Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Kevin West The New Scientist Magazine has printed the following article recently (url link below). In the article it is supposed that deep vein thrombosis may occur after long durations of sitting still at the DSE station. I think it might be worthwhile informing people of the possible link and the means to reduce the risk of it occurring (as mentioned in the article),so that personnel can make their own mind up. However I am aware that at present the link hasn't been substantiated and I do not wish to be a 'scare mongerer'. What are the thoughts out there in 'Safety Land,? URL LINK: http://www.newscientist....s/news.jsp?id=ns99993323Kev
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Webster
I think it is becoming fairly clear that sitting anywhere for prolonged periods increases the risk of DVT - as with the apparent problems with long-haul flights.
Hospitals have long since been aware of the link between immobility and thrombosis, hence the administration of heparin to patients at risk and the desire to get them mobile as soon as possible (and not just, as you cynics would believe, to unblock beds and reduce waiting list statistics).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Graham Bullough
This is a new one. I have always advocated that VDU users be encouraged not to stay for long periods at their screens, partly to change their posture and partly to give their eyes a change in focus. As discussed in this forum some time ago, the same advice applies to microscope work.
Although this advice should effectively deal with e-thrombosis, if it exists, I would be reluctant to mention it by name as it will be another thing for some VDU users to worry about. It was bad enough dealing with the fears about alleged "radiation" from VDUs back in the 1980's. Like the "anti-radiation smocks" which were on sale then, perhaps some entrepreneur will now exploit the anxiety factor and start selling elasticated socks for VDU users! Save your money and persuade your VDU users to have brief regular breaks from the VDU whenever feasible, even if it's only walking a few steps to a shared printer. Sharing printers also saves money and releases desk space which would otherwise be occupied by solo-use printers.
There may be more of a potential problem for employees who work in call centres and cannot get up and move about as and when they would wish. However, in order to deal with the known issues of sitting too long at VDUs, there ought to be existing agreements and arrangements about reasonable regular breaks.
Perhaps readers of this forum who deal with call centres or know people who work in them, can share their knowledge about what does or does not happen regarding breaks in such places.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert M Edwards
The risk may be new but the principles upon which to sue are long established. Just as stress has been added to the case law developments, e-thrombosis or thromno cases may well be a risk.
As long as the potential of risk is considered and suitable measures of handling the risk adopted then there should be no issues.
It really is a matter of process and more importantly the HR functions really talking to their Health and Safety pals on medical propensity for DVT here. If an individual has a history of embollism, clots, DVT, Warfarin treatment in their records then they MAY be more foreseeable to suffer injury for prolonged resting, immobile periods. The same needs to be looked at for all desk workers, long distance drivers etc etc.
Sometime we think the way that the latest development is phrased is a switch off when the media shold be highlighting the range and scope of risk that exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jack
I think the primary aim should be to try and avoid injury not avoid compensation!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kevin West
Jack,
My thoughts exactly. However, I welcome the additional information regarding compensation claims as the issue of 'forseeability' has been raised (especially with personnel with existing conditions or history of such problems).
This is an emotive issue for me as a friend recently collapsed due to DVT. She had complained to the Doctor several times about a pain in the back of her leg before the collapse and the Doctor ruled out DVT, as my friend hadn't been on a long distance flight. Instead she proposed it was 'a pulled muscle'. My freind works in a call centre environment processing cheques and so on and so is 'tied to the desk'.
Had there been more awareness about this issue, I feel that she may not have developed DVT at all and (if a DVT had developed) the Doctor would have considered her occupation and perhaps have made the correct diagnosis.
Had I not been trained in First Aid. The Ambulance men tell me she may have died.
Kev
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert M Edwards
Yes Jack I quite agree but also by understanding what makes a good claim from a compensation point of view raises the awareness of what constitutes risk. My background shows that some employees seek a 'good payout' and can often spend far more time than the Health and Safety officer investigating breaches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert M Edwards
DVT is a potentially fatal and extremely painful medical problem. Given the circumstances if we do not look at potential claims and their compensatory value we are only looking at a partial picture.
By looking at the whole human resource picture we can also look at return on investment of the health and safety function. Good risk evaluation offers real savings in business and should be promoted. Whether we like it or not the UK is experiencing an increase of compensation claims.The success of those claims often rests on procedural 'gaps'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kevin West
Determining 'what makes a good claim' is, as Robert describes, very important in the analysis of risk.
A great deal of a Health and Safety manager's time is spent trying to tie up all the loose ends so that there are no procedural 'gaps' so that claims cannot be made (often the greatest incentive to some companies ).
The reason why I posted this thread was to explore just how much attention and effort should be given by H and S Managers when posed with emerging developements like this.
Do we wait for a link to be proven in a compensation claim (or perhaps a prosecution)and then act, or, do we build procedures and amend risk assessments to take account of the new information to try and protect our workforce as far as is reasonably practicable.
I subscribe to the latter doctrine.
In this case, I feel, providing information of the possible link and the advice of how to prevent DVT from developing is very little effort indeed when looking at a life threatening condition such as DVT. Of course should personnel have pre-existing conditions that may indicate a greater liklihood of developing DVT or their work means that they are 'tied to the desk' then this should be documented as the risk assessment will identify.
Kev
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.