“…This necessitates the development of details for each risk assessment grade with respect to the criteria. Herein, the assessment grades for evaluating the risks under the “probability” ( C 1 ) were defined by adapting the probability grades of Gokler et al [ 10 ], Moradi and Farsangi [ 11 ], Degn Eskesen et al [ 46 ], and Benekos and Diamantidis [ 47 ], as follows: “ Improbable ” (I), “ Remote ” (R), “ Occasional ” (O), “ Probable ” (P), and “ Frequent ” (F), where the “I” and “F” denote the smallest and highest possible values. The assessment grades for evaluating the risks under the remaining criteria ( C 2 , C 3 , C 4 , and C 5 ) were defined by adapting the consequence grades of Chung et al [ 42 ], Hyun et al [ 19 ], and Kumar Agrawal et al [ 48 ], as follows: “ Very Low ” (VL), “ Low ” (L), “ Moderate ” (M), “ High ” (H), and “ Very High ” (VH).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Risk analysis of underground construction has been extensively studied in numerous directions. One of the most popular existing techniques for addressing unexpected events in mechanized underground tunnel construction is the analysis of risks based on probabilities and consequences [ 10 ]. Many past studies conducted various risk analysis methods in metro network construction.…”
“…This necessitates the development of details for each risk assessment grade with respect to the criteria. Herein, the assessment grades for evaluating the risks under the “probability” ( C 1 ) were defined by adapting the probability grades of Gokler et al [ 10 ], Moradi and Farsangi [ 11 ], Degn Eskesen et al [ 46 ], and Benekos and Diamantidis [ 47 ], as follows: “ Improbable ” (I), “ Remote ” (R), “ Occasional ” (O), “ Probable ” (P), and “ Frequent ” (F), where the “I” and “F” denote the smallest and highest possible values. The assessment grades for evaluating the risks under the remaining criteria ( C 2 , C 3 , C 4 , and C 5 ) were defined by adapting the consequence grades of Chung et al [ 42 ], Hyun et al [ 19 ], and Kumar Agrawal et al [ 48 ], as follows: “ Very Low ” (VL), “ Low ” (L), “ Moderate ” (M), “ High ” (H), and “ Very High ” (VH).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Risk analysis of underground construction has been extensively studied in numerous directions. One of the most popular existing techniques for addressing unexpected events in mechanized underground tunnel construction is the analysis of risks based on probabilities and consequences [ 10 ]. Many past studies conducted various risk analysis methods in metro network construction.…”
“…This model derives the overall risk score (RS) as an outcome of three risk parameters, namely, probability (P), consequence (C), and exposure (Е). Based on the calculated risk score, the degree of risk and its class are determined according to Тable 2, [29].…”
According to the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU - OSHA) and the Roadmap on Carcinogens about 120,000 work - related cancer cases occur each year as a result exposure to carcinogens at the workplace in the EU, leading to approximately 80,000 fatalities annually. Occupational risk assessment is used as a criterion for occupational safety.At the cement manufacturing sector, it was revealed that the main hazard is exposure to carcinogen substances such as respirable crystalline SiO2. In the present work, two methods were used for risk assessment in a cement production enterprise: the classical Fine - Kinney method and Flexible risk assessment method developed by Reinhold and Tint. The results of the joint application of these two methods show the advantages and disadvantages of each of them and point to the need to combine more than one method to effectively cover aspects of risk assessment. It was made the evaluation of applied existing control measures, as well as new measures for better protection have been proposed.
“… Fig. 4 The current overall bridged RASM model was adapted from Curtis [ 22 ], Kinney Methods [ 26 ], ILO [ 27 ] and WHO [ 28 ] for risk mitigation in public hospitals, eastern Ethiopia, 2023 …”
Background
Hospital sanitation workers (SWs) are exposed to numerous occupational hazards due to workplace conditions such as unsafe and unhygienic working environment in the hospitals. Therefore, knowing magnitude, types and source of occupational hazard exposures with their determinants are very significant for further mitigations.
Methods
Hospital based cross-sectional study design was conducted in public hospitals, eastern Ethiopia from 1st May to August 30th, 2023. 809 SWs participated. Data was entered into Epi Data Version 3.1 and Stata 17MP version used for analysis. Descriptive analysis was applied to describe the data. While, multilevel logistic regression was explored to determine the association between outcome and independents among at individual level (model 1), at hospitals (model 2) and combination of the two (model 3). The crude odds ratio (COR) and adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for models 2 and 3 were reported. Variables with an AOR with a 95% confidence interval (CI) at a p-value < 0.05 were reported.
Result
Out of 809 SWs, 729 (90.11%) responded. The overall magnitude of self-reported occupational hazard exposures among SWs was 63.65% (95% CI 0.60–0.67). Of this, biological, chemical, and ergonomic hazards accounted for 82.44%, 74.76%, and 70.92%, respectively. The multilevel logistic regression shows that having social recognition (AOR: 0.37, 95% CI 0.14, 0.91), neutral attitude (AOR: 0.48, 95% CI 0.17, 1.41) as compared to negative attitude. The model also found that SWs those supervised could reduce the likelihood of occupational hazard exposures by 50% times (AOR: 0.50, 95% CI 0.18, 1.38) as compared to non-supervised SWs. The final model predicted the variation of occupational hazard exposures among sanitary workers from the hospitals to hospitals was 26.59%.
Conclusions
The concluded that hospital sanitary workers are facing biological, chemical, ergonomic, physical, psychological, mechanical, and electrical hazards. This study’s findings predicted that dissatisfied with their environment, working more than 8 hr per a day, a negative attitude towards workplace risks and inadequate supervision may serve as contributing factors for the likelihood of occupational hazard exposures among these groups. Thus, the study suggested that hospitals could reduce these hazard risks if they implement the Risk Assessment and Safety Management (RASM) model, which includes multi-modal strategies, indicators and tripartite philosophy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
