事故模型和事件分析技术综述。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Lawrence M. Wong, Todd Pawlicki
{"title":"事故模型和事件分析技术综述。","authors":"Lawrence M. Wong,&nbsp;Todd Pawlicki","doi":"10.1002/acm2.14623","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This review article aims to provide an overview of accident models and incident analysis techniques in the context of radiation oncology. Accident models conceptualize the mechanisms through which accidents occur. Chain-of-event models and systemic models are two main categories of accident models and differ in how accident causation is portrayed. Chain-of-event models focus on the linear sequence of events leading up to an accident, whereas systemic models emphasize the nonlinear relationships between the components in a complex system. The article then introduces various incident analysis techniques, including root cause analysis (RCA), London Protocol, AcciMap, and Causal Analysis Based on Systems Theory (CAST), which are based on these accident models.  The techniques based on the chain-of-event model can be effective in identifying causal factors, safety interventions, and improving safety.  The other techniques based on the systemic models inherently facilitate an examination of how the influence of personal conditions, environmental conditions, and information exchange between different aspects of a system contributed to an accident.  To improve incident analysis, it is essential to translate unsafe human behavior into decision-making flaws and the underlying contextual factors. Where resources allow, it is also crucial to systematically link frontline contributions to organizational and societal aspects of the system and incorporate expertise in safety science and human factors into the analysis team.  The article also touches on related concepts such as Perrow's Normal Accident Theory (NAT), Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM), and Bowtie Analysis, which are not based on specific accident models but have been used for safety improvement in radiation oncology. Overall, different incident analysis techniques have strengths and weaknesses. Taking a systems approach to incident analysis requires a shift from linear thinking to a more nuanced understanding of complex systems. However, the approach also brings unique value and can help improve safety as radiation oncology further gains complexity.</p>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":"26 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.14623","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A review of accident models and incident analysis techniques\",\"authors\":\"Lawrence M. Wong,&nbsp;Todd Pawlicki\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acm2.14623\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This review article aims to provide an overview of accident models and incident analysis techniques in the context of radiation oncology. Accident models conceptualize the mechanisms through which accidents occur. Chain-of-event models and systemic models are two main categories of accident models and differ in how accident causation is portrayed. Chain-of-event models focus on the linear sequence of events leading up to an accident, whereas systemic models emphasize the nonlinear relationships between the components in a complex system. The article then introduces various incident analysis techniques, including root cause analysis (RCA), London Protocol, AcciMap, and Causal Analysis Based on Systems Theory (CAST), which are based on these accident models.  The techniques based on the chain-of-event model can be effective in identifying causal factors, safety interventions, and improving safety.  The other techniques based on the systemic models inherently facilitate an examination of how the influence of personal conditions, environmental conditions, and information exchange between different aspects of a system contributed to an accident.  To improve incident analysis, it is essential to translate unsafe human behavior into decision-making flaws and the underlying contextual factors. Where resources allow, it is also crucial to systematically link frontline contributions to organizational and societal aspects of the system and incorporate expertise in safety science and human factors into the analysis team.  The article also touches on related concepts such as Perrow's Normal Accident Theory (NAT), Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM), and Bowtie Analysis, which are not based on specific accident models but have been used for safety improvement in radiation oncology. Overall, different incident analysis techniques have strengths and weaknesses. Taking a systems approach to incident analysis requires a shift from linear thinking to a more nuanced understanding of complex systems. However, the approach also brings unique value and can help improve safety as radiation oncology further gains complexity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"volume\":\"26 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/acm2.14623\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.14623\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.14623","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文综述了放射肿瘤学中的事故模型和事故分析技术。事故模型将事故发生的机制概念化。事件链模型和系统模型是事故模型的两个主要类别,它们在如何描述事故原因方面有所不同。事件链模型关注导致事故的线性事件序列,而系统模型则强调复杂系统中各组成部分之间的非线性关系。然后介绍了基于这些事故模型的各种事件分析技术,包括根本原因分析(RCA)、伦敦协议、AcciMap和基于系统理论的原因分析(CAST)。基于事件链模型的技术可以有效地识别事故原因、进行安全干预和提高安全性。其他基于系统模型的技术本质上有助于检查个人条件、环境条件和系统不同方面之间的信息交换如何影响事故。为了改进事件分析,必须将不安全的人类行为转化为决策缺陷和潜在的环境因素。在资源允许的情况下,系统地将一线贡献与系统的组织和社会方面联系起来,并将安全科学和人为因素方面的专业知识纳入分析团队,这一点也至关重要。本文还涉及了Perrow的正常事故理论(NAT)、功能共振分析方法(FRAM)、鲍蒂分析等相关概念,这些概念不是基于特定的事故模型,但已被用于放射肿瘤学的安全改进。总的来说,不同的事件分析技术各有优缺点。采用系统方法进行事件分析需要从线性思维转向对复杂系统的更细致的理解。然而,这种方法也带来了独特的价值,可以帮助提高放射肿瘤学进一步复杂化的安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A review of accident models and incident analysis techniques

A review of accident models and incident analysis techniques

This review article aims to provide an overview of accident models and incident analysis techniques in the context of radiation oncology. Accident models conceptualize the mechanisms through which accidents occur. Chain-of-event models and systemic models are two main categories of accident models and differ in how accident causation is portrayed. Chain-of-event models focus on the linear sequence of events leading up to an accident, whereas systemic models emphasize the nonlinear relationships between the components in a complex system. The article then introduces various incident analysis techniques, including root cause analysis (RCA), London Protocol, AcciMap, and Causal Analysis Based on Systems Theory (CAST), which are based on these accident models.  The techniques based on the chain-of-event model can be effective in identifying causal factors, safety interventions, and improving safety.  The other techniques based on the systemic models inherently facilitate an examination of how the influence of personal conditions, environmental conditions, and information exchange between different aspects of a system contributed to an accident.  To improve incident analysis, it is essential to translate unsafe human behavior into decision-making flaws and the underlying contextual factors. Where resources allow, it is also crucial to systematically link frontline contributions to organizational and societal aspects of the system and incorporate expertise in safety science and human factors into the analysis team.  The article also touches on related concepts such as Perrow's Normal Accident Theory (NAT), Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM), and Bowtie Analysis, which are not based on specific accident models but have been used for safety improvement in radiation oncology. Overall, different incident analysis techniques have strengths and weaknesses. Taking a systems approach to incident analysis requires a shift from linear thinking to a more nuanced understanding of complex systems. However, the approach also brings unique value and can help improve safety as radiation oncology further gains complexity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
19.00%
发文量
331
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission. JACMP will publish: -Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500. -Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed. -Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references. -Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents. -Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews. -Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics. -Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信