Research Articles Base: Occupational Safety And Health

Occupational Hygiene: Principles and Practice

I.             Introduction   Employment for individuals is considered a source of livelihood, a means to cope in their daily lives. The wages that employment provides a breadwinner conveys the manner in which he will be able to survive the daily demands of living, particularly in financial terms. This goes to show that being employed is a necessity among individuals. Being employed denotes that an individual has a source of livelihood and is able to fulfil the demands of his life. The relationship that exists in the employer and the employee has been considerably addressed in the past and existing literature. However, there is constantly a recurrent representation of inequity in such areas. The existing relationship between employers and employees reveals a fiduciary duty on the former. Having this duty, the employer is thus compelled to provide occupational safety and hygiene such that the welfare of the employees is taken in hand. This study will consider and analyse the occupational hygiene that exists in the workplace. Along with this analysis is a description of the substances that an employee is subjected to and the possible courses of action that the company could undertake to maintain a healthy workplace. The focus of this study will be on respiratory illnesses which in some ways been prevalently related and acquired from the workplace.       II.           Range of Hazardous Substances   Employees are often subjected to conditions that they deem as normal and commonplace without knowing the health implications. These seemingly routine exercises that employees carry out to complete their tasks places them at great risk by providing a window of opportunity for infection and other forms of illnesses for them to acquire. The following discussions will present the existing conditions in the workplace and the possible hazards that may impede in the health of the employee. The arguments indicated in this part of the paper is going to be based on the existing literature and internet articles published by the NHS.      A.          Conditions in the Workplace   The emergence of globalization and dominance of capitalism in the present period has provided several changes in the condition of working for people. Studies have shown that the workplace is inherently not a safe environment. ,  , 2004,9) In the UK alone, majority of its population is considered a part of the workforce. In the work of the HSE (2006), they have compiled the figures from the Office of the National Statistics (ONS) indicating that there are over 25 million individuals who work as an employee, over 29 million serving as a worker, and over 3 million self-employed individuals in the UK. (HSE, 2006)     On the same study, the HSE indicated that the workers of the manufacturing industries comprise of more than three million individuals in 2005. This easily rates as the part of the working sector which possesses the most number of individuals. Other sectors that hold huge number of individuals includes the service industries and construction, both having over two million individuals under its industries. In the work of Jones, Huxtable, and Hodgson (2006, xx) they have indicated that in 2004, over two million individuals believed that they were in some way sick or down with some from of illness which is triggered or aggravated by their employment. As a result, their study claimed that over 28 million working days were lost because of that illness triggered or aggravated by work activities of the said individuals in Britain.   It is the presence of this occurrence that some sort of occupational safety measures are recognized in some studies. Safety in the workplace has been taken into consideration in the existing literature; some have indicated that this safety is compromised by specific items present in the workplace while some indicate that this risk is presented by other employees in the company. , 2002,, 1995,1) the following discussions will be taken into the context of the United Kingdom. Particularly with reference to the items that could pose as threats that could trigger illnesses to the members of the workforce. Though the study of n (2006) indicates that majority of the employees in Britain suffer from musculoskeletal disorders, respiratory illnesses on this context will be the primary concern of this study.      B.          Specific Respiratory Hazards   The following discussions are going to establish the particular hazards and the consequent respiratory effects that these items provide to the English population. 1.    Hazards present at work   A study by (1997) made in the Avon area indicated several elements that are considered pollutants and could trigger illnesses to individuals. One particular element discussed is Nitrogen Oxide. The presence of NO2 in the environment was found to trigger some susceptibility to infection among those who are exposed to it in a prolonged period.   Another element found to trigger respiratory illnesses includes formaldehydon, 1997) The said element is considered a volatile organic compound that comes from regular fixtures in the workplace like carpets and cleaning agents used for the office furniture. Other sources may be from the newly painted walls and other furniture in the office. Harrison (1997) indicated that exposure to such an element may trigger sensory and airway irritation. Incidence of asthma and chronic bronchitis has also been uncovered in the said study.   The presence of dust mites in the workplace has also been noted in the worrison (1997). He indicated the prevalence of Dermatophagoides pteronissinus in the United Kingdom which similarly play a function in the incidence of asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Other organic elements such as fungi and bacteria could also trigger respiratory illnesses. These elements could form in the walls and other woodworks in the workplace. An area which may provide a damp environment is a conducive location for these elements to spawn.  On the other hand, the study of National Statistics (2002) indicated Isocyanates as the major agent that trigger occupational asthma. Flour and grain comes in a far second place followed by solder flux in third. Thus, the professionals that frequently have respiratory conditions in England includes bakers, flour confectioners, and spray painters.                2.    Work-related Illnesses   On a survey of National Statistics (2002) they have uncovered several respiratory illnesses that have been bothering the workforce of England. The study claimed that over a hundred sixty-eight thousand individuals have breathing and lung problems. Moreover, the same amount of individuals apparently considers the source and cause of the illness as work-related. This means that the environment provided by their individual employment appear to be causing disease among the majority of England’s workforce. Occupational Asthma has been claimed to be the primary illness coming from employment activities. Moreover, the said study similarly claimed that there was a steep decline in the incidence of occupational asthma from over six hundred cases in 1992 to less than three hundred in 2002.     In addition to occupational asthma, the study similarly claimed that employees in the UK also suffer from pneumoconiosis. The findings of the said study indicated that the incidence have been erratic because there have changes in the method of acquiring data in 2002, the latest being the more accurate. Moreover, the incidence of pneumoconiosis normally occurs in industries where silica is involved. Similarly, employees from quarrying firms and coalminers have apparently been susceptible to the said illness.      III.         Discussion   The following discussions are going to be based on the laws and guidelines instituted by the UK government to monitor the operations in working environments. Similarly, the role of the occupational hygienist will also be taken into consideration in this part of the paper. In view of the discussions in this paper, an occupational hygienist is able to carry out his/her commission by merely implementing the specific laws and guidelines that the government have presented to aid in improving the working environment for the workforce of UK. First, the employer is responsible for providing a safe system of working and a safe place for work in the context of common law. An employer has to acquire such measures as are reasonable to make out that the site is safe. This tenet is stated in Davidson v Handley [1945] 1 All ER 235, 236. It was decided by the Court of Appeal that the responsibility of the employer to offer safe appliances broadens to envelop all actions generally and realistically incidental to the every day work, and, consequently, extended to the applicant’s case. On the other hand, it is an issue of fact whether a specific process needs a system of work in the concern of safety, or whether it can sensibly be left to the worker commissioned with the job. It is typically applied to employment of a usual kind where the appropriate application of managerial control would identify the system of working, provide tutoring on safety and support the employment of safety tools. (Speed v Thomas Swift & Co [1943] 1 All ER 539) Even though usually thought of in the context of physical security, it is apparent that the responsibility to offer a safe system of work similarly expands to an employee’s health. On the statutory basis, the occupational hygienist could basically recommend for the entire organizations specific measures noted in specific legislations. To illustrate, an occupational hygienist could recommend the management to look into the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations of 1999 in order to know the specific activities it could undertake to minimise the risk involved in the workplace. In particular, the said legislation indicates the requirement for an organization conduct a risk assessment process, employ the knowledgeable individuals, and similarly conduct trainings for the dissemination of information and training. In the context of the physical structure of the company (the physical workplace), an occupational hygienist could recommend to the employer to view Workplace (Health, Safety, and Welfare) Regulations 1992. Particular physical attributes such as ventilation, heating and other ergonomic elements of the workplace is indicated in this piece of legislation.   On the level of the individual employee, the occupational hygienist could similarly recommend activities that are based on the legislation. An information drive should be sufficient in this respect. A brief summary of the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Regulations 1992 would be helpful for the workforce. This will provide the knowledge that their employers are obligated by the state to provide them with the necessary safety equipment they need. Specifically, the provision of protective clothing is generally indicated in this law. Not only should these equipment shield them from possible accidents, these should also consider to address the safety of their health.   The workforce should also learn that it is required from their employers to ensure the safety of the machines they are operating. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) 1999 specifies the necessary safety precautions that should be acquired by the employer before the machine is given to the supervision of the employee. If the essential equipment is not available and this brings about a mishap he will be legally responsible, even though he is not essentially compelled to take on the most recent developments and equipment (Toronto Power Co v Paskwan [1915] AC 734). The company is legally responsible to provide the employee with the equipment they needed in order not to trigger any other forms that could aggravate their condition.  Moreover, if the member of staff would not have employed the tools if it had been provided, the employer’s breach of duty is not the grounds of harm (McWilliams v Sir William Arrol & Co [1962] 1 All ER 623).          IV.        Conclusion   This study has established discussions claiming the importance of occupational hygiene in organizations. In as much as claiming profit and acquiring revenue includes the major requisites of the organization to fairly survive, high regard towards the human aspect of the organization should be the priority of organizations. One could not discount the fact that accidents happen, certain elements in an environment have certain effects on the human anatomy. It is the responsibility of the employer to minimize the incidence of this by establishing a safe working environment. Using occupational hygiene and employing the services of occupational hygienist is a step in the right direction. Although the government has established laws and statutes that help employees to achieve a healthy working environment, it is up to the individual employers whether they are to vehemently adhere to these guidelines. To this end, sustaining the actions of organizations will ultimately for their own benefit.      Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Occupational Hygiene: Principles and Practice

I. Introduction Employment for individuals is considered a source of livelihood, a means to cope in their dai...

New Zealand Occupational Health and Safety : Workplace Chemicals Caused Solvent Neurotoxicity

PART A 1. Causes of Murray’s illnesses:   Exposure             The exposure of Murray with the use of an epoxy resin and solvents is the primary causes of his illness. He also believes that the health and safety equipment was inadequate. The small Expel-fan used in the glue room was not adequate for the job and could possibly spark, igniting any vapour that was present. Murray only uses kitchen gloves in mixing the glue, and the breathing mask available but frequently used in other parts of the workplace.   Production             Murray’s workplace offers a variety of services, which included life raft survey and repair. During the time of the accident, the management expressed a number of concerns. Primarily, the manager could not understand how Murray got sick, as he is the first one to get infected. Another concern is that the company would not be able to get on with its services without the use of the chemical. Third, the employer had concerns with the diagnosis of solvent neurotoxicity, being not seemingly clear-cut and lacking resolution from the diagnosis. Thus, the lack of clarity made the manager think of other possible causes of Murray’s illness, such as drug use.   Decisions             The decision of Murray and the company is to remove him from the workplace to avoid the severity of his illness, and due also to some factors including his ongoing anger, irritability, and depression, pins and needles in his fingertips to rashes on his face, bad circulation, smelling like a glue residue in the morning, problems with breathing, changes in personality and memory, and changes in his concentration and motivation.   External Parties             One of the external parties involved in Murray’s case is his manager or employer. This is because instead of knowing the causes of the illness of Murray and being concerned of the welfare and safety of their employees in the company, they even speculated that Murray is into drugs. Another external party to consider is the doctor who Murray visited. This is because he should have pursued and encouraged Murray to undergo medical examinations and treatment. The OSH medical practitioner is also considered an external party because he/she should have made additional tests on the facility in order to have made more accurate conclusions regarding the case. The OSH medical practitioner should also have insisted on encouraging the company to allow further examination of the chemicals, being suspected to have caused Murray’s illness. Murray’s wife and family serves to be an important external party, for they should have not left Murray in the time he needs them the most and should have provided him the care, support, protection, and affection that he needs during his illness. During the progression of his illness, they should have been the primary individuals who understood him and supported him all the way. Lastly, Murray’s friends are also external parties who contributed to his illness, for similar to what his family did; they left him in the time that Murray badly needs support, care, understanding, and love.   Consequences for Murray             The illness affected Murray physically, emotionally, socially, and psychologically. Physical damages include pins and needles in his fingertips to rashes on his face, bad circulation, smelling a glue residue in the morning, and problems with breathing. Psychological damages include changes in his personality and memory, frequent and abrupt mood swings, loss of short-term memory, and changes in concentration and motivation. Social and emotional damages include changes in motivation and concentration, dropping of grades, isolation, and breaking down of personal relationships with family and friends.   Consequences for Murray’s family             The illness made his family suffer, as his change in personality affected how he spends time with his family. He can no longer cope with his children, his marriage began to come under strain, and he separated with his wife. He even moved out of his family home, thus, becoming more antisocial, giving up hobbies and sports. The family not supported Murray in his illness, as his wife was not even interested with his illness. The marriage broke down due to Murray’s change in personality and due to the fact that Jane has doubts with their future and to find a lasting employment.   Consequences for the Company             Murray’s manager that the incident had no adverse effect with the costs of the company. The morale of the workers was not affected. Overall loses of the company due to incident was also minimal, with even a slight increase in the ACC levy. There was no increased cost in the change of chemicals to be used in the repair.     Actors Murray – The main actor in the case, who is significantly and totally affected by the unsafe workplace of his employer Jane – Murray’s wife; Instead of supporting, understanding, and assisting his husband, she and their kids left him due to his change in personality OSH medical practitioner – The individual who found out that the illness of Murray is caused by neurotoxicity. He should have insisted on the check up and follow up of Murray, thus, the severity of the illness should have been avoided Manager/Employer – He should have insisted on deeper investigation on the case and have implemented policies and changes regarding the use of toxic substances in the workplace           Template 1                                           2. Different solutions mentioned in the case Exposures             The main solution for the exposure of Murray is to remove him from the workplace. The management also insisted that if there was a problem, it had to be dealt with.   Production             The solvent used for the repair of the rafts were changed into a new thinner, which is less reactive. In addition to this, a solution was to include monitoring for vapour levels and that procedures must be put in place to minimise any vapour that was there.   Decisions             It was decided that Murray has to be removed from the workplace. Due to the different adverse effects of his illness, he also decided to isolate himself, becoming anti-social, and leaving his family, friends, and hobbies.   Consequences for Murray             The solutions made Murray angry to himself and to his employment, for making him suffer the illness he is suffering at the moment. He is also suffered with the decisions he made and the people around him made, thus, leaving him alone, lonely, and isolated.   Consequences for Murray’s family             Murray’s family left him, thus, having no contact with him after the incident. Murray and his wife separated twice, and there were no reports that they got back together again. Such a decision was made by the family because they cannot put up with the change in personality of Murray.   Consequences for the Company             The change in the solvent used by the company did not create any effect on the sales and operations of the company. Small changes and losses were indicated but no significant changes or effects were reported.                           Template 2                                           3. Discipline of External Actors   Manager/Employer – The discipline that the manager/employer of Murray belongs to must be suspension. This is because instead of knowing the causes of the illness of Murray and being concerned of the welfare and safety of their employees in the company, they even speculated that Murray is into drugs.   Doctor – The discipline he belongs to must be verbal reprimand because he should have pursued and encouraged Murray to undergo medical examinations and treatment.   OSH medical practitioner – His discipline must be verbal reprimand because he/she should have made additional tests on the facility in order to have made more accurate conclusions regarding the case.   Jane – As Murray’s wife, she must have verbal reprimand, for she should have not left Murray in the time he needs her most and should have provided him the care, support, protection, and affection that he needs during his illness.   Murray’s friends – They must receive both verbal and written reprimand because for similar to what his family did; they left him in the time that Murray badly needs support, care, understanding, and love.   4. Factors the External Actors Focused On   Manager/Employer – The internal categories focused upon by Murray’s manager/employer include Decision, Production, and Consequences. Decision is being given importance by the company in order to identify the root causes of the problem and to provide solutions. Production is also given importance by the company, as it is entirely affected once health problems of its employees become affected by the use of solvents in the company. Consequences are also given important regard, as Murray’s case might produce negative effects on the reputation, products, and sales of the company.      Doctor – The internal categories that the doctor gives importance to include Decision, Exposures, and Consequences. The doctor is concerned about decisions because these are the basis of Murray’s solutions to his illness. The doctor is also concerned with exposures because these serve to be the main causes of his illness. Lastly, the doctor is also concerned with the consequences, being part of the possible complications that he might suffer from due to his illness.   OSH medical practitioner – The internal categories that the OSH medical practitioner is concerned with include Exposure and Consequences. Murray’s exposure to the harmful chemicals is given importance because the OSH medical practitioner knows its fatal effects to humans. With his exposure, the consequences are also given importance, as the OSH medical practitioner knows the severity of the effects of Murray and to the other employees in the company.    Jane – As Murray’s wife, Jane is concerned with Decision and Consequences. She is concerned with the decisions to be made, which is the basis for the survival of her husband and the welfare of their family. The consequences of Murray’s illness are given importance by Jane because such consequences indicate the survival of her husband and their family.   Murray’s friends – The main concern of Murray’s friends is the consequences of his illness. This is because they are either responsible for his speedy recovery and support or his desolation and loneliness, which is Murray’s case.   5. Consultancy Approach of External Actors   Manager/Employer – The consultancy approach used by Murray’s manager/employer was technical prevention. This is because the company provided solution to the problem by changing their solvent into a less reactive thinner. The OSH perspective used was consequence, as the employer must protect the welfare of the company and its interests.       Doctor – The consultancy approach used by the doctor was the health perspective, particularly Treatment. This is because the doctor must be concerned with the diagnosis and treatment that Murray must undergo in order to determine his illness and its causes. The OSH perspective used was causative or action, being knowledgeable of the possible solutions for his illness.    OSH medical practitioner – The consultancy approach used by OSH medical practitioner was the change agent, as being able to provide solutions and suggestions to prevent the progression of Murray’s illness. He also used the OSH perspective, particularly the Causative or Action, as he is concerned with the effects of Murray’s exposure to the chemicals and the actions that must be done in order to prevent adverse consequences.   Jane – The consultancy approach used by Jane is the health perspective, specifically change agent. This is because she brought significant changes in Murray’s life, which happened when she separated with him, thus, making his condition worse. She also used the Consequence as an OSH perspective, being much concerned with the effects of the illness to Murray and to her family.    Murray’s friends – The consultancy approach used by Murray’s friends was the health perspective, specifically the change agent. This is because similar to what his wife did, his friends also left him, instead of helping him to cope with his illness. For the OSH perspective, they used the consequence, being focused on the effects of the illness on Murray and to their relationship with one another.   6. a) If the consultant has a sociological background, he/she would be primarily taking note of the reactions and the role of Murray’s wife and friends. This is because the interaction of Murray with the different individuals in the family and community, particularly to those he is related with produce significant changes and effects in how he deals with his illness. Another factor to take note of is how his employer managed his case. This is because this can be Murray’s basis of how he would be able to cope effectively in his workplace given his medical condition.   b) The consultancy approach applicable with the sociological discipline is the Change Agent, as with its use, different individuals in the society would be able to participate and partake in assisting Murray in combating his illness and all its associated factors. On the other hand, the OSH perspective related to the sociological discipline is the Causative or Action, as the provision of actions or solutions for the illness of Murray involves the decisions, opinions, and perceptions of other individuals in the family and the community.   c) The focus of the advice of a sociologist would be related to establishing good communication and enriching relationships with the family members and friends of Murray. This is because this would help him cope with his illness and all its associated complications or problems.     PART B   1. What contribution did Bernardo Ramazzini make to occupational health?             Bernardo Ramazzini (1633-1714) was bestowed with the title of the “Father of Occupational Medicine” due to his two major contributions. One of his major contributions was his systematic examination of a number of trades and occupations. He observed conditions of work and their occupational diseases. Thus, by doing so, he made a number of recommendations on welfare, hygiene, posture, ventilation, and protective clothing, which are still valid today, as they were in 1700. His second major contribution was his advice to physicians that when taking a client’s history, they should enquire as to the nature of their work as a means of assisting in the diagnosis of the client’s condition (Safetyline Institute 2006).   2. In what way did 19th century legislation from the UK influence the development of occupational health and safety in New Zealand?             New Zealand has followed the British tradition with minimum health and safety standards prescribed by quasi-criminal law and enforced by a Government inspectorate. Its view was that health and safety should be managed by the employers, to the exclusion of employees or their representatives, if the employer thought fit. Meaning, the Health & Safety in Employment Act 1992 has provided a general duty legislative framework, supplemented by a limited number of codes of practice and guidelines, and enforced by a seriously under-resourced inspectorate. In addition, it can also be noted that worker rights or participation systems have been absent, such as the elected health and safety representatives, which have been a feature of the UK model (Huggard 2002).   3. What was the earliest legislation with a health and safety focus to be introduced into New Zealand? What did it regulate?             The earliest legislation was the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, which aims to promote the prevention of harm to all people at work. It applies to all New Zealand workplaces and places duties on employers, the self-employed, employees, principals, and others who are in a position to manage or control hazards (‘Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992’ 2008).   4. What impact did the Bruner Mine disaster of 1896 have on legislation in New Zealand?             The mining disaster prompted the authorities to come up with new policies and legislations that would protect the workers and the quarries from which they work upon. A number of projects have been done, such as the National Dust Project in 1995 and the Respiratory System Survey in 1999 (Glass et al 2003). Along with such projects are other safety legislations that aim to address the different issues that mining and quarry workers are able to face, such as diseases and safety measures in their workplaces.      5. How can OSH contribute to a company’s performance and competitiveness?             One of the factors that motivate employees to work in any company or workplace is safety and health. Through the OSH, it can be understood that the better safety measures that a company is able to provide their employees, then the more their employees would be compelled to work for them, thus, leading to increased productive, improved performance, and better competitiveness. However, if safety measures and health initiatives would be neglected by a company, then their employees would always feel threatened to work properly, as they are always thinking about how unsafe their working condition in the company is.   6. What is meant by passive strategies (as opposed to active) for injury control? Give two examples for each. Passive strategies – These are strategies that have universal application, thus, protecting all members of the community. They do not decay in efficacy, avoids individual’s risk values, and do not have to be perfect fit for all individuals. Examples would include increasing resistance to injury, such as by education or reminder that the use of hard hats prevents miners from being hit by falling debris, and preventing inappropriate release of hazard, such as by preventing release of lead to avoid water contamination (Department of Emergency Medicine 2008). Active strategies – Strategies that require continual upkeep, are not uniformly accepted, and are less expensive to implement. Examples would include providing best practice standards of emergency, hospital and rehabilitation care, and countering damage already done, such as by transporting head injured and spinal cord injured appropriately (Department of Emergency Medicine 2008).   7. Differentiate between ‘work-related disease’ and ‘occupational disease’             ‘Work-related disease’ is defined as a disease or illness arising as a result of work-related factors, such as specific diseases and stress (‘Reporting Work-Related Diseases’ 2006), while ‘occupational disease’ is a health problem caused by exposure to a workplace hazard, such as dust, gases, fumes, noise, toxic substances, vibration, radiation, infectious agents, and extreme temperatures and air pressures (‘Workers’ 2008).   8. Differentiate between descriptive and analytical epidemiology             Descriptive epidemiology deals with the frequency and the distribution of risk factors in populations and enables to assess the extent of a disease, providing hypotheses of etiologic research, while analytical epidemiology aims to research and study risk and protector factors of diseases (‘Epidemiology’ 2006).   9. Describe three types of bias which can affect injury rates which are calculated using routinely collected data. Gender bias – The prejudice in action or treatment against a person on the basis of their sex (‘Legal Definitions’ 2007) Information bias – This is the inaccuracy in measurement of classification (Schoenbach 2001). Outcome bias – The bias in which people take outcomes into account in a way that is irrelevant to the true quality of the decision (Baron and Hershey 1988).   10. What are the main sources of statistical information on occupational disease in New Zealand?             The different sources of statistical information on occupational diseases in New Zealand can be obtained from the Statistical Databases of the New Zealand Statistics Sources, located in The University of Auckland Library, which can be accessed online in http://nzstats.auckland.ac.nz/. The statistical databases are sorted by subject, thus, easy and simple access can be done. Another website that can be accessed is Statistics New Zealand, which provides up-to-date news and statistics regarding the health and diseases of the citizens in New Zealand. It can be accessed in this website http://www.stats.govt.nz/store/2006/05/fatal-injury-statistics-oct05-hotp.htm?page=para007Master. Lastly, statistical information can also be retrieved from the National Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee or NOHSAC, which has the following website http://www.nohsac.govt.nz/.   11. Distinguish between the following types of epidemiological studies a) Case-control study – In a case-control study, clients who have developed a disease are identified and their past exposure to suspected etiological factors is compared with that of controls or referents that do not have the disease. Statistical adjustment may be rendered more efficient by matching cases and controls for exposure to confounders, either on an individual basis or in groups (‘Case-control and cross sectional studies’ 2008). Cross sectional study – This measures the prevalence of health outcomes or determinants of health, or both, in a population at a point in time or over a short period. Such information can be used to explore aetiology. However, associations must be interpreted with caution, as biases may arise due to selection into or out of the study population (‘Case-control and cross sectional studies’ 2008). Cohort study – A study in which subjects who presently have a certain condition and/or receive a particular treatment are followed over time and compared with another group who are not affected by the condition under investigation. The study of a cohort involves any group of individuals who are linked in some way or who have experienced the same significant life event within a given period (‘Cohort Studies’ 2008).   12. What key components of the original 1992 Health and Safety in Employment Act was missing from the Robens style OHS legislative framework adopted by the UK and other European countries?             The Health & Safety in Employment Act 1992 has provided a general duty legislative framework, supplemented by a limited number of codes of practice and guidelines, and enforced by a seriously under-resourced inspectorate. In addition, it can also be noted that worker rights or participation systems have been absent, such as the elected health and safety representatives, which have been a feature of the UK model since the Robens Report in the 1970s which, in turn was heavily influenced by the Scandinavian models. In effect, the legislation was like a two legged stool, where employers had a clear general duty, and the inspectorate had a clear enforcement role, but employees and their unions were denied any statutory role (Huggard 2002).             13. What is meant by the hierarchy of control? How would you apply this to loud noise source and working back to back shifts?             ‘Hierarchy of control’ is a useful tool, as it tells which of the types of control measure provides a better level of risk control, including elimination, substitution, isolation, administrative, and personal protective equipment. The higher in the hierarchy of control, the better and more reliable the control is (‘Workplace Health and Safety’ 2006). This can be highly application in controlling loud noise source through elimination, which is the elimination of a hazard associated with risks. By the process of elimination, which is the highest possible control to be used, it can be perceived that the best possible results can be achieved. In relation to working back to back shifts, isolation can be done, which uses structural change to the work environment or work process in order to interrupt the path between the worker and the risk (‘Workplace Health and Safety’ 2006). In the process, the work processes of workers are changed, thus, introducing variety that can boost motivation and learning.   14. What is meant by serious harm? Where it is defined?             As defined by the Schedule 1 of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, serious harm means death, or harm of a kind or description declared by the Governor-General by Order in Council to be serious for the purposes of the Act. It amounts or results in permanent loss of bodily function or temporary severe loss of bodily function, amputation of body part, burns, loss of consciousness, or causing hospitalization (‘Serious Harm Definition’ 2008).   15. It is generally accepted that, in relation to OSH, workers have certain rights. What are they? In what ways does the HSE Act acknowledge these rights?             Rights of workers include making appropriate use of protective clothing and equipment, work safely, comply with safety procedures and requirements, report accidents and hazards, and cooperate with health monitoring. They also have special rights, such as refusing to carry out tasks that would cause serious harm, and the right to participate in health and safety decision-making. In turn, HSE Act lays down a number of responsibilities for employers to follow, such as providing safe working environments, maintaining health and safety facilities, having a plan in case of emergencies, providing staff information, and providing training and supervision (Seaman 2004).      16. What are the Woodhouse principles and why are they significant?             The Woodhouse principles include (1) community responsibility, which involves protecting all citizens; (2) comprehensive entitlement, which entitles all injured persons to receive compensation; (3) complete rehabilitation, wherein the scheme must be deliberately organised to urge forward the physical and vocational recovery; (4) real compensation, recommending that weekly compensation be paid at 80% of previous earnings due to incapacitation; and (5) administrative efficiency, where achievement of the system will be eroded to the extent that its benefits are delayed (‘ACC Basic Overview’ 2001). Such principles are significant for they help provide support for employees who have been injured due to their work.   17. How has the definition of ‘personal injury by accident’ changed in recent accident compensation legislation?             Changes of personal injury by accident were done due to the country’s inadequacy in terms of its compensation scheme. Before, providing compensation for accident victims must first undergo the common law action for damages, worker’s compensation schemes, social welfare, and other provisions, such as considering criminal injury (‘ACC Basic Overview’ 2001). At present, the reform was made to replace the common law as a means of compensating for personal injury and put a 24-hour-no-fault scheme in its place, thus, remaining to be the single most important feature of the scheme. In addition, it remains throughout the country’s history, despite the chequered nature of the legislative changes within New Zealand, the most comprehensive form of the tort system in the common law world. It also serves to be an answer to the failure of the common law to compensate large numbers of accident victims and the long delays in delivering benefits to those who need them (Palmer 2003).   18. Distinguish between terms Occupational medicine – This is the branch of clinical medicine most active in the field of occupational health, with the principal role of the provision of health advice to organisations and individuals. It ensures that the highest standards of Health and Safety at work can be achieved and maintained (‘What is Occupational Medicine?’ 2004). Occupational Hygiene – This can be defined as the practice of identifying chemical, physical, and biological hazardous agents in the workplace, which could cause diseases or discomfort. It also involves evaluating the extent of the risk due to exposure to such hazardous agents, and the control of those risks to prevent ill-health in the long or short term (Bloor 2008). Occupational Safety – This is the practice of regulating the condition of employees in the workplace by ensuring their health, comfort, and preventing exposure to hazards that might cause serious harm Occupational Ergonomics – This is the application of human-system interface technology in the workplace to the analysis, design, and evaluation of systems to enhance safety, health, comfort, effectiveness, and quality of life (Karwowski and Marras 1999).                The concept of Occupational Medicine encompasses the concepts of Occupational Hygiene and Occupational Safety, as they involve practices that are employed in the study of Occupational Medicine. Occupational Ergonomics pertains to the practical application of all the other three concepts in the workplace.   References ‘ACC Basic Overview’ 2001, The Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation and Compensation ACT 2001, pp. 1-6. Baron, J and Hershey, JC 1988, ‘Outcome Bias in Decision Evaluation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 54, pp. 569-579. Bloor, DM 2008, Occupational Hygiene, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.dmboh.com/occhyg.htm>. ‘Case-control and cross sectional studies’ 2008, BMJ, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.bmj.com/epidem/epid.8.html>. ‘Cohort Studies’ 2008, Social Research Methods, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/tutorial/Cho2/cohort.html>. Department of Emergency Medicine 2008, Injury Control: Injury Prevention Center, viewed 16 May 2008, <bms.brown.edu/pediatrics/injed/documents/Injury%20%20lecture-complete.ppt>. ‘Epidemiology’ 2006, Bio Stat Em, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.biostatem.com/english/epidemiology/epidemiology.htm>. Glass, WI, McLean, D, Armstrong, R, Pearce, N, Thomas, L, Munro, G, Walrond, J, McMillan, A, O’Keefe, R, Power, R, Rayner, C, Stevens, M and Taylor, R 2003, ‘Respiratory Health and Silica Dust Levels in the Extractive Industry’, Occupational Health Report Series, no. 9, pp. 1-25. ‘Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992’ 2008, Department of Labour, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.osh.dol.govt.nz/law/hse.shtml>. Huggard, S 2002, New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://union.org.nz/policy/safety-a-union-perspective-ross-wilson-to-danish-unions>. Karwowski, W and Marras, WS 1999, Occupational Ergonomics: Principles of Work, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. ‘Legal Definitions’ 2007, Legal-Explanations.com, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/gender-bias.htm>. Palmer, G 2003, The Nineteen-Seventies” Summary for Presentation to the Accident Compensation Symposium, Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.austlii.edu.au/nz/journals/VUWLRev/2003/13.html>. ‘Reporting Work-Related Diseases’ 2006, Danish Energy Authority, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.energistyrelsen.dk/sw20068.asp>. Safetyline Institute 2006, ‘Occupational Health & Safety Practitioner: Introduction to Hazardous Substances Management’, WorkSafe, Department of Consumer and Employment Protection, pp. 1-32. Schoenbach, VJ 2001, Sources of Error: Selection Bias, Principles of Epidemiology for Public Health, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.epidemiolog.net/epid160/lectures/09-SelectionBias.ppt?user=epid160>. Seaman, P 2004, ‘The Fundamentals of Health and Safety: Laying down the law’, Safeguard, March/April, pp. 45-46. ‘Serious Harm Definition’ 2008, Department of Labour, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.osh.dol.govt.nz/law/hse-harm.shtml>. ‘What is Occupational Medicine?’ 2004, Faculty of Occupational Medicine, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.facoccmed.ac.uk/about/whatsom.jsp>. ‘Workers’ 2008, Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.wsib.on.ca/wsib/wsibsite.nsf/public/WhatIsOccupationalDisease>. ‘Workplace Health and Safety’ 2006, The State of Queensland Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, viewed 16 May 2008, <http://www.deir.qld.gov.au/workplace/law/codes/sugar/manage/control/index.htm>.     Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

New Zealand Occupational Health and Safety : Workplace Chemicals Caused Solvent Neurotoxicity

PART A 1. Causes of Murray’s illnesses: Exposure The exposure of Murray with the use of an epoxy resin and solvents is t...

Occupational Health and Safety

Occupational Health and Safety               I think that the accident occurred due to the negligence and unsafe laboratory practices of the new graduate students. I believe that the Safety Director has an indirect role to play in the accident. The safety director must make sure that the students receive Laboratory Safety Training as required by OSHA Laboratory Standard. The safety director is also responsible in providing specific procedures of the handling of the chemicals in the lab.               According to the OSHA Laboratory Standard, the employer is responsible in providing employees with information and training to make sure that they are knowledgeable of the hazards of chemicals present in their work area. The safety training is intended to: <ul style="margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in" type="circle"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%">Teach ways to avoid accident situations</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%">Reduce negligence in operation and handling</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%">Lower accident rates</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%">Show correct methods of operation</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%">Increase worker and supervisor skill levels</li> </ul>   The training must include methods and observations that can be useful in detecting the presence or release of hazardous chemicals. It must also aim to inform the employees about the physical and health hazards of chemicals in the work area. Training is also intended to equip the employees with the safety measures employees can take to protect themselves from hazards. The employer must implement effective safety measures such as work practices, emergency procedures and personal protective equipment to be used. The employees must be trained on the applicable details of the employer’s written Chemical Hygiene Plan.               Although the accident was caused by negligence on the part of the students, the safety director can be considered liable because it was apparent that the students were not properly trained, and that there was no effective chemical hygiene plan. I also assume that there were no clear laboratory procedures set by the safety director. The safety director who coordinates with the employees, the managers and the employer in ensuring occupational health and safety is considered indirectly responsible for the accident. As the safety manager, he must ensure that the regulations and standards set by OSHA and other regulating bodies are followed. He must also ensure that the students and personnel are trained and follow the safety procedures of the organization.   OSHA Process Safety Standard             The process safety standard set by OSHA aims to prevent accidents caused by hazardous chemicals. Process Safety Information             Employers must complete a compilation of written process safety information before conducting any process hazard analysis. The process safety information will help the employer and the employees involved in the process to identify and understand the hazards posed by the process that involves hazardous chemicals. Process safety information must include information on the hazards of the highly hazardous chemicals used or produced by the process, and information on the equipment in the process (OSHA 2000). Process Hazard Analysis             The process hazard analysis is a thorough, orderly, systematic approach for identifying, evaluating, and controlling the hazards of processes involving highly hazardous chemicals. The employer must perform the initial process hazard analysis on all processes (OSHA 2000). Operating Procedures             The employer must develop and implement written operating procedures, consistent with the process safety information, that provide clear instructions for safely conducting activities involved in each process. The tasks and procedures must be appropriate, clear, consistent, and well communicated to employees (OSHA 2000). Training             Training is one of the most important steps in ensuring occupational health and safety. The employer is responsible in ensuring that the employees are well-informed about the processes, procedures in the workplace, including ways in monitoring hazards and avoiding accidents in the workplace. The training must include emphasis on the specific safety and health hazards of the process, emergency operations, and other safe work practices that apply to the employee’s job (OSHA 2000).             The safety process standard set by OSHA clearly identifies the responsibilities of the employers in occupational health and safety. The employer is responsible in conducting process safety information and process hazard analysis, designing operating procedures and facilitating employee training. In this regard, I can say that the safety director, who acts on behalf of the employer, has a liability in the accident because he failed to comply with the standards set by the authorities.   The Responsibilities of Safety Director 1. Strategic Planning             The safety manager designs an occupational health and safety system, analyzes the processes and procedures in the workplace and make necessary changes in order to ensure the safety of the employees (Goetsch 2008). 2. Employee Training             The safety manager is responsible in ensuring that the employees receive adequate training in order for them to safely do perform their tasks. The safety manager’s responsibilities include: <ul style="margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in" type="circle"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%">Arranging and scheduling training for new employees</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%">Arranging and scheduling retraining for experienced employees in need of updating</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%">Arranging training for employees whose jobs have changed in some way</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Identifying and assigning instructors to conduct training</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Monitoring and evaluating training that is provided</li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 200%"> Documenting training</li> </ul> Ensuring that supervisors receive the training they need in order to play their critical role in maintaining a safe and healthy work environment (Goetsch 2008) 3. Communication             The safety manager is responsible in making sure that the employers, employees, supervisors and managers are knowledgeable about safety and health policies, practices, concerns, and other information. The safety manager must constantly communicate with these people in order to ensure that everyone understands occupational health and safety processes, policies and issues in the organization (Goetsch 2008). 4. Accident Investigation and Reporting             The safety manager must be directly involved in the investigation should accidents occur. He or she must also train the employees and the managers and supervisors to participate in accident investigations (Goetsch 2008). 5. Ongoing Monitoring             The safety manager is responsible in ensuring that the standards and requirements of applicable regulatory bodies are properly monitored on a continuous basis. The safety manager is also responsible in monitoring the hazards in the workplace and other workplace hazard issues (Goetsch 2008).     References   Goetsch. L. D.(2008). Occupational Safety and Health, for Technologists, Engineers, and Managers (5th ed.)  Pearson Education, Inc. New Jersey.   Process Safety Management. (2000). Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3132.pdf.                       Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Occupational Health and Safety

Occupational Health and Safety I think that the accident occurred due to the negligence and unsafe laboratory practices of ...