The Development of a Self-Administered Physical Loading and Planning Tool Richard Wells, Keith McMillan, Desre Kramer, Philip Bigelow, Syed Naqvi, Lynda Robson, Ivan Steenstra, Nicolette Carlan
The Purpose
The Results
To develop an accurate and usable tool to document the type and level of physical loading and MSD physical risk factors at the workplace level.
26 types of loading documented
Example data: 25 % of workers at this facility work with their hands above shoulder level for more than 2 hours per day.
The Reason Most ergonomics assessment methods are designed to assess a single person’s exposure to physical loading or at a single workstation Few ways to assess physical loading or MSD physical risk factors at the workplace level in a quick, efficient way Ontario Health and Safety System looking to develop leading indicators for MSDs Useful to:
Q1. Carry Loads Q2. Trunk Flexed Q3. Push/Pull Loads Q4. Lift > 23 kg** Q5. Lift > 40 kg** Q6. Lift People Q7. Hand above Shoulder** Q8. Lift above Shoulder** Q9. Neck Bent/Twisted** Q10. Static Upper Body** Q11. Repetitive Arm** Q12. Repetitive Hand** Q13. Pinch Grip*
Comparison of the presence or absence of exposures rated by: Management (M), Labour (L), by Consensus (C) and Ergonomist (E)
Q14. Q15. Q16. Q17. Q18. Q19. Q20. Q21. Q22. Q23. Q24. Q25. Q26.
Power Grasp* Computer Use* Hand as Hammer* Gloves Standing Sitting Driving On-Road Driving Off-Road Kneel/ Squat** Knee Hammering Cold Temperature Moderate Vibration* High Vibration*
* Taken or **based upon Washington State Caution Zone Checklist
Percentage of workplaces with any exposure to 26 types of loading
Determine the types, distribution and magnitude of loads to which Ontario workers are exposed and to benchmark such exposures. For planning purposes To help in gauging the effect of prevention activities on the leading indicators of exposure to physical loads
www.cre-msd.uwaterloo.ca
The consensus and ergonomist ratings agreed well for the presence or absence of each loading type with 9/26 with 90%+ agreement and an additional 10/26 more over 70% agreement. For an Exposure Index, 22 of 26 types of physical loading did not differ from ratings made by the ergonomist
The Conclusions
The Method A survey was created with the help of health and safety experts from unions, employer representatives and ergonomists. A starting point was a survey from Washington State that that had previously been used to assess physical loading in thousands of workplaces. Extra load types were added and questions were reworded for clarity. Surveys were distributed to management and labour in 236 workplaces and an ergonomist performed a half day walkthrough of the workplace of respondents 30 complete data sets from management (M), labour (L), consensus (C) and ergonomist (E) were obtained.
The Findings
Percentage of workers with any exposure to 26 types of loading
It is possible for workplace parties to document exposure to physical loads at the workplace level quickly and with a moderate agreement to exposures documented by an ergonomist on a walkthrough. Such a survey may be useful in future efforts to document the types of physical loads present for H&S planning purposes Filling out the survey acted as an impetus for many workplaces to initiate MSD hazard identification and assessment activities Further Work Improve questions and instruction wording Add loading types, e.g. climbing and walking Convert to web-based survey Re-test with more than one ergonomist Participating Organizations: University of Waterloo, Institute of Work and Health, Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers, Communication Energy and Paper Workers & Canadian Auto Workers (Unifor), United Steel Workers of America, Ontario Public Service Employees Union, United Food and Commercial Workers, Ontario Nurses Association, Canadian Union of Public Employees
If your organization would like to participate in this ongoing project, contact Project Manager Niki Carlan at
[email protected] This Project fundedby by aa research grant provided by the by Workplace Safety and Insurance This Project waswas funded research grant provided the Workplace Safety Board (Ontario) and Insurance Board (Ontario)
