tmp graduate consortium 2014 meeting, 23rd june designing and building a value risk-matrix for the...
TRANSCRIPT
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
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 CostaCentre for Management Studies of Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 2
Agenda
Context and objectives Methodological framework Structuring
o EI: Nomenclatureo EII: How to identify and measure risk sources and their consequences? o EIII: Identification of impact dimensionso EIV: Impact scale constructiono EV: How to estimate the consequences’ impact in each dimension?
Value measuremento MI: Independence test between impact dimensionso MII: Impact value measurement (MACBETH-Choquet model)
Future research
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 3
ProbabilityImpact 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
Risk matrix in use by the Health Service Executive
Prob.×
Impact
Similar systems are used by multiple public and private organizations…
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 4
U.S. Department of Defense
…prioritise risks encountered in the development, test, production, use, and disposal of defense systems
(US DoD, 2012)
…prioritise risks that threat the health system, organisations, business units and team and/or patients
(OSQHC, 2005)
…prioritise risks that threat the health system, organisations, business units and team and/or patients
(OSQHC, 2005)
Department of Education, Training and Employment (DETE)
…managing health and safety risks in DETE workplaces
(Figueiredo and Oliveira, 2009)
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 5
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)
Why are risk matrices widely used?Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 6
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.
Key problems with risk matricesContext & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 7
Use of interval scales such that the difference in attractiveness between two consecutive impact (probability) levels is the same.
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
Key problems with risk matrices (examples)
ProbabilityImpact 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
Financial losses of €3M&
20 Deaths
Financial losses of €3M=
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 8
Occupational Health and Safety Unit (OHSU) of the ARSLVT composed by an engineer, nurses, doctors and technicians, makes use of traditional risk matrices:
Context: case study
Severity of the injury
1. Very low 2. Low 3. High 4. Very high
Probabili
tyof
the event
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 highSource: (ARSLVT, 2010)
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 9
Occupational Health and Safety Unit (OHSU) of the ARSLVT composed by a engineer, nurses, doctors and technicians, makes use of traditional risk matrices:
Context: case study
Severity of the injury
1. Very low 2. Low 3. High 4. Very high
Probabili
tyof
the event
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
Problems with Risk Matrices
Interviews, reports and manual’s analysis
Source: (ARSLVT, 2010)
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 10
Context: Interviews, reports and manual’s analysis
Problems identified
Ambiguous nomenclature
Difficulty in identifying the
risk sources
Arbitrariness when estimating impacts and probabilities
Decision makers’ opinions
incompatible with the manual
Problems in resourceallocation
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 11
Objectives
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
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June
ACTIVITIES PROPOSED
Value risk matrix, using MACBETH Multicriteria resource allocation model
System to support risk assessment
Risk Assessment’s context for Health and Safety at
work
Model requisiteness
OUTPUTSMulticriteria risk
impact value and probability
for each risk&
Classification of risks into risk
categories&
Selection of mitigation
actions that maximize value given available
budget
Risk management
Structuring and alocation
Mitigation actions
Selection of mitigation actions
Risk classification
Acceptability
StructuringSI: Identification of issues and challengesSII: NomenclatureSIII: Tables matchSIV: Identification of impacts dimensionsSV: Impact scalesSVI: impacts Estimation
Value measurementMI: Dependency test between dimensionsMII: ImpactMIII: Subjective Probability
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
Methodological framework
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 13
STRUCTURING
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 14
Appraisal
CORRESPONDENCE
S II Risk SourcesHealth consequences
Impact estimation on each dimensionS V
Identification of relevant dimensions to assess the impactS III
Impact scales construction
S IV
Worst
Best
Employee’s health
Worst
Best
Capability to return to work
0 days
18 yearsWorst
Best
Absenteeism
0 yhll
34 yhll
ND
IDNota - yhll: years of healthy life lost; ND: null disability; ID: irrecoverable total disability
NomenclatureS I
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
Structuring
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 15
Nota - dhll: day of healthy life lost; RD: Recoverable Disability
Grooves on the stairs to access the building
RISK SOURCE
Fall
RISK
Foot fracture
3,5 dhll RD 1 month of
absenteeism
CONSEQUENCEIMPACT
Expression levelsGrooves:
0 cm2 cm
10 cm (…)
Expression’s levels
Proposed Nomenclature Following (ISO, IEC/FDIS 31010), (ARSLVT, 2010), (Vose, 2008)
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 16
AppraisalContext & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
Appraisal
CORRESPONDENCE
S II Risk SourcesHealth consequences
NomenclatureS I
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 17
ProblemDifficulty in identifying and measuring the expression levels of risk sources and their
consequences
Appraisal
CORRESPONDENCE
• RSA
• RSB• …
Risk sources identification
• Pictorial• Qualitative• Quantitative
Measurement of expression levels • CA
• CB• …
Health consequences
ProposalBased on an intensive literature review
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 18
Example: Noise
Description of noise dB Exposure limit Health consequences
Normal breathing 10Without limit Without efect
Air conditioning 50
Home 55 8h Annoyance
Normal conversation (public lounges, offices, cafes, bars) 60
8h Annoyance pronouncedyhllirator 70
Alarm Clock (airport wainting room) 75 8h An increase in hearing threshold level (TL) can occur
Hairdryer 80 8hAnnoyance and possible increase in TL
Backhoe 85 8h Possible increase int the TL’s level
Exposure Limit 87 6h Hearing loss of 10-15 dB in a working period from 1 to 2 yearsHearing loss of 50 dB in the working period of 50/52 years
Mowing machine 89 4h30min
Sheet Metal Shop 100 1h
Ambulance siren 120 3,75 minPain and hearing loss treatable or not treatable
Very loud rock concert 130 56,25 s
Jet plane 140 14 sPain and acoustic trauma. Hearing loss may be accompanied by a buzzing
Work from: (HCN, 1994);(Passchier et al., 2000);(Decreto-Lei 182/2006)
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 19
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
Dimensions identification
Appraisal
CORRESPONDENCE
S II Risk SourcesHealth consequences
Identification of relevant dimensions to assess the impactS III
NomenclatureS I
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 20
The identification of relevant dimensions to assess the risk impact was performed in workshops with OHSU
Final Value Tree
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
Dimensions identification
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 21
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
Impact scales
Appraisal
CORRESPONDENCE
S II Risk SourcesHealth consequences
Identification of relevant dimensions to assess the impactS III
Impact scale construction
S IV
Worst
Best
Employee’s health
Worst
Best
Capability to return to work
0 days
18 yearsWorst
Best
Absenteeism
0 yhll
34 yhll
ND
IDNota - yhll: years of healthy life lost; ND: null disability; ID: irrecoverable disability
NomenclatureS I
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 22
0 years of healthy life lost
34 years of healthy life lost
Worst
Better
Employee’s Health
Best: Null disability The employee is fit for the full exercise ofhis usual functions
Recoverable diss. The employee’s usual functions are committed but in a retrievable form
Irrecoverablepartial 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
0 (zero duration)
Worst
Better
Absenteeism
18 years = [Retirement age] – [Average age of ARS’ employees]
Capability to return to work
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
Impact scales
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 23
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
Impact estimation
Appraisal
CORRESPONDENCE
S II Risk SourcesHealth consequences
Impact estimation on each dimensionS V
Identification of relevant dimensions to assess the impactS III
Impact scale construction
S IV
Worst
Best
Employee’s health
Worst
Best
Capability to return to work
0 days
18 yearsWorst
Best
Absenteeism
0 yhll
34 yhll
ND
IDNota - yhll: years of healthy life lost; ND: null disability; ITD: irrecoverable total disability
NomenclatureS I
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 24
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 toreturn to work Absenteeism
Amputation of a finger (except the
thumbs)3,5 years of healthy
life lostIrrecoverable 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 6 months
… … … …
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
Impact estimation
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 25
Value Measurement
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 26
Dependency test between impact dimensionsM I
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
Value measurement
Impact value measurement using the MACBETH-Choquet model: Construction of a global descriptor that combines the various dimensions 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)
M II
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 27
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
IPDR15 yhll
Employee’shealth
Capabilityto return to
work
Absenteeism
Strong
RD RD
IPDR 1 year
1,6 mhll
Weak
1 yearEmployee’s
health
Capability to return to
work
Absenteeism
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
Dependency test
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 28
Dependency test between impact dimensions
Impact value measurement using the MACBETH-Choquet model: Construction of a global descriptor that combines the various dimensions 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)
M II
M I
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
Impact value measurement
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 29
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)• …
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
MACBETH
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 30
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 Choquet integral
m
iji
jijujiuiijiuii
uAg xvxvIxvsV
1 ,
|)()(|2
1)(
Mathematical formulationof the 2-additive CI operator:
(Lopes et al., 2014)
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
MACBETH-Choquet model
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 31
Global Descriptor
Interactive questioning
protocol
MACBETH Global Matrix
Choquet integral’s parameters
Levels Description
SQ: Status quo 0 anos saudáveis perdidos
RS 1,6 meses saudáveis perdidos
P: Pior 34 anos saudáveis perdidos
Levels Description
SQ: Status quo
0 anos
RS 1 mês
P: Pior 18 anos
Levels Description
SQ: Status quo IN
RS RTD
RI IPDR
P : Pior ITD
Levels Description
P1P2P3 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)
4 anos saudáveis perdidos, inc. absoluta irrecuperável, 18 anos de ausência laboral (4yhll, ITD, 18a)
(…)
M-MACBETH
Shapley and interaction’s parameters
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
MACBETH-Choquet model
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 32
Levels Description
SQ: Status quo 0 days of healthy life lost
UR 1,6 months of healthy life lost
X 0,5 year of healthy life lost
Y 1 year of healthy life lost
Z 4 years of healthy life lost
LR 15 years of healthy life lost
W: Worst 34 years of healthy life lost
Levels Description
SQ: Status quo 0 years
UR 1 month
T 6 months
LR 1 year
W: Worst 18 years
Levels Description
SQ: Status quo ND
UR RD
LR IPDR
I IPDN
W: Worst ID(1) Employee’s Health
(2) Incapability to return to work
(3) Absenteeism
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
Global descriptor
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 33
Levels
34 yhll, ID, 18 y
15 yhll, ID, 18 y
15 yhll, IPDN, 18 y
4 yhll, ID, 18 y
4 yhll, IPDN, 18 y
15 yhll, IPDR, 1 y
15 yhll, IPDR, 6 m
15 yhll, IPDR, 1 m
15 yhll, RD, 1 y
15 yhll, RD, 6 m
15 yhll, RD, 1 m
4 yhll, IPDR, 1 y
4 yhll, IPDR, 6 m
4 yhll, IPDR, 1 m
4 yhll, RD, 1 y
Levels
4 yhll, RD, 6 m
4 yhll, RD, 1 m
1 yhll, IPDR, 1 y
1 yhll, IPDR, 6 m
1 yhll, IPDR, 1 m
1 yhll, RD, 1 y
1 yhll, RD, 6 m
1 yhll, RD, 1 m
1,6 mhll, IPDR, 1 y
1,6 mhll, IPDR, 6 m
1,6 mhll, IPDR, 1 m
1,6 mhll, RD, 1 y
1,6 mhll, RD, 6 m
1,6 mhll, RD, 1 m
No impact (0 yhll, ND, 0 y)
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
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
Global descriptor
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 34
Questioning protocol based on questions-type:“What is the attractiveness of reversing certain combination of impacts?”
Support system: Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2007 Sequential Interactive
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
Interactive questioning protocol
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 35
Interactive questioning protocolFinal Judgments
34yhll,ID, 18y
15yhll,ID, 18y
15yhll,IPDN, 18y
4yhll,ID, 18y
4yhll,IPDN, 18y
15yhll,IPDR, 1y
15yhll,IPDR, 6m
15yhll,IPDR, 1m
15yhll,RD, 1y
15yhll,RD, 6m
15yhll,RD, 1m
4yhll,IPDR, 1y
4yhll,IPDR, 6m
4yhll,IPDR, 1m
4yhll,RD, 1y
4yhll,RD, 6m
4yhll,RD, 1m
1yhll,IPDR, 1y
1yhll,IPDR, 6m
1yhll,IPDR, 1m
1yhll,RD, 1y
1yhll,RD, 6m
1yhll,RD, 1m
0,5yhll,IPDR, 1y
0,5yhll,IPDR, 6m
0,5yhll,IPDR, 1m
0,5yhll,RD, 1y
0,5yhll,RD, 6m
0,5yhll,RD, 1m
1,6mhll,IPDR, 1y
1,6mhll,IPDR, 6m
1,6mhll,IPDR, 1m
1,6mhll,RD, 1y
1,6mhll,RD, 6m
1,6mhll,RD, 1m
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Nompact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Nompact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
Noimpact
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 36
MACBETH global matrix
Judgments elicited by the decisions makers
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 37
MACBETH global matrixValidated scales obtained in decision conferences based on the elicited judgments
Scale validated by the decision makers
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 38
Shapley’s parameters Interaction’s parameters
338
11
338
32
338
295321 sss 0II
169
5I
169
22I 123231312
Combinations of impacts required to determine the CI parameters
UR1,UR2,UR3
UR1,UR2,LR3
UR1,LR2,UR3
UR1,LR2,LR3
LR1,UR2,LR3
LR1,UR2,LR3
LR1,LR2,UR3
LR1,LR2,LR3
169161
169/169
169142
169341
1698
1695
1693
1690
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
Choquet integral parameters
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 39
100
Conclusion of the probability scale construction considering a group test of risks
Value risk-matrix
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
Future research
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 40
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)
Context & objectives
Methodological framework Structuring Value
measurement Future research
Future research
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 41
Questions?
Suggestions?
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 42
FUNDING FROM THE PORTUGUESE PUBLIC BUDGET THROUGH FCT – FUNDAÇÃO PARA A CIÊNCIA E A TECNOLOGIA, WITHIN THE PROJECT PTDC/EGE-
GES/119230/2010
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 43
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: 4810-4885Assembleia 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 176:6167-6192Bowie C., Beck S. et al. (1997). Estimating the burden of disease in an English region, Journal of Public Health Medicine, 19(1): 87-92Factor Segurança. (2013) Movimentação manual de cargas. http://www.factor-segur.pt/shst/docinformativos/Movim_Manual_de_Cargas.pdfFerreira, 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, AustraliaPasschier-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.htmlStouthard 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.htmlU.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, WileyWashington 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
References