IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i7p3860-d527587.html

Assessing Risks Awareness in Operating Rooms among Post-Graduate Students: A Pilot Study

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Rita Corvino

    (Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, via Santa Maria di Costantinopoli, 16, 80138 Naples, Italy)

  • Pasquale Manco

    (Department of Engineering, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, via Roma 29, 81031 Aversa, Italy)

  • Elpidio Maria Garzillo

    (Department of Prevention, Abruzzo Local Health Authority, 67100 L’Aquila, Italy)

  • Maria Grazia Lourdes Monaco

    (Occupational Medicine Unit, University Hospital of Verona, Piazzale L.A.Scuro, 37134 Verona, Italy)

  • Alessandro Greco

    (Department of Engineering, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, via Roma 29, 81031 Aversa, Italy)

  • Salvatore Gerbino

    (Department of Engineering, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, via Roma 29, 81031 Aversa, Italy)

  • Francesco Caputo

    (Department of Engineering, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, via Roma 29, 81031 Aversa, Italy)

  • Roberto Macchiaroli

    (Department of Engineering, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, via Roma 29, 81031 Aversa, Italy)

  • Monica Lamberti

    (Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, via Santa Maria di Costantinopoli, 16, 80138 Naples, Italy)

Abstract

Background: In this study, we promote a global approach to occupational risk perception in order to improve occupational health and safety training programs. The study investigates the occupational risk perception of operating room healthcare workers using an Analytic Hierarchy Process approach. Methods: A pilot study was carried out through a cross-sectional survey in a university hospital in Southern Italy. An ad hoc questionnaire was administered to enrolled medical post-graduate students working in the operating room. Results: Fifty medical specialists from seven fields (anaesthetists, digestive system surgeons, general surgeons, maxillofacial surgeons, thoracic surgeons, urologists, and gynaecologists) were questioned about perceived occupational risk by themselves. Biological, ionizing radiation, and chemical risks were the most commonly perceived in order of priority ( w = 0.300, 0.219, 0.210). Concerning the biological risk, gynaecologists unexpected perceived this risk as less critical ( w = 0.2820) than anaesthesiologists ( w = 0.3354), which have the lowest perception of the risk of ionizing radiation ( w = 0.1657). Conclusions: Prioritization methods could improve risk perception in healthcare settings and help detect training needs and perform sustainable training programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Rita Corvino & Pasquale Manco & Elpidio Maria Garzillo & Maria Grazia Lourdes Monaco & Alessandro Greco & Salvatore Gerbino & Francesco Caputo & Roberto Macchiaroli & Monica Lamberti, 2021. "Assessing Risks Awareness in Operating Rooms among Post-Graduate Students: A Pilot Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-12, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:7:p:3860-:d:527587
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/3860/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/3860/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    2. Seyedmohsen Hosseini & Abdullah Al Khaled, 2019. "A hybrid ensemble and AHP approach for resilient supplier selection," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 207-228, January.
    3. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    4. Liberatore, Matthew J. & Nydick, Robert L., 2008. "The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(1), pages 194-207, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anca Draghici & Salih Dursun & Oğuz Bașol & Maria Elena Boatca & Alin Gaureanu, 2022. "The Mediating Role of Safety Climate in the Relationship between Transformational Safety Leadership and Safe Behavior—The Case of Two Companies in Turkey and Romania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-18, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou, 2016. "A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Haddad, Brahim & Liazid, Abdelkrim & Ferreira, Paula, 2017. "A multi-criteria approach to rank renewables for the Algerian electricity system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 462-472.
    3. Fuat Sekmen & Isa Demirkol & Haşmet Gökırmak, 2024. "Evaluation of urban transportation preferences with analytical hierarchy process method," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(3), pages 2087-2101, June.
    4. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    5. James G. Dolan & Emily Boohaker & Jeroan Allison & Thomas F. Imperiale, 2013. "Patients’ Preferences and Priorities Regarding Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 59-70, January.
    6. Lee, Hakyeon & Geum, Youngjung, 2017. "Development of the scenario-based technology roadmap considering layer heterogeneity: An approach using CIA and AHP," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 12-24.
    7. Garbuzova-Schlifter, Maria & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "AHP-based risk analysis of energy performance contracting projects in Russia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 559-581.
    8. Olexandr Nekhay & Manuel Arriaza, 2016. "How Attractive Is Upland Olive Groves Landscape? Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and GIS in Southern Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-16, November.
    9. Kułakowski, Konrad & Mazurek, Jiří & Ramík, Jaroslav & Soltys, Michael, 2019. "When is the condition of order preservation met?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(1), pages 248-254.
    10. Mangirdas Morkunas & Povilas Labukas, 2020. "The Evaluation of Negative Factors of Direct Payments under Common Agricultural Policy from a Viewpoint of Sustainability of Rural Regions of the New EU Member States: Evidence from Lithuania," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, June.
    11. Zorica Dodevska & Sandro Radovanović & Andrija Petrović & Boris Delibašić, 2023. "When Fairness Meets Consistency in AHP Pairwise Comparisons," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, January.
    12. BULUT, Merve & ÖZCAN, Evrencan, 2021. "A new approach to determine maintenance periods of the most critical hydroelectric power plant equipment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    13. Muzeyyen Burcu Hidimoglu & Ahmet Feyzioglu & Huseyin Haliloglu & Akın Emrecan Gok, 2025. "Prioritizing Sustainability Innovation in Machinery Manufacturing: A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-33, June.
    14. James B Wood & Jessica L Mason & Alessandra Bianchini, 2021. "An Analytic Hierarchy Process approach using multiple raters for the selection of complex technologies," The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation, , vol. 18(4), pages 495-504, October.
    15. Marjan Hummel & Fabian Volz & Jeannette Manen & Marion Danner & Charalabos-Markos Dintsios & Maarten IJzerman & Andreas Gerber, 2012. "Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Elicit Patient Preferences," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(4), pages 225-237, December.
    16. Hanwen Chen & Wang Dong & Hongling Han & Nan Zhou, 2017. "A comprehensive and quantitative internal control index: construction, validation, and impact," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 337-377, August.
    17. Matthew Liberatore & Robert Nydick & Constantine Daskalakis & Elisabeth Kunkel & James Cocroft & Ronald Myers, 2009. "Helping Men Decide About Scheduling a Prostate Cancer Screening Exam," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 39(3), pages 209-217, June.
    18. Milan Ranđelović & Jelena Stanković & Kristijan Kuk & Gordana Savić & Dragan Ranđelović, 2018. "An Approach to Determining the Importance of Model Criteria in Certifying a City as Business-Friendly," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 48(2), pages 156-165, April.
    19. de Luca, Stefano, 2014. "Public engagement in strategic transportation planning: An analytic hierarchy process based approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 110-124.
    20. Jana Krejčí & Alessio Ishizaka, 2018. "FAHPSort: A Fuzzy Extension of the AHPSort Method," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1119-1145, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:7:p:3860-:d:527587. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.