Citation

Garrigou A, Peissel-Cottenaz G. Safety Sci. 2008; 46(8): 1271-1288.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2008, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.ssci.2007.07.006

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

What are the training needs of company preventionists? An apparently straightforward question, but one that will very quickly run into a number of difficulties. The first involves the extreme variability of situations and functions concealed behind the term preventionist and which stretch way beyond the term's polysemous nature. Moreover, analysis of the literature reveals that very few research papers have endeavoured to analyse the activities associated with prevention practices, especially those of preventionists. This is a fact, even though prevention-related issues and preventionist responsibilities are becoming increasingly important. The Departement Hygiene, Securite and Environnement (hygiene, safety and environmental department) at Bordeaux 1 University and INRS's Dqpartement Formation (training department) have conducted a questionnaire-based study in response to the question raised above. This study also provides a description of preventionist practices and the contexts within which they fall and which extend far beyond training issues. It has in fact been possible to characterise the difficulties encountered by matching descriptions of the practice adopted by respondents, as well as their viewpoints and the models they use. On the basis of this work, we are led to formulate the hypothesis that a significant proportion of preventionists is in a position of great difficulty, even professional distress. This could directly involve a sixth of the questionnaire respondents. This should alert us to both the lack of professional structuring and the marked inequalities that can be encountered in terms of resources, training, safety policy structuring, etc. This leads to minimum, even poor, prevention practices and situations in which preventionists are placed in a position of paradoxical order-giving because of a lack of resources granted by the organisation and compromises considered less and less acceptable.