Posted at 11.16.2018
Musculoskeletal personal injury (MSI) as define by Part 4, section 4. 46 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation of as a personal injury or disorder of the muscles, tendons, ligaments, joints, nerves, blood vessels or related soft tissues including a pressure, sprain and irritation, which may be caused or frustrated by work.
Musculoskeletal accident (MSI) has become, a common type of injury at work resulting in lost in productivity in many establishments.
There are a number of ergonomic tools designed for assessing the risk of musculoskeletal personal injury. Of these tools, I've decided to focus and discuss three (3), they are simply:-
Rapid overall body assessment (REBA) originated by Sue Hignett and Lynn McAtamney as a postural research system delicate to musculoskeletal dangers in a number of jobs. It divides the body into segments to be coded separately with regards to movement planes. It offers a credit scoring system for muscle activity triggered by static, rapid changing, strong or unstable postures.
REBA works by watching positions of specific body segments. A lot more deviations from the neutral posture, the bigger the score of each body part. There are two (2) groups that are merged, group A includes trunk, throat and legs and group B higher and lower legs and arms. The 144 good posture combinations are changed to a general postural score. Also, insert handed, coupling with the neighborhood handled and physical exercise are observed and scored. These scores are add up to have one rating for every observation and then in comparison to tables proclaiming risk on five levels (negligible - high) and activities needed (nothing - necessary now).
Quick Subjection Check (QEC) is have scored by assigning beliefs to lots of 'Observer' and 'Employee' factors. For each of four areas of the body (back, shoulder, wrist and neck), several pairs of parameters are fed into a lookup stand to make a group of sub-scores that are then totaled to make a score for the body part. You could assess both manual handling and non-manual handling tasks which do not entail back activity.
QEC employs five (5) steps:
Step 1 - Self Training - first time users must browse the User Guide to understand the terminology and assessment categories that are being used in the check-list.
Step 2 - Observer's Examination Check-list - the person observing a particular job uses the observer's evaluation check-list to conduct a risk analysis. One complete work circuit is observed prior to making an evaluation. If a task cannot easily be broken down into responsibilities, the 'most detrimental' event within that job when a particular body part in question is most closely loaded should be observed. The assessment can be executed by immediate observation or by using video footage.
Step 3 - Worker's Assessment Check-list - the worker being discovered must complete the 'individuals examination' check-list.
Step 4 - Computation of Exposure Ratings - using the 'desk of exposure ratings' to calculate the exposure ratings for each job.
Circle all the words corresponding to the answers from the 'observer's analysis' and the 'worker's assessment'.
Mark the figures at the crossing point of each couple of circled characters.
Calculate a complete score for each body part.
Step 5 - Thought of Actions - QEC quickly recognizes the vulnerability levels for the trunk, shoulder, arm, wrist, hands and neck and it evaluates an ergonomic interventions can effectively reduce these vulnerability.
2. 3 Ovako Working Position Research System - OWAS
Ovako Working Posture Analysis System (OWAS) is a way of coding the good posture of an employee that allows the harmfulness of the position to be grouped into four (4) action categories of increasing urgency. It really is based upon expert judgements of the harmfulness of particular postures. A period based sampling strategy can be used with it so the categorization may take account of the length of time spent in virtually any particular posture (Karhu et al. , 1977, 1981, Kivi and Mattila, 1991, Vedder, 1998).
Putting the codes for the four (4) segments in the collection of back, thighs, loads and hands form the overall good posture code. A ranking system categorizes seventy two (72) different postures in conditions of discomfort brought on, and the effort on health. Back again postures are defined as either direct bent, upright and twisted, or bent and twisted. OWAS identifies the most common work postures for the back, which include four postures; arms three postures, legs seven postures and the weight of the strain completed three categories.
The four (4) action categories the following shows medical hazards of every work pose or posture blend in the OWAS method on the musculoskeletal system: -
Work postures are considered usually with no particular harmful influence on the musculoskeletal system. No actions are needed to change work postures.
Work postures have some harmful effect on the musculoskeletal system. Light stress, no immediate action is necessary, but changes should be considered in future planning.
Work postures have a distinctly hazardous influence on the musculoskeletal system. The working methods involved should be transformed at the earliest opportunity.
Postures during work have a higher harmful influence on the musculoskeletal system. Alternatives should be found immediately to reduce these postures.
2. 4 Benefits and drawbacks of Tools
Provides health insurance and safety practitioners with a user-friendly analysis tool with good validity.
Helps persuade organizations to make ergonomic desk changes.
Involves both the practitioner and the worker in the assessment, thus providing a fuller knowledge of working practices.
It is easy, quick and easy to use.
Is appropriate for HSE risk assessment.
Hypothetical exposure ratings with the recommended 'action levels' need validating.
Additional training and practice may be needed for novice users to boost assessment dependability.
Method focuses on physical work place factors only.
Low cost and an effective method.
If valid or exact can offer valuable understanding into working conditions.
Validity and consistency may be low in regards to specific needs for ergonomic desk assessment.
Can be biased.
Time consuming (both right and remaining hand have to be assessed individually).
Enables evaluations with past research in similar configurations.
Easy to work with and apply with high reliability in field investigations.
It would work to assess vibrant, harmful working postures of workers while moving about their workstations.
Does not distinct right and remaining top extremities.
Requires in depth training.
Assessments of throat, elbows and wrists are lacking.
Does not consider repetition or duration of the sequential position.
2. 5 Critical Analysis of Tools
REBA, QEC and OWAS are check-list type tools. The only real tools had a need to perform this kind of evaluation are a pencil and paper. All three (3) REBA, QEC and OWAS also exist as computer programs, so you can type data collected straight into the software to calculate the overall score.
REBA can evaluate posture, load, force and movement rate of recurrence whereas, QEC assesses good posture, load, force, movements frequency, duration, recovery, vibration, etc. and OWAS only assesses posture, load and push.
REBA, QEC and OWAS use ordinal scoring systems and then combine the scores for different risk factors. REBA and OWAS were design to produce an assessment of the urgency of remedial action for the task being assessed using action categories. QEC has an exact numerical model implicit in its structure with variants in weighting between factors.
REBA and OWAS are performed by one individual who understands how the assessment tool can be used, whereas QEC is carried out both by the damaged employee and the person doing the assessment.
When doing anyone of these three (3) tools, the user must understand completely the function and terminology used, or the analysis will never be accurate.
OWAS has an array of uses however the results can be lower in detail. REBA was developed specifically with sensitivity to unpredictable working postures.
REBA will not deal in detail with lower limb position. REBA distinguishes between better or significantly less than 20 degrees of flexion of the top and neck however, not further. Both REBA and QEC create overall ratings from a mixture of risk factors specific to the upper limb and also to the lower backside.
These three (3) techniques (REBA, QEC and OWAS) are simple and fast to use, comprehensive and reliable to evaluate exposures and can be versatile enough to be applied to a range of careers.
Observational or subjective judgement techniques such as REBA, QEC and OWAS aren't more reliable than immediate measurement techniques.
There are lots of tools used in the analysis of musculoskeletal damage in the workplace. It is important to assess these circumstances in order to avoid injury to staff.
The three tools talked about earlier are a good example of common check-list type tools that can measure the risk of musculoskeletal injuries in the workplace in a quantitative way. It's important when choosing an ergonomic desk tool, that it's right for the work. There is absolutely no, best tool for just about any one job but, one must decide on the best method of what must be done.
Rapid BODY SYSTEM Analysis (REBA), Quick Subjection Check (QEC) and Ovako Working Pose Evaluation System (OWAS) use ordinal credit scoring systems and then combine the results for different risk factors. Fast Entire Body Analysis (REBA) and Ovako Working Posture Evaluation System (OWAS) uses action categories based on four (4) and five (5) point ordinal scales to give an evaluation of the urgency of remedial action for the duty. While the Quick Subjection Check (QEC) has an exact mathematical model implicit in its structure with modifications in weighting between factors.
Even though Quick Exposure Check (QEC) hasn't yet been validated it has been wildly and frequently used along with Quick Entire Body Diagnosis (REBA) and Ovako Working Position Examination System (OWAS).