Boulder, CO — Safety communications and training often recommend improving safety controls to address serious injuries and fatalities, but researchers say the safety community needs to establish exactly what “control” means.
A group from the Construction Safety Research Alliance, based at the University of Colorado Boulder, conducted a literature review of multiple studies involving controls as prevention and defense measures.
In addition to reporting that “no universally accepted definition of safety ‘control’” exists, they found that related terms such as “barrier,” “defense” and “safeguard” are used inconsistently.
“Controls have a longer and more complex relationship with safety management than might be expected,” the researchers write. “They have been an enduring part of the lexicon, but their consideration has taken, and continues to take, various forms depending on context and operationalization.”
These may include processes, concrete preventive strategies and focus areas, the study says.
Noting that “ambiguity limits effective implementation of controls in high-risk environments,” the researchers call for establishing a clear, shared definition of “control.” This is key to growing “practical application in safety management” behind consistent scientific protocol.
The study was published in the National Safety Council’s Journal of Safety Research.
In related news, CSRA is seeking perspectives from frontline workers for a survey exploring SIF-related safety communications.
The organization says the survey consists of three questions and takes less than five minutes to complete. CSRA will use the findings to develop a diagnostic tool intended to help organizations “evaluate and improve SIF-focused communication.”
Anyone interested in participating in the survey is asked to email [email protected].
