Analyzing and assessing risks for accredited inspection bodies

UDC: 
614.255.14
DOI: 
10.21668/health.risk/2024.2.04.eng
Authors: 

S.P. Alekseenko1, A.V. Motskus2, S.A. Musienko2, G.V. Karpushchenko1, M.S. Mashdieva2

Organization: 

1Center of Hygiene and Epidemiology in Rostov region, 67 7th line St., Rostov-on-Don, 344019, Russian Federation
2Rostov State Medical University, 29 Nakhichevansky Av., Rostov-on-Don, 344022, Russian Federation

Abstract: 

The legislation of the Russian Federation stipulates the necessity for accreditation within the national system that en-compasses organizations engaged by control (surveillance) bodies to accomplish inspections. Activities performed by inspection bodies have strategic importance and provide necessary support for surveillance over implementation of national development projects. It is especially relevant to provide uninterrupted functioning of accredited inspection bodies. Contemporary conditions require improvement of the existing legal and organizational approaches used by federal budgetary institutions in their activities as well as developing and implementing new ones.

Statistical data on the research object of the present study and relevant mathematical models are non-existent; given that, we applied an expert approach to risk identification using the Delphi method and expert judgment. The aim of this study was to analyze and assess risks in activities performed by an accredited inspection body and suggest ways to minimize them. Two groups took part in the study. The first one included experts (18 technical directors of three inspection bodies); the second group was made of analysts. The most competent specialists in the analyzed field of activity where risks would be identified were selected as experts. Their functional duties covered responsibility for risks associated with activities of an inspection body as well as for responses to them. To obtain ideas of analyzed risks, we used a questionnaire to collect experts’ answers and to distribute them into specific categorize for further analysis. A risk level was identified by using the risk analysis diagram. Any response measures were taken relying on this level. We created a register of risk levels and responses to them. A high risk was identified in activities performed by an inspection body as regards external influence of new changes in the legislation. Reformation of the accreditation system for organizations operating in the sphere of providing sanitary-epidemiological welfare may be a potential solution to the existing problem.

Keywords: 
accreditation, inspection body, hygiene and epidemiology center, risk analysis, risk assessment, Delphi method, risk analysis diagram, a register of risk levels
Alekseenko S.P., Motskus A.V., Musienko S.A., Karpushchenko G.V., Mashdieva M.S. Analyzing and assessing risks for accredited inspection bodies. Health Risk Analysis, 2024, no. 2, pp. 44–52. DOI: 10.21668/health.risk/2024.2.04.eng
References: 
  1. Fayzullaev U.T., Schwanke S.A. The role of inspection bodies in the national quality infrastructure. Kontrol' kachestva produktsii, 2020, no. 5, pp. 31–36 (in Russian).
  2. Saefulah S. Performance Management System Design of Inspection Bodies in Indonesia. Journal Operations Excel-lence: Journal of Applied Industrial Engineering, 2021, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 378–393. DOI: 10.22441/oe.2021.v13.i3.035
  3. Gaćinović R. On Importance of Judicial and Inspection Bodies in Formation of the State Security Function. KULTURA POLISA, 2021, vol. 18, no. 44, pp. 9–21. DOI: 10.51738/Kpolisa2021.18.1r.1.01
  4. Øyri S.F., Bates D.W., Wiig S. Comparison of external evaluation policies and regulations for quality improvement and safety of health services in Norway and the United States. International Journal of Health Governance, 2023, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 413–437. DOI: 10.1108/IJHG-06-2023-0065
  5. Shalin A.P. Inspektsiya ot «A» do «Ya» [Inspection from "A" to "Z"]. Metody otsenki sootvetstviya, 2010, no. 3, pp. 8–13 (in Russian).
  6. Bogoyavlenskiy S.B. The problems of theoretical and regulatory definition of the terms “disaster” and “disaster risk”. Trendy i upravlenie, 2019, no. 1, pp. 45–54. DOI: 10.7256/2454-0730.2019.1.19361 (in Russian).
  7. Savelyev S.I., Polyakova M.F., Korotkov V.V. Management model Hygiene and Epidemiology Center in modern con-ditions. ZNiSO, 2015, no. 4 (265), pp. 53–56 (in Russian).
  8. Pankratova L.D. Project risk management system. Moskovskii ekonomicheskii zhurnal, 2020, no. 4, pp. 417–425. DOI: 10.24411/2413-046X-2020-10207 (in Russian).
  9. Rudchenko V.M., Stepanian M.P. Project Management Risks. Tsifrovaya nauka, 2020, no. 12, pp. 54–61 (in Russian).
  10. Anastasopoulos G., McCullen P., Makam H. ‘Risky Business’: A Comprehensive Risk Analysis of an Accreditation Body. International Journal of Conformity Assessment, 2014, vol. 2, no. 1. DOI: 10.55459/ijca/v2i1/ga.pm.hm
  11. Musostova D., Dzobelova V., Markaryan V. Project risk management. Reliability: Theory & Applications, 2022, vol. 17, no. 4 (70), pp. 549–552. DOI: 10.24412/1932-2321-2022-470-549-552
  12. Averkina S.G., Vorotnikova D.V. Risk assessment of the project. International scientific review, 2019, no. LXVII, pp. 57–59 (in Russian).
  13. Golikova Yu.A., Timofeeva Yu.G. Metod "Delfi" v identifikatsii i otsenke riskov [Delphi method in risk identification and assessment]. Pravo, ekonomika i upravlenie: aktual'nye voprosy: sbornik materialov Vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem. Cheboksary, «Sreda» Publ., 2019, pp. 94–96 (in Russian).
  14. Delphi methods in the social and health sciences. In: M. Niederberger, O. Renn eds. Wiesbaden, Springer Wiesbaden Publ., 2023, 307 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-38862-1
  15. Mach K.J., Mastrandrea M.D., Freeman P.T., Field C.B. Unleashing expert judgment in assessment. Global Environ-mental Change – Human and Policy Dimensions, 2017, vol. 44, pp. 1–14. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.02.005
  16. Surkova V. Analysis of the expert assessment features of the innovative activities risks of the agricultural enterprise. Ukrainian Journal of Applied Economics and Technology, 2023, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 127–131. DOI: 10.36887/2415-8453-2023-1-18
  17. Kurkina E.P., Shuvalova D.G. Otsenka riska: ekspertnyi metod [Risk assessment: expert method]. Problemy nauki, 2017, no. 1 (14), pp. 63–69 (in Russian).
  18. Duijm N.J. Recommendations on the use and design of risk matrices. Safety Science, 2015, vol. 76, pp. 21–31. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.02.014
  19. Card A.J. Patient safety: this is public health. J. Healthc. Risk Manag., 2014, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 6–12. DOI: 10.1002/jhrm.21145
  20. Salkhayeva В., Nurbayeva G., Zhumakarimov M., Amanov S. Health Risk Management: A Literature Review. Journal of Health Development, 2020, vol. 1, no. 35, pp. 24–29. DOI: 10.32921/2225-9929-2020-1-35-24-29 (in Russian).
Received: 
11.04.2024
Approved: 
22.05.2024
Accepted for publication: 
20.06.2024

You are here

Home