Search results for: Ned Kinnear

Authors: Belén Vinaixa Kinnear, Arturo Hidalgo López, Bernardo Elembo Wilasi, Pablo Fernández Pérez, Cecilia Hernández Fuentealba

Abstract:

The expanded use of risk assessment in legislative and corporate decision-making has increased the role of expert judgement in giving data for security-related decision-making. Expert judgements are required in most steps of risk assessment: danger recognizable proof, hazard estimation, risk evaluation, and examination of choices. This paper presents a fault tree analysis (FTA), which implies a probabilistic failure analysis applied to leakage of oil in a subsea production system. In standard FTA, the failure probabilities of items of a framework are treated as exact values while evaluating the failure probability of the top event. There is continuously insufficiency of data for calculating the failure estimation of components within the drilling industry. Therefore, fuzzy hypothesis can be used as a solution to solve the issue. The aim of this paper is to examine the leaks from the Zafiro West subsea oil facility by using fuzzy fault tree analysis (FFTA). As a result, the research has given theoretical and practical contributions to maritime safety and environmental protection. It has been also an effective strategy used traditionally in identifying hazards in nuclear installations and power industries.

Keywords: expert judgment, probability assessment, fault tree analysis, risk analysis, oil pipelines, subsea production system, drilling, quantitative risk analysis, leakage failure, top event, off-shore industry

Procedia PDF Downloads 190

Authors: Matheesha Herath, Ned Kinnear, Bridget Heijkoop, Eliza Bramwell, Alannah Frazetto, Amy Noll, Prajay Patel, Derek Hennessey, Greg Otto, Christopher Dobbins, Tarik Sammour, James Moore

Abstract:

Background: Important incidental pathology requiring further action is commonly found during appendicectomy, macro- and microscopically. It is unknown whether the acute surgical unit (ASU) model affects the management and disclosure of these findings. Methods: An ASU model was introduced at our institution on 01/08/2012. In this retrospective cohort study, all patients undergoing appendicectomy 2.5 years before (traditional group) or after (ASU group) this date were compared. The primary outcomes were rates of appropriate management of the incidental findings and communication of the findings to the patient and to their general practitioner (GP). Results: 1,214 patients underwent emergency appendicectomy; 465 in the traditional group and 749 in the ASU group. 80 (6.6%) patients (25 and 55 in each respective period) had important incidental findings. There were 24 patients with benign polyps, 15 with neuro-endocrine tumour, 11 with endometriosis, 8 with pelvic inflammatory disease, 8 Enterobius vermicularis infection, 7 with low grade mucinous cystadenoma, 3 with inflammatory bowel disease, 2 with diverticulitis, 2 with tubo-ovarian mass, 1 with secondary appendiceal malignancy and none with primary appendiceal adenocarcinoma. One patient had dual pathologies. There was no difference between the traditional and ASU group with regards to communication of the findings to the patient (p=0.44) and their GP (p=0.27), and there was no difference in the rates of appropriate management (p=0.21). Conclusions: The introduction of an ASU model did not change rates of surgeon-to-patient and surgeon-to-GP communication nor affect rates of appropriate management of important incidental pathology during an appendectomy.

Keywords: acute care surgery, appendicitis, appendicectomy, incidental

Procedia PDF Downloads 143