Qualitative study on the control of hazardous energy on machinery using lockout and alternative methods

Design of a Self-Audit Tool for the Application of Lockout on Machinery in the Province of Quebec, Canada to Control Hazardous Energies

“…Their findings were consistent with another study reporting the problems such as (i) the lack of audits; (ii) not always using lockout placard; and (iii) not performing the verification step of lockout procedures during the application of lockout [33]. Furthermore, Karimi, Chinniah, Burlet-Vienney, and Aucourt [22] showed that although organizations conduct internal audits on lockout (e.g., auditing their lockout program or auditing the application of lockout), lockout audits are incomplete due to a lack of appropriate audit tools. To illustrate, they found that 40% of the organizations they studied had no tools for audits of lockout and existing audit tools (of the remainder of the organizations) consisted of only a few questions to verify the application of lockout, thereby deficient in completeness.…”

“…Karimi, Chinniah, Burlet-Vienney, and Aucourt [22] investigated the actual practice of controlling hazardous energies in deferent organizations and demonstrated several major shortcomings to the control of hazardous energies on machinery, such as missing steps in lockout procedures, neglecting to read the placards before applying lockout, and not having appropriate audit tools or the absence of audits. Their findings were consistent with another study reporting the problems such as (i) the lack of audits; (ii) not always using lockout placard; and (iii) not performing the verification step of lockout procedures during the application of lockout [33].…”

“…Additionally, in some of the organizations, the audit of lockout was a small part of general safety audits, and it was incomplete. The authors concluded that there is a need for a comprehensive tool for internal audits of lockout to provide organizations with accurate audit results [22].…”

“…A self-audit tool was developed by the research team on the basis of the findings of Karimi, Chinniah, Burlet-Vienney, and Aucourt [22]; the current standards [15,16] and regulation [18]; and a review of the literature. Indeed, the checklist statements were mostly designed based on our prior study [22] (i.e., shortcomings in in the control of hazardous energies on machinery, related recommendations, and the questionnaire used) and the requirements for the application and audit Safety 2019, 5, 53 5 of 20 of lockout procedures from: (i) the American standard ANSI/ASSE Z244.1 (e.g., clauses 6.5.2, 7.2, and 7.6.10-11), (ii) the Canadian standard CSA Z460 (e.g., clauses 7.6.3, 7.3.2.3-7), and (iii) Quebec regulation ROHS (arts. 188.…”

“…In the case of the absence of an authorized employee, the supervisor or employer follows the instructions for removing the padlock(s) of the absent authorized employee (Statement was added after re-analysis of the organizations' feedback) 21 The equipment/machine is resupplied according to the established procedure 22 The authorized employees start the equipment and check that everything is working properly and that the work is finished (e.g., ensure that all work and interventions are completed) 23 All affected employees are notified of the completion of the intervention 24 The application of the procedure is recorded according to the established procedure (e.g., by archiving or by filing a register, etc.) Other comments/problems observed (including comments from authorized employees):…”