ArticleHeliyon2024
Identifying and preventing human error in the sugar production process: A multi-stage approach using HTA, HEC and PHEA techniques.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article discusses the importance of identifying and preventing human error in industrial environments, specifically in the sugar production process. The article emphasizes the importance of choosing the right technique for risk assessment studies resulting from human errors. A cross-sectional study was conducted using a multi-stage approach - Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA), Human Error Calculator (HEC), and Predictive Human Error Analysis (PHEA) - to identify potential human errors in the sugar production process. The HTA, HEC, and PHEA techniques were employed to evaluate each stage of the process for potential human errors. The results of the HTA technique identified 35 tasks and 83 sub-tasks in 14 units of the sugar production process. According to HEC technique 4 tasks with 80 % probability of human error and 2 tasks with 50 % probability of human error had the highest calculated error probabilities. The factors of individual skill, task repetition and importance were the most important factors of human error in the present study. The analysis of PHEA worksheets showed that the number of human errors identified in the tasks with highest probability were 8 errors, of which 50 % were action errors, 25 % checking errors, 13 % selection errors, and 12 % retrieval errors. To mitigate the consequences of human error, it was recommended training courses, raising operator awareness of error consequences, and installing instructions in the sugar production process. Based on the findings, the article concludes that the HEC and PHEA techniques are applicable and effective in identifying and analyzing human errors in process and food industries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.