ADVERTORIAL alone. When accuracy is absolutely critical for high-risk or high-alert activities, you may even consider introducing a higher-level checking protocol known as the ‘buddy check’. It is a standardised process that involves a check by another worker. Even NASA conduct buddy checks. On 20 July, 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first human beings to walk on the moon. The mission’s success rested on the work of many scientists and engineers, including those who held the role of buddycheckers. In fact, NASA employed a whole roomful of mathematicians and engineers to even buddy check the work of the computers! In short, the buddy check can be defined as a procedure that requires two staff to ‘check’ before the task is actioned. The buddy check process is well regarded in many other high-risk professions as a means to help prevent errors. For example, when used judiciously in the medical profession, buddy checks have been shown to detect up to 95 per cent of errors. In practice, two staff acting as buddies, check independently of each other. This is a routine which relies on the presence and literal ‘dialogue’ of the two staff. The function of the buddy check here is to share responsibility for safe outcomes.
Yes, there can be some constraints to such system. They can be time-consuming and therefore a resource-intensive process. However, it is a function based on the theory that human errors can be minimised and safety and reliability outcomes significantly improved. Another issue to consider is that a buddy check system can in some instances result in diffusion of responsibility that can lead to a false sense of safety through reliance on it. For example, in other industries, there have been instances where the buddy check system reduced the perceived responsibility of individuals because they trusted in the second checking person (the buddy) to find potential mistakes – an effect called ‘social loafing’. Many high-risk organisations prefer the buddy check over the double check because it reduces the risk of confirmation bias. This could occur if, for example, the same person prepares and checks a chemical sheet or mix instruction as they will likely see only what they expect to see, even if an error is present.
RISK MINIMISATION AND QUALITY CONTROL With workload issues ever present, double check protocols should be implemented for all work tasks. For high-risk, high-alert activities, the buddy check system wins every time.
Hospitals identify ‘high-alert’ medications that carry a heightened risk of causing an adverse medical event. For the administering of these medications, a buddy check is mandatory – every time. The nurse giving the medication will confirm with their buddy details such as the patient’s name, patient ID number, their date of birth, any allergies, the medication to be given and the amount to be administered. In the turf space, you may consider identifying ‘high-alert’ pesticides or other chemicals that require a mandatory buddy check before they are dispensed and applied. This could help prevent the wrong chemicals or rates being applied which could have a disastrous impact on your surfaces. Both double checks and buddy checks are well-supported by other high-risk sectors and can help to detect and prevent errors. Using double checks properly can not only help prevent errors but also draw attention to processes or systems that need improvement. And establishing two-person, independent buddy checks can reduce errors and promote safer and better outcomes. They both will transfer an added level of risk minimisation and quality control into the club’s workplace practices. When implemented, they will catch errors and, at their best, when undertaken correctly, both can literally save you.
JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2022
57