551
1 INTRODUCTION
A review of maritime accidents’ databases from the
United Kingdom, the United States of America,
Norway and Canada conducted by Barnett et al. in
2006 confirms that human error is the main
contributingfactorinmaritimeaccidents.Barnettet
al. illustrates that major maritime accidents are not
caused by technical problems but by failure of the
crew to respond to situations a
ppropriately.Based
onthisassessment,itisnowconsideredthatasystem
for the training and assessment of the main non‐
technicalskills(NTS)ofco‐operation,leadershipand
managementskills,situationawarenessanddecision
making, needs to be est
ablished in the maritime
industry.
The shipping industry has become safer over the
pasttwodecades.Thisisevidencedbyanimproving
safety record over the period (Hetherington et al.,
2006).However, accidents are still occurring.
Analystsandresearchershavefoundmanycausesfor
these accidents, including: seafarer training and
technical failure (MCA, 2010), fat
igue (Akhtar and
Utne, 2014), stress (Hetherington et al., 2006) and
human error (Gill and Wahner, 2012).Technical
failuresandseafarertraininghavebeenaddressedin
detail in the STCW 95 (Standard of Training,
CertificationandWatchkeeping,1995) andmeasures
have impacted positively on the industry (MCA,
2010).Recent
ly the IMO introduced the STCW
Manila amendment 2010, part of which focuses on
NTStraining,inanattempttoeliminateorminimise
theeffectsofhumanerror.
A Cost Benefit Analysis Approach to Identify
Improvements in Merchant Navy Deck Officers’ HELM
(Human Element Leadership and Management)
Training
F.Saeed,A.Bury,S.Bonsall&R.Riahi
LiverpoolJohnMooresUniversity,Liverpool,UnitedKingdom
ABSTRACT:Areviewofmaritimeaccidentsconductedoverthelastdecadeconfirmsthathumanerroristhe
maincontributingfactorintheseincidents.Well‐developedNon‐TechnicalSkills(NTS)canreducetheeffects
ofhumanerror.NTSincludebothinterpersonalandcognitiveskillssuchassituationawareness,tea
mwork,
decision‐making,leadership,managerialskills,communicationandlanguageskills.Inacrisissituationgood
NTSallowadeckofficertorecognisetheproblemquickly,takeactiontomanagethesituation,andutilisethe
availableteammemberssafelyandeffectively.
ThispaperidentifiestheimportanceofNTStrainingformerchantnavydeckofficers.Italsohighlightsroom
forimprovementintheexistingHELMtraining.Researchhasshowntha
tatpresentthestructureofHELM
training is not very effective.The other safety critical domains’ efforts into NTS developments are
investigatedandexamplesofbestpracticeareadaptedintothema
ritimedomain’sNTStraining.
Suggestions are given for improvements to the HELM course based on proven successful methods in other
safety critical domains (aviation and anaesthesia).A subsequent Cost Benefit Analysis for improving deck
officers’NTSisalsocarriedoutthroughtheuseofBayesianNetworksandDecisionTreeModelling.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 10
Number 4
December 2016
DOI:10.12716/1001.10.04.02
552
1.1 InternationalMaritimeOrganisation(IMO).
Inthelate1950sandearly1960s,theIMOdeveloped
a comprehensive series of conventions to establish a
frameworkofinternational law addressing maritime
safety.Indoing sothe IMO recognizedthatone of
themostimportantelementsinthesafeoperationof
anyship
isthetrainingandcompetenceofitscrew.
However,itwas notedthatinternationalregulations
lackedastandardofcompetencyforseafarers.Asa
result, in 1969, the IMO agreed to develop The
International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW) (IAMU,
2010).The STCW sets qualification standards
for
masters, officers and watchkeeping personnel on
seagoingmerchantships(Tally,2012:p326).
1.1.1 STCW1978and1995
TheSTCWwasofficiallyadoptedbyaconference
of the IMO in 1978 to standardize the qualifications
requiredformasters,officersandwatchpersonnelon
seagoingmerchantships.The1978STCWConvention
had
manylimitationssuchasvaguerequirementsleft
to the discretion of the parties; unclear standards of
competence;noIMOoversightofcompliance;limited
port state control and inadequacies which did not
address modern shipboard functions at that time
(Tally, 2012: p326; MCA, 2013b). As a result of the
groundingof
theAegeanSeain1992ontherocksof
the Spanish port of La Coruna, the United States
proposedconductingacomprehensivereview ofthe
1978 convention (IAMU, 2010). This proposal
suggestedthereviewspecificallyconsidertheroleof
thehumanelement in maritime casualties. The IMO
and its members agreed
to concentrate on areas
relatingtopeople,trainingandoperationalpractices,
rather than issues dealing primarily with improving
shipconstructionandequipmentstandards(ibid).
TheSTCWConventionwassignificantlyamended
in 1995 to include a code containing mandatory
requirements and guidance information for the
implementation of the convention. The
comprehensive
and detailed 1995 amendments
establishedalevelpla ying fieldamongallparties to
the convention to help ensure consistent training
worldwide. These amendments also established
competencebasedstandardsthatplacedemphasison
the requirements for training and assessments of
skillsinmostfacetsofthemariner’sprofession(IMO,
2015;IAMU,2010).
1.1.2 ManilaAmendments
InJanuary2006,duringthe37
th
sessionoftheSTW
(Standards of Training and Watchkeeping) Sub‐
Committee it was decided to review the STCW
Conventiontoensurethatit metthenew challenges
facing the shipping industry at the time and in the
years to come (Tally, 2012: p326).The new
challenges being met included advancement
in
technology and the emergence of new equipment
suchastheElectronicChartDisplayandInformation
System(ECDIS).
At its 38
th
session of the Sub‐Committee, and
followingdetaileddiscussions,itwasagreedthatthe
present structure of the convention more than
adequatelyserveditspurposeandthattherewasno
need to review it all in great detail.It was then
agreed that the review should mainly cover the
principles
ofhumanelementtraining(IAMU,2010):
Table 1 shows an abridged version of the STCW
changes(IMO,2011:p122).Thesewereapprovedin
relationtoNTStrainingofmanagementlevelofficers
ofshipsof500grosstonnageormore.Basedonthe
outcomes outlined in Section A‐II/2 of the STCW
Manila amendments, the HELM training course
became compulsory for all deck and engineering
officers effective from 2012 (Davitt and Holford,
2015).
Table1.SectionA‐II/2–Mastersandchiefmatesonshipsof
500grosstonnageormore(bridgedversion)
_______________________________________________
Competence Useofleadershipandmanagerialskills
_______________________________________________
1Knowledgeofshipboardpersonnel
managementandtraining
2Aknowledgeofrelatedinternational
maritimeconventionsandrecommendations,
andnationallegislation
3Abilitytoapplytaskandworkload
management
4Knowledgeandabilitytoapplyeffective
resourcemanagement
5Knowledgeandabilitytoapplydecision‐
makingtechniques
6
Development,implementation,andoversight
ofstandardoperatingprocedures
_______________________________________________
1.1.3 HELMTraining
TheIMOhasnowsetminimumstandardsofNTS
training by making HELM training compulsory for
bothoperationalandmanagementlevelofficersinthe
deck and engineering departments.This training
caneitherbeintegratedintothemainprogrammeor
delivered as a standalone course (MNTB, 2012).
HELM
(O) is the operational level course for which
therequiredtrainingtimeis21hours.HELM (M)is
the management level course requiring a training
timeof35hours(MNTB,2012).
In the UK, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency
(MCA) and the Merchant Navy Training Board
(MNTB) have implemented HELM
training (MCA;
2013a).This takes the form of a stand‐alone short
courseforexperienced seafarerswishingtotransf erto
officergrade.Presentlythesamecourseisdelivered
to both deck and engineering officers.It has been
suggested that this makes the task of delivering the
trainingmoredifficult(Wall,2015).
Themainreason
for this is that the college phase (Higher National
Diploma‐HND) is compulsory for chief mate
students.In this they will have studied some
leadership and management issues.However, for
secondengineerstudents(notfollowingtheapproved
training programme) the college phase is not
compulsory and they
only have to attend for the
writtenexams.Theseexamsaremainlytechnicalin
nature and thus they do not have any prior
knowledge of the subjects of leadership and
management (Wall, 2015).Separate learning
outcomesforbothdeckandengineeringofficersthat
are focused on their specific areas of operation
may
havebeenuseful.
553
HELM training is currently in its infancy and it
will take time for it to improve.The aviation
industry took fifteen years to develop from the first
generationoftheCrewResourceManagement(CRM)
course to the sixth generation.In the process it
helped to reduce the number of aviation
accidents
causedbyhumanerror(Diehl,1991).
1.2 NTStrainingandassessmentdevelopmentsin
othersafetycriticaldomains.
Somedomains,suchasaviationandanaesthesia,have
conducted extensive research aimed at identifying
domain specific NTS training methods and
behavioural marker systems for use in their
assessment.The Aviation industry is
considered to
bethepioneerindiscoveringtheimportanceofNTS
and researching and developing courses.These
efforts have resulted in the evolution of a Crew
Resource Management course to supplement the
main training.It isimportantto consider the work
performed in aviation and anaesthesia to develop
NTS training and
assessment.This will provide an
insight in to whether the maritime industry could
benefitfromtheireffortsandadaptsomeoftheirbest
practices.
1.2.1 Aviation
TheconceptofNTSwasgeneratedbytheaviation
industry when the National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) in the USA investigated a number of
airlineaccidentsinthe1960sand1970s.
A workshop, entitled “Resource Management on
the Flight Deck”, sponsored by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was
held in 1979.During this workshop elements of
human error were identified in the majority of air
crash accidents being considered.The main causes
were
found to be interpersonal communication,
decision making and leadership failures.It was
suggested that the training of NTS of pilots was
requiredtoreduce“piloterror”bymakingbetteruse
ofthehumanresourcesontheflightdeck.Sincethat
time six generations of CRM training programmes
have evolved in
the United States (Helmreich et al.,
1999).
The first CRM programme was proposed and
developed by United Airlines in 1981.The course
was called ‘Command, Leadership and Resource
Management’ (Helmreich et al., 1999; Kanki et al.,
2010: p27).In the second generation of the CRM
trainingprogrammethenamewaschanged
toCrew
Resource Management (CRM) and the course began
to include team oriented factors.The new
programmes focused on specific aviation concepts
related to flight operations and were more team
orientedinnature.Thetrainingconductedfocusedon
team building, situation awareness and stress
management (Helmreich et al., 1999; Kanki
et al.,
2010:p29).
In the early 1990s a new shape of CRM was
introduced which integrated CRM with standard
technical training. The idea was to focus on specific
skillsandbehavioursthatpilotscouldusetooperate
aircraft more effectively and in a safer manner.
Many airlines introduced modules covering
flight
automation issues.At this stage CRM was also
offeredtoothergroupssuchasflightattendantsand
maintenance personnel.A special CRM was
designed for captains to target leadership skills.
(Helmreichetal.,1999).
The fifth generation of CRM focused on the fact
that human errors are inevitable but
the effects of
thoseerrorscanbeminimisedbyapplyingthethree
linesofdefence.Thesethreelinesare:avoidanceof
error,thetrappingofincipienterrorsbeforetheyare
committed,andmitigatingtheconsequencesofthose
errors that occur and are not trapped (Helmreich et
al.,1999).
Basedonthe
fifthgeneration’serrormanagement
theme,thefocusofCRMtrainingwaswidenedfrom
errormanagementtoincludethreatmanagement.In
previous generations CRM skills and methods were
applied to eliminate, trap or mitigate errors but the
sixthgenerationalsofocusesonthethreatsanderrors
whichmust bemanagedby
flightcrews to ensure a
safeflight(WagenerandIson,2014).
The Federal Aviation Administration in the USA
introduced the Advanced Qualification Program
(AQP)in the1990s and intheUK atthesametime,
the Civil Aviation Authority required the formal
incorporation of non‐technical skills evaluation into
alllevels
offlightcrewtraining(CAA,2006).
A research project, JARTEL (Joint Aviation
Regulation – Translation and Elaboration of
Legislation), was initiated by the Joint Aviation
Authorities(JAA)HumanFactorsgroupin1996.Its
goalwastodevelopasuitablemethodtoidentifyand
assess an individual pilot’s non‐technical (CRM)
skills.TheprojectwassponsoredbyfourEuropean
CAAs (Civil Aviation Authority). A research
consortium consisting of pilots and psychologists
from Germany, France, Holland and the UK was
establishedtoworkontheNOTECHS(Non‐Technical
Skills).The system was to be used to assess an
individualpilot’sskills.Itwas
tobesuitableforuse
across Europe on all flight routes and also had to
accommodateallEuropeancultures(Flinetal,2003).
Areviewwasconductedoftheexistingbehaviour
rating system for pilots already in use by larger
airlines in Europe and the USA.It appeared that
none
ofthesystemscouldbeadoptedintheiroriginal
form because the available systems were either
unclear for a Pan‐European basis, or specific to a
particular airline.Therefore, it was decided by the
project team that to assess pilots’ NTS a new
taxonomyandrating methodwouldbedesigned(Flin
etal,2003).
The method that was developed included a
detailedexaminationofavailablebehaviouralmarker
systems to assess a pilot’s NTS.Airline captains
with substantial experience worked as experts to
advise on the final design of the NOTECHS system
(Flin et al, 2003).The resulting NOTECHS system
has four
categories with the elements of behaviour
showninTable2.
554
Table2.NOTECHSTaxonomy(Flinetal.,2003)
_______________________________________________
CategoryElement
_______________________________________________
Co‐operationTeam‐buildingandmaintaining
Consideringothers
Supportingothers
Conflictsolving
Leadershipand UseofAuthorityandassertiveness
ManagerialSkillsProvidingandmaintainingstandards
Planningandco‐ordination
Workloadmanagement
Situationawareness Awarenessofaircraftsystems
Awarenessofexternalenvironment
Awarenessoftime
DecisionMaking Problemdefinitionanddiagnosis
Optiongeneration
Riskassessmentandoptionselection
Outcomereview
_______________________________________________
The main JARTEL study was an experimental
rating task study.Eight video recorded scenarios,
filmed in a Boeing 757 simulator, were used.The
scenarios simulated realistic flight situations
highlighting behaviour relevant to NOTECHS.The
pilotsbehaviourwasrated(“poorpractice”to“good
practice”),usingtheNOTECHSsystem,bymore
than
100 assessors. A briefing and practice session was
givenbeforethestartofeachsession.Theassessors
were asked to rate captains’ and first officers’
behaviours in each of the eight cockpit scenarios
using the NOTECHS rating (O’Connor et al., 2002).
In the subsequent evaluation questionnaire, the
assessors were very
satisfied with the NOTECHS
rating system and the results of the experimental
phaseofthisprojectweredeemedsatisfactoryforthe
further development of the NOTECHS method (Flin
etal.,2003).
1.2.2 Anaesthesia
It has been determined through critical incident
reportingthatNTSarethemajorcauseofaccidentsin
anaesthesiacrisismanagement.Tofocusonthisarea
the Anaesthetists’ Non‐Technical Skills (ANTS) tool
was developed in 2005 for the training and
assessmentofanaesthetistsNTS(Yeeetal.,2005).The
ANTS is a behavioural marker framework and was
developed in a project between the University of
AberdeenIndustrialPsychology
ResearchCentreand
theScottishClinicalSimulationCentre(Matveeskiiet
al., 2008). The programme followed the concepts of
CRM, which was developed to improve NTS of
aviationpersonnel(Flin&Maran,2004).
TheScottishCouncilforPostgraduateMedicaland
DentalEducationpartneredinaprojecttoinvestigate
theNTSin
anaesthetists.Theprojectwascalled‘The
Identification and Measurement of Anaesthetists’
Non‐Technical Skills’. The main purpose of the
project was to determine the importance of NTS
required by anaesthetists during operations (ANTS,
2014).
Atthestartoftheprojectresearchersreviewedthe
human factors involved in anaesthesia.It was
determined
that 80% of anaesthetic incidents at the
time were due to human error and most of them
couldhavebeenavoidedwiththeuseofappropriate
skills(Fletcheretal.,2003a).
Table3.ANTSTaxonomy(Yeeetal.,2005)
_______________________________________________
CategoryElement
_______________________________________________
TaskManagement Planningandpreparing
Prioritizing
Providingandmaintainingstandards
Identifyingandutilizingresources
Teamworking Coordinatingactivitieswithteam
member
Exchanginginformation
Usingauthorityandassertiveness
Assessingcapabilities
Supportingothers
Situationawareness Gatheringinformation
Recognizingandunderstanding
Anticipating
DecisionMaking Identifyingoptions
Balancingrisksandselectionoptions
Re‐evaluation
_______________________________________________
Incidentreportingdatawascollectedfromaround
the world to analyse the extent of the problem.
While collecting this data, limiting factors were
considered.Chief among these was that, for a
variety of reasons, not all incidents were reported.
Alsothe reported factors didnot always provide an
accurate
picture of the incident.As long as
limitations in reporting exist are considered then
thereisgreatbenefittobefoundinanalysingincident
reportsinthedomain(Fletcheretal.,2003).
Throughaseriesofinterviewsataxonomy(Table
3) of anaesthetists’ NTS (a prototype behavioural
markers system) was developed
for rating observed
behaviours(Table4)(Yeeetal.,2005).In2004,after
the preliminary evaluation of the prototype
behavioural markers system, the ANTS system was
released to anaesthetists free of charge by the
UniversityofAberdeen(Flin,2013)andisnowbeing
usedsuccessfullyacrosstheworld(Livingston,2014).
This system has now been translated into many
languagesandisbeingusedinanaesthesiasimulation
training and assessment in countries around the
world including the United Kingdom, United States
ofAmerica,IndiaandCanada(Bhagwant,2012;Flin,
2013).
Table4.ANTSRatingSystem(Yeeetal.,2005)
_______________________________________________
RatingLevel Description
_______________________________________________
4–Good Performancewasofaconsistentlyhigh
standard,enhancingpatientsafety.Could
beusedaspositiveexampleforothers.
3–Acceptable Performancewasofasatisfactorystandard
butcouldbeimproved.
2–Marginal Performanceindicatedcauseforconcern.
Considerableimprovementneeded.
1–PoorPerformanceendangeredorpotentially
endangeredpatientsafety.Serious
remediationisrequired.
Notobserved Skillcouldnotbeobservedinthisscenario.
_______________________________________________
1.2.3 Maritime
To better evaluate the role of NTS in shipboard
operational safety, a thorough review of existing
research is required to underpin the selection of
criteriaforuseinidentifyingbehaviouralmarkersfor
555
the assessment of maritime NTS.Such research is
limitedinthemaritimedomain(DavittandHolford,
2015)andmostlynotinitiatedbyanyregulatorybody
but rather conducted by universities as part of PhD
theses or published papers.The only notable
research conducted by a regulatory body is the
MCA’s
‘simulator training for handling escalating
emergencies’ in which it has recommended further
definition of the main NTS to handle escalating
emergencies(Habberleyetal.,2001).TheMCAalso
producedaguide in 2006 outlining bestpractices in
leadership and management (Davitt and Holford,
2015) which was based on a
piece of leadership
researchconductedbyArthurDLittle(2004).Other
notable research has been undertaken by Warsash
MaritimeAcademyandtheUSNavy.
AtWarsashMaritime Academy, after the success
ofthevariouseffortsinothersafetycriticalindustries
todevelopbehaviouralmarkersfortheassessmentof
NTS in simulators,
Gatfield (2008) conducted
extensiveresearchandwasfirsttodevelopasystem
of behavioural markers for the assessment of
competence of marine engineering officers in
maritime engine room simulators (Long, 2010).In
this research a video recorded crisis scenario was
developed which was run twelve times with three
engineers in
each run.The behavioural markers
observedduringtheexerciseswerethenratedagainst
four filtration criteria: ease of observation, ease of
evaluation,frequencyofoccurrence,andrelevanceto
competence.Filtration was deemed necessary to
keepthenumberofbehaviourmarkerstoaminimum
so that the assessment process would be more
manageable(Gatfield,2008).
Twogroupsofassessors,onegroupofsixmarine
engineersandanothergroupofsixnon‐domaincrisis
management assessment experts were selected to
assesseachmarkeronafourpointratingscale(good,
towards good, towards poor and poor).There was
another group of seven expert
crisis management
assessorswhowereaskedtousetheir‘gut’feelingto
rank Chief Engineers in the scenario from best to
worst crisis manager.It was concluded that the
assessmentframeworkwasvalidastherewasahigh
degree of correlation between the findings of
assessorsinallgroups(Gatfield,2008).
The US Navy used a three stage methodology to
develop domain specific behavioural markers for
theirOfficeroftheDeck(OOD)trainingcourse.The
three stages were comprised of: literature review,
focus group interview, and critical incident review.
Theliteraturereviewaimedto identifyalistofNTS
found in
other safety critical domains that were
assumedtoberelevanttoeffectiveperformanceina
maritime environment (O’Connor and Long, 2011).
This was necessary as it was found that very little
research had been conducted in to NTS in the
maritimedomain(Heteringtonetal.,2006).
Todevelop anOOD
NTStaxonomy,focusgroup
interviews were conducted to filter the list down to
onlythoseskillswhichwereapplicabletotheroleof
OOD (Table 5).To evaluate the validity of the
developed taxonomy the critical scenarios were
developed in the third stage.The scenarios were
used to generate interview
data for analysis
(O’Connor and Long, 2011).The interviews
conductedhadfourstages:
1 Intervieweeexplainsarelevantincident
2 Interviewerrepeatsincidentbacktointervieweeto
confirmunderstanding
3 Interviewerexpandsthediscussionontheincident
andlooksforthecuesandfactorsaffectingNTS
4 Interviewer probes further to extract more
knowledgeaboutNTSlinks.
Atotalof149interviewstatementswerecollected
and independently classified.The inter‐rater
reliabilityofalltheanalysiswas found to be higher
thannormalhencenofurtherchangesweremadeto
theoriginaltaxonomy(Table5)(O’ConnorandLong,
2011).
SaeedandRiahi(2014)foundthatHELMtraining
providedtoseniordeckofficerstudentsisinitsearly
stagesandiscurrentlynotveryeffective.Inastudy
conductedatLiverpoolJohnMooresUniversity,they
compared the NTS performance of two groups of
chiefmatestudentsina ship
bridgesimulator.One
group with HELM training and the other without
HELM training.The NTS performances were
analysedbyEvidentialReasoningandUtilityValueto
provide a crisp number of each performance.The
performance of the group with HELM training was
only 0.8% better than the group without HELM
training (Saeed
et al., 2016; Saeed and Riahi, 2014).
Similar results were found through a survey
conducted by the MCA in 2015 to evaluate the
effectivenessoftheHELMcourse.(MCA,2015).
Toimprove NTS ofdeckofficers some of proven
methods of other safety critical industries can be
adaptedtothe
benefitofthemaritimeindustryanda
cost benefit analysis is conducted in this paper to
analyseiftheadaptedmethodsarecosteffectiveand
beneficialtotheindustry.
Table5. Initial OOD nontechnical taxonomy (Source:
O’ConnorandLong,2011)
_______________________________________________
CategoryElement
_______________________________________________
LeadershipEstablishingauthority
Managingworkload
Maintainingthestandardsofthe
Watch
DecisionMaking Definingproblem
Generatingpossiblesolution
Implementingbestsolution
Situationalawareness Activelygatheringinformation
Respondingtochangesin
information
Anticipatingfutureevents
Communication Selectingcorrectmedium
Sendinginformationclearlyand
concisely
Effectivelyreceivinginformation
Managingstress Maintainingconcentration
Copingwithstressors
_______________________________________________
2 COSTBENEFITANALYSISANDOPTIONS
The purpose of this paper is to conduct cost benefit
analysis of the improvements in the HELM training
basedonthebestpracticesoftheothersafetycritical
556
industries.The methodology pursued to achieve
thisisdividedintothreesteps:
1 The possibility of adapting successful methods
found in other safety critical industries, such as
aviationandanaesthesia,isexplored andoptions
aregenerated.
2 A cost benefit analysis is conducted of the most
suitable options identified in step one.Analysis
of these options is carried out by Bayesian
NetworkandDecisionTreeModelling.
3 Adecisionismadeonwhichoptiontoselect.
2.1 SuggestionstoImprovetheHELMCourse
BasedonOtherSafetyCriticalDomains’NTS
ResearchandTrainingMethods
Based on the deck officers’ NTS taxonomy, and
behavioural markers for training and assessment an
effective training model was developed.This was
done
byconductingaworkshoptowhicheducational
and subject experts and psychologists were invited.
Thefirsttaskwas tofindoutwhatwouldbethebest
mode of NTS training.It was ascertained that
Aviation, anaesthetics and other safety critical
industries use simulator based training of their
personnel.
After some debate
the workshop agreed that,
based on the aviation and anaesthesia methods, the
underpinning knowledge of NTS should be
integratedintothemaincourse.Thisshouldthenbe
followedbyextensivesimulatortrainingcomposedof
carefully thought out exercises to be developed to
cover each skill and element of the NTS.
This
method is then followed by CRM and research
suggests that the course is quite effective (Diehl,
1991).Thepresentapproach,inthemaritimesector,
of delivering underpinning knowledge within five
daysofthecoursemaynotbeveryeffectiveasitdoes
notgive enough time for students to study
the NTS
material.Itispossiblethatifamoduleisintroduced
into the main course by teaching 3‐4 hours every
week, over 10‐12 weeks, this would give an
opportunity to students to absorb the underpinning
knowledgemoreeffectively.Anexamattheendof
the course would
then test their NTS theoretical
knowledge.
Presently, in the maritime industry, training
institutesareresponsibleforconducting suchtraining
and the HELM training is offered only as one off
course.Intheaviationindustryflightoperatorsare
responsibleforconductingNTStrainingofflightcrew
andthecourseisrepeatedregularly.
In a similarwayto aviation,shipping companies
may need to develop NTS training specific to their
own area of operations.The courses may be
developedbyfocusingondifferentcargo operations
suchas oil, chemical,cargo,container and dry bulk.
It would also need repeating regularly and a deck
officer’sNTSassessmentwouldbeconductedbefore
repeatingthecourse.Thiswouldhelptoidentifythe
weakareasofeachindividual andthe repeatcourse
wouldthenbeabletofocusonthoseareastoimprove
their performance.The whole process of the NTS
training model needs evaluating for the purpose
of
analysing its effectiveness.However, the costs
associatedwiththedevelopmentofanewcourseand
theevaluationofthatcoursemaybeprohibitive.
2.2 CostBenefitAnalysis
Cost benefits are calculated using a Decision Tree
ModelwhichisbasedonBayesianNetworks.
2.2.1 InterferenceFormulismofBayesian
Networks
The
basis of reasoning under uncertainty in
Bayesian Networks (BNs) is known as Bayesian
interference formulism.It was developed for the
taskofcomputing theprobability of eachvalueofa
nodeinaBNwhenthevaluesofothervariablesare
known (Richardson, 1997).The element of
uncertaintymay be
dueto: imperfectunderstanding
ofthedomain,incompleteknowledge ofthe stateof
the domain at the time when a given task is to be
performed,randomnessinthemechanismgoverning
the behaviour of the domain, or a combination of
these.One of the main advantages of BNs is that
they
allowalterationstobemadebasedonobserved
evidence.An existing model can be updated in
accordancewithobservations madeinlinewithBayes
rule.Forrandomvariables“X
1”and“X2”,asshown
inFigure5.1,Bayesrulestates:
21 1
12
21 1
..
|
|
|
ii
all i
PXX PX
PXX
PXX x PX x
(1)
Assumeforinstancethatvariable“X
2”isobserved
tobeinstatex
j.Theprobabilityofaparametervalue
giventheobservationisreferred to as the ‘posterior
probability’.This distinguishes it from the ‘prior
probability’heldbytheanalystpriortocollectionand
analysis of observations.By applying Equation 4.1
to eachstateof “X
1” the probability distribution “P(
X
1|X2=xj)”iscomputed:
211
12
21 1
..
|
|
|
j
j
j
ii
all i
PX xX PX
PXX x
PX xX x PX x
(2)
Figure1.BNconsistingoftwonodes
2.2.2 DecisionTreecalculation
BNdecisiontreesarevaluabletechniquesthatare
used to make a decision from a set of alternative
options (Janssens et al., 2005).In a decision tree
there are two types of nodes: decision nodes and
leaves.Leavesaretheterminalnodesofthetreeand
they
specify the decisions to be made.The case is
routed down the tree according to the values of
557
attributestestedinsuccessivedecisionnodes.When
aleafisreached,theoptionsareclassifiedaccording
to the probability distribution over all classification
possibilities(ibid).
The company has to take a decision whether to
take action to improve their deck officers’
performance, or not.The company is uncertain
whetherthe
performanceoftheirdeck officers(Deck
Officers’ Performance or DOP) is high, average or
low.The cost of an action is C
1.It is believed by
takingactionandenhancingtheperformanceofdeck
officers (withaverageperformance) the reliability of
thecompany’svesselswillincreaseandasaresultso
will the associated profit and net profit.Profit and
net profit can be estimated as B
1 and B1 – C1
respectively.Similarly for deck officers with low
performance,theprofitandnetprofitassociatedwith
an action can be estimated as B
2 and B2 – C1
respectively.Anassessmentprogramme(Audit)will
help determine the company’s performance (CP).
The costofanassessment programme (Audit) is C
2.
Based on the performance data collected from deck
officers (Saeed and Riahi, 2014), and the following
rules:
If a group’s NTS is less than 0.33, then the
performanceisLow.
Ifagroup’sNTSisbetween0.33and0.66,thenthe
performanceisAverage.
If a group’s
NTS is between 0.66 and 1.0, the
performanceisHigh.
Basedonexperts’opiniontherelationshipbetween
acompany’sperformanceanditsemployeesisshown
inTable6.
Table6.Conditionalprobabilitytable
_______________________________________________
DOP High(H) Average(A) Low(L)
CP
_______________________________________________
High(H) 0.80.10.1
Average(A) 0.150.80.2
Low(L)0.050.10.7
_______________________________________________
Based on Bayes chain rule (Equation 1) the
followingequationcanbeevaluated:
|
| ( | (
P CP H P CP H DOP H P DOP H
P CP H DOP A P DOP A P CP H DOP L P DOP L
0.8 0 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1PCP H
|
| (
|(
P CP A P CP ADOP H P DOP H
P CP A DOP A P DOP A
PCP ADOP L PDOP L
0.15 0 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.5PCP A
|
| ( | (
PCP L PCP LDOP H PDOP H
P CP L DOP A P DOP A P CP L DOP L P DOP L
0.05 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.4PCP L
Basedonequation2:
|
( | )
PCP HDOP H PDOP H
P DOP H CP H
PCP H
0.8 0
( | ) 0
0.1
PDOP HCP H
|
( | )
P CP H DOP A P DOP A
P DOP A CP H
PCP H
0.1 0.5
( | ) 0.5
0.1
P DOP A CP H
|
( | )
P CP H DOP L P DOP L
P DOP L CP H
PCP H
0.1 0.5
( | ) 0.5
0.1
P DOP L CP H
|
( | )
P CP ADOP H P DOP H
DOP H CP A
PCP A
0.15 0
( | ) 0
0.5
P DOP H CP A
|
( | )
P CP ADOP A P DOP A
DOP A CP A
PCP A
0.8 0.5
( | ) 0.8
0.5
PDOP ACP A
|
( | )
P CP ADOP L P DOP L
DOP L CP A
PCP A
0.2 0.5
( | ) 0.2
0.5
PDOP LCP A
|
( | )
P CP L DOP H P DOP H
P DOP H CP L
PCP L
0.05 0
( | ) 0
0.5
P DOP H CP L
|
( | )
P CP L DOP A P DOP A
P DOP A CP L
PCP L
0.1 0.5
( | ) 0.125
0.4
x
P DOP A CP L
|
( | )
P CP L DOP L P DOP L
P DOP L CP L
PCP L
0.7 0.5
( | ) 0.875
0.4
P DOP L CP L
(3)
Adecisiontreeisadiagramthatrepresents,inan
organisedmanner, the decisions and the events that
influence uncertainty.In addition, the possible
outcomes of each of these decision and events are
included.Figure 2 shows a decision tree
representation and solution to this problem.In
Figure 2, squares
represent decisions and the lines
comingoutofeachsquareshowallavailabledistinct
optionsthatcan be selected atthe point of decision.
For instance, as shown in Figure 2, to perform an
assessment programme (an audit) or not to perform
one.Two lines come out of the relevant
“audit
square”toshowbothoftheavailableoptions(Yesor
No)thatcanbeselectedbythemanager.
Circles show various circumstances that have
uncertainoutcomesandthelinescomingoutofeach
circledenote a possible outcome of that uncertainty.
For instance, “circle R” shows the result of an
assessmentprogramme.The lines that come out of
“circle R” denote possible outcomes of that
uncertainty (a company’s performance is high,
averageorlow).Theprobabilityofeachoutcomeis
writtenontherespectiveline.BasedonFigure2,the
managercancalculatetheoveralldesirabilityofthose
558
choices.Forinstance,ifamanagermakesadecision
toperformtheaudit andbased ontheaudit’sresult
thecompany’s performanceisfoundtobehigh,then
thedesirabilityfortakinganactioncanbecalculated
asfollows:
12 1 12 2 12
12
0 0.5 0.5
0.5 0.5 1 2
CC B CC B CC
BBCC
(4)
If the assessment (evaluated by Equation 4) is
lesserthan“‐C”,thennoactionhastobetaken.Thus:
12122
121
0.5 0.5
0.5 0.5
B
BCC C
BBC
(5)
If the company makes a decision to perform the
audit, the desirability for the other choices can be
assessed.Thus, the three conditions can be
summarisedasfollows:
1 If a company’s performance is high and
112
0.5 0.5 CxBxB
,thentakenoaction.
2 If a company’s performance is average and
112
0.8 0.2 CxBxB
,thentakenoaction.
3 If a company’s performance is low and
112
0.125 0.875 CxBxB
,thentakenoaction.
As an illustrative example, in 2011, the Costa
Cruise Line owned 27 ships with revenues of 3.1
billion euros and 2.3 million guests (Costa Cruises,
2014).One of the Costa Cruise Line ships, Costa
ConcordiapartiallysankwhenitranagroundatIsola
del Giglio on
13th January 2012 with the loss of 32
lives.The accident was mainly caused by human
error (Lieto, 2014).After the salvage of Costa
Concordiathetotalcostoftheaccidentwasestimated
tobe$800million(£480million)(NBCNews,2014).
Forthepurposeofthefollowingcalculationsit
is
assumed that the £480 million loss was as a direct
resultofthedeckofficers’poorperformance.Forthe
company to address the loss it has to take action.
Aftertakingappropriateaction,profitwillbecomeB
2
foracompanyhavingofficerswithlowperformance
asexplainedearlierinthissection.AssumeB
2=2x
B
1.Thus:
12
21
1
2
£480
2
£160
£320
B
Bm
BB
Bm
Bm
Thecompany may decideto improve theNTSof
the deck officers by introducing further human
element training.This decision needs evaluating
basedontheproposedmethodologyinthispaper.If
further training is to be introduced then this will
require the development of an NTS training model
andits
implementationinaCRMstyletrainingcycle.
ThecostofevaluationofNTS taxonomyisestimated
as£200,000.For27shipsacompanywouldhave216
deck officers.As a result the training cost of deck
officerswouldbe£216,000(216x£1000).Therefore,
thetotalestimatedcostofC
1is£416,000.
The cost of an assessment programme (C2) is
estimated as £200,000. The assessment programme
could be implemented by sending experts onboard
shipstoassesstheperformanceofthedeckofficersin
the real life such as a Line Operations Safety Audit
(LOSA) program.During LOSA observation, an
observerrecordsandcodespotentialthreatstosafety,
how the
threats were addressed and the errors
generated,howtheerrorsweremanagedandhowthe
observed behaviour could be associated with
incidentsandaccidents(Pedigoetal.,2011).
1 £416,000>0.5x160m+0.5x320m
£416,000>£240m=Conditionnotsatisfied
2 £416,000>0.8x
160m+0.2x320m
£416,000>£192m=Conditionnotsatisfied
3 £416,000>0.125x160m+0.875x320m
£416,000>£300m=Conditionnotsatisfied
Asaresultconditions1,2and3arenotsatisfied.
Consequently and based on Figure 2, the expected
profitassociatedwith
thisstrategyiscalculatedas:
12 1 12 2 12
12 1 12 2 12
12 1 12 2 12
0.1 0 0.5 0.5
0.5 0 0.8 0.2
0.4 0 0.125 0.875
£239,384,000
CC B CC B CC
CC B CC B CC
CC B CC B CC
(6)
BasedonFigure2,theexpectedprofitsassociated
with taking an action and not performing the
assessmentprogrammeiscalculatedas:
11121
121
0 0.5 0.5
0.5 0.5 £239,584,000
xC BC B C
BBC
(7)
BasedonEquations6and7,theoptimalstrategyis
totakeanactionimmediately.
Fortheabove example andbyassuming that the
utility function is a linear function of the monetary
profit, a BN decision making model, as shown in
Figure3,isillustrated.InFigure3,squares
represent
decisions and diamonds (U
1 and U2) represent
utilities.ThevaluesforU
1andU2areshowninTables
7 and 8. In Figure 3, the expected profits associated
withtakinganactionandperformingtheaudit(yes)
or not performing the audit (no) are estimated as
£239.38mand£239.58mrespectively.
Table7.ValuesofU1
_______________________________________________
AuditYesNo
_______________________________________________
U1‐£200,0000
_______________________________________________
Table8.ValuesofU2
_______________________________________________
ActionYesNo
_______________________________________________
SSP High AverageLow HighAverage Low
_______________________________________________
U2 ‐£0.416m£159.584m£319.584m 0 0 0
_______________________________________________
2.3 Options
Afterconductingdecisiontreecalculationsnowthere
arethefollowingthreeoptionsavailable;
1 Donottakeanyactionandcontinuewithexisting
HELMcourse/NTStrainingarrangements.
2 Follow the suggestions in section 3.2 to evaluate
deck officers’ NTS taxonomy and behavioural
markers system, integrate the
HELM theory into
themaincourseandrunHELMsimulatortraining
559
at the end of the main course and implement an
aviationstyletrainingcycle.
3 Inadditiontofollowingthesuggestionsinsection
3.2,anassessmentprogrammeisimplemented.
Bychoosingoption1theaccidentswillcontinueto
happen, innocent seafarers will lose their lives. It is
apparent from the
decision tree calculations
(Equations 6‐7) that there is more benefit to the
company by choosing option 2.This will involve
implementing an aviation style training cycle,
carrying out the evaluation of deck officers’ NTS
taxonomy and the behavioural marker system,
integrating the HELM theory into the main course
and
running HELM simulatortrainingatthe end of
themaincourse.
)(
21
CC
)]([
211
CCB
)]([
212
CCB
2
C
)(
21
CC
)]([
211
CCB
)]([
212
CCB
2
C
)(
21
CC
)]([
211
CCB
)]([
212
CCB
2
C
1
C
)(
11
CB
)(
12
CB
Figure2:DecisionTree
Figure3. BN Decision Making Model for Measuring the
ShippingCompany’sProfit
3 CONCLUSION
Acomparisonmadebetweenthemaritimesectorand
other safety critical domains (aviation and
anaesthesia) found that course development and
delivery methods are different.In anaesthesia, the
ANTS was developed by conducting extensive
research.In aviation, underpinning knowledge of
NTS is provided before the NTS course begins.In
addition,
theCRMcourse,whichismainlysimulator
based, is provided by operators and not a training
college.
BasedontheNTScoursesdeliveredinothersafety
criticaldomains,atrainingmodelhasbeensuggested
for the maritime sector.The cost benefit analysis
thatwasconductedinthispaper,showsthat
thereis
long term benefit to be gained from applying this
model to evaluate deck officers’ NTS.The
developmentofasuitabletaxonomyandbehavioural
markers can then lead to the further integration of
HELM training into the main course and the
introductionofHELMsimulatortrainingattheendof
the course.This will effectively mean the
implementation of an aviation style training cycle.
In this way the work done in other safety critical
industries can be used to the advantage of the
maritime industry.Successful methods adopted
elsewhere can be adapted for inclusion in NTS
training,suchasthe
HELMcourse.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The material and data in this publication have been
obtained through the funding and support of the
International Association of Maritime Universities
(IAMU)andTheNipponFoundationinJapan.
REFERENCES
Akhtar,M.A.andUtne,I.B.,2014.Humanfatigue’s effect
on the risk of maritime groundings – A Bayesian
Networkmodellingapproach.SafetyScience,62,pp.427‐
440.
ANTS, 2014. A behavioural marker system for rating
Anaesthetists’ Non‐technical Skills. [online], Industrial
Psychology Research Centre, Aberdeen University.
Availableat:
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/iprc/ants/[Accessed
12
th
Feb2014]
ArthurD.Little,2004.Drivingsafetyculture:Identification
ofleadershipqualitiesforeffectivesafetymanagement,
Final report to Maritime and Coastguard Agency, October
2004.
Barnett,M.,Gatfield,D.andPeckan, C.,2006.Non‐technical
skills:thevitalingredientinworldmaritimetechnology.
2
nd
World maritime technology conference; WMTC 2006
maritimeinnovationdeliveringglobalsolutions,London
6‐10March2006.
Bhagwat, M., 2012. Simulation and anaesthesia. Indian
journalofAnaesthesia,56(1),Jan‐Feb2012,pp.14‐20.
CAA, 2006. Crew Resource Management Training:
Guidanceforflightcrew,CRMinstructors(CRMIS)and
CRM
instructor‐examiners (CRMIES). Civil Aviation
Authority,CAP737,26November2006.
Costa Cruise, 2014. Company Profile [online].Available
at:
http://www.costacruise.com/B2C/USA/Corporate/The+
560
company/aboutourselves/aboutourselves.htm
[Accessed
20
th
Feb2014]
Davitt, K. and Holford, S., 2015. The development of
resource management and leadership behavioural
marker for the merchant navy. Warsash Maritime
Academy,SouthamptonSolentUniversity,pp.1‐24.
Diehl, A. E., 1991. Does cockpit management training
reduce aircrew error? Paper presented at the 22
nd
international seminar, international society of air safety
investigators,CanberraAustralia,November1991.
Fletcher, G., Flin, R and Mcgeorge, P., 2003. Review of
human factors research in anaesthesia, University of
AberdeenSCPMDEProject:RDNES/991/C.
Flin,R., Martin, L., Geosters, K., Hoermann, J., Amalberti,
R.,Valot,C.,andNijhuis,H.,2003.Development
ofthe
NOTECHS (Non‐Technical Skills) system for assessing
pilots’CRMskills.HumanFactorsandAerospaceSafety,3
(2),pp.95‐117.
Flin,R.andMaran,N.,2004.Identifyingandtrainingnon‐
technical skills for teams in acute medicine. Qual Saf
HealthCare2004;13(1),pp.80‐84.
Flin,
R., 2013. Non‐technical skills for anaesthetists,
surgeons and scrub practitioners (ANTS, NOTTS and
SPLINTS).TheHealthcareFoundation,July2013,pp.1‐9.
Gatfield D., 2008. Behavioural markers for the assessment of
competence in crisis management. PhD thesis,
SouthamptonSolentUniversity.
Gill, G. W. And Wahner, C. M., 2012.
The Herald of Free
Enterprise casualty and its effect on maritime safety
philosophy.Marinetechnologysocietyjournal,2012,46(6),
pp.72‐84.
Habberley,J.,Barnett,M.,Gatfield,D.,Musselwhite,C.and
Mcneil G., 2001. Simulator training for handling
escalating emergencies. United Kingdom Maritime and
CoastguardAgencyresearchproject467.
Southampton:The
MaritimeandCoastguardAgency.
Helmreich, R. L., Merritt, A. C., and Wilhelm, J. A., 1999.
Theevolutionof CrewResource Management Training
in commercial aviation. The International Journal of
AviationPsychology,9(1),pp.19‐32.
Hetherington, C., Flin, R. and Mearns, K., 2006. Safety in
shipping:thehuman
element.Journalofsafetyresearch,
37,pp.401‐411.
IAMU, 2010. International Association of Maritime
Universities’ review of Manila amendments.
International Association of Maritime Universities Annual
GeneralAssembly14‐18
th
October2010,Pusan,Korea.
IMO, 2011. STCW Convention and STCW Code – Including
2010 Manila Amendments. International Maritime
Organisation,London,
www.imo.org,ISBN978‐92‐801‐
11528‐4.
IMO, 2015. Brief History of IMO [online] International
Maritime Organisation.Available at:
http://www.imo.org/About/HistoryOfIMO/Pages/Defaul
t.aspx
[Accessed1stJune2015]
Janessens, D., Wets, G., Brijs, T., Vanhoof, T., Arentze, T.
and Timmermans, H., 2005. Integrating Bayesian
networks and decision trees in a sequential rule‐based
transportation model. European Journal of Operational
Research,175,pp.16‐34.
Kanki, B.G., Helmreich, R. L. and Anca, J., 2010. Crew
ResourceManagement.Elsevier.
Lieto, A. D., 2014. Costa Concordia Anatomy of an
organisational accident [online].Available at:
http://www.enav‐
international.com/wosmedia/273/costaconcordiaanatom
yofanorganisationalaccident.pdf. [Accessed 25
th
March
2014]
Livingston,P.,Zolpys,L.,Mukwesi,C.,Twagirumugabe,T.,
Whynot, S. and Macleod (2014) Non‐technical skills of
anaesthesiaprovidersinRwanda:anethnography.Pan
Africa Medical Journal. 2014; 19:97
doi:10.11604/pamj.2014.19.97.5205,pp.1‐7.
Long, W. M.,2010. Development of the nontechnical skills for
officer of the deck (NTSOD) rating
form. Thesis, Naval
PostgraduateSchool,Monterey,California.
Matveeskii A. S. and Gravenstein N. (2008) Role of
simulators,educationalprogrammes,andnon‐technical
skills in anaesthesia resident selection, education and
competency assessment. Journal of clinical care, 23, pp.
167‐172.
MCA,2010.Thehumanelement–guidetohumanbehaviour
in
theshippingindustry.Thestationaryoffice,UK.
MCA 2013a. Human Element Leadership and Training.
MIN (Marine Information Note), Maritime and
CoastguardAgency,455,Crowncopyright2013.
MCA,2013b.Merchantshipping(STCW)regulationimpact
assessment. Maritime and Coastguard Agency, IA No:
DfT00256,Date31/10/2013.
MCA, 2015. HELM Syllabus Evaluation Survey.
Accessed
on24
th
Feb2016.
MNTB,2012.HumanElementLeadershipandManagement
– Operational and Management Levels. 1
st
Edition,
MerchantNavyTrainingBoard.
NBC News 2014. Costa Concordia Salvage Operations
[online].Available at:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/watch-time-
lapse-video-massive-salvage-operation-set-costa-
concordia-v20517915[Accessedon20
th
Feb2014].
O’Connor,P.,Hormann,H.,Flin,R.,Lodge,M.,Goeters,K.,
and The Jartel Group, 2002. Developing a method for
evaluating crew resource management skills: a
European perspective. International Journal of Aviation
Psychology,12(3),pp.265‐288.
O’Connor,P.andLong,W.M.,2011.Thedevelopmentofa
prototype behavioural marker
system for US navy
officerofthedeck.USNavyresearch,Paper39,pp.1381‐
1387.
Pedigo,M.,Ma,J.,Gildea,K.,Holcomb,H.,Hackworth,C.
And Hiles, J. J., 2011. The line operations safety audit
program: transitioning from flight operations to
maintenance and ramp operations. Federal Aviation
Administration,
DOT/FAA/AM‐11/15, Office of
AerospaceMedicine,Washington,DC20591.
Richardson, T, (1997) A review of an introduction to
Bayesian networks. Journal of the American Statistical
Association,92(439),pp.1215‐1216.
Saeed, F. and Riahi, R., 2014. Development of taxonomy for
deck officers’ non‐technical skills (NTS) and analysing
training
needs for human element, leadership and
management(HELM) course.InternationalAssociationof
MaritimeUniversities.ISBN978‐4‐907408‐06‐0.
Saeed,F.Wall,A.Roberts,C,Riahi,R.andBury,A.,2016.A
proposed quantitative methodology for evaluation of the
effectiveness of Human Element and Leadership and
Management(HELM)training
intheUK.WMUJournalof
MaritimeAffairs,DOI10.1007/s13437‐016‐0107‐7.
Tally,W.K.,2012.Blackwellcompaniontomaritimeeconomics.
Blackwellpublishinglimited.
Wagener, F. and Ison, D. C., 2014. Crew resource
managementapplicationincommercialaviation.Journal
ofaviationtechnologyandengineering.3(2),pp.2‐
13.
Wall,A.D.(2015),SubjectHead,LJMU,Interview,27
th
May,
2015.
Yee,B.,Naik,V.,Joo, H.S.etal.,2005.Non‐technicalskills
in Anaesthesia Crisis Management with Repeated
exposuretosimulation‐basededucation.Anaesthesiology,
103(2),pp.
