Schwatka Natalie V, Hecker Steven, Goldenhar Linda M
1.Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Center for Health, Work and Environment, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, 13001 E. 17th Pl., 3rd Floor, Mail Stop B119 HSC, Aurora, CO 80045, USA;
2.Labor Education and Research Center, University of Oregon, 1289 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA;
Ann Occup Hyg. 2016 Jun;60(5):537-50. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mew020. Epub 2016 Apr 19.
Safety climate measurements can be used to proactively assess an organization's effectiveness in identifying and remediating work-related hazards, thereby reducing or preventing work-related ill health and injury. This review article focuses on construction-specific articles that developed and/or measured safety climate, assessed safety climate's relationship with other safety and health performance indicators, and/or used safety climate measures to evaluate interventions targeting one or more indicators of safety climate. Fifty-six articles met our inclusion criteria, 80% of which were published after 2008. Our findings demonstrate that researchers commonly defined safety climate as perception based, but the object of those perceptions varies widely. Within the wide range of indicators used to measure safety climate, safety policies, procedures, and practices were the most common, followed by general management commitment to safety. The most frequently used indicators should and do reflect that the prevention of work-related ill health and injury depends on both organizational and employee actions. Safety climate scores were commonly compared between groups (e.g. management and workers, different trades), and often correlated with subjective measures of safety behavior rather than measures of ill health or objective safety and health outcomes. Despite the observed limitations of current research, safety climate has been promised as a useful feature of research and practice activities to prevent work-related ill health and injury. Safety climate survey data can reveal gaps between management and employee perceptions, or between espoused and enacted policies, and trigger communication and action to narrow those gaps. The validation of safety climate with safety and health performance data offers the potential for using safety climate measures as a leading indicator of performance. We discuss these findings in relation to the related concept of safety culture and offer suggestions for future research and practice including (i) deriving a common definition of safety climate, (ii) developing and testing construction-specific indicators of safety climate, and (iii) focusing on construction-specific issues such as the transient workforce, subcontracting, work organization, and induction/acculturation processes.
安全氛围测量可用于前瞻性地评估组织在识别和纠正与工作相关的危害方面的有效性,从而减少或预防与工作相关的健康问题和伤害。这篇综述文章聚焦于特定于建筑行业的文章,这些文章开发和/或测量了安全氛围,评估了安全氛围与其他安全和健康绩效指标的关系,和/或使用安全氛围测量来评估针对安全氛围一个或多个指标的干预措施。56篇文章符合我们的纳入标准,其中80%是2008年之后发表的。我们的研究结果表明,研究人员通常将安全氛围定义为基于认知的,但这些认知的对象差异很大。在用于测量安全氛围的广泛指标中,安全政策、程序和做法最为常见,其次是管理层对安全的总体承诺。最常用的指标应该且确实反映出,预防与工作相关的健康问题和伤害取决于组织和员工的行动。安全氛围得分通常在不同群体(如管理层和工人、不同行业)之间进行比较,并且常常与安全行为的主观测量相关,而非与健康问题测量或客观的安全和健康结果相关。尽管目前的研究存在局限性,但安全氛围已被认为是预防与工作相关的健康问题和伤害的研究及实践活动的一个有用特征。安全氛围调查数据可以揭示管理层和员工认知之间的差距,或所宣称的政策与实际执行的政策之间的差距,并引发沟通和行动来缩小这些差距。用安全和健康绩效数据对安全氛围进行验证,为将安全氛围测量用作绩效的领先指标提供了可能性。我们结合安全文化的相关概念讨论了这些研究结果,并为未来的研究和实践提出了建议,包括(i)得出安全氛围的共同定义,(ii)开发和测试特定于建筑行业的安全氛围指标,以及(iii)关注特定于建筑行业的问题,如临时劳动力、分包、工作组织以及入职/文化适应过程。