The Impact of Hazard Statement Design Elements in Procedures: Counterintuitive Findings and Implications for Standards

Abstract

Objective The objective of these studies was to identify hazard statement (HS) design elements in procedures that affected whether both workers and lab participants performed the associated hazard mitigation. Background Many of the incidents in high-risk industries are the result of issues with procedures (e.g., standard operating procedures; SOPs) workers use to support their performance. HSs in these procedures are meant to communicate potential work hazards and methods of mitigating those hazards. However, there is little empirical research regarding whether current hazard design guidelines for consumer products translate to procedures. Method Two experimental studies—(1) a laboratory study and (2) a high-fidelity simulation—manipulated the HS design elements present in procedures participants used while performing tasks. Participants’ adherence to the mitigation of the hazard was compared for the HS designs. Results The guidelines for HSs from consumer products did not translate to procedures. Specifically, the presence of an alert icon, a box around the statement, and highlighting the statement did not improve adherence to HSs. Indeed, the only consistent finding was for the Icon, with its presence reliably predicting nonadherence in both studies. Additionally, the total number of design elements did not have a positive effect on adherence. Conclusion These findings indicate that more fundamental procedure HSs research is needed to identify effective designs as well as to understand the potential attentional mechanisms associated with these findings. Application The findings from these studies indicate that current regulations and guidelines should be revisited regarding hazard presentation in procedures.

Human Factors Guidance for Writing Effective Laboratory Standard Operating Procedures

“…Do not include critical safety information at the end of a procedure. Although it may be best practice to read the entire procedure before starting a protocol, personnel often do not, so procedure writers should not assume they will. Consistent findings from NGAP’s studies have found that calling out special instructions or hazards using color highlighting or boxes is ineffective for having personnel engage in the desired behavior . Interestingly, this is often counter to guidance from standards .…”

“…Consistent findings from NGAP’s studies have found that calling out special instructions or hazards using color highlighting or boxes is ineffective for having personnel engage in the desired behavior . Interestingly, this is often counter to guidance from standards .…”

“…• Consistent findings from NGAP's studies have found that calling out special instructions or hazards using color highlighting or boxes is ineffective for having personnel engage in the desired behavior. 12 Interestingly, this is often counter to guidance from standards. 41 Anecdotal evidence suggests that this may differ for those who are experienced versus inexperienced with using the procedure to perform the task, but there is currently no empirical evidence regarding this.…”

“…14,15 Including critical content within the step increases the likelihood of users reading important information and performing necessary actions as intended (e.g., Figure 5b). 12 • Indicate which steps require sequential completion and which do not. More experienced employees know that not everything needs to be done in exactly the order presented, so procedure writers should clarify what must be done sequentially.…”

“…Although many may assume this is a trivial issue, studies have found that ineffectively formatting an SOP can reliably increase the likelihood of unwanted behaviors. 12,13 Further, many may also assume that their existing procedures are sufficient because there has never been an incident or problem with them before. However, as part of our studies in the Next Generation Advanced Procedures (NGAP) Consortium (https://advancedprocedures.tamu.edu/), we have found through both surveys and observations that workers deviate from procedures up to 50% of the time without any immediate or evident issue 14−17 even though some (but not all) of the observed deviations were deemed problematic and hazardous by subject matter experts.…”