Citation

Rollenhagen C, Westerlund J, Lundberg J, Hollnagel E. Safety Sci. 2010; 48(7): 859-867.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.ssci.2010.04.001

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The context and habits of accident investigation practices were explored by means of questionnaire data obtained from accident investigators in the healthcare, transportation, nuclear and rescue sectors in Sweden. Issues explored included; resources, training, time spent in different phases of an investigation, methods and procedures, beliefs about causes to accidents, communication issues, etc. Examples of findings were: differences in the extent to which the [`]human factor' was perceived as a dominant cause to accidents; manning resources to support investigations were perceived as rather scarce; underutilization of data from safety related processes such as risk analysis and auditing data; the phase of suggesting remedial actions (recommendations) were comparatively brief and generally not well supported. A majority of the investigators thought that the investigations were free from pressures to follow a specific direction; the investigators also thought that performing an investigation in itself (regardless of the specific results) had positive influences on safety. A majority of the investigators thought that upper management had a relatively strong influence on safety in the organizations. The results are discussed in terms of suggestions for strategies to strengthen investigation practices - particularly those conducted as part-time work in organizations.