612
M. G. Derenevich et al.
demographic factors and psychosocial factors. The work subsystem refers to the organization of the company. Finally, the external environment is geared by the ability
to adapt to the environment, and is related to governmental factors, laws and public
policies, among others, which generate uncertainties to the internal environment.
Macroergonomics can contribute to the implementation of Social Responsibility practice in organizations, generating indicators for the measurement of human
well-being. Therefore, this article presents a macroergonomics intervention in the
ambulatory of a university hospital.
2 Method
This is an applied macroergonomics research focusing on social responsibility with
a case study, which took place in a university hospital of Brazil. The research
was carried out using the Macroergonomic Work Analysis—MA (Análise Macroergonômica do Trabalho—AMT) proposed by Guimarães (2002), which consists of
six steps, as described in Table 1.
The sociotechnical model and the ergonomic work demands constitute the
EBCORE (Ambiental, Biomecânico, Cognitivo, Organizacional, Risco e Empresa—
ABCORE) components (constructs) of the MA model: environmental, biomechanical, cognitive, organizational, risk and enterprise. Those constructs are detailed in
Table 2, and may be used as indicators for comparison in future analysis, after changes
are implemented. The indicators are also a reference for Social Responsibility, given
that they can suggest factors of human well-being and compromise to the enterprise.
This research followed steps 1 to 4 of MA, from the beginning of the implementation until the proposal of solutions. The Project, registered in the Brazilian Ethical
Committee under the number CAAE 85967618.4.0000.0020, was launched in 2018.
The first step was explaining to the employees that the research aimed at improving
the work environment and system performance, and ensuring that the collected data
would be kept confidential. The employees were informed that the intervention could
lead to their own well-being at work. At the second step of MA, researchers started
conducting the interviews with 10% of workers of each sector (administrative and
nursing), as it’s defined by MA, totaling six interviews.
A semi-structured interview was conducted with one person from each sector (a
total of six employees), with the following question: “Tell me about your work: what
do you do? What are the positive things about it? And the negative things?” The
results were used as basis for the development of three questionnaires: the first (a)
evaluates the work satisfaction, where they should rate, by marking on a continuous
15 cm scale going from ‘not satisfied’ (0) to ‘very satisfied’ (15), questions involving
work environment, work organization and enterprise; and from ‘not at all’ (0) to ‘too
much’ (15) for questions about cognitive load and pain; the second questionnaire (b)
assesses the importance of the evaluated items presented in the questionnaire a, in a
scale of ‘not important’ (0) to ‘very important’ (15). The last questionnaire (c) was
concerned of cognitive load and risk factors, as pain and discomfort. All employees
M. G. Derenevich et al.
demographic factors and psychosocial factors. The work subsystem refers to the organization of the company. Finally, the external environment is geared by the ability
to adapt to the environment, and is related to governmental factors, laws and public
policies, among others, which generate uncertainties to the internal environment.
Macroergonomics can contribute to the implementation of Social Responsibility practice in organizations, generating indicators for the measurement of human
well-being. Therefore, this article presents a macroergonomics intervention in the
ambulatory of a university hospital.
2 Method
This is an applied macroergonomics research focusing on social responsibility with
a case study, which took place in a university hospital of Brazil. The research
was carried out using the Macroergonomic Work Analysis—MA (Análise Macroergonômica do Trabalho—AMT) proposed by Guimarães (2002), which consists of
six steps, as described in Table 1.
The sociotechnical model and the ergonomic work demands constitute the
EBCORE (Ambiental, Biomecânico, Cognitivo, Organizacional, Risco e Empresa—
ABCORE) components (constructs) of the MA model: environmental, biomechanical, cognitive, organizational, risk and enterprise. Those constructs are detailed in
Table 2, and may be used as indicators for comparison in future analysis, after changes
are implemented. The indicators are also a reference for Social Responsibility, given
that they can suggest factors of human well-being and compromise to the enterprise.
This research followed steps 1 to 4 of MA, from the beginning of the implementation until the proposal of solutions. The Project, registered in the Brazilian Ethical
Committee under the number CAAE 85967618.4.0000.0020, was launched in 2018.
The first step was explaining to the employees that the research aimed at improving
the work environment and system performance, and ensuring that the collected data
would be kept confidential. The employees were informed that the intervention could
lead to their own well-being at work. At the second step of MA, researchers started
conducting the interviews with 10% of workers of each sector (administrative and
nursing), as it’s defined by MA, totaling six interviews.
A semi-structured interview was conducted with one person from each sector (a
total of six employees), with the following question: “Tell me about your work: what
do you do? What are the positive things about it? And the negative things?” The
results were used as basis for the development of three questionnaires: the first (a)
evaluates the work satisfaction, where they should rate, by marking on a continuous
15 cm scale going from ‘not satisfied’ (0) to ‘very satisfied’ (15), questions involving
work environment, work organization and enterprise; and from ‘not at all’ (0) to ‘too
much’ (15) for questions about cognitive load and pain; the second questionnaire (b)
assesses the importance of the evaluated items presented in the questionnaire a, in a
scale of ‘not important’ (0) to ‘very important’ (15). The last questionnaire (c) was
concerned of cognitive load and risk factors, as pain and discomfort. All employees