Volume 4, Issue 3 (9-2018)                   J. Hum. Environ. Health Promot 2018, 4(3): 121-125 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Baratchi M, Mansouri N, Ahmadi A. Hazard Assessment Matrix; Results of a Delphi Study. J. Hum. Environ. Health Promot. 2018; 4 (3) :121-125
URL: http://zums.ac.ir/jhehp/article-1-175-en.html
1- Department of HSE Management, School of Environment and Energy, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract:   (328 Views)
Background: Identification of hazards is one of the most important parts of industries’ strategies. This can be done using a hazard matrix as an applicable tool which can also rank hazards properly.
Methods: In this study, the Delphi method was used to select best alternatives for a hazard matrix. All possible items were gathered and passed Delphi rounds, in which mean, median and standard deviation were used to evaluate decisions. Moreover, Kendall’s coefficient of concordance was used to reach consensus between panel members.
Results: The panel members found 42 items in five categories, of which 29 items benefited a mean and median more than 5. Moreover, Kendall’s coefficient of concordance reached 0.66, which indicated a statistically meaningful agreement for the number of experts.
Conclusion: This study introduced a hazard matrix, in which different consequences were accounted based on a well-known decision making method. The matrix is developed for hospital application with respect to panel members’ knowledge and can be used suitably in this field of industry.
Full-Text [PDF 497 kb]   (121 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research Article | Subject: Public Health
Received: 2018/07/3 | Accepted: 2018/08/26 | Published: 2018/09/21

1. Fell R, Corominas J, Bonnard C, Cascini L, Leroi E, Savage WZ. Guidelines for landslide Susceptibility, Hazard and Risk Zoning for land use Planning. Eng Geol. 2008; 102(3): 85-98. [Crossref]
2. Lees F. Lees' Loss Prevention in the Process Industries: Hazard Identification, Assessment and Control. USA, Butterworth-Heinemann; 2012.
3. IEC I. Risk Management-Risk Assessment Techniques. Int Stand. 2009; Final Draft (IEC/FDIS 31010): 92.
4. Sieber WK, Sundin DS, Frazier TM, Robinson CF. Development, Use, and Availability of a Job Exposure Matrix Based on National Occupational Hazard Survey Data. Am J Ind Med. 1991; 20(2): 163-74. [Crossref]
5. Haddad A, Morgado C, DeSouza D. Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Evaluation Strategy: Hazard Matrix Application Case Studies. Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 2008 IEEM 2008 IEEE International Conference on; IEEE. 2008: 1314-18.
6. Caldwell S, English D, Foote A, Hodges V, Nguyen Q, Pecora PJ, et al. Risk Assessment Matrix. Multi-Cultural Guidelines for Assessing Family Strengths and Risk Factors in Child Protective Services. Washington Risk Assess Proj. 1993: p.71.
7. Donoghue AM. The Design of Hazard Risk Assessment Matrices for Ranking Occupational Health Risks and Their Application in Mining and Minerals Processing. Occup Med. 2001; 51(2):118-23. [Crossref]
8. Chang AM, Gardner GE, Duffield C, Ramis MA. A Delphi Study to Validate an Advanced Practice Nursing Tool. J Adv Nurs. 2010; 66(10): 2320-30. [Crossref]
9. Singh AJ, Kasavana ML. The Impact of Information Technology on Future Management of Lodging Operations: A Delphi Study to Predict Key Technological Events in 2007 and 2027. Tour Hosp Res. 2005; 6(1): 24-37. [Crossref]
10. Ferreira V, Teixeira MR. Healthcare Waste Management Practices and Risk Perceptions: Findings from Hospitals in the Algarve Region, Portugal. Waste Manage. 2010; 30(12): 2657-63. [Crossref]
11. Pilny A, Mennicken R. Does Hospital Reputation Influence the Choice of Hospital? 2014. Available from: URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2565700#.
12. Wamba SF, Ngai EW, editors. Importance of the Relative Advantage of RFID as Enabler of Asset Management in the Healthcare: Results from a Delphi Study. System Science (HICSS), 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference. IEEE. 2012: 2889-79.
13. Dalkey N, Helmer O. An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts. Manag Sci. 1963; 9(3): 458-67. [Crossref]
14. Ma Z, Shao C, Ma S, Ye Z. Constructing Road Safety Performance Indicators Using Fuzzy Delphi Method and Grey Delphi Method. Expert Syst Appl. 2011; 38(3): 1509-14. [Crossref]
15. Linstone HA, Turoff M. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. University of Southern California: Academic; 1975.
16. Nevo D, Chan YE. A Delphi Study of Knowledge Management Systems: Scope and Requirements. Inf Manage. 2007; 44(6): 583-97. [Crossref]
17. Nakatsu RT, Iacovou CL. A Comparative Study of Important Risk Factors Involved in Offshore and Domestic Outsourcing of Software Development Projects: A Two-Panel Delphi Study. Inf Manage. 2009; 46(1): 57-68. [Crossref]
18. Zawacki-Richter O. Research Areas in Distance Education: A Delphi Study. Int Rev Res Open Distrib Learn. 2009; 10(3): 1-17. [Crossref]
19. Reid N. The Delphi Technique: its Contribution to the Evaluation of Professional Practice. Professional Competence Qual Assur Caring Prof. 1988; 230: 262.
20. Xia B, Chan AP. Measuring Complexity for Building Projects: A Delphi Study. Eng Constr Archit Manage. 2012; 19(1): 7-24. [Crossref]
21. Dalkey N, Brown B, Cochran S. Use of Self-Ratings to Improve Group Estimates: Experimental Evaluation of Delphi Procedures. Technol Forecast. 1970; 1(3): 283-91. [Crossref]
22. Somerville JA. Effective Use of the Delphi Process in Research: Its Characteristics, Strengths and Limitations. Oregon: Corvallís. 2008.
23. Allen IE, Seaman CA. Likert Scales and Data Analyses. Qual Prog. 2007; 40(7): 64.
24. Rossouw A, Hacker M, de Vries MJ. Concepts and Contexts in Engineering and Technology Education: An International and Interdisciplinary Delphi Study. Int J Technol Des Educ. 2011; 21(4): 409-24. [Crossref]
25. Field AP. Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance. In: Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science. 2005; 2:1010-11. [Crossref]
26. Abbasi EH, ForouzandehDL. Identify and Explanation the Factors that Affects in Commercialization of University Research Using Triangulation Model. J Sci Technol Policy. 2015; 6(4): 33-47.
27. Rognstad S, Brekke M, Fetveit A, Spigset O, Wyller TB, Straand J. The Norwegian General Practice (NORGEP) Criteria for Assessing Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions to Elderly Patients: A Modified Delphi Study. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2009; 27(3): 153-9. [Crossref]
28. Waters T, Collins J, Galinsky T, Caruso C. Niosh Research Efforts to Prevent Musculoskeletal Disorders in the Healthcare Industry. Orthop Nurs. 2006; 25(6): 380-9. [Crossref]
29. Haddad A, Galante E, Caldas R, Morgado C. Hazard Matrix Application in Health, Safety and Environmental Management Risk Evaluation. Risk Management for the Future-Theory and Cases: InTech. 2012.
30. Beguería S. Validation and Evaluation of Predictive Models in Hazard Assessment and Risk Management. Nat Hazards. 2006; 37(3): 315-29. [Crossref]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

© 2019 All Rights Reserved | Journal of Human, Environment and Health Promotion

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb