我國職業安全衛生績效指標之調查研究

Study on the Occupational Safety and Health Performance Index in Taiwan

吳姵穎(Pei-Ying Wu)

指導教授 ： 蘇德勝

共同指導教授 ： 黃耀輝

國立臺灣大學/公共衛生學院/職業醫學與工業衛生研究所/碩士(2008年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2008.00430

摘要

建立與推動良好安全衛生管理制度，以達成持續改善並減少職業災害發生之目標，必要倚重可靠權重指標，用以量測安全衛生管理業務之落實度。而本研究的目的主要在探討專家人員與業界工安人員在安全衛生指標權重配分之認知差異性，並於個案公司方式執行該安全衛生指標，以探討該量表之適用性與可行性。
本研究收集國內外相關文獻歸納整理後，擇其重點與推動經驗，設計「我國安全衛生績效指標權重之調查研究」問卷，並徵詢33位專家意見後完成問卷設計修正。調查問卷發放給針對609位業界工業安全衛生人員及32位某個案公司主管，進行安全衛生績效評估之結構性問卷調查。
問卷中之各項安全衛生績效指標「重要性」與「可行性」之趨勢調查中發現：在職業災害指標中，「職災傷害嚴重率」之重要性與可行性皆最高；在損失事故指標中，以「總合災害損失指數」之重要性最高，「失能傷害損失日數」之可行性最高；在安全衛生狀態指標中，「健檢資料」重要性與可行性最高；在安全衛生管理指標中，「安全衛生政策是否充份宣導」之重要性最高，「附近居民或群眾抗議次數」之可行性最高；在安全衛生操作指標中，「執行安全衛生稽核建議所需時間」之重要性最高，「是否有指派安全衛生負責人」之可行性最高。
另十項安全衛生管理主要績效指標之各項權重配分調查結果如下：「安全衛生政策與願景」為10分；「安全衛生目標規劃」為10分；「顧客、社區滿意度」為7分、「管理階層審查」為9分；「風險評估與事故預防措施」為10分；「審查稽核與績效評量」為11分；「安全衛生組織、訓練與輔導」為11分；「緊急應變與事故處理」為10分、「安全衛生作業管制」為12分；「安全衛生作業操作」為10分。
本研究彙整專家人員與工業安全衛生人員對於我國安全衛生績效指標權重配分研究調查結果，發展出「我國安全衛生績效指標權重量表」。實際應用於某個案公司的研究結果，初步驗證此量表的實用性。

關鍵字

職業安全衛生管理 ； 安全衛生績效 ； 安全衛生指標

並列摘要

To build a good management system for work safety and health, appropriate weighing index should be taken to measure the management of safety and health for the good of continual improvement in the occupational accident. This study aimed to investigate the difference in the weighting factors for safety and health indices assigned by experts and field industrial hygienists, repectively. This study also took a case company to explore the feasibility of these weighing factors for industrial safety and health performance indices used in Taiwan.
Through liferatual review of the relevant domestic and overseas resources, a self-administered questionnaire was developed. After consulting with thirty-three experts, the preliminary weighing factors for the safety and health performance indices in the questionnaire were obtained. The structured questionnaire was admimstered to 606 industrial safety professor and 32 directors of a case company and to evaluate the safety and health performance at their own workplaces.
For the indices of occupational accident, the importance and feasibility of injury severity was the highest. For the work-loss incident indices, the importance of total loss days was the highest, and the disabling loss days was the highest in feasibility. For the indices of work safety and health, phyical examination was of the hightest importance and feasibility. For the indices of safety and health management, weather the policy of safety and health having been widely disseminated advocated was of the highest importance, and how many times of protest from adjacent residents were rank the highest in feasibility. In the indices for safety operation, the time interval of audit was of the highest importance, and the whether a safety and health mamager being assigned was the highest in feasibility.
The resulted weighing factors for ten performance indices for safety and health were as follows: 10 for policy and vision of safety and health, 10 for object setting for safety and health, 7 for customers and neighborhood satisfaction, 9 for the management review, 10 for risk assessment and accident prevention measures, 11 for review audit and performance evaluation, 11 for safety and health organization, training and mentoring, 10 for emergency response and event handing, 12 for operational control for safety and health, 10 for job safety and health operation.
According to the survey of “Study on Occupational Safety and Health Performance Index in Taiwan”, “Weighing Factors for Occupational Safety and Health Performance Indices in Taiwan” was developed and demonstrated practicable in field safety and health performance assessment in the case company pilot study.

並列關鍵字

occupational safety and health management ； performance index for safety and health

參考文獻

11. 吳聰智.台灣中部四類製造業安全氣候與安全績效之相關研究.國立彰化師範大學工業教育學系博士論文,彰化2001; 73.

2. 蘇德勝.中華民國職業災害概況.工業安全衛生月刊, 2000; 136: 15-37.

3. 王榮德.職災勞工保護法施行後職業傷病診治體系之建立.工業安全衛生月刊, 2002; 154: 26-30.

49. 林明洲, 陳俊瑜.職業安全衛生管理系統績效評估模式之探討.化工2002：77-88.

8. 行政院勞工委員會.國家級職業安全衛生管理系統指引（TOSHMS指引）, 2007