Dataset Information

Ergonomics in the anaesthetic workplace: Guideline from the Association of Anaesthetists.

ABSTRACT: Ergonomics in relation to anaesthesia is the scientific study of the interaction between anaesthetists and their workspace environment in order to promote safety, performance and well-being. The foundation for avoiding pain or discomfort at work is to adopt and maintain a good posture, whether sitting or standing. Anaesthetists should aim to keep their posture as natural and neutral as possible. The successful practice of anaesthesia relies on optimisation of ergonomics and lack of attention to detail in this area is associated with impaired performance. The anaesthetic team should wear comfortable clothing, including appropriately-sized personal protective equipment where necessary. Temperature, humidity and light should be adequate at all times. The team should comply with infection prevention and control guidelines and monitoring as recommended by the Association of Anaesthetists. Any equipment or machinery that is mobile should be positioned where it is easy to view or reach without having to change the body or head position significantly when interacting with it. Patients who are supine should, whenever possible, be raised upwards to limit the need to lean towards them. Any item required during a procedure should be positioned on trays or trolleys that are close to the dominant hand. Pregnancy affects the requirements for standing, manually handling, applying force when operating equipment or moving machines and the period over which the individual might have to work without a break. Employers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate disability in the workplace. Any member of staff with a physical impairment needs to be accommodated and this includes making provision for a wheelchair user who needs to enter the operating theatre and perform their work.

SUBMITTER: Bailey CR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9292255 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNeck pain is prevalent among office workers. This study evaluated the impact of an ergonomic and exercise training (EET) intervention and an ergonomic and health promotion (EHP) intervention on neck pain intensity among the All Workers and a subgroup of Neck Pain cases at baseline.MethodsA 12-month cluster-randomized trial was conducted in 14 public and private organisations. Office workers aged ≥18 years working ≥30 h per week (n = 740) received an individualised workstation ergonomic intervention, followed by 1:1 allocation to the EET group (neck-specific exercise training), or the EHP group (health promotion) for 12 weeks. Neck pain intensity (scale: 0-9) was recorded at baseline, 12 weeks, and 12 months. Participants with data at these three time points were included for analysis (n = 367). Intervention group differences were analysed using generalized estimating equation models on an intention-to-treat basis and adjusted for potential confounders. Subgroup analysis was performed on neck cases reporting pain ≥3 at baseline (n = 96).ResultsThe EET group demonstrated significantly greater reductions in neck pain intensity at 12 weeks compared to the EHP group for All Workers (EET: β = - 0.53 points 95% CI: - 0.84- - 0.22 [36%] and EHP: β = - 0.17 points 95% CI: - 0.47-0.13 [10.5%], p-value = 0.02) and the Neck Cases (EET: β = - 2.32 points 95% CI: - 3.09- - 1.56 [53%] and EHP: β = - 1.75 points 95% CI: - 2.35- - 1.16 [36%], p = 0.04). Reductions in pain intensity were not maintained at 12 months with no between-group differences observed in All Workers (EET: β = - 0.18, 95% CI: - 0.53-0.16 and EHP: β = - 0.14 points 95% CI: - 0.49-0.21, p = 0.53) or Neck Cases, although in both groups an overall reduction was found (EET: β = - 1.61 points 95% CI: - 2.36- - 0.89 and EHP: β = - 1.9 points 95% CI: - 2.59- - 1.20, p = 0.26).ConclusionEET was more effective than EHP in reducing neck pain intensity in All Workers and Neck Cases immediately following the intervention period (12 weeks) but not at 12 months, with changes at 12 weeks reaching clinically meaningful thresholds for the Neck Cases. Findings suggest the need for continuation of exercise to maintain benefits in the longer term.Clinical trial registrationhACTRN12612001154897 Date of Registration: 31/10/2012.

Project description:BackgroundMany workplaces have implemented sit-stand workstations (SSW), which enable a worker to transition between sitting and standing as they perform their work activities. The factors which determine the initial adoption, sustainability or cessation of use for a SSW, remain largely unexamined. This study investigates the experiences of workers who had previously used or were currently using a SSW.MethodsThe study setting was within an Australian university. Participants who were current or past SSW users, as well as workplace key informants, were interviewed for the study. All interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed. Transcripts were coded by two researchers for concepts and themes regarding uptake and sustainability of SSW. Discussion and validation of themes was undertaken by the team of three researchers.ResultsA total of 24 interviews were conducted. Twenty-two interviews were with ceased and current users (16 current and six ceased users) and two interviews were with workplace key informants. Analysis of the interviews with current and ceased users identified three main themes: Personal considerations for use/sustainability; Posture; and Usability. Analysis of the interviews with key informants identified two themes: Considerations and concerns and Policies and procedures. Little information was provided to workers when first using a SSW. Workers who were able to adopt their working style to the new workstations were able to sustain ongoing use of a SSW. Key informants were concerned that employees believed using a SSW would provide a health benefit in its own right without an understanding of the possible risks that might be associated with use.ConclusionsSustainable usage of this type of SSW is achievable, however, it requires some element of adaptation at the individual worker level. Participants spoke about how the use of the SSW in a standing position was typically associated with the time of day, specific task selection and musculoskeletal comfort or fatigue factors. The provision of education to new SSW users with relevant supporting information by a subject matter expert should enable the worker to obtain a more holistic understanding of the safety and health risks and benefits embedded in the use of a SSW.

Project description:BackgroundMasons have the highest rate of overexertion injuries among all construction trades and rank second for occupational back injuries in the United States. Identified ergonomic solutions are the primary method of reducing exposure to risk factors associated with musculoskeletal disorders. However, many construction workers lack knowledge about these solutions, as well as basic ergonomic principles. Construction apprentices, as they embark on their careers, are greatly in need of ergonomics training to minimize the cumulative exposure that leads to musculoskeletal disorders. Apprentices receive safety training; however, ergonomics training is often limited or non-existent. In addition, apprenticeship programs often lack "soft skills" training on how to appropriately respond to work environments and practices that are unsafe. The SAVE program - SAfety Voice for Ergonomics - strives to integrate evidence-based health and safety training strategies into masonry apprenticeship skills training to teach ergonomics, problem solving, and speaking up to communicate solutions that reduce musculoskeletal injury risk. The central hypothesis is that the combination of ergonomics training and safety voice promotion will be more effective than no training or either ergonomics training alone or safety voice training alone.Methods/designFollowing the development and pilot testing of the SAVE intervention, SAVE will be evaluated in a cluster-randomized controlled trial at 12 masonry training centers across the U.S. Clusters of apprentices within centers will be assigned at random to one of four intervention groups (n = 24 per group): (1) ergonomics training only, (2) safety voice training only, (3) combined ergonomics and safety voice training, or (4) control group with no additional training intervention. Outcomes assessed at baseline, at the conclusion of training, and then at six and 12 months post training will include: musculoskeletal symptoms, general health perceptions, knowledge of ergonomic and safety voice principles, and perception and attitudes about ergonomic and safety voice issues.DiscussionMasons continue to have a high rate of musculoskeletal disorders. The trade has an expected increase of 40 % in the number of workers by 2020. Therefore, a vetted intervention for apprentices entering the trade, such as SAVE, could reduce the burden of musculoskeletal disorders currently plaguing the trade.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02676635 , 2 February 2016.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cognitively straining conditions such as disruptions, interruptions, and information overload are related to impaired task performance and diminished well-being at work. It is therefore essential that we reduce their harmful consequences to individual employees and organizations. Our intervention study implements practices for managing the cognitive strain typical to office work tasks and working conditions in offices. We will examine the effects of a cognitive ergonomics intervention on working conditions, workflow, well-being, and productivity. METHODS/DESIGN:The study is a stratified cluster randomized trial. The clusters are work units, for example, teams or offices. The four participating organizations entered a total of 36 clusters, and we invited all 1169 knowledge employees of these units to participate. We randomly allocated the clusters into an intervention group (cognitive ergonomics) or an active control group (recovery supporting). We invited an additional 471 participants to join a passive control group only for baseline and follow-up measurements, with no intervention. The study consists of a baseline survey and interviews and observations at the workplace, followed by an intervention. It starts with a workshop defining the specific actions for the intervention implementation stage, during which we send task reminder questionnaires to all employees to support behaviour change at the individual and team levels. The primary outcome measure is perceived frequency of cognitive strain from working conditions; the secondary outcome measures include subjective cognitive load, well-being, workflow/productivity, and cognitive stress symptoms. Process evaluation uses the quantitative and qualitative data obtained during the implementation and evaluation phases. The baseline measurements, intervention phase, and end-of-treatment measurements are now complete, and follow-up will continue until November 2019. DISCUSSION:There is a need to expand the research of cognitive strain, which poses a considerable risk to work performance and employee well-being in cognitively demanding tasks. Our study will provide new information about factors that contribute to such strain. Most importantly, the results will show which evidence-based cognitive ergonomic practices support work performance in knowledge work, and the project will provide concrete examples of how to improve at work. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03573674. Registered 29 June 2018.

Dataset Information

Ergonomics in the anaesthetic workplace: Guideline from the Association of Anaesthetists.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets