35
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Using the Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) in Aviation Safety: A Systematic Review

      1 , 1
      Journal of Advanced Transportation
      Hindawi Limited

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The functional resonance analysis method (FRAM) is a system-based method to understand highly complex sociotechnical systems. Besides learning from safety occurrences or undesirable states, FRAM can be used to understand how things go well in a system, by identifying gaps between “work as imagined” (WAI) and “work as done” (WAD). FRAM is increasingly used in many domains and can enhance our understanding of a complex system and proposes strategies to refine the work design. This systematic review identified 108 FRAM research papers from 2006–2019. Most of these papers were conducted by European researchers and employed qualitative methods such as document analysis, interviews, and focus groups with subject matter experts (SMEs) and observations to develop WAI and WAD. Despite being used in healthcare, construction, and maritime sectors among others, aviation was the most commonly explored domain in FRAM studies. The 26 FRAM studies in aviation explored many aspects of the aviation industry, including Air Traffic Control (ATC) systems, cockpit operation, ground handling, maintenance, and a range of past safety incidents, like runway incursions. This paper also characterises the FRAM studies focused on aviation in terms of the common methods and steps used to build FRAM and the available software tools to build FRAM nets. Current FRAM illustrates its advantages in capturing the dynamic and nonlinear nature of complex systems and facilitates our understanding and continual improvement of complex systems. However, there are some critical issues in FRAM use and interpretation, such as the consistency of methods and complexity and reliability of data collection methods, which should be considered by researchers and FRAM users in industry.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

          Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            What is a complex system?

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Where the rubber meets the road: using FRAM to align work-as-imagined with work-as-done when implementing clinical guidelines

              Background Uptake of guidelines in healthcare can be variable. A focus on behaviour change and other strategies to improve compliance, however, has not increased implementation success. The contribution of other factors such as clinical setting and practitioner workflow to guideline utilisation has recently been recognised. In particular, differences between work-as-imagined by those who write procedures, and work-as-done—or actually enacted—in the clinical environment, can render a guideline difficult or impossible for clinicians to follow. The Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) can be used to model workflow in the clinical setting. The aim of this study was to investigate whether FRAM can be used to identify process elements in a draft guideline that are likely to impede implementation by conflicting with current ways of working. Methods Draft guidelines in two intensive care units (ICU), one in Australia and one in Denmark, were modelled and analysed using FRAM. The FRAM was used to guide collaborative discussion with healthcare professionals involved in writing and implementing the guidelines and to ensure that the final instructions were compatible with other processes used in the workplace. Results Processes that would have impeded implementation were discovered early, and the guidelines were modified to maintain compatibility with current work processes. Missing process elements were also identified, thereby, avoiding the confusion that would have ensued had the guideline been introduced as originally written. Conclusions Using FRAM to reconcile differences between work-as-imagined and work-as-done when implementing a guideline can reduce the need for clinicians to adjust performance and create workarounds, which may be detrimental to both safety and quality, once the guideline is introduced.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Journal of Advanced Transportation
                Journal of Advanced Transportation
                Hindawi Limited
                2042-3195
                0197-6729
                October 20 2020
                October 20 2020
                : 2020
                : 1-14
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Aviation, UNSW, Sydney, Australia
                Article
                10.1155/2020/8898903
                c15c8896-9e18-4b93-8a9c-e32a35d33e08
                © 2020

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article