Can anyone point me to a risk matrix that focuses upon psychological injury. It's pretty easy categorising physical injury, broken bone etc. although not so re: psychological (from anxiety, stress to PTSD and beyond)

Edited by user 18 March 2019 16:17:06(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I would say you can't, you would need to quantify it based on an outcome/effect and that would need to be assessed by a doctor or OHD. Each person reacts to psychological trauma in a different way. That is not to say that one person is 'softer' than another. These are the actual physical damages in the brain, it does not depend on personality. In fact, one could argue that personality is a manifestation of the physical order of the brain. (I believe, through some not insignificant research).  It is sometimes said that Stress-induced depression is the curse of the strong, because the damage is most in those who persevere the longest before giving up. Or put bluntly, if you don't give a damn, you won't get stress-induced depression. 

It is about effect, not cause. Like falling off a building, some will get hurt more than others, you measure the damage not the height they fell from.

Dave

There's another aspect to this for me in my own work. Where skin is concerned it is an active organ affected by both external and internal factors. I have investigated several cases where the skin condition, diagnosed by a medical person as occupational contact dermatitis (in one case latex allergy!) was purely psychosomatic in nature. (Her diagnosis was called undifferentiated idiopathic somatoform anaphylaxis!). There is actually a European Society specialising in this field and several books on psychosomatic dermatitis. How would you fit this into a matrix?

Chris

NICE Guide 116 has guidance and tools available for clinicians to assess PTSD and others but that is all individual and treatment driven....I have a semi-quantitative stress risk matrix but agin for indivdual ...you are more than happy to have a copy to see if it is any use pm me and I will email...not back in the office un til Friday so it may be then :)

https://www2.acc.com/aboutacc/newsroom/pressreleases/upload/SRRS.pdf

It is the social readjustment scale and as everything with this subject it is very subjective....use with caution.. :)

Many people have expressed negativity towards risk matrices for a long time.  I happen to believe they can be a useful tool in certain circumstances and feel the problems come from the way they are used rather than
because they are inherently wrong.

I don't follow the logic of saying psychological risk cannot be ranked because everyone reacts differently.  One of the key components of risk likelihood or probability.  This says that outcomes are rarely certain,
but some outcomes are more likely that others.  Surely this applies equally to psychological as physical? 

If I get hit by a car travelling at 40 mph I have a 90% chance of dying.  That does not say I will die as it will depend on the circumstances and I am sure my physique and health would have an impact.  If 10 people get hit by a car travelling 40mph we can expect 9 of them to die, but we don’t know who
will survive and from a risk perspective that doesn’t matter.

Why can’t we say similar things for psychological risk?  Of course it is fair to then ask whether doing this will have any benefit.

The question 'Can anyone point me to a risk matrix that focuses upon psychological injury?' suggests serious lack of understanding of psychological phenenoma in work situations.

To appreciate this, a good place to start is completing the Hogan Development Survey and reading the book by the author, Robert Hogan, on The Fate of Organizations.  It introduces the issues well in plain language, and draws on reliable valid research.

Precisely because psychological injury and health require expertise in psychological measurement, the British Psychological Society has developed a register of people competent in this area at the Psychological Test Centre.