A consideration for using workers' heuristics to improve safety rules based on relationships between creative mental sets and rule-violating actions

This paper reports on the relationships between creative mental sets and rule-violating actions using questionnaires answered by 218 nursing workers. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted. The results revealed five factors of creative mental sets: curiosity, minutiae, inquiry, sensitivity, and courage. In addition, rule-violating actions were found to consist of three factors: violation of regulations, violation of local rules, and self-style. The results of multiple regression analyses showed a negative relation between curiosity and regular rule violation. Negative correlations were observed among minutiae, inquiry, and local rule violation. Furthermore, the mean score of local rule violation of a person who thinks that it is important for the work environment to offer high and excellent care is significantly higher than that of those who think that other environmental considerations are more important. The result elucidated the necessity of using workers' heuristics in the process of improving safety rules as well as improving their acceptability to workers. This point is important and applicable not only in the field of patient safety management systems, but also in other fields.

[1]  D. Parker,et al.  Organizational controls and safety: The varieties of rule‐related behaviour , 1998 .

[2]  Robert E. Melchers,et al.  Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Engineering Systems , 1997 .

[3]  Alan Hobbs,et al.  Managing Maintenance Error: A Practical Guide , 2003 .

[4]  David Laurence,et al.  Safety rules and regulations on mine sites - the problem and a solution. , 2005, Journal of safety research.

[5]  James T. Reason,et al.  Managing the risks of organizational accidents , 1997 .

[6]  Kunihide Sasou Criticality Accident and Human Factors , 2000 .

[7]  Marcel Simard,et al.  Workgroups' propensity to comply with safety rules: the influence of micro-macro organisational factors , 1997 .

[8]  J. Lopreato,et al.  General system theory : foundations, development, applications , 1970 .

[9]  D. Norman Categorization of action slips. , 1981 .

[10]  K. S. Canady,et al.  Probabilistic safety assessment support for the maintenance rule at Duke Power Company , 1999 .

[11]  J Leplat,et al.  About implementation of safety rules , 1998 .

[12]  Andrew Hale,et al.  Safety rules o.k.?: Possibilities and limitations in behavioural safety strategies , 1990 .

[13]  Trevor Kletz,et al.  Learning from Accidents , 2001 .

[14]  Charles F. Outland Man-Made Disaster , 1963 .

[15]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[16]  L. Cronbach Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests , 1951 .

[17]  Howard B. Lee,et al.  A first course in factor analysis , 1973 .

[18]  Paul Swuste,et al.  SAFETY RULES: PROCEDURAL FREEDOM OR ACTION CONSTRAINT? , 1998 .

[19]  B. Turner Man Made Disasters , 1995 .

[20]  N. Pidgeon,et al.  Man-made disasters: Why technology and organizations (sometimes) fail. , 2000 .