Sağlık Çalışanlarının İş Yerlerinde Maruz Kaldıkları Risklerin Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri ile Değerlendirilmesi

Year 2024, Volume: 13 Issue: 3, 666 - 672, 25.12.2024

Onur Doğan

https://doi.org/10.53424/balikesirsbd.1537732

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma, sağlık çalışanlarının iş yerlerinde maruz kaldıkları risk unsurlarının iş sağlığına ve güvenliğine olan etkisini değerlendirmek amacıyla yapılmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Sağlık çalışanlarının toplum ve insanlık için öneminden yola çıkılarak işyerinde maruz kaldıkları riskler Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) yöntemlerinden Entropi ve AHP yöntemleri ile değerlendirilmiştir. Entropi yöntemi, ÇKKV yöntemlerinde her bir kriterin önem düzeylerinin belirlendiği objektif bir değerlendirme yöntemidir. AHP yöntemi, birden çok alternatif arasından en iyisini seçmek için kullanılan nesnel ve öznel kararları içeren bir yöntemdir. Çalışmada kullanılan ölçüt ve alt ölçütler, alanında uzman kişilerin görüş ve önerileri ile literatür taraması dikkate alınarak hazırlanmıştır. Analizlerin çözümünde Microsoft Excel kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: AHP yönteminin analiz sonucuna göre en yüksek ağırlığa sahip kriter, 0,351542 değeri ile C-5 psikolojik riskler olmuştur. En düşük ağırlığa sahip kriter 0,1121 değeri ile C-3 fiziksel risk kriteri olmuştur. Entropi yönteminin analiz sonucuna göre wj değeri en yüksek olan kriter 0,273 değeri ile C-3 fiziksel riskler olmuştur. En düşük ağırlığa sahip kriter ise 0,152 değeri C-1 ile biyolojik riskler olmuştur. Sonuç: İş yerlerinde sağlık çalışanları için en önemli risk unsurları (AHP yöntemi) psikolojik riskler ve (Entropy yöntemi) fiziksel riskler olmuştur.

Keywords

AHP Metodu, Entropi Metodu, Sağlık Sektörü, İş Sağlığı ve Güv

Assessment of Occupational Hazards Faded by Healthcare Workers Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to assess the impact of risk factors that healthcare workers are exposed to in their workplaces on occupational health and safety. Materials and Methods: Considering the importance of healthcare workers for society and humanity, the risks they face at work have been evaluated using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods, specifically the Entropy and AHP methods. The Entropy method is an objective evaluation method used to determine the importance levels of each criterion in MCDM methods. The AHP method involves both objective and subjective decisions to select the best option among multiple alternatives. The criteria and sub-criteria used in the study were prepared based on the opinions and suggestions of field experts and a literature review. Microsoft Excel was used for the analysis. Results: According to the analysis results of the AHP method, the criterion with the highest weight was psychological risks (C-5) with a value of 0.351542. The criterion with the lowest weight was physical risks (C-3) with a value of 0.1121. In contrast, the analysis results of the Entropy method indicated that the criterion with the highest wj value was physical risks (C-3) with a value of 0.273, while the criterion with the lowest weight was biological risks (C-1) with a value of 0.152. Conclusion: The most significant risk factors for healthcare workers in workplaces, as identified by the AHP method, were psychological risks, while the Entropy method identified physical risks as the most significant.

Keywords

AHP Method, Entropy Method, Health Sector, Occupational Health and Safety

References

• Agac, G., & Baki, B. (2016). Use Of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Techniques İn The Health Sector: A Literature Review. Hacettepe Journal of Health Administration, 19(3).
• Altan, S., Ediz, A., & Kağızman, M. A. (2021). Performance Evaluation of Wind Power Plants ın Balıkesir Province With The ENTROPY-Based MAUT Method. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University Faculty Of Economics And Administrative Sciences Journal, 23 (3), 637-652. https://doi.org/10.26745/ahbvuibfd.999774
• Aydın Yuksekdağ, F. (2019). Evaluation of occupational health and safety problems in a private hospital using the analytic hierarchy process method. Hacettepe Journal of Health Administration, 22(2), 319-340.
• Bulut, A., Unal, E., & Sengul, H. (2020). Evaluation of occupational health and safety practices in a public hospital. Hacettepe Journal of Health Administration, 23(1), 1-22.
• Caruso C C. (2014). Negative ımpacts of shiftwork and long work hours. Rehabilitation Nursing Journal, 39(1), 16–25. (https://doi.org/10.1002/rnj.107)
• Gul, M., Ak, M. F., & Guneri, A. F. (2017). Occupational health and safety risk assessment in hospitals: A case study using two-stage fuzzy multi-criteria approach. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 23(2),187-202. (https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2016.1234363)
• Guner, H. (2005). Fuzzy AHP and its application to the supplier selection problem for a business, Pamukkale University Institute of Science, Industrial Engineering Department, Master Thesis.
• Gurer, A., & Gemlik, H. N. (2020). A Qualitative study on the problems experienced by healthcare workers in the field during the Covid-19 pandemic process and solution suggestions. Journal of Health Services and Education, 4(2), 45-52. (https://doi.org/10.29228/JOHSE.3)
• Gurer, A. (2018). Employee safety in health services. Journal of Health Services and Education, 2(1), 9-14. https://doi.org/10.26567/JOHSE.2018142107
• Ho, W. (2008). Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications-A literature review, European Journal of Operational Research, (186), 211-228.
• Law on Occupational Health and Safety. June (2012) T.R. Official Gazette, 28339. Access Address: (https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/).
• Workplace Hazard Class Notification on Occupational Health and Safety (2012). Access Address: (resmigazete.gov.tr) Joınt Commıssıon Internatıonal Accredıtatıon Standards For Hospıtals, (2011). January; 4th Edition, Effective (1), 193-195.
• Karaatlı, M. (2016). An ıntegrated approach with entropy-grey relational analysis methods: application in the tourism sector. Suleyman Demirel University The Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 21(1), 63-77.
• Karagiannidis A., Papageorgiou A., Perkoulidis G., Sanida G. and Samaras P. (2010). A multi-criteria assessment of scenarios on thermal processing of ınfectious hospital wastes: a case study for central Macedonia. Waste Management 30(2), 251-262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.08.015
• Kocoglu, S. (2019). Risk Assessment in emergency services with ENTROPI-Based TOPSIS and MAUT methods: Samsun Province Example, Master Thesis, Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University, Institute of Social Sciences, Bolu. Konuskan, O. and Uygun, O. (2014). Multi-Attribute Decision Making (MAUT) Method And Its Application. Academic Platform, 1403-1412.
• Kucukonder, H. and Demı̇rarslan, P. (2017). A Study on Comparison of PROMETHEE and MAUT Methods: The Black Sea Region Example”, Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 8 (16), 203-228.
• Liu, C. (2010). Exploring digital capital measures of hospital service websites from the user's perspective. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 10(4), 333-342.
• Meydanlıoglu A. (2013). Health and safety of healthcare workers. Balıkesir Journal of Health Sciences, 2 (3), 192-199. Ozbek, A. (2017). Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods and Problem Solving with Excel. Seçkin Publishing, Ankara.
• Ozkan, O. and Emiroglu, N. (2006). Occupational health and safety services for hospital health workers. Journal of Cumhuriyet University School of Nursing, (10), 43-50.
• Saaty, R. W. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process- what ıt ıs and how ıt ıs used. Mathl Modellin, 9 (3-5), 161-176.
• Saaty, T. L. (1990). “How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process”, European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 9-26.
• Saaty, T.L., Niemira, M.P., (2006). A framework for making a better decision, Research Review, 13(1) Sacak, R., Gur, Ş., & Eren, T. (2019). AHP and DEMATEL analysis of applications of the internet of things in businesses with methods. Nevşehir Science and Technology Journal, 8(2), 82-95. https://doi.org/10.17100/nevbiltek.565761
• Saygun A. (2017). Occupational health and safety problems of health workers in Turkey. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Public Health Special 3(3), 153-163. Solmaz, M. & Solmaz, T. (2017). Occupational health and safety in hospitals. Gumushane University Journal of Health Sciences, 6 (3), 147-156. Supciller, A. & Çapraz, O. (2011). Supplier selection application based on AHP-TOPSIS Method. Istanbul University Econometrics and Statistics e-Journal, (13), 1-22.
• Zhang, H., Gu, C., Gu, L. ve Zhang, Y. (2011) “The Evaluation of Tourism Destination Competitiveness By Topsıs & Information Entropy A Case In The Yangtze River Delta Of China” Tourism Management, 32: 443-451.
• Tsai H., Chang C. and Lin H. (2010). Fuzzy hierarchy sensitive with delphi method to evaluate hospital organization performance. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(8), 5533-5541.
• Tuzuner, v. & Özaslan, b. (2010). A Research on The Evaluation of Occupational Health and Safety Practices in hospitals. Journal Of Istanbul University Faculty of Business, 40 (2), 138-154