Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Komplexität handhaben—Handeln vereinheitlichen—Organisationen sicher gestalten

  • Chapter
Book cover Human Factors

Auszug

Ein wichtiger, weltweit durch Gesetze geregelter und daher in hohem Maße standardisierter Bereich der medizinischen Patientenversorgung ist die Hämotherapie-der Umgang mit Blut oder Blutprodukten. Dennoch ereignen sich immer wieder schwerwiegen de Komplikationen bei der Transfusion, was zu einem nicht unerheblichen Teil auf Regelverletzungen rückführbar ist (vgl. z. B. Linden, Wagner, Voytovich& Sheehan, 2000; Whitsett & Robichaux, 2001). In der Transfusionsmedizin gibt es qualitativ verhältnismäßig gute Zwischenfallsberichte, deren Auswertung in der Vergangenheit zu Anpassungen des Regelsystems und zur Integration zusätzlicher Sicherheitsvorkehrungen (z. B. von Barcodesystemen) geführt hat. Im Folgenden werden zunächst die verschiedenen Ebenen des Regelsystems skizziert, bevor an einem Ausschnitt beispielhaft diskutiert wird, welche Arten von Regeln hier zur Anwendung kommen.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • Amalberti, R. (1999). Automation in aviation: A human factors perspective. In D. Garland, J. Wise& V. Hopkin (Eds.), Handbook of aviation human factors (pp. 173–192). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amalberti, R. (2001). The paradoxes of almost to tally safe transportation systems. Safety Science, 37, 109–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashmos, D., Duchon, D., McDaniel Jr, R.& Huonker, J. (2002). What a mess! Participation as a simple managerial rule to complexify organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 39 (2), 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battmann, W.& Klumb, P. (1993). Behavioural economics and compliance with safety regulations. Safety Science, 16, 35–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayon, P.& Friesdorf, W. (2006). Human factors and ergonomics in medicine. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 1517–1537). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R. M.& March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm (2nd edn.). Malden: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dien, Y. (1998). Safety and application of procedures, or, how do „they“ have to use operating procedures in nuclear power plants? Safety Science, 29 (3), 179–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dörner, D. (1976). Problemlösen als Informationsverarbeitung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dörner, D. (1981). Über die Schwierigkeiten menschlichen Umgangs mit Komplexität. Psychologische Rundschau, 32, 163–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dörner, D. (1989). Die Logik des Mißlingens. Reinbek: Rowohlt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dörner, D., Kreuzig, H. W., Reither, F.& Stäudel, T. (1983). Lohhausen —Vom Umgang mit Unbestimmtheit und Komplexität. Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery, F. E. (1959). Characteristics of socio-technical systems. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuhrer, U. (1984). Mehrfachhandeln in dynamischen Umfeldern. Vorschläge zu einer systematischen Erweiterung psychologisch-handlungstheoretischer Modelle. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebert, D. (1995). Organisationsstruktur. In W. Sarges (Ed.), Management diagnostik (S. 156–162). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grote, G. (1997). Autonomie und Kontrolle. Zur Gestaltung automatisierter und risikoreicher Systeme (Vol. 16). Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grote, G. (2004). Uncertainty management at the core of system design. Annual Reviews in Control, 28, 267–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, W. (1976). Psychische Regulation von Arbeitstätigkeiten. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale, A. R. (1990). Safety rules OK? Possibilities and limitations in behavioural safety strategies. Journal of Occupational Accidents, 12, 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hale, A. R.& Swuste, P. (1998). Safety rules: procedural freedom or action constraint? Safety Science, 29, 163–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, T. K., Manser, T., Howard, S. K.& Gaba, D. M. (2006). Use of cognitive aids in a simulated anesthetic crisis. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 103 (3), 551–556.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, D. C. (1980). An organizational perspective on psychotechnical system perspective. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 5 (1), 43–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hukki, K.& Norros, L. (1993). Diagnostic orientation in control of disturbance situations. Ergonomics, 36 (11), 1317–1327.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • INSAG. (2002). Key practicalis sues in strengthening safety culture (Safety Series No.75-INSAG-15). Vienna: IAEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieser, A.& Kubicek, H. (1992). Organisation (3 ed.). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluwe, R. (1997). Informationsverarbeitung, Wissen und mentale Modelle beim Umgang mit komplexen Systemen. In K. Sonntag & N. Schaper (Hrsg.). Störungsmanagement und Diagnosekompetenz (S. 13–37). Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawton, R. (1998). Not working to rule: understanding procedural violations at work. Safety Science, 28 (2), 77–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leplat, J. (1998). About the implementation of safety rules. Safety Science, 29, 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linden, J. V., Wagner, K., Voytovich, A. E.& Sheehan, J. (2000). Transfusion errors in New York State: an analysis of 10 years’ experience. Transfusion, 40 (10), 1207–1213.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Manser, T., Leins, A.& Wehner, T. (1998). Rahmenbedingungen des Handelns und Handlungsstile in der Anästhesie (Forschungsbericht HAVANA). Zürich: Institut für Arbeitspsychologie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marais, K., Saleh, J. H.& Leveson, N. G. (2006). Archetypes for organizational safety. Safety Science, 44, 565–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., Schulz, M.& Zhou, X. (2000). The dynamics of rules. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ninck, A., Bürki, L., Hungerbühler, R.& Mühlemann, H. (1998). Systemik, integrales Denken, Konzipieren und Realisieren. Zürich: Verlag Industrielle Organisation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norros, L. (1996). System disturbances as springboard for development of operators’ expertise. In Y. Engeström& D. A. Middelton (Eds.), Communication and Cognition at Work (pp. 159–177). Campridge: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orton, J. D.& Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled sytsems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15, 203–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32, 194–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, C. (1984). Normal Accidents. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piotrowski, M. M.& Hinshaw, D. B. (2002). The safety checklist program: Creating a culture of safety in intensive care units. Jt Comm J Qual improv, 28 (6), 306–315.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, J. (1983). Skills, rules, and knowledge: Signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics, SMC 13, 257–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, J. (1997). Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem. Safety Science, 27, 183–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, J.& Svedung, I. (2000). Proactive risk management in a dynamic society. Karlstad: Swedish Rescue Services Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reason, J. T. (1990). Human error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rundmo, T. (2000). Safety climate, attitudes and risk perception in Norsk Hydro. Safety Science, 34, 47–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schröder, H. M., Driver, M. J.& Streufert, S. (1967). Human Information Processing. New York: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simard, M.& Marchand, A. (1995). A multilevel analysis of organisational factors related to the taking of safety initiatives by work groups. Safety Science, 21 (2), 113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106 (6), 1962, 467–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York. Harper and Brothers Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. D. (1967) Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triebe, J. K. (1977). Entwicklung von Handlungsstrategien in der Arbeit. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft, 31 (3), 221–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, M., Sanderson, P.& Russell, W. J.(2004). Tailoring reveals information requirements: The case of anaesthesia alarms. Interacting with computers, 16, 271–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wehner, T. (1992). Fehlerfreie Sicherheit—weniger als ein günstiger Störfall. In T. Wehner (Hrsg.). Sicherheit als Fehlerfreundlichkeit (S. 14–33)., Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wehner, T.& Stadler, M. (1994). The cognitive organisation of human errors: A Gestalt theory perspective. Applied Psychology: An Intenational Review, 43 (4), 565–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K.& Sutcliffe, K. (2001). Managing the unexpected: assuring high performance in an age of complexity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1987). Organizational culture as a source of high reliability. California Management Review, 29 (2), 112–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wettig, J. (2002). New developments in standardisation in the past 15 years—product versus process related standards. Safety Science, 40, 51–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitsett, C. F.& Robichaux, M. G. (2001). Assessment of blood administration procedures: problems identified by direct observation and administrative incident reporting. Transfusion, 41 (5), 581–586.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Woods, D. D.& Cook, R. I. (2001). From counting failures to anticipating risks: Possible futures for patient safety. In L. Zipperer & S. Cushman (Eds.). Lessons in patient safety. A primer (pp. 89–97). Chicago: National Patient Safety Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Tanja Manser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Product Innovation Management Faculty for Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE, Delft, The Netherlands

    Petra Badke-Schaub  & Kristina Lauche  & 

  2. Krisenmanagement, Hohenheimerstr. 104, 71686, Remseck

    Gesine Hofinger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Medizin Verlag Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Manser, T. (2008). Komplexität handhaben—Handeln vereinheitlichen—Organisationen sicher gestalten. In: Badke-Schaub, P., Hofinger, G., Lauche, K. (eds) Human Factors. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72321-9_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation