TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June Designing and building a value risk-matrix for the...

TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June

Designing and building a value risk-matrix for the evaluation and mitigation of health and safety risks

with MACBETH

Diana F. Lopes, Mónica D. Oliveira and Carlos A. Bana e CostaCentre for Management Studies of Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal

TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June 2

Agenda

Context and objectives Methodological framework Structuring

o EI: Nomenclatureo EII: How to identify and measure risk sources and their consequences? o EIII: Identification of impact dimensionso EIV: Impact scale constructiono EV: How to estimate the consequences’ impact in each dimension?

Value measuremento MI: Independence test between impact dimensionso MII: Impact value measurement (MACBETH-Choquet model)

Future research

Context & objectives

Methodological framework Structuring Value

measurement Future research


ProbabilityImpact levels

Negligible (1) Minor (2) Moderate (3) Major (4) Extreme (5)

Almost Certain (5) 5 10 15 20 25

Likely (4) 4 8 12 16 20

Possible (3) 3 6 9 12 15

Unlikely (2) 2 4 6 8 10

Rare/remote (1) 1 2 3 4 5

Risk matrix in use by the Health Service Executive

Prob.×

Impact

Similar systems are used by multiple public and private organizations…


U.S. Department of Defense

…prioritise risks encountered in the development, test, production, use, and disposal of defense systems

(US DoD, 2012)

…prioritise risks that threat the health system, organisations, business units and team and/or patients

(OSQHC, 2005)

…prioritise risks that threat the health system, organisations, business units and team and/or patients

(OSQHC, 2005)

Department of Education, Training and Employment (DETE)

…managing health and safety risks in DETE workplaces

(Figueiredo and Oliveira, 2009)


Allow for intuitive use, demanding for limited expertise (Cox, 2009)

Imposed by International Standards (ISO, IEC/FDIS 31010) and recommended by guidelines in many contexts (e.g. health and safety)

Are included in several packages:• SAP (SAP AG, 2012)• Active Risk Manager (Microsoft Pinpoint, 2012)• MITRE’s risk matrix tool (The MITRE corporation, 1999)

Provide a clear framework for systematic review of risks, enabling organizations to prepare convenient documentation

Allow for stakeholders participating in the process of building risk matrices (Cox, 2008)

Why are risk matrices widely used?Context & objectives




Cox Jr., L. A. (2008). "What’s wrong with risk matrices?" Risk Analysis 28(2): 497-512. Pickering, A. and S. P. Cowley (2010). "Risk Matrices: implied accuracy and false

assumptions." Journal of Health & Safety Research & Practice 2(1): 9-16. Linkov, I., F. K. Satterstrom, et al. (2006). "From comparative risk assessment to

multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: Recent developments and applications." Environment International 32: 1072–1093.

Levine, E. S. (2011). “Improving risk matrices: the advantages of logarithmically scaled axes.” Journal of Risk Research 15(2): 209–222.

Levine, E. S. and J. F. Waters (2013). "Managing risk at the Tucson sector of the U.S. border patrol." Risk Analysis 33(7): 1281-1292.

Wall, K. D. (2011). The trouble with risk matrices. Working Paper, Naval Postgraduate School, Defense Resources Management Institute,. 2/2011.

Smith, E. D., W. T. Siefert, et al. (2009). " Risk matrix input data biases." Systems Engineerings 12(4): 344-360.

Key problems with risk matricesContext & objectives




Use of interval scales such that the difference in attractiveness between two consecutive impact (probability) levels is the same.

Use of the same qualitative impact scale for all the risk dimensions and characterize each source of risk only by the worst impact level across all the dimensions, ignoring the cumulative effects of multiple impacts

Key problems with risk matrices (examples)

ProbabilityImpact levels

Negligible (1) Minor (2) Moderate (3) Major (4) Extreme (5)

Almost Certain (5) 5 10 15 20 25

Likely (4) 4 8 12 16 20

Possible (3) 3 6 9 12 15

Unlikely (2) 2 4 6 8 10

Rare/remote (1) 1 2 3 4 5

Financial losses of €3M&

20 Deaths

Financial losses of €3M=





Occupational Health and Safety Unit (OHSU) of the ARSLVT composed by an engineer, nurses, doctors and technicians, makes use of traditional risk matrices:

Context: case study

Severity of the injury

1. Very low 2. Low 3. High 4. Very high

Probabili

tyof

the event

1. Unlikely 1. Very low 2. Very low Low 4. Moderate

2. Likely 2. Very low 4. Moderate 6. Moderate 8. High

3.Quite likely 3. Low 6. Moderate 9. High 12. Very high

4. Very likely 4. Moderate 8. High 12. Very high 16. Very highSource: (ARSLVT, 2010)





Occupational Health and Safety Unit (OHSU) of the ARSLVT composed by a engineer, nurses, doctors and technicians, makes use of traditional risk matrices:

Context: case study

Severity of the injury

1. Very low 2. Low 3. High 4. Very high

Probabili

tyof

the event

1. Unlikely 1. Very low 2. Very low Low 4. Moderate

2. Likely 2. Very low 4. Moderate 6. Moderate 8. High

3.Quite likely 3. Low 6. Moderate 9. High 12. Very high

4. Very likely 4. Moderate 8. High 12. Very high 16. Very high

Problems with Risk Matrices

Interviews, reports and manual’s analysis

Source: (ARSLVT, 2010)





Context: Interviews, reports and manual’s analysis

Problems identified

Ambiguous nomenclature

Difficulty in identifying the

risk sources

Arbitrariness when estimating impacts and probabilities

Decision makers’ opinions

incompatible with the manual

Problems in resourceallocation





Objectives

This study aims to answer the call for help from the OHSU of the ARSLVT

Risk Assessment in health and safety at work

Challenge: Improve risk matrices’ design to avoid inconsistencies

Selection of corrective measures with the greatest potential to mitigate risks




TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June

ACTIVITIES PROPOSED

Value risk matrix, using MACBETH Multicriteria resource allocation model

System to support risk assessment

Risk Assessment’s context for Health and Safety at

work

Model requisiteness

OUTPUTSMulticriteria risk

impact value and probability

for each risk&

Classification of risks into risk

categories&

Selection of mitigation

actions that maximize value given available

budget

Risk management

Structuring and alocation

Mitigation actions

Selection of mitigation actions

Risk classification

Acceptability

StructuringSI: Identification of issues and challengesSII: NomenclatureSIII: Tables matchSIV: Identification of impacts dimensionsSV: Impact scalesSVI: impacts Estimation

Value measurementMI: Dependency test between dimensionsMII: ImpactMIII: Subjective Probability




Methodological framework


STRUCTURING


Appraisal

CORRESPONDENCE

S II Risk SourcesHealth consequences

Impact estimation on each dimensionS V

Identification of relevant dimensions to assess the impactS III

Impact scales construction

S IV

Worst

Best

Employee’s health

Worst

Best

Capability to return to work

0 days

18 yearsWorst

Best

Absenteeism

0 yhll

34 yhll

ND

IDNota - yhll: years of healthy life lost; ND: null disability; ID: irrecoverable total disability

NomenclatureS I




Structuring


Nota - dhll: day of healthy life lost; RD: Recoverable Disability

Grooves on the stairs to access the building

RISK SOURCE

Fall

RISK

Foot fracture

3,5 dhll RD 1 month of

absenteeism

CONSEQUENCEIMPACT

Expression levelsGrooves:

0 cm2 cm

10 cm (…)

Expression’s levels

Proposed Nomenclature Following (ISO, IEC/FDIS 31010), (ARSLVT, 2010), (Vose, 2008)


AppraisalContext & objectives



Appraisal

CORRESPONDENCE


NomenclatureS I


ProblemDifficulty in identifying and measuring the expression levels of risk sources and their

consequences

Appraisal

CORRESPONDENCE

• RSA

• RSB• …

Risk sources identification

• Pictorial• Qualitative• Quantitative

Measurement of expression levels • CA

• CB• …

Health consequences

ProposalBased on an intensive literature review





Example: Noise

Description of noise dB Exposure limit Health consequences

Normal breathing 10Without limit Without efect

Air conditioning 50

Home 55 8h Annoyance

Normal conversation (public lounges, offices, cafes, bars) 60

8h Annoyance pronouncedyhllirator 70

Alarm Clock (airport wainting room) 75 8h An increase in hearing threshold level (TL) can occur

Hairdryer 80 8hAnnoyance and possible increase in TL

Backhoe 85 8h Possible increase int the TL’s level

Exposure Limit 87 6h Hearing loss of 10-15 dB in a working period from 1 to 2 yearsHearing loss of 50 dB in the working period of 50/52 years

Mowing machine 89 4h30min

Sheet Metal Shop 100 1h

Ambulance siren 120 3,75 minPain and hearing loss treatable or not treatable

Very loud rock concert 130 56,25 s

Jet plane 140 14 sPain and acoustic trauma. Hearing loss may be accompanied by a buzzing

Work from: (HCN, 1994);(Passchier et al., 2000);(Decreto-Lei 182/2006)








Dimensions identification

Appraisal

CORRESPONDENCE



NomenclatureS I


The identification of relevant dimensions to assess the risk impact was performed in workshops with OHSU

Final Value Tree




Dimensions identification





Impact scales

Appraisal

CORRESPONDENCE



Impact scale construction

S IV

Worst

Best

Employee’s health

Worst

Best


0 days

18 yearsWorst

Best

Absenteeism

0 yhll

34 yhll

ND

IDNota - yhll: years of healthy life lost; ND: null disability; ID: irrecoverable disability

NomenclatureS I


0 years of healthy life lost

34 years of healthy life lost

Worst

Better

Employee’s Health

Best: Null disability The employee is fit for the full exercise ofhis usual functions

Recoverable diss. The employee’s usual functions are committed but in a retrievable form

Irrecoverablepartial dis. with return to work

Some of the normal duties of the employee are irreversibly committed and the return to the usual work is possible with restrictions

Irrec. Partial dis.with No return to work

Part of the normal duties of the employee are irreversibly committed and the return to work is not possible

Worst: Irrec.disability

All the usual functions of the employee are irretrievably committed

0 (zero duration)

Worst

Better

Absenteeism

18 years = [Retirement age] – [Average age of ARS’ employees]





Impact scales





Impact estimation

Appraisal

CORRESPONDENCE


Impact estimation on each dimensionS V


Impact scale construction

S IV

Worst

Best

Employee’s health

Worst

Best


0 days

18 yearsWorst

Best

Absenteeism

0 yhll

34 yhll

ND

IDNota - yhll: years of healthy life lost; ND: null disability; ITD: irrecoverable total disability

NomenclatureS I


Problem Difficulty in estimating impacts due to the decision makers’ lack of knowledge

Proposal Sources: (Bowie et al. ,1997);(Mathers et al., 1999);(Murray et al., 1996); (Stouthard et al., 1997); (U.S. Department of Labor, 2013); …

Consequences Employee’s Health Capability toreturn to work Absenteeism

Amputation of a finger (except the

thumbs)3,5 years of healthy

life lostIrrecoverable Partial

Disability with return to work

26 days

Sprain 1 day of healthy life lost Recoverable Disability 10 days

Tuberculosis 1,6 months of healthy life lost

Recoverable Disability 6 months

… … … …




Impact estimation


Value Measurement


Dependency test between impact dimensionsM I




Value measurement

Impact value measurement using the MACBETH-Choquet model: Construction of a global descriptor that combines the various dimensions Issues Protocol using the interactive version of Microsoft PowerPoint Populate the MACBETH global matrix with the judgements elicited by the

decision makers Determination of IC’s parameters (Shapley and interaction)

M II


The capability to return to work is cardinally dependent on the employee’s health

Nota - yhll: years of healthy life lost; mhll: months of healthy life lost; IPDR: Irrecoverable Partial Disability with return to work;RD: Recoverable Disability

IPDR15 yhll

Employee’shealth

Capabilityto return to

work

Absenteeism

Strong

RD RD

IPDR 1 year

1,6 mhll

Weak

1 yearEmployee’s

health

Capability to return to

work

Absenteeism




Dependency test


Dependency test between impact dimensions

Impact value measurement using the MACBETH-Choquet model: Construction of a global descriptor that combines the various dimensions Issues Protocol using the interactive version of Microsoft PowerPoint Populate the MACBETH global matrix with the judgements elicited by the

decision makers Determination of IC’s parameters (Shapley and interaction)

M II

M I




Impact value measurement


MACBETH is an interactive decision support approach

… uses qualitative judgments of differences of attractiveness…

… based on seven qualitative categories of difference in attractiveness

Wide applicability in MCDA:• Health care: (Bana e Costa et al., 2011)(de Castro et al., 2011)(Lopes, 2013)

(Oliveira et al., 2011)• Energy: (Bana e Costa et al., 2008)(Barin et al., 2012)• Environment: (Bana e Costa et al., 2013); (Cox et al., 2013)• Risk management: (Bana e Costa et al., 2008b);(Dall'Osso et al., 2009);

(Joerin et al., 2010); (Oliveira et al., 2004)• …




MACBETH

Typically, MACBETH applications use an additive value model (preference independence conditions are verified)…

…but many studies are using MACBETH with CI to model interdependencies


Proposal

Use of the MACBETH-Choquet methodology to model interdependencies

Friendly and intuitive questioning protocol

Judgments based on seven qualitative categories of MACBETH

Intuitive meaning of the results

MACBETH Choquet integral

m

iji

jijujiuiijiuii

uAg xvxvIxvsV

1 ,

|)()(|2

1)(

Mathematical formulationof the 2-additive CI operator:

(Lopes et al., 2014)




MACBETH-Choquet model


Global Descriptor

Interactive questioning

protocol

MACBETH Global Matrix

Choquet integral’s parameters

Levels Description

SQ: Status quo 0 anos saudáveis perdidos

RS 1,6 meses saudáveis perdidos

P: Pior 34 anos saudáveis perdidos

Levels Description

SQ: Status quo

0 anos

RS 1 mês

P: Pior 18 anos

Levels Description

SQ: Status quo IN

RS RTD

RI IPDR

P : Pior ITD

Levels Description

P1P2P3 34 anos saudáveis perdidos, inc. absoluta irrecuperável, 18 anos de ausência laboral (34yhll, ITD, 18a)

15 anos saudáveis perdidos, inc. absoluta irrecuperável, 18 anos de ausência laboral (15yhll, ITD, 18a)

15 anos saudáveis perdidos, inc. parcial irrecuperável sem regresso ao trabalho, 18 anos de ausência laboral (15yhll, IPDN, 18a)

4 anos saudáveis perdidos, inc. absoluta irrecuperável, 18 anos de ausência laboral (4yhll, ITD, 18a)

(…)

M-MACBETH

Shapley and interaction’s parameters




MACBETH-Choquet model


Levels Description

SQ: Status quo 0 days of healthy life lost

UR 1,6 months of healthy life lost

X 0,5 year of healthy life lost

Y 1 year of healthy life lost

Z 4 years of healthy life lost

LR 15 years of healthy life lost

W: Worst 34 years of healthy life lost

Levels Description

SQ: Status quo 0 years

UR 1 month

T 6 months

LR 1 year

W: Worst 18 years

Levels Description

SQ: Status quo ND

UR RD

LR IPDR

I IPDN

W: Worst ID(1) Employee’s Health

(2) Incapability to return to work

(3) Absenteeism




Global descriptor


Levels

34 yhll, ID, 18 y

15 yhll, ID, 18 y

15 yhll, IPDN, 18 y

4 yhll, ID, 18 y

4 yhll, IPDN, 18 y

15 yhll, IPDR, 1 y

15 yhll, IPDR, 6 m

15 yhll, IPDR, 1 m

15 yhll, RD, 1 y

15 yhll, RD, 6 m

15 yhll, RD, 1 m

4 yhll, IPDR, 1 y

4 yhll, IPDR, 6 m

4 yhll, IPDR, 1 m

4 yhll, RD, 1 y

Levels

4 yhll, RD, 6 m

4 yhll, RD, 1 m

1 yhll, IPDR, 1 y

1 yhll, IPDR, 6 m

1 yhll, IPDR, 1 m

1 yhll, RD, 1 y

1 yhll, RD, 6 m

1 yhll, RD, 1 m

1,6 mhll, IPDR, 1 y

1,6 mhll, IPDR, 6 m

1,6 mhll, IPDR, 1 m

1,6 mhll, RD, 1 y

1,6 mhll, RD, 6 m

1,6 mhll, RD, 1 m

No impact (0 yhll, ND, 0 y)

Nota - yhll: years of healthy life lost; mhll: months of healthy life lost; ID: Irrecoverable disability; IPDR: Irrecoverable Partial Disability with return to work; RD: Recoverable Disability; ND: Null Disability; y:years; m: months




Global descriptor


Questioning protocol based on questions-type:“What is the attractiveness of reversing certain combination of impacts?”

Support system: Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2007 Sequential Interactive




Interactive questioning protocol


Interactive questioning protocolFinal Judgments

34yhll,ID, 18y

15yhll,ID, 18y

15yhll,IPDN, 18y

4yhll,ID, 18y

4yhll,IPDN, 18y

15yhll,IPDR, 1y

15yhll,IPDR, 6m

15yhll,IPDR, 1m

15yhll,RD, 1y

15yhll,RD, 6m

15yhll,RD, 1m

4yhll,IPDR, 1y

4yhll,IPDR, 6m

4yhll,IPDR, 1m

4yhll,RD, 1y

4yhll,RD, 6m

4yhll,RD, 1m

1yhll,IPDR, 1y

1yhll,IPDR, 6m

1yhll,IPDR, 1m

1yhll,RD, 1y

1yhll,RD, 6m

1yhll,RD, 1m

0,5yhll,IPDR, 1y

0,5yhll,IPDR, 6m

0,5yhll,IPDR, 1m

0,5yhll,RD, 1y

0,5yhll,RD, 6m

0,5yhll,RD, 1m

1,6mhll,IPDR, 1y

1,6mhll,IPDR, 6m

1,6mhll,IPDR, 1m

1,6mhll,RD, 1y

1,6mhll,RD, 6m

1,6mhll,RD, 1m

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Nompact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Nompact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact

Noimpact


MACBETH global matrix

Judgments elicited by the decisions makers


MACBETH global matrixValidated scales obtained in decision conferences based on the elicited judgments

Scale validated by the decision makers


Shapley’s parameters Interaction’s parameters

338

11

338

32

338

295321 sss 0II

169

5I

169

22I 123231312

Combinations of impacts required to determine the CI parameters

UR1,UR2,UR3

UR1,UR2,LR3

UR1,LR2,UR3

UR1,LR2,LR3

LR1,UR2,LR3

LR1,UR2,LR3

LR1,LR2,UR3

LR1,LR2,LR3

169161

169/169

169142

169341

1698

1695

1693

1690




Choquet integral parameters


100

Conclusion of the probability scale construction considering a group test of risks

Value risk-matrix




Future research


Conclusion of the probability scale construction considering a group test of risks

Construction of a DSS in order to facilitate the use of the risk assessment system by the OHSU

Selection of mitigation measures (allocation resources)




Future research


Questions?

Suggestions?


FUNDING FROM THE PORTUGUESE PUBLIC BUDGET THROUGH FCT – FUNDAÇÃO PARA A CIÊNCIA E A TECNOLOGIA, WITHIN THE PROJECT PTDC/EGE-

GES/119230/2010

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


ACSS (2007). Unidade Funcional de Estudos e Planeamento de Recursos Humanos, Acidentes de trabalho.Administração Regional de Saúde do Norte, Carga global da doença na região norte de Portugal, Abril 2011.Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo (2010a). Segurança e Saúde no Trabalho: Gestão do risco profissional em estabelecimentos de saúde, Orientações técnicas

nº1.Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo (2010b). Saúde Ocupacional: acidentes de trabalho e doenças profissionais, Orientações nº2.Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo (2013). Saúde Ocupacional: acidentes de trabalho e doenças profissionais, Orientações nº3.Assembleia da República (1991). Decreto-Lei n.º 441/1991 de 14 de Novembro. Diário da República, 1ª série – N.º 262: 5826-5833.Assembleia da República (2003). Lei n.º 99/2003 de 27 de Agosto. Diário da República, 1ª série-A – N.º 197: 5558-5656.Assembleia da República (2004). Lei n.º 35/2004 de 29 de Julho. Diário da República, 1ª série-A – N.º 177: 4810-4885Assembleia da República (2009). Lei nº 102/2009 de 10 de Setembro, Regime jurídico da promoção da segurança e saúde no trabalho. Diário da República, 1ª série – Nº 176:6167-6192Bowie C., Beck S. et al. (1997). Estimating the burden of disease in an English region, Journal of Public Health Medicine, 19(1): 87-92Factor Segurança. (2013) Movimentação manual de cargas. http://www.factor-segur.pt/shst/docinformativos/Movim_Manual_de_Cargas.pdfFerreira, L. N. (2002). Utilidades, Qalys e medição da Qualidade de Vida, Associação Portuguesa de Economia da Saúde. Giomo, D. B., de Freitas, F.C.T., Alves, L.A. e Robazzi, M.L.C.C. (2009) Acidentes de trabalho, riscos ocupacionais e absenteísmo entre trabalhadores de enfermagem hospitalar. Rev.

Enferm. 17(1): 24-29.Health Council of the Netherlands: Comitee on Noise and Health. (1994). Noise and health, nr 1994/15E.IEC/FDIS 31010 (2009) Risk management – risk assessment techniques. International Standard.Lopes, D.F., Bana e Costa, C.A., Oliveira, M.D., Morton, A. (2014), “Using MACBETH with the Choquet Integral fundamentals to model interdependencies between elementary concerns

in the context of risk management”, in Vitoriano, B., Pinson, E., Valente, F. (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Operations Research and Enterprise Systems, ICORES 2014, ESEO, Angers, Loire Valley, France, 6th-8th March 2014, SCITEPRESS, p. 116-126 (digital edition), doi: 10.5220/0004833701160126

Mathers C., Vos T. e Stevenson C. (1999). The burden of disease and injury in Australia – summary report. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra, no. PHE 18.Ministério do Trabalho e da Solidariedade Social, Decreto-Lei n.º 182/2006 de 6 de Setembro. Diário da República, 1ª série – N.º 172: 6584-6593.Ministério do Trabalho e da Solidariedade Social, Decreto Regulamentar n.º 76/2007 de 17 de Julho. Diário da República, 1ª série – N.º 136: 4499-4543.Ministério do Trabalho e da Solidariedade Social, Decreto-Lei n.º 352/2007 de 23 de Outubro. Diário da República, 1ª série – N.º 204: 7715-7808.Murray C.J.L., Lopez A.D. (ed). (1996). Global Burden of Disease and Injury series. Vol. 1: The Global Burden of Disease. Boston: Harvard University Press.Ocupational Health and Safety Unit (2011). Risk Assessment and management Guidelines. University of Queensland, AustraliaPasschier-Vermeer, W., Passchier W. (2000). Noise exposure and public health, Environmental Health Perspectives, 108(1): 123–131. Presidência do Conselho de Ministros, Decreto-Lei n.º 503/1999 de 20 de Novembro. Diário da República, 1ª série A – N.º 271: 8241-8256.Presidência do Conselho de Ministros e Ministérios do Trabalho dos Assuntos SocITDs e da Indústria e Energia, Decreto Regulamentar n.º 12/1980 de 8 de Maio. Diário da República, 1ª

série – N.º 106: 907-924.Soler & Palau. (2013) Fichas técnicas. Acústica. O ruído I. Os decibéis. http://www.solerpalau.pt/formacion_01_23.htmlStouthard M., Essink-Bot M., Bonsel G., Barendregt J. e Kramers P. (1997). Disability weights for diseases in the Netherlands. Rotterdam: Department of Public Health, Erasmus

University.Teixeira, V. (2011) Medicina, Higiene e Segurança no trabalho, Extintores http://medicinanotrabalho.blogspot.pt/2011/03/extintores.htmlU.S. Department of Labor, Bureau Labor Statistics (2013). Nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses requiring days away from work, 2012. News Release, USDL-13-2257.Vose D. (2008). Risk Analysis: A quantitative guide, 3rd edition, WileyWashington State Department of Labor and Industries. (2002). Office Ergonomics: Practical solutions for a safer workplace. Office Ergonomics Advisory Committee.World Health Organization. (2004). Global burden of disease 2004 update: disability weights for diseases and conditions.Work Safe Victoria. (2009) Home care – occupational health and safety compliance kit: how to control the most common hazardous tasks in the home care sector, worksafe.vic.gov.au

References

http://www.factor-segur.pt/shst/docinformativos/Movim_Manual_de_Cargas.pdf

http://www.solerpalau.pt/formacion_01_23.html

http://medicinanotrabalho.blogspot.pt/2011/03/extintores.html

TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June Designing and building a value risk-matrix for the...

Documents

Transcript of TMP Graduate Consortium 2014 Meeting, 23rd June Designing and building a value risk-matrix for the...