Human Performance Management Best Practice 2 – Peer Checking

Even the most well-intentioned and dedicated humans are fallible. Therefore, the challenge becomes one of minimizing human error.

While individual performed human performance tools can greatly reduce error rates, there exists some circumstances when even this resulting low error rate is intolerable. These situations are characterized by the immediacy of a highly adverse outcome should an action error be made. Thus, greater error avoidance must be built into the performance of these activities.[wcm_restrict plans=”41184, 25542, 25653″]

One such error reducing tool is the peer check. Peer checking engages an equally (and appropriately) qualified performer as a second verifier of the activity to be executed. Just as the performer, the peer checker self checks and verbalize is his/her concurrence or objection with the performer’s indicated actions prior to their being executed.

Application

For irreversible actions for which a highly adverse outcome would be realized if an error was made.

Definition

STOP: The action performer and peer checker cease all other activities and focuses on the action at hand.

THINK: The action performer and peer checker independently consider the action to be taken; reviewing associated procedures, device/equipment labeling, operational parameter indicators, and associated data as well as mentally defining the expected changes in the system or systems’ operating parameters once the action is taken. The action performer reads the instruction line item aloud, announces component to be operated and its final state position, and verbalizes the instrument(s) to be used to ensure a proper response is obtained once the component is operated – including the actual response to be observed. The peer checker states his/her concurrence or objection to the stated course of action. If agreement is reached, the activity is continued.

ACT: The action performer deliberately executes the desired action while monitoring the associated system(s) response. Before operating the component, the action performer again announces the component to be operated and its final state position. The peer checker states his/her concurrence or objection to the stated course of action. If agreement is reached, the action is performed.

REVIEW: The action performer verifies all expected system(s) responses occurred and that no unexpected changes are realized. When performing this verification, the action performer again verbalizes the desired and actual response obtained. The peer checker states his/her concurrence or objection to the verbalized outcomes observed.[/wcm_restrict][wcm_nonmember plans=”41184, 25542, 25653″]

---

Hi there! Gain access to this article with a StrategyDriven Insights Library – Total Access subscription or buy access to the article itself.

Subscribe to the StrategyDriven Insights Library Sign-up now for your StrategyDriven Insights Library – Total Access subscription for as low as $15 / month (paid annually). Subscribe Now! Not sure? Click here to learn more.

Buy the Article Don’t need a subscription? Buy access to Human Performance Management Best Practice 2 – Peer Checking for just $2! Access the Article Now!

[/wcm_nonmember]