Validity and consistency assessment of accident analysis methods in the petroleum industry

Background. Accident analysis is the main aspect of accident investigation. It includes the method of connecting different causes in a procedural way. Therefore, it is important to use valid and reliable methods for the investigation of different causal factors of accidents, especially the noteworth...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics 2019-07, Vol.25 (3), p.355-361
Hauptverfasser: Ahmadi, Omran, Mortazavi, Seyed Bagher, Khavanin, Ali, Mokarami, Hamidreza
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 361
container_issue 3
container_start_page 355
container_title International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics
container_volume 25
creator Ahmadi, Omran
Mortazavi, Seyed Bagher
Khavanin, Ali
Mokarami, Hamidreza
description Background. Accident analysis is the main aspect of accident investigation. It includes the method of connecting different causes in a procedural way. Therefore, it is important to use valid and reliable methods for the investigation of different causal factors of accidents, especially the noteworthy ones. Objective. This study aimed to prominently assess the accuracy (sensitivity index [SI]) and consistency of the six most commonly used accident analysis methods in the petroleum industry. Methods. In order to evaluate the methods of accident analysis, two real case studies (process safety and personal accident) from the petroleum industry were analyzed by 10 assessors. The accuracy and consistency of these methods were then evaluated. The assessors were trained in the workshop of accident analysis methods. Results. The systematic cause analysis technique and bowtie methods gained the greatest SI scores for both personal and process safety accidents, respectively. The best average results of the consistency in a single method (based on 10 independent assessors) were in the region of 70%. Conclusion. This study confirmed that the application of methods with pre-defined causes and a logic tree could enhance the sensitivity and consistency of accident analysis.
doi_str_mv 10.1080/10803548.2017.1387400
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmed_primary_28980875</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1947620960</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-1feb24b84cbc7e9cea1f22bc5619e519811c5ac84075d2d855eda1a16c8bfd673</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1r3DAQQEVJaTbb_oQGH3PxVrItWb4lhLQNLPTS9pCLkKUxqyJLG41M8L-PzW56zGW-eDMDj5CvjO4YlfTbGmreyF1FWbtjtWwbSj-QTVW3ouxYTS_IZmXKFbokV4j_KK2bTohP5LKSnaSy5Rvy9Fd7Z12eCx1sYWJAhxmCWXpEQBwh5CIOhTbG2bXWQft5gYoR8iFaLFwo8gGKI-QUPUzjMrAT5jR_Jh8H7RG-nPOW_Pn-8Pv-Z7n_9ePx_m5fmlqIXLIB-qrpZWN600JnQLOhqnrDBeuAs04yZrg2sqEtt5WVnIPVTDNhZD9Y0dZbcnO6e0zxeQLManRowHsdIE6oWNe0oqKdoAvKT6hJETHBoI7JjTrNilG12lJvWtWqVZ21LnvX5xdTP4L9v_XmcQFuT4ALQ0yjfonJW5X17GMakg7Goarf__EKJ3eI4Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1947620960</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Validity and consistency assessment of accident analysis methods in the petroleum industry</title><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Ahmadi, Omran ; Mortazavi, Seyed Bagher ; Khavanin, Ali ; Mokarami, Hamidreza</creator><creatorcontrib>Ahmadi, Omran ; Mortazavi, Seyed Bagher ; Khavanin, Ali ; Mokarami, Hamidreza</creatorcontrib><description>Background. Accident analysis is the main aspect of accident investigation. It includes the method of connecting different causes in a procedural way. Therefore, it is important to use valid and reliable methods for the investigation of different causal factors of accidents, especially the noteworthy ones. Objective. This study aimed to prominently assess the accuracy (sensitivity index [SI]) and consistency of the six most commonly used accident analysis methods in the petroleum industry. Methods. In order to evaluate the methods of accident analysis, two real case studies (process safety and personal accident) from the petroleum industry were analyzed by 10 assessors. The accuracy and consistency of these methods were then evaluated. The assessors were trained in the workshop of accident analysis methods. Results. The systematic cause analysis technique and bowtie methods gained the greatest SI scores for both personal and process safety accidents, respectively. The best average results of the consistency in a single method (based on 10 independent assessors) were in the region of 70%. Conclusion. This study confirmed that the application of methods with pre-defined causes and a logic tree could enhance the sensitivity and consistency of accident analysis.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1080-3548</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2376-9130</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/10803548.2017.1387400</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28980875</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Taylor &amp; Francis</publisher><subject>accident analysis ; accuracy ; consistency ; petroleum industry ; sensitivity index</subject><ispartof>International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics, 2019-07, Vol.25 (3), p.355-361</ispartof><rights>2017 Central Institute for Labour Protection - National Research Institute (CIOP-PIB) 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-1feb24b84cbc7e9cea1f22bc5619e519811c5ac84075d2d855eda1a16c8bfd673</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-1feb24b84cbc7e9cea1f22bc5619e519811c5ac84075d2d855eda1a16c8bfd673</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9454-0598 ; 0000-0003-1085-749X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28980875$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ahmadi, Omran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mortazavi, Seyed Bagher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khavanin, Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mokarami, Hamidreza</creatorcontrib><title>Validity and consistency assessment of accident analysis methods in the petroleum industry</title><title>International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics</title><addtitle>Int J Occup Saf Ergon</addtitle><description>Background. Accident analysis is the main aspect of accident investigation. It includes the method of connecting different causes in a procedural way. Therefore, it is important to use valid and reliable methods for the investigation of different causal factors of accidents, especially the noteworthy ones. Objective. This study aimed to prominently assess the accuracy (sensitivity index [SI]) and consistency of the six most commonly used accident analysis methods in the petroleum industry. Methods. In order to evaluate the methods of accident analysis, two real case studies (process safety and personal accident) from the petroleum industry were analyzed by 10 assessors. The accuracy and consistency of these methods were then evaluated. The assessors were trained in the workshop of accident analysis methods. Results. The systematic cause analysis technique and bowtie methods gained the greatest SI scores for both personal and process safety accidents, respectively. The best average results of the consistency in a single method (based on 10 independent assessors) were in the region of 70%. Conclusion. This study confirmed that the application of methods with pre-defined causes and a logic tree could enhance the sensitivity and consistency of accident analysis.</description><subject>accident analysis</subject><subject>accuracy</subject><subject>consistency</subject><subject>petroleum industry</subject><subject>sensitivity index</subject><issn>1080-3548</issn><issn>2376-9130</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kE1r3DAQQEVJaTbb_oQGH3PxVrItWb4lhLQNLPTS9pCLkKUxqyJLG41M8L-PzW56zGW-eDMDj5CvjO4YlfTbGmreyF1FWbtjtWwbSj-QTVW3ouxYTS_IZmXKFbokV4j_KK2bTohP5LKSnaSy5Rvy9Fd7Z12eCx1sYWJAhxmCWXpEQBwh5CIOhTbG2bXWQft5gYoR8iFaLFwo8gGKI-QUPUzjMrAT5jR_Jh8H7RG-nPOW_Pn-8Pv-Z7n_9ePx_m5fmlqIXLIB-qrpZWN600JnQLOhqnrDBeuAs04yZrg2sqEtt5WVnIPVTDNhZD9Y0dZbcnO6e0zxeQLManRowHsdIE6oWNe0oqKdoAvKT6hJETHBoI7JjTrNilG12lJvWtWqVZ21LnvX5xdTP4L9v_XmcQFuT4ALQ0yjfonJW5X17GMakg7Goarf__EKJ3eI4Q</recordid><startdate>20190703</startdate><enddate>20190703</enddate><creator>Ahmadi, Omran</creator><creator>Mortazavi, Seyed Bagher</creator><creator>Khavanin, Ali</creator><creator>Mokarami, Hamidreza</creator><general>Taylor &amp; Francis</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9454-0598</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1085-749X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190703</creationdate><title>Validity and consistency assessment of accident analysis methods in the petroleum industry</title><author>Ahmadi, Omran ; Mortazavi, Seyed Bagher ; Khavanin, Ali ; Mokarami, Hamidreza</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-1feb24b84cbc7e9cea1f22bc5619e519811c5ac84075d2d855eda1a16c8bfd673</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>accident analysis</topic><topic>accuracy</topic><topic>consistency</topic><topic>petroleum industry</topic><topic>sensitivity index</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ahmadi, Omran</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mortazavi, Seyed Bagher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khavanin, Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mokarami, Hamidreza</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ahmadi, Omran</au><au>Mortazavi, Seyed Bagher</au><au>Khavanin, Ali</au><au>Mokarami, Hamidreza</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Validity and consistency assessment of accident analysis methods in the petroleum industry</atitle><jtitle>International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Occup Saf Ergon</addtitle><date>2019-07-03</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>355</spage><epage>361</epage><pages>355-361</pages><issn>1080-3548</issn><eissn>2376-9130</eissn><abstract>Background. Accident analysis is the main aspect of accident investigation. It includes the method of connecting different causes in a procedural way. Therefore, it is important to use valid and reliable methods for the investigation of different causal factors of accidents, especially the noteworthy ones. Objective. This study aimed to prominently assess the accuracy (sensitivity index [SI]) and consistency of the six most commonly used accident analysis methods in the petroleum industry. Methods. In order to evaluate the methods of accident analysis, two real case studies (process safety and personal accident) from the petroleum industry were analyzed by 10 assessors. The accuracy and consistency of these methods were then evaluated. The assessors were trained in the workshop of accident analysis methods. Results. The systematic cause analysis technique and bowtie methods gained the greatest SI scores for both personal and process safety accidents, respectively. The best average results of the consistency in a single method (based on 10 independent assessors) were in the region of 70%. Conclusion. This study confirmed that the application of methods with pre-defined causes and a logic tree could enhance the sensitivity and consistency of accident analysis.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Taylor &amp; Francis</pub><pmid>28980875</pmid><doi>10.1080/10803548.2017.1387400</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9454-0598</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1085-749X</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1080-3548
ispartof International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics, 2019-07, Vol.25 (3), p.355-361
issn 1080-3548
2376-9130
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmed_primary_28980875
source Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects accident analysis
accuracy
consistency
petroleum industry
sensitivity index
title Validity and consistency assessment of accident analysis methods in the petroleum industry
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T18%3A39%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Validity%20and%20consistency%20assessment%20of%20accident%20analysis%20methods%20in%20the%20petroleum%20industry&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20occupational%20safety%20and%20ergonomics&rft.au=Ahmadi,%20Omran&rft.date=2019-07-03&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=355&rft.epage=361&rft.pages=355-361&rft.issn=1080-3548&rft.eissn=2376-9130&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/10803548.2017.1387400&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1947620960%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1947620960&rft_id=info:pmid/28980875&rfr_iscdi=true