چكيده لاتين :
Background and aims: Nowadays the growing complexity of technology and industry has led to
vast changes over the last few decades. These changes, in addition to their positive and valuable
effects, have also caused industrial accidents affecting human life and the environment. According
to the ILO 2011 report, there are 340 million annual workplace accidents and 160 million
occupational illnesses worldwide, resulting in more than 6,000 deaths worldwide each day. Iran is
no exception, as the statistics of the Social Security Organization show that there are 14114 annual
accidents and 268 deaths in the workplaces covered by this organization. Different approaches
have been developed to identify hazards, evaluate and control risks in the overall risk management
framework to address these problems. A critical point that seems to be overlooked in most hazard
identification and risk assessment processes is the critical process of risk control and failure to
provide a clear benchmark for evaluating risk control measures. However, the ultimate goal of the
hazard identification and risk assessment processes is to eliminate or reduce the risk level through
control strategies. Risk control is trying to improve the likelihood of an accident, its consequences,
exposure, and detection rate. In most studies, the last column of the risk analysis worksheet offers
several risk control strategies that claim to reduce the risk level to an acceptable level. But in very
few studies, control measures such as risks have been evaluated or prioritized. One of the critical
challenges of studies due to the budget constraints allocated to the process of risk management in
industries and organizations is the failure to evaluate control strategies and thus the selection and
implementation of inappropriate strategies and their adverse consequences. Various studies have
been conducted to identify hazards and assess risks. But it seems no study have been
systematically reviewed them. Therefore, the present study aims to do a systemic review on
articles with approaches of hazard identification, risk assessment, and control, to produce valuable
information for researchers, identify gaps with special attention to assessing risk control measures
and propose new fields for studies.
Methods: In this review study, we systematically searched for published Persian-language articles
in Iranian peer-reviewed journals to analyze hazard identification and risk assessment studies in
Iran with a particular approach to evaluating risk control measures. The search was conducted
using the keywords, risk assessment, risk control, risk management, hazard assessment, and safety
evaluation. All the keywords were combined with the word "job" and the search was done in the
title, abstract and keywords of the Scientific Information Database (SID) and the Magiran
database.
In this study, only the studies that were conducted in Iran, in Farsi language during 2001 to the last
3 months of 2017, were searched. The number of articles found in the SID and the Magiran
databases using the keywords was 24 and 534, respectively. For the review, only articles were
allowed to enter the study in which they were done in an organization to identify hazards, assess
and control risks or a new approach to hazard identification, risk assessment, or the effectiveness
and cost-effectiveness of risk control measures have been proposed. Another criterion for
including the articles in the present study was their publication in peer-reviewed journals. Articles
of conferences, seminars, review of books, writers' notes, last word, and theses were not
considered.
To extract information, in addition to reviewing the title, abstract, and results, the full text of the
articles were used, where the required information was not obtained from the above sections.
Information extracted from the articles were articles title, year of publication, journal title,
industry, region, hazard identification method, risk assessment method, risk control measures and
basis for their selection and evaluation.
Results: Most of the studies, which account for 78% of the articles under review, have been conducted in an industry. This volume of industry studies can indicate the occurrence of multiple
accidents, high mortality and injury rates, and imposing heavy economic costs on this sector due
to lack of risk control. The refinery and power plants also account for over 21% of studies. The
reasons for this are the high complexity and severity of the consequences of accidents occurring in
them. On the other hand, more than 12% of studies have been done in hospital and laboratory
wards, which are insufficient and need more attention. 9.4% of studies have been done in other
industries such as mining. A total of 12 hazard identification methods were identified in this study.
Among the identified methods, the Job Safety Analysis (JSA) method has been used to identify
hazards in more than 28% of articles due to its general approach. After the JSA, the Failure Mode
Effects Analysis (FMEA) method and the review of the documentation and opinions of the experts
make up the bulk of the studies.
A total of 18 risk assessment methods were identified in this study. About 31% had a risk
assessment using the Risk Priority Number (RPN) method. Perhaps its cause can be traced back to
the hazard identification methods. Most of the papers used the FMEA method or its combination
with other methods to identify hazards. The RPN method is commonly used to assess risks for the
hazards identified with FMEA, although other related methods can also be used. The second most
commonly used risk assessment method was the MIL-STD-882E standard, which was used by
more than 12% of articles. After these two methods, the William Fain method with 6.3% is the
largest volume of studies. Other methods have only been used in one study because they are in the
development phase. In the risk control measures section, 75% of the articles reviewed, provided
risk control strategies and only 25% refused to provide risk control measures. Conclusion: In
hazard identification methods, the results of the study indicated that experts should first
thoroughly examine hazard identification methods scope and limitations before using them.
Therefore, due to the increasing complexity of industries, it is suggested to employ systematic
approaches in complex socio-technical systems. Most studies have used common risk assessment
methods based on verbal expressions. Therefore, to avoid uncertainty and ambiguity in this
process, it is recommended to develop existing risk assessment methods based on fuzzy logic. One
of the strengths of the studies under review is their tendency to develop new risk assessment
methods, but these approaches have been considered in very limited studies. Therefore, further
studies are recommended to determine the accuracy and scope of their application. In the
discussion of risk control measures, less than 19% of the reviewed articles evaluated or
categorized control strategies according to a specific criterion. In most studies, control measures
have been evaluated based on implementation cost or effectiveness factors. In this review, several
studies have used the William Fine method to assess risk, but none have used the cost justification
factor. Perhaps one of the reasons for not using the cost justification factor is the obsolete cost
factor scales. Therefore, due to the limited financial resources of organizations to control risks, it
is suggested that the William Fine cost factor table be revised and adjusted to the current situation.
Of the studies reviewed, only one study examined control strategies based on several criteria. It
evaluated and prioritized risk control measures based on criteria of utilization, budget, time,
personnel satisfaction, facilities and manpower using a 0-5 score range.
The point that is observed in the reviewed articles is that the control measures are not evaluated on
the basis of a theoretical approach based on risk control patterns such as the triangle risk control
model (Elimination, Substitution, Isolation, Engineering controls, Management controls and use of
personal protective equipment), the Haddon matrix, and so on. Therefore, it can be concluded that
the risk management process is incomplete. Also, in all the studies under review, it is not
considered that the criteria used in evaluating control measures are not of equal value and
importance. Therefore, it is recommended to provide a structured and theoretically supported
approach based on risk control patterns and other parameters influencing control measures. Also,
to more accurately and clearly evaluate control strategies, it is recommended to use multi-criteria
decision-making methods and specific spectroscopy of effective parameters in evaluating control
strategies in method construction. Finally, it is suggested that due to the verbal and qualitative
nature of the judgments to control the uncertainties and ambiguities in the verbal expressions, an
evaluation method based on fuzzy logic be developed.
