Are two-person checks more effective than one-person checks for safety critical tasks in high-consequence industries outside of healthcare? A systematic review

1Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Double-checking has been used in high-consequence industries for decades. We aimed to determine the strength of the evidence-base regarding the effectiveness of double-checking which underpins its widespread adoption. We searched for quantitative studies of the effectiveness of two-person checking in industry sectors, excluding healthcare. We performed a systematic literature search across six databases and hand-searched key journals. We completed a narrative synthesis and quality assessment of the nine studies identified. Most studies were of fair quality. Two examined the use of two-person checks in aviation, three investigated tasks in chemical manufacturing, and four studies in psychology involved proofreading and visual search tasks. All studies found that the performance of two-people checking was not superior to that of one-person in detecting errors. Further research to compare the effectiveness of different checking processes along with factors which may support optimisation of safety checks in high-consequence industries is required.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

McMullan, R. D., Urwin, R., Wiggins, M., & Westbrook, J. I. (2023, January 1). Are two-person checks more effective than one-person checks for safety critical tasks in high-consequence industries outside of healthcare? A systematic review. Applied Ergonomics. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103906

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free