Upload
teresa-montgomery
View
219
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Interventions for Overhead Drilling
Demetra Dalamagas, MS, IH (Portland, OR)Billy Gibbons, MBA (Portland, OR)Ira Janowitz, PT, CPEAlan Barr, MSDavid Rempel, MD
University of California, San FranciscoUniversity of California, Berkeley
Center for Occupational and Environmental HealthErgonomics Program
Overhead Drilling into Concrete
Sheet metal work
inserts/anchors/racks/straps for ducts/pipes/conduits
Building trades: sheet metal, plumbing, electrical
Risks from Overhead Drilling
• Falls• Dust Exposure• Noise• Shoulder and Arm Disorders
Shoulder/arm loads
Interventions
5 year project
• Phase I (YR1) – Develop Interventions• Phase II (YR2-4) – Evaluate Interventions• Phase III (YR 5) – Disseminate Findings
• Funding– Center to Protect Workers Rights– NIOSH
Phase I - Development
• 20 construction workers
• Use 3 devices on one day – 1 hour each
• Outcomes– Device Questionnaire– Comparison Questionnaire
• Modify devices
• Repeat
Phase II - Evaluation
• 120 Construction workers• Use ‘best’ 2 interventions, each for 1 day• Outcomes
– Arm, shoulder and neck pain – Shoulder and neck posture (inclinometer)
• Peter Johnson (UW)• Steve Robinovitch (SFU)
– Shoulder and forearm EMG– Handle vibration (Bernard Martin (UM))
– Productivity
Phase III - Dissemination
• Trades
• Contractors
• Purchasers
• Tool Manufacturers
• H&S Construction Professionals
Phase I - Development
Gen 1 Gen 2
Inverted Drill Press
Gen 1 Gen 2
Inverted Drill Press Close Up of Gears
Gen 1 Gen 2
Foot LeverDrill Press
Drills and Saddles
Successful Outreach
ContractorsRosendin Electric Cherry City ElectricJH Kelly Advanced Technology GroupTemp Control Mechanical Interstate Mechanical IndustriesStreimer Sheetmetal LH SowlesElectric Construction Co Oregon Electric Group
ConstructionSkanska TurnerLayton Anderson
OwnerIntel Sea-Tac
UnionsIBEW Local 48UA Local 290SMWIA Local 16
GOSH Conference Booth
GOSH Conference Booth
Cross Industry Partnerships
• Toyota Logistics-Portland, Oregon
• Toyota safety committee member (Teamster) saw our display at a conference
• ODP /Toyota team consultation to incorporate modified version of our inverted drill press into their operation
Presentations
UBC/UW Annual Safety and Health Conference, 2005TNO, Amsterdam, 2005International Ergonomics Association, Maastricht, 2006
Phase I - Development
• 20 workers• Usual Overhead drilling
– Demographic Questionnaire
• Each device for 1 hr– Observer notes– Device Questionnaire
• End of day– Comparison Questionnaire
Phase I - Development
Phase I - Development
Device Questionnaire
Ease of DeviceOn a Scale of 0-5 where 0 is difficult and 5 is easy, how would you rate this device for the following characteristics:
Difficult EasySetting-Up 0 1 2 3 4 5Moving 0 1 2 3 4 5Fine Positioning 0 1 2 3 4 5Activating Drill 0 1 2 3 4 5Drilling 0 1 2 3 4 5Knowing when drilling 0 1 2 3 4 5 is complete
Device Questionnaire
Appeal On a scale of 0-5, where 0 is poor and 5 is excellent, please rate the following:
Poor ExcellentAccuracy 0 1 2 3 4 5Control 0 1 2 3 4 5 Stability 0 1 2 3 4 5Looks (aesthetics) 0 1 2 3 4 5Durability 0 1 2 3 4 5Feel 0 1 2 3 4 5
Device Questionnaire
How would you describe this device compared to your usual method of drilling? (circle one)
Slower Same Faster
What would you change to improve the ease of using this device?
Device Questionnaire
Fatigue (Tiredness)On a scale of 0-5, where 0 is no fatigued and 5 is very fatigued, please rate the following after using the device:
No Fatigue Very FatiguedNeck 0 1 2 3 4 5 Shoulders 0 1 2 3 4 5Hands & Forearms 0 1 2 3 4 5 Low Back 0 1 2 3 4 5 Legs 0 1 2 3 4 5
How would you change this device to reduce pain or fatigue to the operator?
Device Questionnaire
What three things do you like about this device?
What three things do you dislike about this device?
If available, would you use this device again next time? Yes No
Why or why not?
Comparison Questionnaire
Rank the drilling method for each characteristic, where 1 is the best, 2 is the second best, 3 is the worst.
Photo Photo UsualDevice 1 Device 2 Method
Set-Up _______ _______ _______Moving _______ _______ _______Ease of Use _______ _______ _______Accuracy_______ _______ _______Productivity _______ _______ _______Comfort _______ _______ _______Overall _______ _______ _______
Phase I - Development
• 14 workers– 14% female– 7% hispanic
• Outcomes– Subject preferred usual method for ease and speed– Video analysis: device drilling faster– Less fatigue with devices– Preference: inverted drill press over foot lever– Improve
• Mobility, balance• Decrease weight• Handle design• Ease of set-up – leveling, hitting hole mark• Cord handling
Phase Ib - Development
• Phase 1b designs (3rd generation)– Modular (3 bases)– Rebuild gearing system– Change handles– Use aluminum for saddles and bases– Add locking castors– Channel power cords– Add depth stop
Phase Ib - Development
Adjustable Castor Base
Phase Ib - Development
Collar Base
Phase Ib - Development
Phase Ib - Development
Phase Ib - Development
Phase Ib - Development
Phase Ib - Development
Phase Ib - Development
Phase Ib - Development
Phase Ib - Development
Phase Ib - Development
FeedbackVery positiveCollar and spring - top ratings3 wheel base not 4 wheelImprove depth stop (add light)Add dust controlScissor lift
device too tall – hinge drillbase too large – attach to railing
Not tall enoughadd extension
Move switch closer to handle
Problems
•Construction site access•Each setting learn something new•Redesigning and building devices takes time•Budget•Involving tool companies (e.g., Hilti, Milwaukee)
•patent
Plans
•Complete Phase I testing by May 31•Begin Phase II testing August 1
•Inclinometers purchased and being field tested•Vibration measurement system purchased
•Dissemination planning underway
Comments?