Advertisement

An Approach to Inject HFE into Existing Design Standards

  • Bronson Du
  • Steven Fischer
  • Amin Yazdani
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)

Abstract

Current human factors and ergonomics (HFE) programs and practices, though having potential, are not easily integrated into organizations’ management system. As a result, HFE programs have been perceived by many organizations as parallel and stand-alone, requiring a separate pool of resources to operate. A lack of integration into existing management and quality systems can make HFE programs costly and unsustainable for organizations, particularly those adopting lean strategies. Like HFE programs, emerging HFE standards are also often independent and stand-alone from readily available industry technical design standards. Embedding HFE principles into industry technical design standards offers a unique opportunity to position HFE upstream in the design and development phase of a product, and increase its adoption and application. Additionally, inclusion of HFE specifications within technical design standards may also improve communication between HFE researchers and HFE knowledge users (designers and decision makers), particularly within the design process. This discussion paper presents a case for embedding HFE principles into existing industry specific technical standards using the paramedic industry as an example, and a systems approach was used to inform the standard.

Keywords

Human factors and ergonomics Standards Emergency medical services 

References

  1. 1.
    Grote G (2014) Adding a strategic edge to human factors/ergonomics: principles for the management of uncertainty as cornerstones for system design. Appl Ergon 45(1):33–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.03.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dul J, Bruder R, Buckle P, Carayon P, Falzon P, Marras WS et al (2012) A strategy for human Factors/Ergonomics: developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics 55(4):377–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yazdani A, Neumann WP, Imbeau D, Bigelow P, Pagell M, Theberge N et al (2015) How compatible are participatory ergonomics programs with occupational health and safety management systems? Scand J Work Environ Heal. 41(2):111–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dong H, McGinley C, Nickpour F, Cifter AS (2015) Designing for designers: insights into the knowledge users of inclusive design. Appl Ergon 46(PB):284–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.03.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baysari MT, Reckmann MH, Li L, Day RO, Westbrook JI (2012) Failure to utilize functions of an electronic prescribing system and the subsequent generation of ‘technically preventable’ computerized alerts. J Am Med Informatics Assoc 19(6):1003–1010. https://academic.oup.com/jamia/article-lookup/doi/10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fabri PJ, Zayas-Castro JL (2008) Human error, not communication and systems, underlies surgical complications. Surgery 144(4):557–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Russ AL, Fairbanks RJ, Karsh B-T, Militello LG, Saleem JJ, Wears RL (2013) The science of human factors: separating fact from fiction. BMJ Qual Saf 22(10):802–808. http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wilson J (2005) Evaluation of human work. Eval Hum Work 706–754Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Armstrong TJ, Burdorf A, Descatha A, Farioli A, Graf M, Horie S, et al (2018) Scientific basis of ISO standards on biomechanical risk factors. Scand J Work Environ Health. http://www.sjweh.fi/show_abstract.php?abstract_id=3718
  10. 10.
    Rodgers LM (1998) A five-year study comparing early retirements on medical grounds in ambulance personnel with those in other groups of health service staff. Part I: incidences of retirements. Occup Med (Chic Ill) 48(1):119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maguire BJ, O’Meara PF, Brightwell RF, O’Neill BJ, Fitzgerald GJ (2014) Occupational injury risk among Australian paramedics: an analysis of national data. Med J Aust 200(8):477–480. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24794611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roberts MH, Sim MR, Black O, Smith P (2015) Occupational injury risk among ambulance officers and paramedics compared with other healthcare workers in Victoria, Australia: analysis of workers’ compensation claims from 2003 to 2012. Occup Environ Med 72(7):489–495. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25780033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reuter E, Camba JD. Understanding emergency workers’ behavior and perspectives on design and safety in the workplace. Appl Ergon 59:73–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.08.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Biesbroek S, Teteris E (2012) Human factors review of EMS ground ambulance design. Symp Hum Factors Ergon Heal Care 2012:95–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Delbridge TR, Yealy DM (2004) Looking for a solution … to the solution? Ann Emerg Med 44(4):304–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ferreira J, Hignett S (2005) Reviewing ambulance design for clinical efficiency and paramedic safety. Appl Ergon 36(1):97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Conestoga CollegeKitchenerCanada
  3. 3.Centre of Research Expertise for the Prevention of Musculoskeletal Disorders (CRE-MSD)WaterlooCanada
  4. 4.McMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations