Hi all I just wondered how many of you out there provide your staff with additional or specialist DSE equipment? E:g ergonomic mice/keyboards etc? We provide all staff with the minimum requirements-adjustable chair, document holder (if needed) standard keyboard/mouse & footrest if required. In the past we have had the luxury of being able to provide staff with alternate equipment such as a vertical mouse or split keyboard. We are on a cost cutting exercise and my argument is that as long as we provide the minimum requirement we will be compliant with the DSE regs. My manager believes that if someone asks for a different style of mouse we have to provide. ( We would however provide if it was on a medical recommendation). I'm just trying to explain to her the difference between the "must have" and the "nice to have" DSE equipment. any comments welcome

I agree with Kieran We identify staff who are having problems with their workstations and supply them with whatever they need. Cost does not really come into it-and we are a public sector organisation where money is tight. If you identify an employee as requiring extensive modifications to their workstation and but decide that the ‘standard kit’ is all that they are going to get and they develop any long term Upper Limb Disorders as a result then your bosses will be liable for damages which will probably add upto more than anything that you might have saved on buying the DSE equipment in the first place. If you want to see more look at http://www.humanetechnol....co.uk/wruldii/intro.php which gives you a list of legal cases relating to this sort of thing. Essentially you will find that employers that do nothing get done and employers who do everything that is reasonably practicable get off. Which is as it should be.

Yes Ron Although we have more office workers than drivers, management has never had any problems with us dealing with DSE issues. For driving it has been a more uphill struggle. Partially this is because there is no specific regulations, partially cos the staff doing the driving are ‘out of sight, out of mind’ and partially because driving is regarded as an everyday normal activity and using a PC is ‘work’.

What did she sit on at home or whilst driving to and from work then? I fear there is an element of pandering here and there. I personally look forward to the DSE Regs (and the parent Directive) being repealed.

I am surprised that some members of the forum seem to have a blind spot when it comes to DSE and similar requirements to deal with Work Realted Upper Limb disorders. Sorry Ron it’s not pandering. My opinion is based on the following: 1) Staff are not choosing to sit in front of PC or similar workstation for hours on end. It is their job, the employer tells them to do and has control over how long they have to do the job. They can set targets of how much work they have to do in a day. 2) People are all different. Its only when you start doing assessments that you realise that difference in things like the large variation between length of leg( especially thighs) and thorax. 3) Peoples’ requirements change- as they get older they stiffen up, pregnant women’s joints tend to loosen up etc. All of these things makes it wrong to simply set up a standard work station and expect everybody to be able to work equally well at it.

Having seen the reply from Claire I can assure her that as a professional working in the public sector staff do not get all they want they have to have a genuine medical condition and it needs to be supported by an occupational health assessment. If there is a recommendation for enhancements to the DSE equipment provided then we establish the exact requirements for the need and ensure that it is correctly installed and used. Yes, we do take requests for DSE enhanced equipment seriously but it must also be right for the medical condition and also be of benefit to the user.

Not a blind spot, A Kurdziel - quite the opposite in fact. More a bafflement that this same level of diligence is rarely, if ever, applied to non-DSE workstations (production lines, machine shops, etc.) or to occupational driving, where WRULDs are just as prevalent. It frankly beggars belief the extent that some employers will go to to satisfy DSE users, whilst ignoring everyone else! I stand by my earlier "pandering" comment too. All chairs are surely "ergonomic". as Clairel says, a wee (as in small) cushion would have probably done the job for the expectant employee. I also suggest the intent of the Management Regs as regards NAEM is wholly misconstrued by many.

Sorry Clare but we do live in the real world in the public sector. The cost of any modifications to workstations (not just DSE but others including microscopes, pipetting in labs) is minor compared to the cost of any claims plus losing valuable staff. Until we got to grips with the issue we lost several key scientists to ergonomic problems mainly due to management attitudes like yours. Replacing staff like this costs money, which we cannot afford. We are obliged to deliver and the only way we can do this is by ensuring that we retain staff who are we have investing over many years. It’s time we moved on and learned to value our employees and move out of the dark ages, when employees were nothing but factory fodder.

Actually the scientist in question was crying because they desperately wanted to finish their work despite their pain and their manager was not interested in “pandering” to them by buying them a better chair. They were signed off sick and left the organisation and science. Fortunately they did not sue us because they were not that sort of person. Since then we have taken a stronger position on ergonomic issues and if people have genuine problems backed by medical advice we deal with them. We also try to anticipate issues by managing and designing work so that these issues do not arise. We do not differentiate between any sort of work station be it a computer workstation or a lab-bench. They are all dealt with equally.

Also work in the public sector and I can assure you Claire that in the organisation I work for I have to justify virtually every single recommendation I make (as both H&S Adviser and Ergonomist) - especially if it involves a new chair or a significant modifications to the workstation! I also recycle any equipment should the person leave the organisation so it can be employed elsewhere rather than buy new equipment. In my organisation, staff who ask for a specific item are asked to provide evidence that it has been recommended i.e. by occupational health, their GP etc. An assessment will ALWAYS be undertaken to ascertain whether this is the most suitable item or if there is something else that would be better suited. If, after a detailed workstation assessment the findings suggest they don't need or would not benefit from the item they don't get it and an explanation is given to the person with regards to that decision i.e. it would actually exacerbate your specific condition, we have addressed the reason you were getting shoulder discomfort - the mouse was at the back of the desk so you were stretching etc. As to repealing the legislation, having provided guidance and advice to staff on the correct posture at their workstation which has reduced the discomfort they have been experiencing (and thus potentially averted a spell of watching Jeremy Kyle on TV on sick leave and helped them remain in work), I believe this would be a grave mistake. Sure, it's not in the same league as the more dangerous oil, petrochemical, construction industries but there are still a lot of office workers out there who are required to sit at their workstation for hours on end and who can and do complain of discomfort related to the work they undertake [just had a person diagnosed with cerivical ribs for example where posture can play a massive part in whether the person experiences extreme pain or not].

Just noted the above. A fairly common congenital condition where pain and discomfort can arise mainly as a result of poor posture or repetitive arm movements. In other words, something a good DSE Assessment should manage without further reference or remedial action?