Risk assessment in emergency services with Entropy-based TOPSIS and MAUT methods: Samsun province sample

This study aims to serve human health and safety. In line with this objective, the risks that may cause accidents and diseases in the emergency services which are among highly dangerous jobs have been identified with the awareness that prevention is more humane and less costly than treating. The risks identified in the emergency departments of five hospitals operating in the province of Samsun are discussed under ten headings: physical, chemical, biological, ergonomic, psychosocial, electricity, fire, emergency, those requiring a special policy and others. Quantitative calculations of the risks were performed by using the Fine Kinney method. Risk values obtained were used as criteria to evaluate 9 groups consisting of doctors, nurses, other health personnel, cleaning personnel, security personnel, data recording personnel, technical personnel, patients and their relatives and 6 hospitals. After the criteria weights were determined with Entropy method, TOPSIS and MAUT methods were used for their alternative rankings. As a result of the study, the findings obtained from TOPSIS and MAUT methods are similar. When the groups affected by the risks were evaluated, the group that was relatively the least exposed to the physical, chemical and biological risks was viii security personnel. While patients and their relatives are relatively the least affected by ergonomic risks, they are not exposed to psychosocial risks. While the risks associated with electricity affect technical personnel the least, the other risks identified affect data recording personnel the least. According to the results obtained, when chemical, biological, ergonomic and other risks are taken into account, cleaning personnel are exposed to the risks the most. While physical and electrical risks threaten other health personnel the most, security personnel are exposed to psychosocial risks relatively the most. There was no difference between the groups affected by fire-related risks. When it comes to the risks related to emergencies, there is no difference between the personnel groups. However, only the patients and their relatives are more threatened than the personnel groups. When the inter-hospital results are evaluated and all the risks are considered together, Hospital 3, which is relatively the least affected by the physical, chemical, biological, ergonomic and which is relatively the most affected by the risks requiring a special policy, has been determined as the least risky hospital. The most exposure to physical, biological, ergonomic, psychosocial and other risks is seen in Hospital 5; Hospital 6, which is the most exposed to chemical, electrical, fire and emergency risks, has been identified as the riskiest hospital when all the risks are considered together.