MSDs and health and safety culture 9 March2016/media/Documents/Networks... · •Combined exposure to physical demands and poor psychosocial risk factors can increase the risk of

Enabling a better working world© Crown Copyright, HSL 2015

Enabling a better working world

MSDs and health and safety

culture

9th March2016

Matt Birtles


What we do?

Health Effects

Microbiology

Biological

Monitoring

Exposure

Modelling

Medical Unit

In/Organic

Measurement

Fibres

PPE

Ergonomics

Psychology

Pedestrian

Safety

Noise &

Vibration

Safety culture

Accident

investigation

Risk

Assessment

Fire Safety

Process

Safety

Comp

Modelling

Explosives

Mech Eng

Metallurgy

Control and

Instruments

Field Eng

Hazard Reduction

Human Factors

Health Improvement


Who am I?

"An expert is somebody who is more

than 50 miles from home, has no

responsibility for implementing the

advice he gives, and shows slides."

Edwin Meese III


Background: MSDs


Background: MSDs


Background: Definitions

Safety culture is the mix of shared values, attitudes

and patterns of behaviour that give an organisation

its particular character (Confederation of British Industry)

Safety climate is the shared perceptions with

regard to the meaning and priority employees attach

to the policies, procedures and practices they

experience, and the behaviours they observed

getting rewarded and supported in the workplace (Zohar, 2000)


Safety Climate Tool


Safety Climate Tool


Safety Climate Tool


Safety culture excellence


ASCENT: A framework for safety culture improvement

Focus groups

Interventions

SMART action plans

Intervention impact

evaluation

Senior management commitment

Project plan

Survey

Data analysis

Steering group

Communication strategyFoundation

Analyse

Focus

Interviews

Leading & lagging

indicators

Workshops

Act

Evaluate

Process evaluation


Understand the issues & commit

to action

Create the right

organisational environment

Assess the risk of MH in the

workplace

Reduce the risk of MH wherever

possible

Educate & train the workforce in

MH technique & equipment

Manage any episodes of MSDs

Carry out regular checks on

effectiveness

Ugly duckling turning swan?



MSDs and health and safety

culture: Literature review

findings


Review aim

To examine the research evidence on the relationship

between health and safety (H&S) culture and

musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs)

Review questions:

– Does H&S culture impact on the development and/or

management of MSDs?

– Are there specific cultural / organisational factors

that contribute to the development of MSDs?

Introduction

Methodology

Initial search of literature (2012-2015)

N=75

Full papers requested

N=38

Exclusion of papers that were outside of

scope

N=14

Number of papers included

N=24

Independent

review by 2

researchers

Project team

meeting to

reach

consensus

H&S culture and MSDs

Small number of studies on the relationship between safety climate and MSDs (N=5)

Assessment of safety climate typically involved measuring employee perceptions of management commitment to H&S and availability of policies/procedures

Consistent findings that perceptions of a poor safety climate are associated with musculoskeletal pain/discomfort

Key findings

H&S culture and MSDs

Key findings

Key findings Industry Sample

Positive safety climate (SC) associated with

reduced MS complaints

Various 1095 workers

Positive SC negatively associated with MS pain –

Mgmt commitment and prioritisation most important

Various 404 workers

SC indirectly related to MSDs Various 464 workers

Poor SC associated with increased risk of

experiencing MS discomfort and unsafe behaviours

Agriculture 300 workers

Mgmt safety commitment predicted MS pain -

those who perceived supervisors not committed to

safety were 50% more likely to experience back

pain

Food/Poultry

processing

403 workers

Psychosocial factors and MSDs

Majority of studies focused on the role of psychosocial

factors in the development of MSDs

Psychosocial risk factors refer to:

“The way in which individuals interact with the demands of

their job, and their work environment. This includes the

social contacts within their job.” (Kompier and Van Den

Beek, 2008)

Key findings

Examples of psychosocial risk factors

Psychosocial

risk factor

Description Examples in the workplace

Work demands The mental and physical

requirements of the job

• Working very fast

• Constant time pressures

• High workload

• Pressure to work overtime

Job control Perceived amount of input

over the way work is done

• Limited/no control over work speed/scheduling

own work

• Limited break opportunity

• Little/no opportunity to make own decisions

• Poor task variation

Social support Perceived support from co-

workers and immediate

superiors

• Little/no help received from colleagues and

immediate superiors

• Poor willingness to listen to work problems

Quality of

leadership

Perception of degree to

which immediate superiors

are good leaders

• Poor ability of managers to plan work

• Poor ability of managers to solve problems

Psychosocial factors and MSDs

Consistent evidence that the presence of psychosocial risk factors influences the risk of developing musculoskeletal problems e.g.

• High demands, low control, low support significantly associated with MSDs

• Combined exposure to physical demands and poor psychosocial risk factors can increase the risk of developing MSDs

Studies on leadership have shown that:• Perceptions of poor leadership associated with increased

levels of reporting of MSD problems e.g. reported lower back and shoulder pain

Key findings

Summary

Small but consistent body of evidence that

perceived safety climate may contribute to the

experience of musculoskeletal

problems/discomfort

Important psychosocial risk factors are work

demands, job control and social support

Multi-faceted approach needed to manage

MSDs?


HSL ‘Make it Happen’ model for culture change

Interactive influences of

organisation, job and

individual

characteristics on H&S

behaviour

© Crown Copyright 2014



Influences from the physical

and social environment in

terms of the job and the

organisation and external

society



Encompasses the capability to

perform a particular behaviour

e.g. the necessary skills

and knowledge.


Encompasses motivation in

terms of both the automatic

(e.g. sub-conscious drivers

such as risk perception bias

(latency, complacency,

familiarity), heuristics, habits

and emotions and reflective

(e.g. values, mental models,

sets of beliefs) that guide our

decisions and actions e.g.

about cost/benefit, severity of

consequence and ability to

control, goals, plans,

conscious intention.


Influences on behaviour/OSH performance:

Physical context

Organisation

• Policies/procedures, SSoW (e.g. usability,

practicality)

• Safety Management Systems

• Resources (staff, equipment, training)

• Health surveillance scheme, etc.

• Support with champions

Job

• Job design/environment (e.g. posture,

exposures, shift patterns, workload, etc)

• Lifting aids (availability, accessibility,

maintenance)

• Competence/Training

An agency of the Health & Safety Executive Enabling a better working world


Social context

Job/organisation• Committed & supportive leadership

• Safety culture (just, flexible, reporting,

learning)

• Vision and value for safety

• Supervisor role

• Worker involvement/autonomy

• Team cooperation/support

• Open communication

• Change management

Extra-organisational influences• Foresight systems to consider

emerging hazards, new regulations, etc.



Individual

Capability

Knowledge:

• Information/update

• Education/training/refresher

• Knowledge sharing

• Personal susceptibility

Skills:

• Intra & interpersonal skills (assertiveness,

situation awareness, leadership, decision-

making, teamwork, etc.)

• MH skills



Individual

Motivation/decision making

Automatic:

• Cognitive/perceptual bias

• Skills automaticity/habits

• Weights labelled

Reflective:

• Knowledge-based

• Expectations of others

• Self-efficacy (confidence in skills)

• Beliefs about consequences of performing

behaviour (+/-)

• Intention; goals




Interactive influences of

organisation, job and

individual

characteristics on H&S

behaviour


Part 2 !


What’s coming up

4th edition of L23 (2016)

Updated MAC / VMAC (2017)

Risk Assessment of Pushing and Pulling (RAPP tool, 2016)

Background


HSE’s guidance on the Manual Handling

Operations Regulations 1992

4th edition due soon

Priced publication and free to download

Restructured

Simplified language

L23 4th edition

On the horizon


Avoid hazardous operations SFAIRP Reg4(1)(a)

Assess any hazardous operations that cannot be avoided Reg 4(1)(b)(i)

Reduce the risk of injury SFAIRP Reg 4(1)(b)(ii)

Monitor / review the job if it changesReg 4(2)

Manage the workplace to ensure personnel conform Reg 5

Legal duties under MHOR 1992

The legal bit


Part 1: The Regulations and brief

guidance

Part 2: Guidance on carrying out manual

handling risk assessments

Part 3: Detailed guidance on assessing

risk factors

Part 4: Guidance on mechanical

assistance and good handling techniques

Appendix: Choosing the right level of

detail for risk assessments

New structure

L23 4th edition


Updated guidance

Links to other HSE online

guidance

Simplified initial filter

Can use MAC/RAPP as part of

assessment

‘TILE’ checklists will be on line

L23 4th edition

On the horizon


Removed two-thirds and one half

factors for two and three person

handling

– limited evidence

– recent studies suggest the 85% figure

suitable

– This will also change in the MAC

Detailed changes

L23 4th edition


Removed 2% of load figure from

pushing and pulling risk filter

Making the push/pull filter based on

assessing posture

– Is the posture upright and the trolley etc.

obviously easy to move?

Detailed changes

L23 4th edition


Detailed changes

Removed reductions due to

frequency and twisting


Risk assessment

L23 4th edition

Suggested approach to the level of

detail required for risk assessments

1 Simplified filter

2 Use HSE tools or similar

3 Use detailed checklists


How detailed should the assessment be?

L23 4th edition

No

No

No

Does the task meet the assumptions

of the correct simple filter and does

the filter class it as low risk?

Are all MAC or RAPP scores Green?

Assess additional risk factors or

do full risk assessment

Reduce risk to as low as reasonably

practicable

Reduce risk to as low as reasonably

practicable

No

Assessment finished

Are there any risk factors that are not

in MAC or RAPP? (See Appendix

paragraph 32)

Yes

Assessment finished

Assessment finished

Sim

ple

filter

MA

C/R

AP

PF

ull

assessm

ent

Yes

Yes


Current HSE/HSL project to update MAC• Consultation with users

• HSE/HSL workshop

• Producing prototype

• Will test with external users and amend

Updating the MAC tool

The MAC


Users expressed interest in an electronic version

Planned changes• Team handling to include carrying

• Revised team handling weight boundaries

• Extra images

• Review / clarify wording

• Add “other factors” box


The MAC



The MAC

“Other factors” box

Large vertical movements of the load

Risk of sudden movement of loads

A rate of work imposed by a process

Unstable loads or with shifting contents

Sharp, hot or potentially damaging loads

Require unusual strength, height,

training

Require special information or training

An absence of the correct or suitable

ppe being worn


The V-MAC

V-MAC: Assesses variable loads/frequencies

An add-on to the MAC

Looks at daily load

Spreadsheet based


The V-MAC

MAC load weight/frequency limitations

Assumes the same load is handled all day – not always the case

– Mixed loads

– Bursts of activity

– Different activities

– Job rotation

‘Average load’ may ignore highest load levels

‘Highest load’ may over-score the risk


The V-MAC

Use the V-MAC to assess the

load weight/frequency risk

Then use the MAC for the other

risk factors

V-MAC: The basics


The V-MAC

Using V-MAC – advantages

Useful to assess jobs where the weights handled are

variable

It assesses lifting over the whole working shift

Assesses bursts of activity with pauses between when

there is no manual handling

Takes account of different shift lengths

Includes allowances for breaks


The V-MAC

Using V-MAC – guidance

http://www.hse.gov.uk/msd/mac/VMAC/

How to use

When to use

Advantages and limitations

Four worked examples

FAQs

Links to background reports


Risk Assessment of Pushing and Pulling -

the RAPP tool

Forthcoming part of HSE’s MSD toolkit

Going through final editing process

Same principles as the MAC

– Flow chart of risk factors

– Assessment guide

– Traffic light system

– Score sheet

Pushing and pulling

The RAPP tool


Obstacles along

the route

Section A – Wheeled equipment

The RAPP tool

0

1

2Poor

Reasonable

Good

Start

Load weight

Posture

Hand grip

Work pattern

Travel distance

0

2

4

8Very High

High

Medium

Low

0

3

6Poor

Reasonable

Good

Other factors

Floor surface

Condition of the

equipment

Complete score

sheet

0

1

3Poor

Reasonable

Good

0

1

3Long

Medium

Short

0

1

4Poor

Reasonable

Good

0

1

2Several

Few

None

0

2

3High

Medium

Low

0

2

4Poor

Reasonable

Good


A-1 Load weight – Identify the type of equipment; Note the total weight moved (load

carried and weight of equipment)

Loads on wheeled equipment

The RAPP tool

Low capacity – with one or two

wheels

Low G/0 Medium

A/2

High R/4 Very High

R/8

Unacceptable P

Less than

50 kg

50 – 100 kg 100 – 200

kg

More than

200 kg

Load exceeds

equipment

design capacity

Medium capacity – has 3 or

more fixed wheels or castors

Low G/0 Medium

A/2

High R/4 Very High

R/8

Unacceptable P

Less than

250 kg

250 – 500

kg

500 – 750

kg

More than

750 kg

Load exceeds

equipment

design capacity


A-1 Load weight – Identify the type of equipment; Note the total weight moved (load

carried and weight of equipment)

Loads on wheeled equipment

The RAPP tool

High capacity – steerable or

runs on rails

Low G/0 Medium

A/2

High R/4 Very High

R/8

Unacceptable P

Less than

600 kg

600 – 1000

kg

1000 –

1500 kg

More than

1500 kg

Load exceeds

equipment

design capacity


Posture assessment

The RAPP tool

Low G/0 Medium A/3 High R/6

Torso is largely

upright, and

Body is inclined in direction of

exertion, or

Body is severely inclined, or worker squats,

kneels, or needs to push with the back against

the load, or

Torso is not twisted,

and

Torso is noticeably bent or twisted. Torso is severely bent or twisted, or

Hands are between

hip and shoulder

level

Hands are behind or on one side of the body

or above shoulder level.

A-2 Posture – Observe the general position of the hands and the body during the operation


Thank you

[email protected]