability; ND: Null Disability; y:years; m: months
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
33
Interactive questioning protocol
Context &
objectives
Methodological
framework
Structuring
Value
measurement
Future research
 Questioning protocol based on questions-type:
“What is the attractiveness of reversing certain combination of impacts?”
 Support system: Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2007
 Sequential
 Interactive
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
34
Interactive questioning protocol
Final Judgments
No
impact
No
impact
No
impact
No
impact
No
impact
34yhll,
ID, 18y
15yhll, 15yhll,
4yhll,
4yhll,
15yhll, 15yhll, 15yhll, 15yhll,
ID, 18y IPDN, 18y ID, 18y IPDN, 18y IPDR, 1y IPDR, 6m IPDR, 1m RD, 1y
15yhll,
RD, 6m
15yhll,
RD, 1m
No
impact
No
impact
No
impact
No
impact
No
impact
No
impact
No
impact
No
impact
4yhll,
4yhll,
4yhll,
IPDR, 1y IPDR, 6m IPDR, 1m
4yhll,
RD, 1y
4yhll,
RD, 6m
No
impact
No
impact
0,5yhll, 0,5yhll, 0,5yhll, 0,5yhll,
IPDR, 1y IPDR, 6m IPDR, 1m RD, 1y
No
impact
No
impact
No
impact
No
mpact
No
impact
No
impact
No
impact
No
impact
No
impact
No
impact
4yhll,
1yhll,
1yhll,
1yhll,
RD, 1m IPDR, 1y IPDR, 6m IPDR, 1m
1yhll,
RD, 1y
1yhll,
RD, 6m
1yhll,
RD, 1m
No
impact
No
mpact
No
impact
No
impact
No
impact
0,5yhll,
RD, 6m
0,5yhll, 1,6mhll, 1,6mhll, 1,6mhll, 1,6mhll, 1,6mhll, 1,6mhll,
RD, 1m IPDR, 1y IPDR, 6m IPDR, 1m RD, 1y RD, 6m RD, 1m
No
impact
No
impact
No
impact
No
impact
No
impact
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
35
MACBETH global
matrix
Judgments elicited by the decisions makers
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
36
MACBETH global matrix
Validated scales obtained in decision conferences based on the elicited judgments
Scale validated by the decision makers
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
37
Choquet integral parameters
Combinations of impacts required
to determine the CI parameters
 Shapley’s parameters
295
s1 
338
32
s2 
338
11
s3 
338
UR1,UR2,UR3
169 / 169
UR1,UR2,LR3
161 169
UR1,LR2,UR3
142 169
UR1,LR2,LR3
134 169
LR1,UR2,LR3
8 169
LR1,UR2,LR3
5 169
LR1,LR2,UR3
3 169
LR1,LR2,LR3
0 169
 Interaction’s parameters
I12 
22
169
I13 
5
169
I 23  I123  0
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
38
Future research
Context &
objectives
Methodological
framework
Structuring
Value
measurement
Future research
 Conclusion of the probability scale construction considering a group test of
risks
Value risk-matrix
100
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
39
Future research
Context &
objectives
Methodological
framework
Structuring
Value
measurement
Future research
 Conclusion of the probability scale construction considering a group
test of risks
 Construction of a DSS in order to facilitate the use of the risk
assessment system by the OHSU
 Selection of mitigation measures (allocation resources)
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
40
Questions?
Suggestions?
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
41
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
FUNDING FROM THE PORTUGUESE PUBLIC BUDGET
THROUGH FCT – FUNDAÇÃO PARA A CIÊNCIA E A
TECNOLOGIA, WITHIN THE PROJECT PTDC/EGEGES/119230/2010
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
42
References
ACSS (2007). Unidade Funcional de Estudos e Planeamento de Recursos Humanos, Acidentes de trabalho.
Administração Regional de Saúde do Norte, Carga global da doença na região norte de Portugal, Abril 2011.
Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo (2010a). Segurança e Saúde no Trabalho: Gestão do risco profissional em estabelecimentos de saúde, Orientações técnicas
nº1.
Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo (2010b). Saúde Ocupacional: acidentes de trabalho e doenças profissionais, Orientações nº2.
Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo (2013). Saúde Ocupacional: acidentes de trabalho e doenças profissionais, Orientações nº3.
Assembleia da República (1991). Decreto-Lei n.º 441/1991 de 14 de Novembro. Diário da República, 1ª série – N.º 262: 5826-5833.
Assembleia da República (2003). Lei n.º 99/2003 de 27 de Agosto. Diário da República, 1ª série-A – N.º 197: 5558-5656.
Assembleia da República (2004). Lei n.º 35/2004 de 29 de Julho. Diário da República, 1ª série-A – N.º 177: 4810-4885
Assembleia da República (2009). Lei nº 102/2009 de 10 de Setembro, Regime jurídico da promoção da segurança e saúde no trabalho. Diário da República, 1ª série – Nº 176:6167-6192
Bowie C., Beck S. et al. (1997). Estimating the burden of disease in an English region, Journal of Public Health Medicine, 19(1): 87-92
Factor Segurança. (2013) Movimentação manual de cargas. http://www.factor-segur.pt/shst/docinformativos/Movim_Manual_de_Cargas.pdf
Ferreira, L. N. (2002). Utilidades, Qalys e medição da Qualidade de Vida, Associação Portuguesa de Economia da Saúde.
Giomo, D. B., de Freitas, F.C.T., Alves, L.A. e Robazzi, M.L.C.C. (2009) Acidentes de trabalho, riscos ocupacionais e absenteísmo entre trabalhadores de enfermagem hospitalar. Rev.
Enferm. 17(1): 24-29.
Health Council of the Netherlands: Comitee on Noise and Health. (1994). Noise and health, nr 1994/15E.
IEC/FDIS 31010 (2009) Risk management – risk assessment techniques. International Standard.
Lopes, D.F., Bana e Costa, C.A., Oliveira, M.D., Morton, A. (2014), “Using MACBETH with the Choquet Integral fundamentals to model interdependencies between elementary concerns
in the context of risk management”, in Vitoriano, B., Pinson, E., Valente, F. (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems,
ICORES 2014, ESEO, Angers, Loire Valley, France, 6th-8th March 2014, SCITEPRESS, p. 116-126 (digital edition), doi: 10.5220/0004833701160126
Mathers C., Vos T. e Stevenson C. (1999). The burden of disease and injury in Australia – summary report. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra, no. PHE 18.
Ministério do Trabalho e da Solidariedade Social, Decreto-Lei n.º 182/2006 de 6 de Setembro. Diário da República, 1ª série – N.º 172: 6584-6593.
Ministério do Trabalho e da Solidariedade Social, Decreto Regulamentar n.º 76/2007 de 17 de Julho. Diário da República, 1ª série – N.º 136: 4499-4543.
Ministério do Trabalho e da Solidariedade Social, Decreto-Lei n.º 352/2007 de 23 de Outubro. Diário da República, 1ª série – N.º 204: 7715-7808.
Murray C.J.L., Lopez A.D. (ed). (1996). Global Burden of Disease and Injury series. Vol. 1: The Global Burden of Disease. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Ocupational Health and Safety Unit (2011). Risk Assessment and management Guidelines. University of Queensland, Australia
Passchier-Vermeer, W., Passchier W. (2000). Noise exposure and public health, Environmental Health Perspectives, 108(1): 123–131.
Presidência do Conselho de Ministros, Decreto-Lei n.º 503/1999 de 20 de Novembro. Diário da República, 1ª série A – N.º 271: 8241-8256.
Presidência do Conselho de Ministros e Ministérios do Trabalho dos Assuntos SocITDs e da Indústria e Energia, Decreto Regulamentar n.º 12/1980 de 8 de Maio. Diário da República,
1ª série – N.º 106: 907-924.
Soler & Palau. (2013) Fichas técnicas. Acústica. O ruído I. Os decibéis. http://www.solerpalau.pt/formacion_01_23.html
Stouthard M., Essink-Bot M., Bonsel G., Barendregt J. e Kramers P. (1997). Disability weights for diseases in the Netherlands. Rotterdam: Department of Public Health, Erasmus
University.
Teixeira, V. (2011) Medicina, Higiene e Segurança no trabalho, Extintores http://medicinanotrabalho.blogspot.pt/2011/03/extintores.html
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau Labor Statistics (2013). Nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses requiring days away from work, 2012. News Release, USDL-13-2257.
Vose D. (2008). Risk Analysis: A quantitative guide, 3rd edition, Wiley
Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. (2002). Office Ergonomics: Practical solutions for a safer workplace. Office Ergonomics Advisory Committee.
World Health Organization. (2004). Global burden of disease 2004 update: disability weights for diseases and conditions.
Work Safe Victoria. (2009) Home care – occupational health and safety compliance kit: how to control the most common hazardous tasks in the home care sector, worksafe.vic.gov.au
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
43