Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gerry Phairs
Due to restructuring we are having to move 2 deaf people, they have both requested to be relocated in the press shop area which is a cat 2 noise zone (there is other work available although at a lesser rate). Has anyone been involved in a similar situation. Although these people are deaf I am assumming working in a noise zone could further damage their hearing.
Any advice would be appreciated.
Gerry
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mark Talbot
Can you define their level of deafness then please? I have to think they have some hearing left if you think it can be further damaged.
If they have any residual hearing, it would be negligent to expose them to likely damage - you should be taking even greater care of them (Paris v Stepny 1951).
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adam Jackson
Mark's right. You should ensure they are given protection via the usual heirarchy and the duty to protect their hearing is particularly key as the effect of any slight hearing loss could be worse for them than for someone with 'normal' hearing.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By jackw.
Hi hate to state the obvious but would it not be opertune to seek medical advice from a specialist on this. or at least request the workers in question to get one. Whilst i appreciate the view re further damage it seems rather pointless to me to have them wear ear protection if no further damage can be done. Although i suppose it would stop the "they aren't wearing ear protection why do I have to" scenario.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mark Talbot
Jack, you are right about the problems it could cause with other workers. Without going cover to cover on the Regs, I can't remember any exceptions being granted to the obligations of the employer of deaf people (nor blind people being excluded from DSE eye tests - law is not written that way).
A little bell is ringing in the back of the mind that enforcement has been made of an obligation that was irrelevant (sorry too vague, I know, but something niggles).
So it would be wise to consult with your enforcement officer to get their opinion too (saves suprises during a visit).
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
Question: can someone who is profoundly deaf still be exposed to sound pressure and develop tinnitus as a result?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Clare Hazlewood
You may need to seek advice from each deaf individual's audiologist on this issue. When a deaf person wears hearing aids or a cochlear implant to make use of their residual hearing, then the amplification will not be uniform across the range of sound frequencies. Most hearing aids (if I remember rightly) boost mid-range frequencies much more than high frequencies. The perceived sound levels will be very different to those experienced by non hearing-impaired person. As mum to a deaf child, I have listened to everyday noises through a hearing aid (using an attenuator to protect my own hearing) and found that noises such as chairs scraping on floors, tapping and clunking noises seem louder relative to speech sounds. I would imagine that machinery noise would be similarly prominent and unpleasant.
As a consequence, a hearing aid/implant user may require more/less attenuation at different frequencies compared with a normally-hearing person. An audiologist would be able to indicate which frequencies the deaf person was most sensitive to with and without their hearing aids. For users of digital hearing aids and cochlear implants, the audiologist might be able to create settings specifically for noisy environments.
If additional PPE is advised, then once the most suitable attenuation requirements have been determined, you would have to consider appropriate fitting of the hearing protection. Ear plugs are no use to the aided ear, since sounds are picked up by a microphone. Ear muffs would need to be large enough to accomodate the hearing aid, and not create extra noise by rubbing on the microphone. Where a cochlear implant and speech processor are used, the earmuffs should not put excessive pressure on the implant site.
When a hearing-impaired person who normally uses hearing aids/cochlear implant is in a noisy environment (even below action levels), they may effectively become more deaf than in a good listening environment, and so will need to rely more on visual signs, signals and lipreading. Colleagues may need deaf-awareness advice and training so as to communicate effectively.
Clare Hazlewood
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Richie
Don't forget the workers may remain deaf due to "current medical knowlege" not being of such an advanced stage to treat them.
Who is to say there is not a medical miracle just around the corner? All being equal, the situation could arise that the workers end up with NIHL which they received when deaf (Scary stuff).
Richie
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David P. Johnson
This would be a DDA issue. You need to provide them with PPE - failing to do so because of a disability would be a breach, even in spite of the potential idiocy of the situation.
David
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Walker
Why bother making a patronising distinction?
Just treat them the same as everyone else, including wearing the PPE.
I guess they will take it upon themselves to switch off any hearing aid
The Paris vs Stephney argument is irrelevant assuming you ARE providing total protection already for your hearing workers.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Walker
David, wearing the PPE is NOT idiocy - you are assuming people are deaf
across the whole hearing spectrum, this is very rarely the case.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David P. Johnson
By idiocy I meant the image of someone completely deaf completely dolled up with hearing protection when it is completely unnecessary from an OHS point of view, but can be argued as necessary from other standpoints.
DJ
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Clare Hazlewood
David,
Very few deaf people are "completely deaf". Most have some residual hearing. For those who chose to use it, via hearing aids or implants, preserving that residual hearing is very, very important. The individual's audiologist would be able to advise on how best to protect their residual hearing in a noisy environment. In some cases, the solution might be simply to switch off the aid, but this is not necessarily the case for every deaf person.
Clare Hazlewood
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete Stewart
Given that these are rather unique scenarios, would it not be prudent to involve the experts from the RNID & Occ Health as well as the audiologists?
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.