Evaluation and Analysis of Office Workstation and WorkerA Study to ascertain need for training in office ergonomics and preventing MSDs

 

Dr. Amol Sangekar OTR (USA)

INTRODUCTION

• Computer work , A norm in modern business• Highly repetitive• Businesses–Manufacturing– Retail Banking– Hospitals– Travel– Etc.

RATIONALE

The study focuses on various aspects of Office work and hence aims to provide with data on areas that require further ergonomic inputs

AIM

To analyse; based on the result; the areas of computer work which require further ergonomic inputs and training and enable us to correctly identify problem ergonomic areas and provide specific training in those areas with the goal of MSDs prevention.

OBJECTIVE

Assess areas which are affected during repetitive office work in sitting while using computers (either desktop or laptop).

METHODOLOGY

METHODOLOGY

• A retrospective study was conducted using survey data of 124 employees across three different organisations.

•  Data collection was done manually. 

METHODOLOGY

• The data was gained using the modified OSHA scale was blinded and coded and employees were de identified. 

• A total of 124 employees across three different organisations were assessed using the OSHA modified VDT (Visual desktop Terminal) scale.

• Scoring was in ‘YES’ / ‘NO’ format.

MODIFIED OSHA SCALE

METHODOLOGY

• Statistics were derived using excel 2010.The ‘yes’ positive response was scored 1 and ‘No’ response was scored 0. 

• A sum of ‘1’ and ‘0’ for each section was calculated and presented in form of graph. The ‘1’ and ‘0’ response were added up and percentage was derived.

METHODOLOGY

• Exclusion criterion- Out of 135 employees only 124 were included. 6 employees were excluded due to incomplete data and 5 due to pre-existing MSDs

• Inclusion criterion- Employees with no pre-existing MSDs were included

METHODOLOGY

• The scale was adapted for applicable working scenarios. The questionnaire was divided into 6 areas. 1. Working postures.2. Seating3. Input devices4. Monitor5. Work Area6. Accessories

RESULT

WORKING POSTURES Positive

ResponseNegative Response Total % Positive % Negative

a. Head , Neck upright

39 85 124 31% 69%b. Head , Neck facing forward

117 7 124 94% 6%c. UA and elbows close to body

106 18 124 85% 15%d. FA, wrists, hands parallel to floor

100 24 124 81% 19%e. Wrists and hands straight

100 24 124 81% 19%f. Thighs parallel to floor, legs perpendicular 65 59 124 52% 48%g. Feet flat on floor

93 31 124 75% 25%h. Organized VDT to vary activities.

65 59 124 52% 48% 

685 307 992 69% 31%

SEATING Positive Response

 Negative Response  Total  % Positive  % Negative

a. Back rest provides support

112 12 124 90% 10%b. Seat width and depth appropriate 124 0 124 100% 0%c. Seat front does not press on back of knees 124 0 124 100% 0%d. Seat has waterfall front

122 2 124 98% 2%e. Arm rests provide support to both FA 55 69 124 44% 56% 

537 83 620 87% 13%

INPUT DEVICES Positive

ResponseNegative Response Total % Positive % Negative

a. Desk is large enough to hold keyboard and mouse.

122 2 124 98% 2%b. Mouse located right next to the keyboard to prevent reaching.

40 84 124 32% 68%c. Mouse shape. Size fits hands of operator

43 81 124 35% 65%d. Wrists and Hands do not rest on hard edges

81 43 124 65% 35% 

286 210 496 58% 42%

MONITOR Positive Response

Negative Response

Total % Positive % Negative

a. Top line of screen at or below eye level.

26 98 124 21% 79%b. Monitor distance allows reading without bending neck or head

119 5 124 96% 4%c. Monitor position directly in front to prevent head and neck twisting 122 2 124 98% 2%No glare on screen

118 6 124 95% 5%

385 111 496 78% 22%

WORK AREA

Positive Response

Negative Response Total % Positive % Negative

a. Thighs have clearance space between chair and desk 124 0 124 100% 0%

b. Legs and feet have clearance space under the desk.

124 0 124 100% 0% 

248 0 248 100% 0%

ACCESSORIES

Positive Response

Negative Response Total % Positive % Negative

Workstation and equipment have sufficient adjustability ,

124 0 124 100% 0% 

124 0 124 100% 0%

WORKING POSTURES• 69% participants did not 

maintain head and neck upright while working at the VDT.

• 6% failed to maintain their head, neck and trunk to face forward. 

31%

69%

WORKING POSTURES- Head and Neck upright

12

94%

6%

WORKING POSTURES- Head, neck, trunk to face forward

1 2

WORKING POSTURES• 48% failed to maintain 

straight wrists and hands while working. 

• 48% failed to maintain feet flat on the floor or on the foot rest

52%48%

WORKING POSTURES- Wrists and Hands to be straight

1 2

52%48%

WORKING POSTURES- Feet to rest flat on the floor or on foot

rest1 2

SEATING• 10% failed to correctly use 

the provided backrest. • 56% failed to support their 

forearms on the armrests 

90%

10%

SEATING- Backrest provides support

1 2

44%

56%

SEATING- Armrests support both forearms

1 2

INPUT DEVICES• 68 % participants failed to 

place the mouse close to the keyboard.

• 35% of participants rested their wrists on hard edges while working.

32%

68%

INPUT DEVICES- Mouse is located right next to key-

board1 2

65%

35%

INPUT DEVICES- Wrists and hand do not rest on edges

1 2

MONITOR

• 79% of participants failed to maintain the top line of the screen at or below eye level.

21%

79%

MONITOR-Top line of screen is at or below the eye level

1 2

RESULT

• All the three companies that were a part of this survey had similar work desk and VDT setups.

• Most items that are reported ‘negative’ are common across companies.

RESULT

• WORKING POSTURES-Participants require training for point # 1, #6 and # 8. – A large population of participants failed to maintain head and neck upright

–Maintain wrists and hands straight while working– Place their feet flat on the floor or supported by the foot rest.

– Average number of participants scoring negatives under this section is 31%  (38.44 participants) of the total 124 assessed

RESULT

• SEATING-A staggering 69% of the participants failed to –Maintain their   support both forearms while performing VDT.

– Average number of participants scoring negatives under this section is 13% (3.72)of the total 124 assessed.

RESULT

• INPUT DEVICES-A large number of participants scored negatives on 4 out of 3 questions. Participants failed to maintain-– The mouse right next to keyboard so it could  be operated without reaching

–Mouse of shape and size that fit their  hand–Wrist and hands off the sharp edges– Average number of participants scoring negatives under this section is 42% (52.08)of the total 124 assessed.

RESULT

• MONITOR- Participants scored negatives on 1 out of 4 questions. Participants failed to maintain-– Top line of the screen is at or below eye level so employee is able to read it without bending head or neck down /back

– Average number of participants scoring negatives under this section is 22% (27.28) of the total 124 assessed.

•  

DISCUSSION

DISCUSSION

• In a study to find association of upper extremity and neck disorders with keyboard and mouse it was concluded that applying the general principles of ergonomics to computer work is probably the correct strategy to pursue, with the aim of maintaining office workers' well-being. (1)

DISCUSSION

• In another study with a questionnaire on (1) work station, (2) posture during work, (3) quality of break time, (4) job demands, (5) job control, and (6) social support it was found that Neck and Shoulder complaints are more frequently reported among  computer workers than arm, elbow and hand complaints. (3)

DISCUSSION

• A study was conducted to ascertain if office workers should spend fewer hours at their computer (5). Moderate evidence was concluded for a positive association between the duration of mouse use and hand-arm symptoms. For this association, indications for a dose-response relationship were found. Risk estimates were in general stronger for the hand-arm region than for the neck-shoulder region, and stronger for mouse use than for total computer use and keyboard use. 

DISCUSSION

• In yet another questionnaire based study on work related complaints of neck, shoulder and arm among computer office workers in a developing country, (11) it was concluded that the prevalence of work-related CANS among computer office workers in Sri Lanka, a developing, South Asian country is high and comparable to prevalence in developed countries.

DISCUSSION

• This study was carried out after initial training in ergonomic seating and use of VDT while working.

• The findings of this study are in line with other research conducted as in it highlights requirement of training in areas which could prevent further neck and upper limb problems. Participants scored the least number of ‘YES’ in areas which required either neck or arms to be positioned as per ergonomic norms.

• They also scored less number of ‘YES’ in positioning of the monitor as per ergonomic norms

DISCUSSION

• Although the findings of this study does match most of the research papers on arm, neck and shoulder pain due to computer use a prospective study is required with a larger population

• Companies and organisations need to be sensitized to the need for Office Ergonomics training as an integral part of Health and Safety.

DISCUSSION

• Every day a lot of employees across the country suffer from various MSD related problems. These convert into sick days, lower productivity and higher attrition rate for the companies.

• Various studies already indicate high ROI for Office Ergonomic programs, if that is at all a decisive factor to get aboard the ergonomic bandwagon.

REFERENCES1. Upper-extremity and neck disorders associated with

keyboard and mouse use. Mattioli1, Violante FS2, Bonfiglioli R2.2. Ergonomic design and training for preventing work-related

musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb and neck in adults. Hoe1, Urquhart DM, Kelsall HL, Sim MR.

3. Prevalence of complaints of arm, neck and shoulder among computer office workers and psychometric evaluation of a risk factor questionnaire.Eltayeb S1, Staal JB, Kennes J, Lamberts PH, de Bie RA.

4. Ergonomic and physiotherapeutic interventions for treating work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder in adults. A Cochrane systematic review.Verhagen AP1, Karels C, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Feleus A, Dahaghin S, Burdorf A, De Vet HC, Koes BW.

REFERENCES5. Should office workers spend fewer hours at their

computer? A systematic review of the literature.IJmker S1, Huysmans MA, Blatter BM, van der Beek AJ, van Mechelen W, Bongers PM.

6. Hard work never hurt anyone--or did it? A review of occupational associations with soft tissue musculoskeletal disorders of the neck and upper limb.Walker-Bone K1, Cooper C.

7. Clinical assessment, prognosis and return to work with reference to work related neck and upper limb disorders.Hagberg M1.

8. The influence of working conditions and individual factors on the incidence of neck and upper limb symptoms among professional computer users.Tornqvist EW1, Hagberg M, Hagman M, Risberg EH, Toomingas A.

REFERENCES9. Prevalence of complaints of arm, neck and shoulder among

computer office workers and psychometric evaluation of a risk factor questionnaire.Eltayeb S1, Staal JB, Kennes J, Lamberts PH, de Bie RA.

10. Perceived exertion, comfort and working technique in professional computer users and associations with the incidence of neck and upper extremity symptoms. Lindegård A1, Wahlström J, Hagberg M, Vilhelmsson R, Toomingas A, Tornqvist EW.

11. Work-related complaints of arm, neck and shoulder among computer office workers in an Asian country: prevalence and validation of a risk-factor questionnaire.Ranasinghe P1, Perera YS, Lamabadusuriya DA, Kulatunga S, Jayawardana N, Rajapakse S, Katulanda P.

12. Ergonomic design and training for preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb and neck in adults.Hoe VC1, Urquhart DM, Kelsall HL, Sim MR.

REFERENCES13. The impact of a computerized work environment on professional

occupational groups and behavioural and physiological risk factors for musculoskeletal symptoms: a literature review.Griffiths KL1, Mackey MG, Adamson BJ.

14. Identifying work organization targets for a work-related musculoskeletal symptom prevention program.Huang GD1, Feuerstein M.

15. Experiences of employees with arm, neck or shoulder complaints: a focus group study. Hutting1, Heerkens YF, Engels JA, Staal JB, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MW.

16. A self-management program for employees with complaints of the arm, neck, or shoulder (CANS): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Hutting1, Staal JB, Heerkens YF, Engels JA, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MW.

17. Participatory ergonomic intervention versus strength training on chronic pain and work disability in slaughterhouse workers: study protocol for a single-blind, randomized controlled trial.Sundstrup E1, Jakobsen MD, Andersen CH, Jay K, Persson R, Aagaard P, Andersen LL. 

THANKS-

DR. AMOL SANGEKAR ERGONOMICS CONSULTANT

INDIAERGO