Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Les clés d’une approche systémique réussie de la gestion des risques

  • Chapter
Piloter la sécurité

  • 608 Accesses

Résumé

Il est admis par tous qu’une approche de sécurité appliquée à nos univers complexes industriels (nucléaire, chimie, construction, métiers plus artisanaux) ou de services (médecine, banque et finance, transports publics et privés), ne doit plus se limiter à des solutions techniques locales ; elle doit être impérativement systémique, globale.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Références

  1. Reason J (1990) Human error. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Reason J (1997) Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Heinrich HW (1931) Industrial accident prevention. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cette critique est particulièrement bien débattue dans Hollnagel E, Woods D, Levison N (2006) Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cette critique est particulièrement bien débattue dans Dekker S (2004) Ten questions about human error. A New View of Human Factors and System Safety. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Morel G. Amalberti R. Chauvin C (2008) Articulating the differences between safety and resilience: the decision-making of professional sea fishing skippers. Human factors 1: 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Interrogation Google et archives (sommaires de revue) en décembre 2011 circonscrites à huit journaux: Human factors, Safety Science, Ergonomics, Accident analysis and Prevention, Journal of Safety resarch, Journal of Risk research International Journal Quality in Health Care, British Medical Journal Quality and Safety.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Les références sont très nombreuses sur ce thème et plutôt anciennes. On peut retrouver de multiples synthèses sur plusieurs sites notamment (mais sans exclusive) http://pachome1.pacific.net.sg/~thk/risk.html consulté le 27 décembre 2011 http://www.statcart.com/ consulté le 27 décembre 2011 ou encore le remarquable travail de synthèse appliqué au domaine médical publié dans cinq articles en français par un groupe d’auteurs, notamment: Roussel P, Moll MC, Guez P (2007) Étape 2: Identifier les risques a priori. Risques & Qualité en milieu de soins IV 4: 239–247. Roussel P, Moll MC, Guez P (2008) Étape 3: Identifier les risques a posteriori. Risques & Qualité en milieu de soins V-1: 46–58.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Tengs T, Adams M, Pliskin J, et al. (1995) Five-hundred life-saving Interventions and their cost-effectiveness. Risk analysis 15,3: 369–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Johnson C (2003) Failure in safety-critical systems: a handbook of accident and incident reporting. University of Glasgow Press, Glasgow, Scotland.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Reason J (1997) Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Marx D (2001) Patient Safety and the “Just Culture”: a primer for health care executives. New York, NY: Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dekker S (2007) Just culture, balancing safety and accountability. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Guldenmund F (2007) The use of questionnaires in safety culture research-an evaluation. Safety Science 45: 723–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Guldenmund F (2000) The nature of safety culture: a review of theory and research. Safety Science 34(1–3): 215–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Flin R (2007) Measuring safety culture in healthcare: a case for accurate diagnosis. Safety Science 45: 653–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Marx D (2001) Patient Safety and the “Just Culture”: a primer for health care executives. New York, NY: Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dekker S (2007) Just culture, balancing safety and accountability. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Guldenmund F (2007) The use of questionnaires in safety culture research-an evaluation. Safety Science 45: 723–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Guldenmund F (2000) The nature of safety culture: a review of theory and research. Safety Science 34(1–3): 215–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Flin R (2007) Measuring safety culture in healthcare: a case for accurate diagnosis. Safety Science 45: 653–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lawton R, Parker D (2002) Barriers to incident reporting in a healthcare system. Qual Saf Health Care 11: 15–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cullen D, Bates D, Small S, et al. (1995) The incident reporting system does not detect adverse drug events: a problem for quality improvement. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1: 541–548.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jha A, Hupeerman G, Teich J, et al. (1998) Identifying adverse drug events. JAMIA 5: 305–314.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Goldman RM, de Leval AP, Cohen MR, et al. (2004) Pitfalls of adverse event reporting in paediatric cardiac intensive care. Archives of Disease in Childhood 89: 856–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Vincent C, Stanhope N, Crowley-Murphy M (1999) Reasons for not reporting adverse incidents: an empirical study. J Eval Clin Pract 5: 13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Evans SM, Berry JG, Smith BJ, et al. (2006) Attitudes and barriers to incident reporting: a collaborative hospital study. 15: 39–43.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Un bon résumé du débat dans Dekker S (2007) Just culture, balancing safety and accountability. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Classen D, Resar R, Griffin F, et al. (2011) Global trigger tool shows that adverse events in hospitals may be in times greater than previously measured. Health affairs 30: 581–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Resar R, Rozich J, Classen D (2003) Methodology and rationale for the measurement of harm with trigger tools. Qual Saf Health Care 12: 39–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Rozich JD, Haraden CR, Resar RK (2003) Adverse drug event trigger tool: a practical methodology for measuring medication related harm. Qual Saf Health Care 12: 194–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sjohania K, Sampson M, Ansari M, et al. (2007) How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Int Med 147: 224–233.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hollnagel E (2004) Barriers and accident prevention. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Gerstein M, Ellsberg M, Ellsberg D (2008) Flirting with disaster: why accidents are rarely accidental. Sterling Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ostberg G (2009) Some intangibles in human handling of risks, Lund University, Sweden RISC-Research Paper No. 3, http://www.wisdom.at/Publikation/pdf/RiskBerichte/RRR_GOestberg_SomeIntangibles_09.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Chateauraynaud F, Torny D (1999) Les sombres précurseurs: une sociologie pragmatique de l’alerte et du risque. Paris, EHESS.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Amalberti R (2006) Optimum system safety and optimum system resilience: agonist or antagonists concepts? In: Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts, sous la dir. de E. Hollnagel, D. Woods, N. Levison. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, p. 238–256.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Woods DD (2005) Creating foresight: lessons for resilience from Columbia. In: Organization at the Limit: NASA and the Columbia Disaster, sous la dir. de W.H. Starbuck and M. Farjoun, Blackwell, p. 289–308.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Aslanides M, Valot C., Nyssen AS, Amalberti R (2007) Evolution of error and violation description in french air force accident reports: impacts of human factors education. Human Factors and Aerospace safety 6: 51–70.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Amalberti R, Vincent C, Auroy Y, de Saint Maurice G (2006) Framework models of migrations and violations: a consumer guide. Quality and Safety in Healthcare 15(suppl 1): i66–i71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. De Saint Maurice G, Auroy Y, Vincent C, Amalberti R (2010) The natural life span of a safety policy: violations and migration in anaesthesia, Qual Saf Health Care 19: 327–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Cooper D (2009) Behavioral safety interventions. Professional Safety: 37. http://www.behavioural-safety.com/articles/behavioral_safety_interventions_a_review_of_process_design_factors.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  43. Amalberti R, Auroy Y, Berwick D, Barach P (2005) Five system barriers to achieving ultrasafe health care. Ann Intern Med 142,9: 756–764.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Morel G, Chauvin C (2007) A socio-technical approach of risk management applied to collisions involving fishing vessels. Safety science 44: 599–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wilson R (1979) Analyzing the daily risks of life. Technology Review 81: 40–46, ou http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/old%20physics%2010/physics%2010%20notes/Risk.html.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Rasmussen J (1997) Risk management in a dynamic society. Safety Science 27: 183–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Amalberti R, Auroy Y, Berwick D, Barach P (2005) Five system barriers to achieving ultrasafe health care. Ann Intern Med 42: 756–764.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Perrow C (1984) Normal accidents: living with high-risk technologies. Basic Books: NY.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Morel G, Amalberti R, Chauvin C (2008) Articulating the differences between safety and resilience: the decision-making of professional sea fishing skippers. Human factors 1: 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Bainbridge L (1987) Ironies of automation. In: New technology and human errors, sous la dir.de Rasmussen, Duncan & Leplatedts. Wiley publ., p. 271–286.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Woods DD, Hollnagel E (2006) Joint cognitive systems: patterns in cognitive systems engineering. BocaRaton, FL: 2006, Taylor & Francis.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  52. deMontmollin M. L’ergonomie de la tâche, Peter Lang, Berne, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Endsley MR, Garland DJ (2000) Situation awareness analysis and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Endsley M (1995) Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors 37: 32–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Sarter N, Woods D (1992) Pilot interaction with cockpit automation: operational experiences with the flight management system. International Journal Aviation Psychology 2(4): 303–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Amalberti R, Deblon F (1992) Cognitive modelling of fighter aircraft’s control process: a step towards intelligent onboard assistance system. International Journal of Man-Machine studies 36: 639–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Morel G, Amalberti R, Chauvin C (2008) Articulating the differences between safety and resilience: the decision-making of professional sea fishing skippers. Human factors 1: 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Morel G, Amalberti R, Chauvin C (2009) How good micro/macro ergonomics may improve resilience, but not necessarily safety. Safety Science 47: 285–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Amalberti R, Barach P. Improving healthcare: understanding the properties of three contrasting and concurrent safety models. Submitted.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Grote G (2012) Safety management in different high-risk domains-All the same? Safety Science, in press, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Les middle managers sont des managers travaillant à un niveau intermédiaire de la hiérarchie, entre le niveau exécutif et le niveau des cadres de proximité; typiquement ils dirigent une unité fonctionnelle, source Uyterhoeven HE (1972). General managers in the middle. Harvard Business Review 50: 75–85 et Thakur M (1998) Involving middle managers in strategymaking. Long Range Planning 31: 732–41.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Hopkins A (2005) Safety, culture and risk, first ed. CCH Australia Ltd, Australia. Hopkins A (2007) Holding corporate leaders responsible. Keeping Good Companies 59: 340–4.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Bell CM, Redelmeier DA (2001) Mortality among patients admitted to hospitals on weekends as compared with weekdays. N Engl J Med 345: 663–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Aylin P, Yunus A, Bottle A, et al. (2010) Weekend mortality for emergency admissions: a large multicentre study. Qual Saf Health Care 19: 213–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Young J, Ranji S, Wachter R, et al. (2011) July effect: impact of the academic year-end change over on patient outcomes. Ann Intern Med 155: 309–315.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Morel G, Amalberti R. Chauvin C (2009) How good micro/macro ergonomics may improve resilience, but not necessarily safety. Safety Science 47: 285–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Morel G, Amalberti R, Chauvin C (2008) Articulating the differences between safety and resilience: the decision-making of professional seafishing skippers. Humanfactors 1: 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Hofstede G (1983) Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-related values. Administrative Science Quarterly (Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University) 28: 625–629.

    Google Scholar 

  69. O’Reilly C, Chatman A, Caldwell D (1991) People and organizational culture: a profile comparisons approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal 34: 487–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Schein, Organizational culture and leadership, John Wiley & sons, 1985, Ed 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Helmreich RL, Merritt AC (1998) Culture at work: national, organizational, and professional influences. Aldershot, United Kingdom: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Flin R, O’Connor P, Crichton M (2008) Safety at the sharp end: a guide to non-technical skills. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Guldenmund F (2007) The use of questionnaires in safety culture research-an evaluation. Safety Science 45: 723–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Daniellou F, Simart M, Boissière I. Human and organizational factors of safety:state of the art, ICSI, http://www.foncsi.org/media/PDF/CSI-HOFS.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Westrum R (2004) A typology of organisational cultures. Qual Saf Health Care 13: 22–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Reason JT, Carthey J, de Leval MR (2001) Diagnosing vulnerable system syndrome: an essential prerequisite to effective risk management Qual Health Care 10(suppl 2): i21–i25.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Marx D (2001) Patient safety and the just culture, a primer for health care executives. MERS-TM: Columbia University New York.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Dekker S (2008) Just culture, balancing safety and accountability. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Ekvall G (1991) The organizational culture of idea-management: a creative climate for the management of ideas. In: Managing Innovation, sous la dir. de Henry J and Walker D, London: Sage, p. 73–79.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Un bon résumé de toute cette approche dans Braithwaite JJ, Hyde P, Pope C (2010) Culture and climate in health care organizations. Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Liker J (2003). The Toyota Way: 14 management principles from the world’s greatest manufacturer, First edition. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Helmreich R (1993) Attitudes towards automation across five cultures — NASA report/University of Texas/FAA — Aerospace Crew Research.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. René Amalberti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag France, Paris

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Amalberti, R. (2013). Les clés d’une approche systémique réussie de la gestion des risques. In: Piloter la sécurité. Springer, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-8178-0369-2_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-8178-0369-2_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Paris

  • Print ISBN: 978-2-8178-0368-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-2-8178-0369-2

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation