Error Failure Human
Contents |
Contact HSE Accessibility Text size: A - switch to normal size A - switch example of human error to large size A - switch to larger size HSE types of human error at workplace Guidance Topics Human factors Human factors - Topics Human factors: Managing human failures Human factors
Human Error Types
Introduction to human factors Introducing the key topics Getting started Human factor Topics Managing human failures Human errors Incident investigation Procedures Training and competence Staffing
Human Error In The Workplace
Staffing levels Workload Supervision Contractors Organisational change Safety critical communications Shift handover PTW (permit to work) Human factors in design Control rooms Human computer interfaces (HCI) Alarm management Lighting, thermal comfort, noise and vibration Fatigue and shift work Organisational culture Behavioural safety Learning organisations Maintenance, inspection and testing Maintenance error Intelligent human error in experiments customers Resources Incidents Case studies Articles Briefing notes HSE inspectors toolkit COMAH safety report Links Related content Manual handling & MSDs Stress Display Screen Equipment Violence Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) Human factors: Managing human failures Everyone can make errors no matter how well trained and motivated they are. However in the workplace, the consequences of such human failure can be severe. Analysis of accidents and incidents shows that human failure contributes to almost all accidents and exposures to substances hazardous to health. Many major accidents e.g. Texas City, Piper Alpha, Chernobyl, were initiated by human failure. In order to avoid accidents and ill-health, companies need to manage human failure as robustly as the technical and engineering measures they use for that purpose. The challenge is to develop error tolerant systems and to prevent errors from initiating; to manage human error proactively it should be addressed as part
navigation, searchHERE Article Information Category: Human Behaviour Content source: SKYbrary Content control: SKYbrary Contents 1 Definition 2 Description 3 Slips and Lapses 3.1 Examples of
Causes Of Human Error In The Workplace
slips and lapses in aviation 4 Mistakes 4.1 Example of mistake human error synonym 5 Error frequencies 6 Error detection and correction 7 Related Articles 8 Further Reading Definition Errors are the human error prevention result of actions that fail to generate the intended outcomes. They are categorized according to the cognitive processes involved towards the goal of the action and according to whether http://www.hse.gov.uk/humanfactors/topics/humanfail.htm they are related to planning or execution of the activity. Description Actions by human operators can fail to achieve their goal in two different ways: The actions can go as planned, but the plan can be inadequate, or the plan can be satisfactory, but the performance can still be deficient (Hollnagel, 1993). Errors can be broadly distinguished in http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Human_Error_Types two categories: Category 1 - A person intends to carry out an action, the action is appropriate, carries it out incorrectly, and the desired goal is not achieved. - An execution failure has occurred. Execution errors are called Slips and Lapses. They result from failures in the execution and/or storage stage of an action sequence. Slips relate to observable actions and are commonly associated with attentional or perceptual failures. Lapses are more internal events and generally involve failures of memory. Category 2 - A person intends to carry out an action, does so correctly, the action is inappropriate, and the desired goal is not achieved - A planning failure has occurred. Planning failures are Mistakes. “Mistakes may be defined as deficiencies or failures in the judgmental and/or inferential processes involved in the selection of an objective or in the specification of the means to achieve it.” (Reason, 1990). Execution errors correspond to the Skill based level of Rasmussen’s levels of performance (Rasmussen 1986), while planning errors correspond to the Rule and Knowledge
Health Search databasePMCAll DatabasesAssemblyBioProjectBioSampleBioSystemsBooksClinVarCloneConserved DomainsdbGaPdbVarESTGeneGenomeGEO DataSetsGEO ProfilesGSSGTRHomoloGeneMedGenMeSHNCBI Web SiteNLM CatalogNucleotideOMIMPMCPopSetProbeProteinProtein ClustersPubChem BioAssayPubChem CompoundPubChem SubstancePubMedPubMed HealthSNPSRAStructureTaxonomyToolKitToolKitAllToolKitBookToolKitBookghUniGeneSearch termSearch Advanced Journal list Help Journal ListBMJv.320(7237); 2000 Mar https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1117770/ 18PMC1117770 BMJ. 2000 Mar 18; 320(7237): 768–770. PMCID: PMC1117770Human error: models and managementJames Reason, professor of psychologyDepartment of Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PLku.ca.nam.ysp@nosaerAuthor information ► Copyright and License information ►Copyright © 2000, British Medical JournalThis article has been cited by other articles in PMC.The human error problem can be viewed in two ways: the human error person approach and the system approach. Each has its model of error causation and each model gives rise to quite different philosophies of error management. Understanding these differences has important practical implications for coping with the ever present risk of mishaps in clinical practice. Summary pointsTwo approaches to the problem of human fallibility exist: the person and of human error the system approachesThe person approach focuses on the errors of individuals, blaming them for forgetfulness, inattention, or moral weaknessThe system approach concentrates on the conditions under which individuals work and tries to build defences to avert errors or mitigate their effectsHigh reliability organisations—which have less than their fair share of accidents—recognise that human variability is a force to harness in averting errors, but they work hard to focus that variability and are constantly preoccupied with the possibility of failurePerson approachThe longstanding and widespread tradition of the person approach focuses on the unsafe acts—errors and procedural violations—of people at the sharp end: nurses, physicians, surgeons, anaesthetists, pharmacists, and the like. It views these unsafe acts as arising primarily from aberrant mental processes such as forgetfulness, inattention, poor motivation, carelessness, negligence, and recklessness. Naturally enough, the associated countermeasures are directed mainly at reducing unwanted variability in human behaviour. These methods include poster campaigns that appeal to people's sense of fear, writing another procedure (or adding to existing ones), di
be down. Please try the request again. Your cache administrator is webmaster. Generated Tue, 11 Oct 2016 12:55:35 GMT by s_ac15 (squid/3.5.20)