| Literature DB >> 35206334 |
Ali Sibevei1, Adel Azar1, Mostafa Zandieh2, Seyed Mohammad Khalili3, Maziar Yazdani4.
Abstract
Health systems are recognised as playing a potentially important role in many risk management strategies; however, there is strong evidence that health systems themselves have been the victims of unanticipated risks and have lost their functionality in providing reliable services. Existing risk identification and assessment tools in the health sector, particularly in the blood supply chain, address and evaluate risks without taking into account their interdependence and a holistic perspective. As a result, the aim of this paper is to develop a new systemic framework based on a semi-quantitative risk assessment approach to measure supply chain risks, which will be implemented through a case study on the Iranian BSC. This paper identifies and assesses supply chain risks (SCRs) by employing a novel systemic process known as SSM-SNA-ISM (SSI). First, the supply chain and its risks are identified using Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). Then, given the large number of risks, the second stage uses Social Network Analysis (SNA) to identify the relationships between the risks and select the most important ones. In the third stage, risk levelling is performed with a more in-depth analysis of the selected risks and the application of Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM), and further analysis is performed using the Cross-Impact Matrix Multiplication Applied to Classification (MICMAC). The study found that by using the new proposed approach, taking into account risk relationships, and taking a holistic view, various supply chain risks could be assessed more effectively, especially when the number of risks is large. The findings also revealed that resolving the root risks of the blood supply chain frequently necessitates management skills. This paper contributes to the literature on supply chain risk management in two ways: First, a novel systemic approach to identifying and evaluating risks is proposed. This process offers a fresh perspective on supply chain risk modelling by utilising systems thinking tools. Second, by identifying Iranian BSC risks and identifying special risks.Entities:
Keywords: blood supply chain; interpretive structural modelling; social network analysis; supply chain risks
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35206334 PMCID: PMC8872609 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19042139
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Summary of previous studies.
| Author’s Name | Year | Approach | Study Area | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthcare and Blood | Liu [ | 2009 | FMEA and Cluster analysis | Other |
| Boonyanusith and Jittamai [ | 2019 | HOR | ||
| Lu, Teng, Zhou, Wen and Bi [ | 2013 | PDCA and FMEA | ||
| Dehnavieh, Ebrahimipour, Molavi-Taleghani, Vafaee-Najar, Noori Hekmat and Esmailzdeh | 2015 | HFMEA | ||
| Najafpour, Hasoumi, Behzadi, Mohamadi, Jafary and Saeedi [ | 2017 | FMEA | ||
| Cagliano, Grimaldi, Mangano and Rafele [ | 2017 | (RBS), (RBM), (FMECA) | ||
| Mora, Ayala, Bielza, Ataúlfo González and Villegas [ | 2019 | HOR | ||
| Achmadi and Mansur [ | 2018 | HOR | ||
| Jaberidoost, Olfat, Hosseini, Kebriaeezadeh, Abdollahi, Alaeddini and Dinarvand [ | 2015 | AHP and SAW | MCDM | |
| Other Areas | Curkovic, Scannell and Wagner [ | 2013 | FMEA | Other |
| Troche-Escobar, et al. [ | 2018 | ISM | ||
| Pujawan and Geraldin [ | 2009 | HOR | ||
| Wu, Blackhurst and Chidambaram [ | 2006 | AHP | MCDM | |
| Gaudenzi and Borghesi [ | 2006 | AHP | ||
| Wang, Chan, Yee and Diaz-Rainey [ | 2012 | FAHP | ||
| Song, Ming and Liu [ | 2018 | DEMATEL | ||
| Fazli, Kiani Mavi and Vosooghidizaji [ | 2015 | DEMATEL and ANP | ||
| Junaid, Xue, Syed, Li and Ziaullah [ | 2020 | N-AHP and TOPSIS | ||
| Moeinzadeh and Hajfathaliha [ | 2009 | ANP and VIKOR | ||
| Nazam, Xu, Tao, Ahmad and Hashim [ | 2015 | AHP and TOPSIS | ||
| Fazli, Kiani Mavi and Vosooghidizaji [ | 2015 | DEMATEL and ANP | ||
| Rostamzadeh, Ghorabaee, Govindan, Esmaeili and Nobar [ | 2018 | CRITIC and TOPSIS |
Figure 1Steps of the proposed framework.
Figure 2Seven steps of SSM adopted from Wang, Liu and Mingers [45].
Figure 3The rich picture of the BSC.
BSC risks.
| Segments | Code | Risks |
|---|---|---|
| Reception | R1 | An insufficient estimate of the amount needed to collect |
| R2 | Getting inadequate or incorrect clinical information in the application form | |
| R3 | Unavailability of some blood donation centres | |
| R4 | Decreased blood donor satisfaction | |
| R5 | Software problems | |
| R6 | Differences in the quality of products produced by different blood transfusion centres | |
| R7 | Congestion and rush to donate blood | |
| Medical consultation and examination | R8 | Failure of donor screening |
| R9 | Gathering incorrect information from a donor | |
| Blood donation | R10 | Lack of quality and safety during blood donation |
| R11 | Equipment failure | |
| R12 | Mismatch | |
| R13 | Wastes and losses | |
| R14 | Non-calibrated equipment | |
| R15 | The temperature change of the blood bags | |
| R16 | Late delivery | |
| Other provinces | R17 | Decreased blood quality during transportation |
| R18 | Delay in receiving blood | |
| R19 | Getting poor quality blood | |
| Maintenance | R20 | Failure to perform preventive maintenance |
| Producing production | R21 | Temperature changes |
| R22 | Equipment failure | |
| R23 | Non-calibrated equipment | |
| R24 | Software and system problems | |
| R25 | Sources likely to be compromised following an autoclave explosion | |
| R26 | Expiration of products | |
| Test | R27 | Error in confirming the blood group |
| R28 | Undetectable new viruses | |
| R29 | Incorrect confirmation of the sample | |
| R30 | Unsafe disposal of positive units | |
| R31 | Error in data entry | |
| R32 | Temperature changes | |
| R33 | Non-calibrated equipment | |
| R34 | Equipment failure | |
| Blood products storage | R35 | Improper blood inventory level |
| R36 | Shortage of emergency storage units | |
| R37 | Insecure disposal of expired units | |
| R38 | Blood rotting | |
| R39 | Expiration of blood products | |
| Distribution | R40 | An insufficient response to the hospital demand |
| R41 | Delivering wrong blood bag | |
| R42 | Improper blood supply (life expectancy) | |
| R43 | Improper allocation of blood to different centres (in terms of units) | |
| R44 | Non-standard packaging on delivery | |
| R45 | Delays in shipping | |
| R46 | Equipment failure | |
| R47 | Decreased blood quality during transportation | |
| Warehouse | R48 | Product corruption |
| R49 | Lack of materials and equipment (such as kits and bags) | |
| R50 | Excessive items | |
| Hospitals | R51 | A mistake in blood compatibility test |
| R52 | Delay in the use of allocated blood bags | |
| R53 | Waiting for the blood reserved by doctors | |
| R54 | Insufficient blood inventory level | |
| R55 | Improper disposal of expired units or wastes | |
| R56 | Inappropriate assessment of the amount of blood required before surgery | |
| R57 | Blood rotting | |
| R58 | Temperature changes | |
| R59 | Side effects of blood transfusion | |
| Government | R60 | Cumbersome rules (such as customs rules) |
| R61 | Lack of proper budget allocation | |
| R62 | Economic and political effects of sanctions | |
| R63 | changes in the exchange rate | |
| R64 | Inflation | |
| R65 | Energy rate changes | |
| R66 | Financial crises | |
| Suppliers | R67 | Selection of inappropriate suppliers |
| R68 | Delay in dispatch | |
| R69 | Purchase of inappropriate equipment | |
| R70 | Cut-off relationships with suppliers | |
| R71 | Inappropriate contracts | |
| Education and training administration | R72 | Inappropriate public education |
| Broadcasting organization and cyberspace | R73 | Inaccurate and false information and false excitement |
| Certificate companies | R74 | Improper implementation of standards |
| QC | R75 | Error in checking tests |
| R76 | Inadequate quality control of materials | |
| R77 | Improper quality control of products | |
| R78 | Failure to identify discrepancies in the audit | |
| R79 | Not paying attention to the documentation revision | |
| R80 | Not paying attention to the process of quality assurance system development | |
| R81 | Incorrect conduct of validation studies | |
| (IT) | R82 | Unauthorized access to organizational information |
| R83 | Cyber-attacks and hacking | |
| R84 | Failure to server data recovery | |
| R85 | Lack of data transfer between different systems | |
| Environment | R86 | Power outage |
| R87 | Earthquake | |
| R88 | Fire | |
| R89 | Contagious events | |
| R90 | Severe climate change | |
| R91 | Emerging diseases | |
| Society | R92 | Changing culture and lifestyle |
| R93 | Street chaos | |
| Terrorist groups | R94 | Terrorist attacks |
| R95 | War | |
| Human resources | R96 | Safety negligence |
| R97 | Incompatibility of human resources with the goals of the organization | |
| R98 | Low productivity of the employees | |
| R99 | Strike | |
| R100 | Not paying attention to standards and validations | |
| R101 | Lack of succession | |
| R102 | Not saving the knowledge of human resources |
Figure 4Relation among risks according to the degree of centrality.
Importance of the identified risks in terms of the degree of centrality.
| Risk | Degree | Risk | Degree | Risk | Degree | Risk | Degree | Risk | Degree | Risk | Degree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | 37 | R18 | 21 | R35 | 36 | R52 | 12 | R69 | 34 | R86 | 34 |
| R2 | 19 | R19 | 9 | R36 | 34 | R53 | 33 | R70 | 29 | R87 | 38 |
| R3 | 8 | R20 | 37 | R37 | 12 | R54 | 33 | R71 | 31 | R88 | 31 |
| R4 | 27 | R21 | 16 | R38 | 32 | R55 | 10 | R72 | 17 | R89 | 30 |
| R5 | 39 | R22 | 31 | R39 | 32 | R56 | 20 | R73 | 28 | R90 | 22 |
| R6 | 30 | R23 | 19 | R40 | 37 | R57 | 26 | R74 | 13 | R91 | 30 |
| R7 | 39 | R24 | 5 | R41 | 22 | R58 | 14 | R75 | 11 | R92 | 28 |
| R8 | 29 | R25 | 19 | R42 | 25 | R59 | 32 | R76 | 20 | R93 | 16 |
| R9 | 31 | R26 | 23 | R43 | 27 | R60 | 25 | R77 | 18 | R94 | 26 |
| R10 | 25 | R27 | 23 | R44 | 13 | R61 | 29 | R78 | 11 | R95 | 33 |
| R11 | 38 | R28 | 23 | R45 | 19 | R62 | 36 | R79 | 7 | R96 | 18 |
| R12 | 29 | R29 | 23 | R46 | 33 | R63 | 36 | R80 | 9 | R97 | 12 |
| R13 | 39 | R30 | 17 | R47 | 14 | R64 | 17 | R81 | 10 | R98 | 51 |
| R14 | 13 | R31 | 24 | R48 | 30 | R65 | 10 | R82 | 15 | R99 | 8 |
| R15 | 26 | R32 | 24 | R49 | 37 | R66 | 30 | R83 | 33 | R100 | 38 |
| R16 | 37 | R33 | 31 | R50 | 14 | R67 | 37 | R84 | 15 | R101 | 31 |
| R17 | 16 | R34 | 30 | R51 | 28 | R68 | 30 | R85 | 26 | R102 | 38 |
Structural self-interaction matrix.
| R98 | R7 | R100 | R102 | R67 | R13 | R40 | R11 | R35 | R62 | R49 | R1 | R5 | R63 | R16 | R20 | R87 | |
| R98 | X | X | X | V | V | V | V | O | O | V | V | X | O | V | V | A | |
| R7 | X | V | A | O | X | O | V | O | O | X | O | X | O | V | O | A | |
| R100 | X | A | V | V | V | O | V | V | A | V | V | X | O | V | V | A | |
| R102 | X | V | A | V | V | V | V | V | O | V | V | X | O | V | A | A | |
| R67 | A | O | A | A | V | V | V | V | A | V | V | V | A | O | V | O | |
| R13 | A | X | A | A | A | V | V | V | A | O | O | O | A | V | A | A | |
| R40 | A | O | O | A | A | A | A | A | O | A | A | A | O | A | A | A | |
| R11 | A | A | A | A | A | A | V | V | A | V | O | 0 | A | V | A | A | |
| R35 | O | O | A | A | A | A | V | A | O | A | A | A | O | A | A | A | |
| R62 | O | O | V | O | V | V | O | V | O | V | O | O | V | O | V | O | |
| R49 | A | X | A | A | A | O | V | A | V | A | O | O | A | O | A | A | |
| R1 | A | O | A | A | A | O | V | O | V | O | O | A | O | O | O | O | |
| R5 | X | X | X | X | A | O | V | 0 | V | O | O | V | O | O | A | O | |
| R63 | O | O | O | O | V | V | O | V | O | A | V | O | O | O | V | O | |
| R16 | A | A | A | A | O | A | V | A | V | O | O | O | O | O | O | A | |
| R20 | A | O | A | V | A | V | V | V | V | A | V | O | V | A | O | A | |
| R87 | V | V | V | V | O | V | V | V | V | O | V | O | O | O | V | V |
Final reachability matrix.
| R98 | R7 | R100 | R102 | R67 | R13 | R40 | R11 | R35 | R62 | R49 | R1 | R5 | R63 | R16 | R20 | R87 | |
| R98 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| R7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| R100 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| R102 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| R67 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| R13 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| R40 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| R11 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| R35 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| R62 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| R49 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| R1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| R5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| R63 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| R16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| R20 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| R87 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Figure 5ISM-based model of BSC risks.
Figure 6MICMAC analysis.