Safety and Security (S&S) have the same goal, that is to maintain the integrity of human, infrastructure, hardware, software, capital and intangible assets of a system. However, literature and practice indicate that the relationship between S&S has not yet been clearly defined and their boundaries remain blurry. The current paper presents a short review of academic and professional literature about the relationship between S&S. This relationship is examined by looking at the S&S dependencies, their similarities and differences, and the role of the human element in achieving and maintaining the desired S&S levels. The review of literature showed that (1) there is a tendency to emphasize on the effects of security on safety and underestimate the opposite, (2) human factors are not part of security training to the extent are addressed in safety training, (3) security and safety problems can be the result of both internal and external disturbances and agents, (4) the intentionality or not of outcomes, and not of the action, can stand as a valid criterion to classify an event as a security or a safety one correspondingly, (5) S&S issues can result in negative implications internally and externally to the system, and (6) the synergy between S&S is of paramount importance for achieving the optimum levels of system protection. The positions of this paper might comprise a basis for enriching educational programmes around S&S and igniting relevant research.
Background: The number of people with multiple chronic conditions requiring primary care services increases. Professionals from different disciplines collaborate and coordinate care to deal with the complex health care needs. There is lack of information on current practices regarding interprofessional team (IPT) meetings. Objectives: This study aimed to improve our understanding of the process of interprofessional collaboration in primary care team meetings in the Netherlands by observing the current practice and exploring personal opinions. Methods. Qualitative study involving observations of team meetings and interviews with participants. Eight different IPT meetings (n = 8) in different primary care practices were observed by means of video recordings. Experiences were explored by conducting individual semi-structured interviews (n = 60) with participants (i.e. health care professionals from different disciplines) of the observed team meetings. The data were analysed by means of content analysis. Results: Most participants expressed favourable opinions about their team meetings. However, observations showed that team meetings were more or less hectic, and lacked a clear structure and team coordinator or leader. There appears to be a discrepancy between findings from observations and interviews. From the interviews, four main themes were extracted: (1) Team structure and composition, (2) Patient-centredness, (3) Interaction and (4) Attitude and motivation. Conclusion: IPT meetings could benefit from improvements in structure, patient-centredness and leadership by the chairpersons. Given the discrepancy between observations and interviews, it would appear useful to improve team members’ awareness of aspects that could be improved before training them in dealing with specific challenges.
