Health at work and risk factors related to ergonomics: some results from the Swiss sample of the 4th European working conditions survey

Introduction The European Foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions conducts a survey every 5 years since 1990. The foundation also offers the possibility to non-EU countries to be included in the survey: in 2005, Switzerland took part for the first time in the fourth edition of this survey. The Institute for Work and Health (IST) has been associated to the Swiss project conducted under the leadership of the SECO and the Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz. The survey covers different aspects of work like job characteristics and employment conditions, health and safety, work organization, learning and development opportunities, and the balance between working and non-working life (Parent-Thirion, Fernandez Macias, Hurley, & Vermeylen, 2007). More particularly, one question assesses the worker's self-perception of the effects of work on health. We identified (for the Swiss sample) several factors affecting the risk to report health problems caused by work. The Swiss sample includes 1040 respondents. Selection of participants was based on a random multi-stage sampling and was carried out by M.I.S Trend S.A. (Lausanne). Participation rate was 59%. The database was weighted by household size, gender, age, region of domicile, occupational group, and economic sector. Specially trained interviewers carried out the interviews at the respondents home. The survey was carriedout between the 19th of September 2005 and the 30th of November 2005. As detailed in (Graf et al., 2007), 31% of the Swiss respondents identify work as the cause of health problems they experience. Most frequently reported health problems include back pain (18%), stress (17%), muscle pain (13%), and overall fatigue (11%). Ergonomic aspects associated with higher risk of reporting health problems caused by work include frequent awkward postures (odds ratio [OR] 4.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.1 to 5.4), tasks involving lifting heavy loads (OR 2.7, 95% CI 2.0 to 3.6) or lifting people (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.4 to 3.5), standing or walking (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.9), as well as repetitive movements (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.3). These results highlight the need to continue and intensify the prevention of work related health problems in occupations characterized by risk factors related to ergonomics.

Handheld-assisted field data collection for occupational risk assessment.

A computerized handheld procedure is presented in this paper. It is intended as a database complementary tool, to enhance prospective risk analysis in the field of occupational health. The Pendragon forms software (version 3.2) has been used to implement acquisition procedures on Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) and to transfer data to a computer in an MS-Access format. The data acquisition strategy proposed relies on the risk assessment method practiced at the Institute of Occupational Health Sciences (IST). It involves the use of a systematic hazard list and semi-quantitative risk assessment scales. A set of 7 modular forms has been developed to cover the basic need of field audits. Despite the minor drawbacks observed, the results obtained so far show that handhelds are adequate to support field risk assessment and follow-up activities. Further improvements must still be made in order to increase the tool effectiveness and field adequacy.

Can accelerometry accurately predict the energy cost of uphill/downhill walking?

To evaluate whether an activity monitor based on body acceleration measurement can accurately assess the energy cost of the human locomotion, 12 subjects walked a combination of three different speeds (preferred speed +/- 1 km/h) and seven slopes (-15 to +15% by steps of 5%) on a treadmill. Body accelerations were recorded using a triaxial accelerometer attached to the low back. The mean of the integral of the vector magnitude (norm) of the accelerations (mIAN) was calculated. VO2 was measured using continuous indirect calorimetry. When the results were separately analysed for each incline, mIAN was correlated to VO2 (average r = 0.87, p<0.001, n = 36). VO2 was not significantly correlated to mIAN when data were globally analysed (n = 252). Large relative errors occurred when predicted VO2 (estimated from data of level walking) was compared with measured VO2 for different inclines (-53% at +15% incline, to +55% at -15% incline). It is concluded that without an external measurement of the slope, the standard method of analysis of body accelerations cannot accurately predict the energy cost of uphill or downhill walking.

Decision-support tools to manage drug incompatibilities: evaluation by nurses

Introduction Preventing drug incompatibilities has a high impact onthe safety of drug therapy. Although there are no internationalguidelines to manage drug incompatibilities, different decision-supporttools such as handbooks, cross-tables and databases are available.In a previous study, two decision-support tools have been pre-selectedby pharmacists as fitting nurses' needs on the wards1. The objective ofthis study was to have these both tools evaluated by nurses todetermine which would be the most suitable for their daily practice.Materials & Methods Evaluated tools were:1. Cross-table of drug pairs (http://files.chuv.ch/internet-docs/pha/medicaments/pha_phatab_compatibilitessip.pdf)2. Colour-table (a colour for each drug according to the pH: red =acid; blue = basic; yellow = neutral; black = to be infused alone)2Tools were assessed by 48 nurses in 5 units (PICU, adult andgeriatric intensive care, surgery, onco-hematology) using a standardizedform1. The scientific accuracy of the tools was evaluated bydetermining the compatibility of five drugs pairs (rate of correctanswers according to the Trissel's Handbook on Injectable Drugs,chi-square test). Their ergonomics, design, reliability and applicabilitywere estimated using visual analogue scales (VAS 0-10; 0 =null, 10 = excellent). Results are expressed as the median and interquartilerange (IQR) for 25% and 75% (Wilcoxon rank sum test).Results The rate of correct answers was above 90% for both tools(cross-table 96.2% vs colour-table 92.5%, p[0.05).The ergonomics and the applicability were higher for the crosstable[7.1 (IQR25 4.0, IQR75 8.0) vs 5.0 (IQR25 2.7, IQR75 7.0), p =0.025 resp. 8.3 (IQR25 7.4, IQR75 9.2) vs 7.6 (IQR25 5.9, IQR75 8.8)p = 0.047].The design of the colour-table was judged better [4.6 (IQR25 2.9,IQR75 7.1) vs 7.1 (IQR25 5.4, IQR75 8.4) p = 0.002].No difference was observed in terms of reliability [7.3 (IQR25 6.5,IQR75 8.4) vs 6.7 (IQR25 5.0, IQR758.6) p[0.05].The cross-table was globally preferred by 65% of the nurses (27%colour-table, 8% undetermined) and 68% would like to have thisdecision-support tool available for their daily practice.Discussion & Conclusion Both tools showed the same accuracy toassess drug compatibility. In terms of ergonomics and applicabilitythe cross-table was better than the colour-table, and was preferred bythe nurses for their daily practice. The cross-table will be implementedin our hospital as decision-support tool to help nurses tomanage drug incompatibilities.

Interdisciplinary intervention for work-related musculoskeletal disorders

The proposed research aims to address the work-related MSD management issue through an interdisciplinary intervention involving clinical and occupational health competencies (rheumatology, occupational medicine, ergonomics). Workers enduring MSD (especially back-pain) and absent from work are selected from volunteering companies (construction, hospitals, public transport, delivery networks). The workers are randomly placed into two groups : the control group benefits from an usual MSD management strategy and the intervention group benefits from a case-management strategy including workhardening treatment (work oriented reeducation) and ergonomic intervention in the workplace. The comparison of health and work-related variables prior and after intervention in the two groups will be used to assess the intervention efficiency and its economic benefits. We expect to produce new strategies for the management of MSD and workplace rehabilitation as well as guidelines for both authorities and companies.

Evaluation of the user-friendliness of seven new generation intensive care ventilators.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the user-friendliness and ergonomics of seven new generation intensive care ventilators. DESIGN: Prospective task-performing study. SETTING: Intensive care research laboratory, university hospital. METHODS: Ten physicians experienced in mechanical ventilation, but without prior knowledge of the ventilators, were asked to perform eight specific tasks [turning the ventilator on; recognizing mode and parameters; recognizing and setting alarms; mode change; finding and activating the pre-oxygenation function; pressure support setting; stand-by; finding and activating non-invasive ventilation (NIV) mode]. The time needed for each task was compared to a reference time (by trained physiotherapist familiar with the devices). A time >180 s was considered a task failure. RESULTS: For each of the tests on the ventilators, all physicians' times were significantly higher than the reference time (P < 0.001). A mean of 13 +/- 8 task failures (16%) was observed by the ventilator. The most frequently failed tasks were mode and parameter recognition, starting pressure support and finding the NIV mode. Least often failed tasks were turning on the pre-oxygenation function and alarm recognition and management. Overall, there was substantial heterogeneity between machines, some exhibiting better user-friendliness than others for certain tasks, but no ventilator was clearly better that the others on all points tested. CONCLUSIONS: The present study adds to the available literature outlining the ergonomic shortcomings of mechanical ventilators. These results suggest that closer ties between end-users and manufacturers should be promoted, at an early development phase of these machines, based on the scientific evaluation of the cognitive processes involved by users in the clinical setting.