Rank: New forum user 
|
Please can anyone help with the management/control of the outcomes of Assessments of Repetitive Tasks Tool risk assessents.
I realise there are different ways to the solutions i.e. rotation, reduce the speed of the production line or putting more persons on the line - are there any other solutions? If success has been had with rotation of persons on tasks; how has this been managed and recorded; do the operatives sign to say that they agree that that is the work they have done during the day or, is it acceptable if it is recorded by the production team without a signature? Has anyone had any successful solutions please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Pam B
What you've described is a standard situation for applying several elements of ergonomic science, depending on what you describe as 'success' and 'successful solutions', in terms not only of safety, but also of volume, speed, quality and waste as well as employee motivation.
In the absence of details, the only thing that can be said for certainty is that a signature for an operative can only be a very limited measure of 'success'.
What specific problem are you trying to solve? How participative is your present system of working with people as well as machines and tools?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
To the extent that 'success' means controlling risks of musculoskeletal injuries or disorders, you probably need to control postures and force operatives are obliged to use by the mix of machinery, equipment and handtools as well as repetitive movements.
This can be 'successfully' done by gathering data through video analysis of posture and movements of the upper limbs and torso, including males/females and people of different age groups in the sample studied.
The other data necessary for deciding on adaptations to work and work stations are the measurements of upper limbs and bodies of a representative sample of your operatives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Another ergonomist has brought to my attention that, certainly in relation to measuring force that operatives are obliged to use in their work, anthropometric equipment can be used (and would be used by an independent safety ergonomist asked to provide a court report in the event of injury).
There is agreement, at the same time, about two facets of your questions. One is that 'repetitive' tasks invariably involve postural hazards and are often accompanied by need to exert stressful force. The other is that you need to gather sufficient, relevant reliable valid data about the operatives, their machines, equipment and tools as well as the tasks in order to figure out options so that you and managers to negotiate a solution to your problems 'as far as reasonably practicable'.
If the situation you outline were to result in legal proceedings, on the basis of your question, the notion of relying on a signature as you appear to suggest could be used to indicate to a court apparent failure to understand the risks to which employees are exposed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
KieranD
Thank you very much for your response; your first paragraph is spot on, that’s exactly the stage where we are at. Assessments are completed and it is realised that we need to find a solution as you stated as ‘far as is reasonably practicable’.
The signature came to mind due to one of the solutions that we feel may work, and that is increased rotation of persons but first, how would that be managed and how can we as a company prove that any individual was in the correct ‘position’ of rotation at any one time if we have to prove it historically. I was concerned that although we could have the paperwork to show that the individual was in ‘that’ position at any given time, would it then be able to be refuted the individual?
DaveDowan
Thank you very much for your response: that’s the information we have been using to carry out the assessments, we are now at the next stage of trying to find a solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Pam B wrote:
The signature came to mind due to one of the solutions that we feel may work, and that is increased rotation of persons but first, how would that be managed and how can we as a company prove that any individual was in the correct ‘position’ of rotation at any one time if we have to prove it historically. I was concerned that although we could have the paperwork to show that the individual was in ‘that’ position at any given time, would it then be able to be refuted the individual?
I wouldn't be too worried about being able to "prove" exactly what task they were doing at a particular time, especially via the "daily sign off" process, I don't think it's necessary. When looking at task enlargement or rotation make sure the muscle groups of the "enlarged" or "rotated to" task are different to those that are used during the repetitive task, otherwise you get no benefit. Assuming you achieve the above and you feel you have successfully enlarged or rotated the task to reduce the risks to a tolerable level, then why can you not redraft a job spec, have a meeting to discuss and get all persons to sign 1 training form to confirm understanding of the new tasks they will be completed. It is then down to line manager responsibility to ensure their teams are working as they should. If anything did happen in the future you would be able to get statements from line managers to corroborate the facts, plus the training provided when the job-spec was rolled out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Apart from healthy curiosity (or less healthy vanity:-), the reason I take an interest in this issue lies in what's called the 'reference measure' a.k.a. "success". I've observed a company spend some years and an enormous amount of time prancing about failing to get to grips with the problem, while at least two staff underwent surgery to relieve carpal tunnel syndrome.
While HSE's ART guidelines are well-researched, trialled and thoughtfully drafted, they still leave the question summarised by Pam: 'I was concerned that although we could have the paperwork to show that the individual was in ‘that’ position at any given time, would it then be able to be refuted the individual'
If push comes to shove - in the event of litigation - I suggest that the paperwork as discussed so far (includding the ART documentation) is seriously lacking in relevant measurements. It's reasonable for an expert witness to ask for evidence of the amount of postural movement as measured by e.g. QUB, RULA or comparable tools, which can be most cost-effectively recorded and stored on video. Likewise, measurements of force judged by individuals are best done with objective instruments both because individuals differ in their opinion of the level of force they use and because they may use different levels of force on the same task at different times (even on the same shift, as fatigue sets in).
While consulting operatives and line managers is essential, problems of reliable recall are unavoidable even in situations much simpler to analyse. That's why I wonder to what extent Jake's proposal is an adequate resolution: 'Assuming.... 'get all the persons to sign 1 training form to confirm understanding of the new tasks they (or that?) will be completed. It is then down to line manager responsibility to ensure the teams are working as they should.'
The 'as far as reasonably practicable' criterion in this situation appears to me to involve the safety professional in leadership to educate operatives and managers alike in the balances and trade-offs required. Admittedly, it's not easy but, unless there's a disciplinary issue (for HR to get to grips with), the discipline of measurement can contribute not only to safety standards but also to quality, production and waste management.
Who knows, well done, the team(s) involved might in the fullness of time also win prizes for good practice and/or innovation from the SHP and CBI?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Pam B
As you evidently want to get the best balance and trade off ' as far as reasonably practicable', it occurs to me that you may find it useful to use the language of scientific hypothesis testing in order to persuade management to implement a solution that takes individual needs of operatives into account. Both legally and scientifically, this is more more valid than relying on signatures about events that few involved fully understand.
The point about 'the language of scientific hypothesis testing' is that you establish whether and to what extent differences in physiques of individuals are accommodated at workbenches. As the relevant British Standards indicate, there are differences in most relevant body dimensions between men and women, and between groups over and under 18. (For details, refer to 'Bodyspace', Pheasant and Haslegrave, 3rd edn. CRC Press, 2005). The significance of these measurements lies in the fact that only a tiny handful (about 4 percent) of people have 'average' dimensions throughout their bodies; most vary in terms of the percentiles of different body parts, so that for repetitive work, it's reasonable to expect that the workstations can be customised to body dimensions of individuals.
Failure to take these dimensions into account in (re-)designing workbenches effectively sets you up for a 'Type II' error, of assuming there are no differences in the average dimensions of the operatives. An illustrative outcome is the same workstation used by a 6 ft 1 in male and a 5 ft 1 in female, which is associated with lower back pain as he has to bend throughout the day to use the equipment, while she has chronic pains in her shoulders from having to elevate her arms above elbow level. Both cope by habitually taking proprietary medications every day, for which there may be adverse side-effects for which there employer may in time be judged legally liable.
Such problems seldom go through the full litigation process when the negligent employer finds that they can't get a credible expert witness who writes a court report that casts the standard with which they've for a long time allowed a Type II error to degrade their management of risks of musculo-skeletal disorders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Thank you very much for all of your help, much appreciated that you all have taken time out to help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
An important factor to consider - not touched on in the ART documentation - is that to the extent that you fail to differentiate appropriately in safeguards relating to differences in gender and age (and disability), you risk a claim for unlawful discrimination in violation of The Equality Act 2010.
In principle, as there's no upper limit to awards for indirect discrimination; they can be much helftier than for a personal injury claim.
In the absence of evidential data to demonstrate gender/age/disability-appropriate differences in risk management, a signature by employees is weak evidence.
While the IOSH Code of Professional Practice prohibits such discrimination, at present guidance from the IOSH on these matters is seriously lacking. Hopefully, this gap may be addressed through guidance based on specimen cases before too long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.