EVALUATION OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS USING IN HEALTHCARE SECTOR

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 36 Sayı: 3, 705 - 715, 01.09.2018

Ammar Yasir Korkusuz Umut Hulusi İnan Yavuz Özdemir Hüseyin Başlıgil

Öz

The importance of occupational health and safety is increasing day by day in Turkey; however the literature and researches are not sufficient in this field. There are still many issues that need to be investigated. Performance measurement is also one of the most important subjects in occupational health and safety field. After legislative, regulative changes and taken precautions, it is important to measure how the health and safety performance of the enterprises is affected by these changes. In this study, key performance indicators (KPIs), those are required for the measurement of occupational health and safety performance, are investigated. 15 KPIs, with measurable and concrete characteristics, are selected as a result of literature review and expert interviews. Later, with the help of 3 certified health and safety experts from healthcare sector, KPIs are ranked according to their importance by using Analytical Hierarchy Process, one of the multi criteria decision making methods. As a result, “Fatal Accident Frequency Rate” and “Risks with High Importance” are found the most important safety KPIs in healthcare sector. The main contribution of this study is to find measurable and objective key safety factors in healthcare sector and prioritize them by using the MCDM (Multiple Criteria Decision Making) technique, AHP. To the authors’ knowledge this will be the first study in the literature that focuses on measurable KPIs and first study that prioritizes the key safety factors using AHP in healthcare sector.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Analytic hierarchy process (AHP), key performance indicators (KPI), multi criteria decision making (MCDM), occupational health and safety (OHS), safety performance measurement

Kaynakça

• [1] Özdemir Y., Tüysüz, S., Başlıgil H., (2016) The weighting Risks For Nuclear Power Plants Using Ahp Anp Methodologies, Sigma Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences 7 (2), 207-217.
• [2] Göktolga Z.G., Gokalp B., (2012) İş Seçimini Etkileyen Kriterlerin Ve Alternatiflerin Ahp Metodu İle Belirlenmesi, Cumhuriyet University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences 13 (2), 71-86.
• [3] Janackovic G. L., Savic S. M., Stankovic M. S., (2013) Selection And Ranking Of Occupational Safety Indicators Based On Fuzzy AHP: A Case Study In Road Construction Companies, South African Journal of Industrial Engineering 24 (3), 175-189.
• [4] W. K. Law, A. H. S. Chan, K. F. Pun, (2006) Prioritising the safety management elements: A hierarchical analysis for manufacturing enterprises, Industrial Management & Data Systems 106 (6), 778-792.
• [5] Amir-Heidari, P., et al., (2017) A new framework for HSE performance measurement and monitoring, Safety Science 100 (B), 157-167.
• [6] Aminbakhsh, (2013) Safety risk assessment using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) during planning and budgeting of construction projects, Journal of Safety Research 46, 99–105.
• [7] Gürcanlı G.E., Müngen U., (2009) An occupational safety risk analysis method at construction sites using fuzzy sets, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 39, 371–387.
• [8] Chang J. I., Liang C., (2009) Performance evaluations of process safety management systems of paint manufacturing facilities, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 22, 398–402.
• [9] Porgorski D., (2015) Measuring Operational Performance of OSH Management System – A Demonstration Of AHP-Based Selection Of Leading Key Performance Indicators, Safety Science 73, 146–166.
• [10] Ozdemir B., (2014) Tekstil Atölyelerinde İş Sağlığı Ve Güvenliği Koşullarının Çok Ölçütlü Karar Verme Yöntemiyle Değerlendirilmesi, Expertise Thesis, Ministry of Labor and Social Security General Directorate of Occupational Health and Safety, Ankara, Turkey.
• [11] Kısa Y., (2014) Döküm Atölyelerindeki İş Sağlığı Ve Güvenliği Koşullarının Çok Ölçütlü Karar Verme Yöntemleriyle Değerlendirilmesi, Expertise Thesis, Ministry of Labor and Social Security General Directorate of Occupational Health and Safety, Ankara, Turkey.
• [12] Bingöl B. N., Polat G., (2015) Alt Yüklenici Firmaların İş Güvenliği Performansının Ölçümünde Kullanılan Anahtar Performans Göstergeleri, 5. Occupational Health and Safety Symposium, 5-6 November 2015, İzmir, Turkey.
• [13] Haas E. J., Yorio P., (2016) Exploring the State Of Health And Safety Management System Performance Measurement In Mining Organizations, Safety Science 83, 48-58.
• [14] Janaćković G., Savić S., Stanković M., (2011) Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Occupational Safety Management Systems, Safety Engineering 1, 17-22.
• [15] Pawłowska Z., (2015) Using lagging and leading indicators for the evaluation of occupational safety and health performance in industry, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics 21 (3), 284-290.
• [16] Aksorn T., Hadikusumo B. H. W., (2010) Measuring effectiveness of safety programmes in the Thai construction industry, Construction Management and Economics 26 (4), 409-421.
• [17] Scotney V., (2000) Development of a Health and Safety Performance Measurement Tool, Contract Research Report 309/2000, 58, Warrington, England.
• [18] Bellamy L.J., Sol V.M., (2012) A Literature Review On Safety Performance Indicators Supporting The Control Of Major Hazards, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment RIVM Report 620089001/2012, 38, Netherland.
• [19] Haas E. J., Yorio P., (2016) Exploring the state of health and safety management system performance measurement in mining organizations, Safety Science 83, 48–58.
• [20] Yaralıoğlu K., (2001) Performans Değerlendirmede Analitik Hiyerarşi Proses, Journal of Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences 16 (1), 129-142.
• [21] Saaty R.W., (1987) The Analytical Hierarchy Process-What It Is And How It Is Used, Math Modelling 9 (3-5), 161-175.