Evaluation of Risk Assessment as Evidence for Decision Making

Risk Analysis ◽  
1991 ◽  
pp. 655-665
Author(s):  
S. P. Proctor ◽  
G. Marchant ◽  
M. S. Baram
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making

scholarly journals Risk Assessment and Decision-Making Based on Mean-CVaR-Entropy for Flood Control Operation of Large Scale Reservoirs

Water ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 649 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quansen Wang ◽  
Jianzhong Zhou ◽  
Kangdi Huang ◽  
Ling Dai ◽  
Gang Zha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Flood Control ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Yangtze River Basin ◽  
Mean Value ◽  
Operation System ◽  
Control Operation ◽  
Flood Control Operation ◽  
Reservoir Flood Control Operation

The risk inevitably exists in the process of flood control operation and decision-making of reservoir group, due to the hydrologic and hydraulic uncertain factors. In this study different stochastic simulation methods were applied to simulate these uncertainties in multi-reservoir flood control operation, and the risk caused by different uncertainties was evaluated from the mean value, extreme value and discrete degree of reservoir occupied storage capacity under uncertain conditions. In order to solve the conflict between risk assessment indexes and evaluate the comprehensive risk of different reservoirs in flood control operation schemes, the subjective weight and objective weight were used to construct the comprehensive risk assessment index, and the improved Mahalanobis distance TOPSIS method was used to select the optimal flood control operation scheme. The proposed method was applied to the flood control operation system in the mainstream and its tributaries of upper reaches of the Yangtze River basin, and 14 cascade reservoirs were selected as a case study. The results indicate that proposed method can evaluate the risk of multi-reservoir flood control operation from all perspectives and provide a new method for multi-criteria decision-making of reservoir flood control operation, and it breaks the limitation of the traditional risk analysis method which only evaluated by risk rate and cannot evaluate the risk of the multi-reservoir flood control operation system.

scholarly journals Fire Risk Assessment in Healthcare Settings: Application of FMEA Combined with Multi‐Criteria Decision Making Methods

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Fateme Omidvari ◽  
Mehdi Jahangiri ◽  
Reza Mehryar ◽  
Moslem Alimohammadlou ◽  
Mojtaba Kamalinia
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Fire Risk ◽  
Fire Detection ◽  
Healthcare Setting ◽  
Multi Criteria Decision Making ◽  
Intuitionistic Fuzzy ◽  
Healthcare Settings ◽  
Fire Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Parameters

Fire is one of the most dangerous phenomena causing major casualties and financial losses in hospitals and healthcare settings. In order to prevent and control the fire sources, first risk assessment should be conducted. Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) is one of the techniques widely used for risk assessment. However, Risk Priority Number (RPN) in this technique does not take into account the weight of the risk parameters. In addition, indirect relationships between risk parameters and expert opinions are not considered in decision making in this method. The aim is to conduct fire risk assessment of healthcare setting using the application of FMEA combined with Multi‐Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods. First, a review of previous studies on fire risk assessment was conducted and existing rules were identified. Then, the factors influencing fire risk were classified according to FMEA criteria. In the next step, weights of fire risk criteria and subcriteria were determined using Intuitionistic Fuzzy Multiplicative Best-Worst Method (IFMBWM) and different wards of the hospital were ranked using Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Combinative Distance-based Assessment (IVIFCODAS) method. Finally, a case study was performed in one of the hospitals of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. In this study, fire alarm system (0.4995), electrical equipment and installations (0.277), and flammable materials (0.1065) had the highest weight, respectively. The hospital powerhouse also had the highest fire risk, due to the lack of fire extinguishers, alarms and fire detection, facilities located in the basement floor, boilers and explosive sensitivity, insufficient access, and housekeeping. The use of MCDM methods in combination with the FMEA method assesses the risk of fire in hospitals and health centers with great accuracy.

Evidence-Based Sentencing

Criminology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
James C. Oleson
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Risk Measures ◽  
Criminal History ◽  
Community Safety ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Criminogenic Needs ◽  
Actuarial Risk ◽  
Using Data

The evidence-based practice (EBP) movement can be traced to a 1992 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, although decision-making with empirical evidence (rather than tradition, anecdote, or intuition) is obviously much older. Neverthless, for the last twenty-five years, EBP has played a pivotal role in criminal justice, particularly within community corrections. While the prediction of recidivism in parole or probation decisions has attracted relatively little attention, the use of risk measures by sentencing judges is controversial. This might be because sentencing typically involves both backward-looking decisions, related to the blameworthiness of the crime, as well as forward-looking decisions, about the offender’s prospective risk of recidivism. Evidence-based sentencing quantifies the predictive aspects of decision-making by incorporating an assessment of risk factors (which increase recidivism risk), protective factors (which reduce recidivism risk), criminogenic needs (impairments that, if addressed, will reduce recidivism risk), the measurement of recidivism risk, and the identification of optimal recidivism-reducing sentencing interventions. Proponents for evidence-based sentencing claim that it can allow judges to “sentence smarter” by using data to distinguish high-risk offenders (who might be imprisoned to mitigate their recidivism risk) from low-risk offenders (who might be released into the community with relatively little danger). This, proponents suggest, can reduce unnecessary incarceration, decrease costs, and enhance community safety. Critics, however, note that risk assessment typically looks beyond criminal conduct, incorporating demographic and socioeconomic variables. Even if a risk factor is facially neutral (e.g., criminal history), it might operate as a proxy for a constitutionally protected category (e.g., race). The same objectionable variables are used widely in presentence reports, but their incorporation into an actuarial risk score has greater potential to obfuscate facts and reify underlying disparities. The evidence-based sentencing literature is dynamic and rapidly evolving, but this bibliography identifies sources that might prove useful. It first outlines the theoretical foundations of traditional (non-evidence-based) sentencing, identifying resources and overviews. It then identifies sources related to decision-making and prediction, risk assessment logic, criminogenic needs, and responsivity. The bibliography then describes and defends evidence-based sentencing, and identifies works on sentencing variables and risk assessment instruments. It then relates evidence-based sentencing to big data and identifies data issues. Several works on constitutional problems are listed, the proxies problem is described, and sources on philosophical issues are described. The bibliography concludes with a description of validation research, the politics of evidence-based sentencing, and the identification of several current initiatives.

scholarly journals Biomechanical Rupture Risk Assessment

Aorta ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 04 (02) ◽  
pp. 42-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Christian Gasser
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Validation Studies ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Patient Treatment ◽  
Maximum Diameter ◽  
Individual Risk ◽  
Rupture Risk ◽  
Aneurysm Wall

AbstractAbdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture is a local event in the aneurysm wall that naturally demands tools to assess the risk for local wall rupture. Consequently, global parameters like the maximum diameter and its expansion over time can only give very rough risk indications; therefore, they frequently fail to predict individual risk for AAA rupture. In contrast, the Biomechanical Rupture Risk Assessment (BRRA) method investigates the wall’s risk for local rupture by quantitatively integrating many known AAA rupture risk factors like female sex, large relative expansion, intraluminal thrombus-related wall weakening, and high blood pressure. The BRRA method is almost 20 years old and has progressed considerably in recent years, it can now potentially enrich the diameter indication for AAA repair. The present paper reviews the current state of the BRRA method by summarizing its key underlying concepts (i.e., geometry modeling, biomechanical simulation, and result interpretation). Specifically, the validity of the underlying model assumptions is critically disused in relation to the intended simulation objective (i.e., a clinical AAA rupture risk assessment). Next, reported clinical BRRA validation studies are summarized, and their clinical relevance is reviewed. The BRRA method is a generic, biomechanics-based approach that provides several interfaces to incorporate information from different research disciplines. As an example, the final section of this review suggests integrating growth aspects to (potentially) further improve BRRA sensitivity and specificity. Despite the fact that no prospective validation studies are reported, a significant and still growing body of validation evidence suggests integrating the BRRA method into the clinical decision-making process (i.e., enriching diameter-based decision-making in AAA patient treatment).

The Potential Role of Individual-Level Benefit-Risk Assessment in Treatment Decision Making: A DIA Study Endpoints Community Workstream

2019 ◽  
Vol 53 (5) ◽  
pp. 630-638 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Reaney ◽  
Elizabeth Bush ◽  
Mary New ◽  
Jean Paty ◽  
Aude Roborel de Climens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Potential Role ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Benefit Risk Assessment

scholarly journals Probability and loss: two sides of the risk assessment coin

2011 ◽  
Vol 35 (11) ◽  
pp. 413-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew M. Large ◽  
Olav B. Nielssen
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
The Other ◽  
Current Form ◽  
Mental Health Settings ◽  
Future Harm ◽  
Two Sides

SummaryRisk assessment has been widely adopted in mental health settings in the hope of preventing harms such as violence to others and suicide. However, risk assessment in its current form is mainly concerned with the probability of adverse events, and does not address the other component of risk – the extent of the resulting loss. Although assessments of the probability of future harm based on actuarial instruments are generally more accurate than the categorisations made by clinicians, actuarial instruments are of little assistance in clinical decision-making because there is no instrument that can estimate the probability of all the harms associated with mental illness, or estimate the extent of the resulting losses. The inability of instruments to distinguish between the risk of common but less serious harms and comparatively rare catastrophic events is a particular limitation of the value of risk categorisations. We should admit that our ability to assess risk is severely limited, and make clinical decisions in a similar way to those in other areas of medicine – by informed consideration of the potential consequences of treatment and non-treatment.

Risk assessment and decision making regarding imminent suicidality in pediatric settings.

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 176-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah W. Helms ◽  
Mitchell J. Prinstein
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making

Use of Policy Risk Assessment Results in Political Decision Making

2013 ◽  
pp. 249-262
Author(s):  
Liliana Cori ◽  
Gabriel Guliš ◽  
Joanna Kobza ◽  
Ágnes Molnár ◽  
Jana Kollárová
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Political Decision ◽  
Policy Risk ◽  
Political Decision Making ◽  
Assessment Results
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document