Download - Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing

7/30/2019 Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing

1/49

R E P O R TISSN 1174 - 1234

Volume 8 No 5, 2007COHFE copyright 2007

Industry Interventions for Addressing

Musculoskeletal Disorders (Strains/Sprains)

in New Zealand Meat Processing

May 2007

D. Tappin, D. Moore, T. Bentley, R. Parker, L. Ashby, A. Vitalis, D. Riley, S. Hide

Findings from the 2004-2006 project Addressing Work Related Musculoskeletal Disordersin Meat and Seafood Processing.


2/49

Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing

AcknowledgementsWe gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the Meat Industry Health and Safety Forumand of plant staff around the country, for making themselves available and providedinformation throughout all stages of the project.

This research is funded through the joint research portfolio (Health Research Council of New Zealand, Accident Compensation Corporation, Department of Labour) and issupported by New Zealand meat processing companies.


3/49


Table of Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1Some Information on MSD............................................................................................... 3

About the Intervention Tables .......................................................................................... 4Intervention Headings ...................................................................................................... 5

Job Design

Task Rotation................................................................................................................... 6Rest/Recovery Breaks .....................................................................................................8Work Pace ..................................................................................................................... 10Physical Task Requirements.......................................................................................... 11

Organisational DesignRecruitment and Retention ............................................................................................ 13

Work Flow...................................................................................................................... 15Remuneration / Job Grades........................................................................................... 17Job Allocation................................................................................................................. 18

Attendance..................................................................................................................... 19Staff Participation........................................................................................................... 20Shift Design....................................................................................................................22Health and Safety Management..................................................................................... 23

Early Reporting and Injury Management........................................................................ 24Maintenance .................................................................................................................. 26

Physical DesignPlant Design...................................................................................................................27Workspace and Equipment Design................................................................................ 28Knife and Glove Design ................................................................................................. 30

Thermal Environment..................................................................................................... 31Noise..............................................................................................................................32

Training DesignTask Training ................................................................................................................. 33Knife Sharpening Training 35


4/49


IntroductionBetween 2004-2006 COHFE and Massey University conducted a study within the meatand seafood processing industries to find out about interventions that were being used,or could be used in the future, to prevent musculoskeletal disorders (MSD also oftenreferred to as sprain & strain injuries). The study was funded by the Health ResearchCouncil, ACC, and the Department of Labour. This report contains a range of industryinterventions identified during the study that can be used to help address MSD in meatprocessing.

The specific intentions of this document are to:

1. Help improve knowledge about MSD across the industry, including raised recognitionof more of the risk factors and implementation barriers than are currently identified.

2. Make it clear that MSD have many causes and that as many as possible need to beaddressed to prevent MSD. There is no single cause or single solution.

3. Encourage a broader range of interventions to be implemented, based on thosecurrently being applied or considered in the industry.

4. Help to plan for systemic change at an industry level for some of the interventions.

The study had three stages. In the first stage, high risk tasks were identified by theresearchers and the Meat Industry Health and Safety Forum (MIF) based on analysis of

ACC and plant injury data (2002-2004).

The second stage of the study involved assessment of these high risk tasks and thework systems in which they operate in 28 processing plants around the country (2005-2006). During these visits, information about existing or proposed interventionsaddressing MSD was collected at each plant. Other intervention ideas were alsocollected from the meat processing literature. Most of the interventions identifiedconcerned wider work system issues, as well as those more immediate ones specific toeach task. Data on key risk factors and barriers to implementation was also collected.

In the third stage, data and information from the first two stages was summarised andsent to the MIF for feedback on content and intervention priority. Their feedback was


5/49


Other interventions are ideas that plants involved in the study are planning to implement.Finally, some of the interventions are ideas from the meat processing literature, relatedindustries, or from the research team themselves.

The full list of interventions were rated (A J) by the researchers for their combined;potential to reduce MSD (based on current understanding of those conditions), and their breadth of industry applicability. The Meat Industry Health and Safety Forumsubsequently also rated the interventions indicating; their likely impact on reducing MSD,and the likelihood of their implementation.

Accompanying this intervention document is a literature review on MSD in meatprocessing which was conducted as part of the study. This provides more detailedbackground information on risk factors, interventions and implementation barriers asreported by other researchers internationally.


6/49


Some Information on MSDMSD (or sprains and strains) is a term used to describe a wide range of conditions thataffect muscles, tendons, bones and joints (the musculoskeletal system). These occur when the demands of manual handling are too great, resulting in discomfort, pain, or aninjury2. MSD can either happen suddenly or occur gradually over time. They caninvolve any part of the body but are often related to the body parts involved in the worktasks (i.e. upper limbs, neck and trunk). There are many other terms used to describesome MSD (e.g. RSI, OOS, work related upper limb disorders) as well as specificdiagnoses (e.g. rotator cuff syndrome), however the term MSD is used here for consistency with international literature.

MSD are very common in meat processing. They account for more than half of both thenumber and cost of ACC compensation claims for the industry each year. In 2005-06the cost of new and ongoing MSD claims for meat processing was over $12 million.Meat processing also has the highest MSD incidence rate when compared with other similar NZ industries.

Many MSD risk factors were identified during the study, which is a reason in itself whyMSD are so prevalent in meat processing. They can be divided into two groups.Primary factors (or root causes) include such things as seasonality, staff turnover, fixedwork pace and a limited labour pool. While many of these things are difficult to change

and may not be seen to be directly associated with MSD, they are the underlying driversof MSD risk. Their presence leads to secondary risk factors, or those most oftenidentified with MSD such as repetition, high forces, fast work pace, etc. On top of theserisk factors are the barriers that make implementing changes more difficult (e.g. cost,training, lack of space). Left unchecked, these implementation barriers can render otherwise good intervention ideas ineffective. In many cases, just recognising thebarriers can be enough to make them easier to manage. These risk factors and

common barriers to change are further outlined under each intervention heading.There are many reasons why MSD are hard to address. Most commonly this appears tobe due to a narrow range of interventions being applied to a narrow range of risk factors.Other reasons include: their gradual onset making them harder to investigate andprevent and the fact they are so commonplace and are often comparatively minor


7/49


About the Intervention TablesInterventions are grouped together under 28 headings (see page 5). For every interventionheading there is information on relevant key risk factors and implementation barriers, and arecommended intervention approach (first principles adapted from the literature). Thenumber of plants who have implemented each intervention or are planning to do so, isindicated in two columns alongside the intervention. It is important to note that this is not acount for all the plants assessed, the interventions were simply those raised by plants assteps to address MSD. Where support exists in the literature for an intervention, this isindicated in a further column.

The interventions have been prioritised by the researchers (COHFE) and the Meat IndustryHealth and Safety Forum (MIF). The COHFE rating for each individual intervention is basedon its potential to reduce MSD nationally. The MIF combined ratings for all interventions inthe heading are based on: the likely impact on reducing MSD & the likelihood of itsimplementation (i.e. how practical they are, how easy they are to implement). To enable

comparison between the ratings they have been grouped, whereby A-C=high, D-G=medium, and H-J=low.

The purpose of providing this evidence and priority ratings is to help the reader establishwhich interventions may be applicable in a given situation, to help build a case, and anorder in which they might be applied.

Example: explaining the layout of tables

Rest/Recovery Breaks (Job Design)

MSD key risk factors and implementation barriersFor every period of work there is an accompanying period of recovery time required. Withoutsufficient recovery time

Recommended intervention approachEstablishing the right balance of recovery opportunities will be different for each situation

Current interventions in the 28 plantsincluded in the study

Plantsalreadydoing it

Plantsplanningto do it

Supportfor it intheliterature

COHFE rating:potential to reduceMSD, & breadth of industry

MIF combinedrating for thelikely impacton reducing

MIF combinedrating for thelikelihood of implementation


8/49


Intervention HeadingsWe have grouped the intervention headings into five categories in the table below tohelp your navigation through the document.

Job Design(page 6)

OrganisationalDesign (p. 13)

PhysicalDesign (p. 27)

TrainingDesign (p. 33)

Task SpecificDesign (p. 37)

Task Rotation

Rest / RecoveryBreaks

Work Pace

Physical TaskRequirements

Recruitment /retention

Work flow

Remuneration / job grades

Job Allocation

Attendance

Staff Participation

Shift Design

Health & SafetyManagement

Early Reportingand InjuryManagement

Maintenance

Plant Design

Workspace andEquipmentDesign

Knife and GloveDesign

ThermalEnvironment

Noise

Task Training

KnifeSharpeningTraining

MSD AwarenessTraining

Sheep/Beef Packing

Aitch Boning

Sheep Gutting

Beef Boning

Y Cutting

Beef Gutting


9/49


10/49


11/49


12/49

Centrefor Human Factorsand ErgonomicsCentrefor Human Factorsand Ergonomics

Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Rest/Recovery Breaks (Job Design)

May 2007 Page 9 of 46

Current interventions in the 28 plants included in the studyPlantsalreadydoing it



COHFE rating:potential to reduceMSD, & breadth of industry applicability(A=highest, J=lowest)

MIF combinedrating for thelikely impact onreducing MSD(High, Med, Low)

MIF combinedrating for thelikelihood of implementation(High, Med, Low)

1. 5 minute breaks in the middle of each run (except the last if it is short). Enough time tomaintain knife, recover, go to the toilet, smoke break in some cases. Leave a gap in the chainso that the break is staggered as it works its way down. Both slaughter and boning. Paidunder some circumstances, not in others.

5 Yes C

2. Short runs - 1.5 hour maximum. Limits exposure to the tasks with highest injury risk. 1 C3. Have floater(s) available to give every staff a break. Only works if no-one is away. Not

always available when needed most. 2 D4. Compulsory micro-pauses for 20 seconds every 15 minutes when they rotate. Implement this

as part of the task (e.g. washing, steeling). 1 D

5. Micro-pauses every hour for 1 minute (slaughter and boning). Chain stops. Also signals task rotation. Time used for micro-pauses, knife maintenance. 1 D

6. Have rovers who move along the slaughter chain providing a break for every person, onevery run (5-10 minute breaks). Keep them as rovers even when short-staffed. Rovers needto be skilled in each of the tasks.

1 D

7. Have two 5 min breaks during the shift, primarily for knife sharpening. 1 D8. Want to trial 1-2 min/hour micro-pauses. Measure overall productivity, rework/quality, staff

turnover, injuries to determine their effect. Resolve debate about who pays. 3 D

9. 20 minute smokos (after 2 hour runs) 2 E10. 7 min breaks in the middle of the first three runs (2.75-3 hour run length). Use floater in

slaughter so no empty hooks 1 E

11. Have casual breaks during runs, staff replace each other for a short break (within grade jobs). 1 E

High Medium


13/49


Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Work Pace (Job Design)


Work Pace

MSD key risk factors and implementation barriersCondensing the same amount of work into a shorter time period increases MSD risk through: removing rest breaks or the opportunity for brief

pauses, and increasing the work pace leading to compromises in work methods in order to keep up. This practice of condensing or compressingwork can therefore result in previously acceptable physical task demands becoming unsustainable for some people. Commonly those most at risk are packers, labourers and others who lack sufficient influence on the degree to which work is compressed into shorter periods.

Barriers to changing such work practices include: a reluctance to trade early finish times for reduced MSD risks, breaking traditions, and the controlof change being in the hands of a small group of influential staff whose views, personal characteristics and MSD risk profiles may not berepresentative of all those affected.

Recommended intervention approachWork compression that results in the work pace or work flexibility becoming physically unsustainable for any staff involved should be phased outover time, or if this proves too difficult, then be capped at levels that all staff involved find manageable.







1. Compression not allowed. Any missed hooks can be made up at the end of the shift to a pre-determined maximum. 2 Yes B

2. Limit compression to a fixed amount per run (e.g. 5min/run (20mins/shift)). 1 C

3. Jumping carcasses ahead of the chain to compress runs has been controlled so there is aminimum number of minutes to be worked and a fixed work pace. 1 C

Other interventions identified during the study

1. The reduction of work compression was recommended in a previous NZ study (1993-1996) in the meat processing industry. The factors that increase MSD risk through work compression may also reduce productquality and yield.

Yes A

High Medium


14/49


Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Physical Task Requirements (Job Design)


Physical Task Requirements

MSD key risk factors and implementation barriersThe physical demands of the industry are moving beyond the capabilities of an increasing number of people as the nature of the workforce changes.Most notably there are on average older staff, reduced physical capability of people starting in the industry than in the past, and increasing

percentages of female staff. Similarly, there are changes in the nature of some of the work (e.g. larger carcasses, greater throughput, mechanisationleading to increased division of labour) which have increased the physical demands in many tasks. The trend towards reduced capabilities of incoming staff may be exacerbated by low national unemployment figures and increased employment options in regions around plants. The

resulting mismatch between physical task requirements and workforce capabilities can increase the risk of MSD significantly.

Recommended intervention approachReducing the physical demands of tasks, for example through providing mechanical assistance, reduces the MSD risks for everyone. By contrast,the approach of attempting to increase the physical strength and fitness of existing staff will make some MSD less likely to occur, but will notaddress all MSD risks and requires ongoing maintenance and a low level of staff turnover to be effective. A combination of both approaches islikely to produce the best results in preventing MSD.


15/49


Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Physical Task Requirements (Job Design)








1. Want to make jobs physically easier so that a larger range of people could be employed to dothem (including older workers, both genders). MSD risks would reduce and therefore staff that would otherwise be injured could stay at work. Similarly, there would be less staff leaving because it's too hard.

1 B

2. Industry has to overcome lack of skills and ageing workforce by designing out heavy work.Trends should be towards casual and job-sharing arrangements as these can provide more

flexibility (e.g. providing cover, meeting production requirements) and may make it easier torecruit and retain staff.

2 C

3. Have two labourers positions in a training room as step down positions for older bonerswanting to ease out of full tally work in boning. 1 D

4. Want to start working out a strategy (career path) for people nearing retirement rather than letthem work on and possibly injure themselves. Could include: training roles, light duty jobs(may impact on task rotation however), capped hours of work during season peak (no longer days, limited weekend work).

3 D

5. Improve physical preparedness of staff through pre-employment physical training,encouraging staff to maintain fitness through the season. 1 D

6. Set maximum weights at 27kg. Loads greater than this become a two person task. 1 E7. Would like to have a department for older workers with tasks that are less physically

demanding (e.g. cutting chops). 1 F

High Medium


16/49


Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Recruitment and Retention (Organisational Design)


Recruitment and Retention

MSD key risk factors and implementation barriersAn overall shortage of staff, and skilled staff in particular, can result in: higher workloads for the available workforce, less rotation options, less timeavailable for training, and mismatches between skill level and task complexity. Successfully retaining staff reduces MSD risk through having amore skilled and flexible workforce.

Plants with low staff turnover appear to have fewer MSD problems. There are clearly many possible explanations for this, but it could be a

combination of having well-trained staff who know what to expect, resources that can be used for training for existing staff rather than for therecruitment and initial training of new staff. Strong teamwork built over time may also factor.

Barriers to recruiting and retaining staff include: part-year employment, seniority, competition from other industries, night shift work and lowunemployment figures in the country. Pay rates in the meat industry are also not as attractive in comparison to national averages as they have beenhistorically.

Recommended intervention approachActively assist employees to achieve a financially and socially sustainable 12 month work cycle.







1. Try and maintain workforce stability (low staff turnover) through recruiting wisely and

keeping staff happy. Is a priority as it reduces recruitment & training load, helps maintain productivity, keeps overall skill levels high in the plant and makes the plant easier to manage.

3 B

2. Have reciprocal arrangements with other processors (NZ, overseas, seafood), or help arrangeother work in the off-season (forestry, farming, manufacturing, construction) 5 1 D

3. Requirement to disclose other employment at recruitment. 2 D

Medium Medium


17/49


18/49


Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Work Flow (Organisational Design)


Work Flow

MSD key risk factors and implementation barriersPeaks and troughs in the flow of work can lead to the same peaks and troughs in physical workload. These peaks, however brief, may be enough tocreate discomfort which progresses to MSD. They can occur as a result of: line imbalances (e.g. between boning and packing), boning chilled

prime/mutton after weekends, product changes within a run, and less experienced staff working for long periods at the pace of more senior workers.While production requirements and factors such as seasonality, weather fluctuations, staff skills and staff availability are among the maindeterminants of work load and work flow, greater awareness of the effects that they have on MSD may enable the risks from peaks to be better

managed.

Recommended intervention approachLooking upstream from the processing plant - anticipating animal condition and numbers; and downstream developing sustainable working

patterns acceptable to the customers.

Current interventions in the 28 plants included in the studyPlants

alreadydoing it

Plants

planningto do it

Support

for it intheliterature

COHFE rating:

potential to reduceMSD, & breadth of industry applicability(A=highest, J=lowest)

MIF combined

rating for thelikely impact onreducing MSD(High, Med, Low)

MIF combined

rating for thelikelihood of implementation(High, Med, Low)

A. Chillers 1. Spray chillers - keeps meat moist, fat is not as hard. 1 D2. Want to store chilled product at the upper margin of the acceptable temperature range over

the weekend. Ensure that chiller temperatures are within intended ranges and are not toocold.

3 D

3. Want to raise temperature of prime carcasses/fatty ewes before they arrive in the boningroom (especially over 2+ day breaks). 1 D

4. Where carcasses are over-chilled, would like to make provisions in the workflow for staff towork at a slower tally. 1 D

5. Bone on the curve - necessary as chilled fat on certain grades is thicker and is a significantfactor in MSD developing. 1 E

B. Boning Rooms 1. Have a slower chain at the beginning of the season to help learners get used to it. Once at

full speed the experienced and new staff get mixed up across all chains.2 C

Medium Medium


19/49


20/49


21/49


22/49


23/49


Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Staff Participation (Organisational Design)


Staff Participation

MSD key risk factors and implementation barriersImplementing change without meaningfully involving the relevant staff misses the opportunity to improve the system design through drawing ontheir task expertise and using their injury prevention knowledge. Avoidable MSD risk factors can be permanently built into workplaces as a result.Attitudes towards the changes and those responsible for them may also be improved when meaningful participation takes place.

Pressures on development time and fears of lost production are the most common barriers to a more participative approach. The attitudes of

designers and management staff therefore need to be changed through highlighting the benefits of adopting a more formally inclusive, and less adhoc, approach to staff participation.

Recommended intervention approachSignificant gains in productivity and reduced injury risk can accrue from a well-managed participative development and trialing process. There is anopportunity to learn from other industries where this approach is accepted practice. Best practices reported in the literature include:

Training of all team members on the relevant skills required for the design process (e.g. MSD causation) Information sharing between departments Team composition that reflects the full work system involved Evaluation of performance and feedback findings to the stakeholders involved in the changes.


24/49


25/49


Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Shift Design (Organisational Design)


Shift Design

MSD key risk factors and implementation barriersThe longer the exposure to MSD risks the greater the chance that they will occur. Long hours and inadequate recovery time also lead to fatigue andthe onset of discomfort/injury. Potential barriers to change include: loss of earnings (through reduced overtime), production requirements, andaltering traditional shift structures.

Recommended intervention approachPotential MSD risks associated with run length and total shift duration need to be included in any considerations on shift design, for example duringseason peaks when longer hours and weekend work may occur. Rest breaks and task rotation regimes that are balanced with the shift design should

be developed at the same time.







1. Determine ideal shift structure for workload (especially peak workload) and availableworkforce. Set a maximum number of hours permitted to work/day and maximumshifts/week, then monitor this.

1 1 B

2. Reducing run lengths over the course of the shift. 5 D3. Reduced length of shift from 10 hours to 8 hours with 2 hour runs. 3 1 E4. 4x10 hour days preferred by staff - more time off / recovery time, found it easier to recruit &

retain staff. 3 E

5. Maximum run length of 2.5 hours, with 30 minute breaks between.1 E6. Used to run third shift (Fri-Sun). Now extend day or night shift by a few hours in peak

season. Third shift had high absenteeism, difficult to train staff, hard to recruit and retain. 1 E

7. Getting rid of night shift. Only work one permanent night shift, all the rest are day shift(Monday to Friday) only. 1 E

8. Changed from day and evening shifts operating for 6 days to current system (4 on / 4 off,days only, 5 x 2 hour runs). This helped stop double shifting. 1 1 E

High Low


26/49


27/49


28/49

I d I i f Add i MSD i NZ M P i M i (O i i l D i )


29/49


Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Maintenance (Organisational Design)


Maintenance

MSD key risk factors and implementation barriersPoorly maintained equipment can increase MSD risk through the raising of force requirements, elevated noise, introducing unexpected forces andresistances, and imposing additional handling steps or complexities. Barriers include limited time available for preventive maintenance and lack of allocation of responsibility.

Recommended intervention approachPragmatic initial plant selection and design, well-functioning preventive maintenance program and prompt-response repair systems will help reducethese risks.







1. Good preventive maintenance system (rollers, castors, rails, etc). 3 2 C2. Involvement of engineers in plant problems and redesign issues. 1 D3. Have separate contract cleaners - reduces total work hours for processing staff, especially

important during season peak. 4 E

4. Spare conveyor belts available on a trolley in case of breakdown. 1 E5. Want to train maintenance staff on: principles of MSD prevention relevant to their role,

requirements of tasks on which they have an impact (e.g. sharpening flay knives), and to bemore efficient/knowledgeable on machines (reduce repair time).

3 E

Medium Medium


30/49

Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Workspace and Equipment Design (Physical Design)


31/49


Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Workspace and Equipment Design (Physical Design)


Workspace and Equipment Design

MSD key risk factors and implementation barriersMSD risks can be unintentionally built into workspaces and equipment design. For example, poor workspace geometry and overly-tight designsconstrain posture and movements and may make it impossible to work equally comfortably with left or right hand dominance. In contrast, the

providing of surplus space, or simply bad planning, often leads to excessive travel distances and overlap of travel routes especially for packers /labourers. Where these problems occur within the task cycles of multiple staff on a chain, the implications not only for manual handling and MSDrisks, but also yield and quality control, can be significant.

Specific MSD risks introduced at the workspace design and fit-out stage also include enforcing the need to work above shoulder height on the rail, bending, twisting and reaching forward, or working in constrained and awkward positions.

Recommended intervention approachIncorporating workspace design principles (e.g. from the Manual Handling Code) and the involvement of staff in the design and trialing processwhen redesigning or introducing new equipment is the most effective way of reducing such risks. Sections on Staff Participation and specific tasksmay provide further relevant information.


32/49


33/49

Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Thermal Environment (Physical Design)


34/49


y g g ( y g )


Thermal Environment

MSD key risk factors and implementation barriersLow temperatures, high air velocity, high humidity, frequent changes in temperature, and vibration (e.g. trimming tool) can increase the risk of MSDoccurrence.

Recommended intervention approachImproving thermal comfort requires consideration of: optimal production/working temperature and humidity levels, minimising air movement andthe use of effective protective clothing. Recommendations in published studies include:

wear functional work clothing that increases thermal comfort of workers in chilled work environments optimise the balance between meeting hygiene standards and minimising discomfort for staff working in cold environments; slight increases

in temperature at the workstations and reduction in air movement can be beneficial for preventing MSD.



Supportfor it inthe

literature

COHFE rating:potential to reduceMSD, & breadth of

industry applicability(A=highest, J=lowest)

MIF combinedrating for thelikely impact on

reducing MSD(High, Med, Low)

MIF combinedrating for thelikelihood of

implementation(High, Med, Low)

1. Provide baffles/barriers to reduce drafts in work areas. 1 D2. Better quality boots (freezer style) supplied to workers standing for long periods. 1 E3. Mats are used to compensate for cold, hard floor. Some benefits reported but trip hazards,

and no benefit when moving around the workplace, and there are potential room hygiene problems.

1 F


1. Trial the effectiveness of thermal clothing in providing consistent thermal comfort for the range of peopleworking in chilled environments.

Yes F

2. Investigate the feasibility of providing cooling only where the product is, rather than the whole room. H

Low Medium

Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Noise (Physical Design)


35/49

Centrefor Human Factorsand ErgonomicsCentrefor Human Factorsand Ergonomics May 2007 Page 32 of 46

Noise

MSD key risk factors and implementation barriersThe most significant effect of noise from an MSD perspective is compromised communication and the restricted ability to train or provide advice online. Research also indicates that high levels of noise can: increase stress levels, bring on fatigue, diminish performance and affect balance.

Recommended intervention approachAll efforts should be made initially to reduce the noise at source through redesign and maintenance so that hearing protection is not necessary. Any

plant or workspace modifications should also consider noise reduction principles in the design.







1. Not having to use hearing protection means that staff are able to communicate verbally moreeffectively - possibly helps with team development and enables issues to be raised early. 1 1 Yes D

2. Company subsidise radio headsets and pay to put in aerials to get good reception in slaughter and boning. 1 G

3. Want to use radio headsets instead of muffs and a very loud radio. 5 G

Medium Low


36/49

Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Task Training (Training Design)


37/49


Current interventions in the 28 plants included in the study (contd)Plantsalreadydoing it






6. Provision made for some off-line training within the department (for training without work pace pressure). 2 C

7. Comprehensive induction training over 1-2 days covering: company values, hygiene, safety,MSD and how to prevent them, task skills, knife skills. 4 D

8. Alter task technique to reduce required effort (e.g. reduce handgrip to minimum required for the task). 3 D

9. Casual staff are called back in prior to the season starting for induction and to get themtrained and ready for stepping in when required. 1 D

10. Want to develop task technique training - plant initiated and managed. Trainers film skilledstaff to illustrate good and bad techniques (a training resource for all staff). Trainers can alsofilm staff and use the footage as an individual training tool to help identify and correctmistakes, and improve their own technique.

3 D

11. Train through using ITO unit standards. Staff have to be signed off (induction and training) before they can work on a task. 4 2 E

12. Want to develop standard operating procedures that describe each task in detail so it is easier to learn. SOPs not to assume prior task knowledge and to include relevant health and safety

information as part of the task description.

2 E

13. Would like to ensure that managers and supervisors are aware of their responsibilities to prevent and manage MSD in their work areas (and how to achieve this), so that interventionsare implemented and MSD trends are closely monitored and managed. Requires goodcommunication between staff and supervisors/managers.

2 E

14. Have seasonal re-inductions to cover main risks and processes to manage them. 1 E15. Write an induction document each year for staff, with updated information. Information

includes stretches and exercises. Could also include MSD risks and methods of prevention. 1 F

High High


38/49


39/49

Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Sheep / Beef Packing (Task Specific Design)


40/49


Sheep / Beef Packing

MSD key risk factors and implementation barriersDespite the differences in cut size, weight, and frequency, these two work areas share many of the same MSD risk factors, including:reaching/bending/ twisting under load through workstation design deficiencies, space constraints, repetitive manual handling, work flow peaks,repetitive wrist and arm actions.

Other factors that contribute to a higher risk of MSD in these areas include: lower status of staff with limited ability to control pace and work

compression, a predominantly female workforce in a potentially heavy task group, higher proportions of new and lesser-trained people, machine- pacing restrictions (electronic scale and labelling problems can create bottlenecks for example), lower pay rates and less involvement in production-related decisions. Inadequate buffer zones can lead to product backlogs and extra manual handling.

Packing areas also appear the most susceptible to physical redesign as product specifications and technology change. Initial designs may beadequate, but the packing area is likely to be modified several times in the life of a building and invariably each redesign introduces more equipment,rather than taking it away. The original plans rarely allow space for such expansion of the processes, as the expense would be hard to justify at theoutset. As a result, these parts of the plant are often the most crowded, and with the least optimised circulation routes. This can reduce task rotation

options, and increase manual handling risks.

Recommended intervention approachIn new building designs, allow more space for future value-added activities, and through the subsequent changes maintain handling systems that usegravity - rather than working against it. Refer also to earlier sections on plant design, workspace design and staff participation.


41/49

Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Sheep / Beef Packing (Task Specific Design)


42/49


Current interventions in the 25 plants involved in the study where these tasks

were assessed (contd)







13. Introduction of dixies and accompanying trolleys to help reduce carrying. 3 E14. No manual handling beyond where cuts are placed in cartons - no lifting or carrying.

Indexed scales conveyor, foot operated. 2 E

15. All staff are the same grade so this is no barrier to rotation. 1 E16. Rotation every 2 hours between main packing tasks. 1 E17. Rotation every 30-40 minutes between main packing tasks. 1 E18. Use compactor to flatten down bulk meat and get it square (not bulging) - makes scale work

easier and also stacking onto containers faster and safer for chiller staff. Less unstablestacks, better use of volume (more cartons).

1 F

19. Considering splitting meat belt into 2 - individually wrapped on one side and trimmed product on the other. Would reduce reach, search time on the belt, and dropped product. 1 E


1. Carton design: consider designing cartons with side handles to make moving them easier (particularly for heavier cartons), and designs that reduce reach across the carton when packing and avoid being obstructed by the lid. E

High Medium


43/49


44/49


45/49

Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Y Cutting (Task Specific Design)


46/49


Y Cutting

MSD key risk factors and implementation barriersThere are many different ways in which this task is organised. MSD risks occur with skill-task mismatches, high levels of repetition, limitedopportunity from rest pauses, high forces required to manually clear the brisket, and certain carcass characteristics (e.g. size, wool thickness).

Recommended intervention approachMinimise forces required and speed, optimise biomechanical advantage, then reduce individual exposure to the task.

Current interventions in the 12 plants involved in the study where this task wasassessed







1. Counter-balanced brisket roller. 6 C2. Cutters each walk with chain and do all Y cut tasks on a carcass. Brisket roller and hang up

are rest tasks. 15 min rotations. Ideal rotation would be to move from Y cut to first rest task back to Y cut then second rest task. This system enables whole body movement, providestask variety within each cycle and can reduce the risk of bottlenecks through better utilisationof existing space.

4 C

3. No floor obstructions, sufficient space for each task area, room for trainer also. Onesteriliser/person at hip height. 3 D

4. Four in rotation for three positions, creating 25% rest time every rotation cycle. 1 D5. Rotation every 15 minutes (hang up, y cut, brisket roller) 5 D6. Comprehensive training and slow introduction to Y cut task, butchers start on other tasks

first. 2 D7. Sheep cleaning system in yards cleans off dirt and grit, makes wool easier to cut through &

knife edge lasts longer. 3 E

8. Use Victory - Y cut knives. Have a running tip blade so that it slides along meat and bladecuts skin, compared with non-Y cut knives which can catch and make the task harder andslower.

2 E

9. Rail height approx 1750mm, making brisket height mid-way between shoulder & elbow for most staff. 2 E

High Medium

Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Y Cutting (Task Specific Design)


47/49


Current interventions in the 12 plants involved in the study where this task wasassessed (contd)




COHFE rating:potential to reduceMSD, & breadth of industry applicability

(A=highest, J=lowest)

MIF combinedrating for thelikely impact onreducing MSD

(High, Med, Low)

MIF combinedrating for thelikelihood of implementation

(High, Med, Low)10. To reduce bottlenecks the brisket cut is done after inspection so that a few can be done at

once, rather than having to cut and sterilise between each one. 1 E

11. Put an extra person in the chain when the brisket roller breaks down. 1 1 E12. Large distance from halal to Y cut to allow bleeding and stimulation time - makes task easier. 1 1 E13. Sterilisers are on a swivel to allow repositioning to suit personal preferences. Also increase

available workspace (so can move down line to keep up or have trainer on line) and reduceleg/foot obstruction.

1 E

14. Use of shorter/longer hooks to make up for suboptimal rail height. 1 EOther interventions identified during the study

1. Workspace design principles: rail height placing task between shoulder and elbow height, sufficient spacelaterally to complete the task without chasing the chain, consistent floor level, good task visibility, steriliser per

person. E

2. Use of a combined wash and steriliser unit - save time and space. G

3. Consistency in compliance requirements across the country. Is spear cut required or is under-running acceptable(variation was noted between plants). H

High Medium

Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Beef Gutting (Task Specific Design)


48/49


Beef Gutting

MSD key risk factors and implementation barriersThere was significant variation in how this task was organised in the ten plants concerned. MSD risks in some were minimal, while in others therewere many risk factors present including: the need to lean forward to reach the task (further aggravated by the swing away of the suspended carcass),reaching up to open up, bending forward to free the pluck, limited or no task rotation (more of an issue where other MSD risks were present).

Recommended intervention approachOptimise conditions for accurate and fast releasing of gut contents from carcass. Avoid any attempt at mechanically unassisted horizontal movementof gut contents by staff. Manage exposure to task to maintain sustainability.

Current interventions in the 10 plants involved in the study where this task wasassessed







1. Adjustable rail. Can alter rail height (foot button or pendant hand control) to bring carcass toa good height for gut, pluck (approx. 600mm used on observation). 5 E

2. Rise and fall stands for guttee (foot operated). 1 E3. Rotation every hour with first and second leggers. 1 E4. Reduced tailgating cattle so gut is not as full - easier to handle, and easier to separate runners

and paunch. 1 E

5. Standing in the tray enables getting close to load and therefore less reaching and bendingforward (slippery however). 1 E

6. Task variation - guttees involved in brisket cut, gut, halving saw. 3 F7. Good technique and a sharp knife are most important - don't pull where cut will do. 1 F8. Gut buggy design: large front castors (6-8") positioned to minimise tipping force but without

accidental tipping, swivel braking castors at the rear for manoeuvrability, stops on the floor to position buggy and facilitate tipping.

2 G

9. Boning knife used rather than butchers as more accurate cutting is possible. 1 G

Medium Medium

Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing: Beef Gutting (Task Specific Design)


49/49


Other interventions identified during the study Supportfor it intheliterature




1. For labourers - reduce gut tray width so that the reach is reduced as contents end up closer to the labourer (e.g.angled or two level tray bottom), provide surfaces to lean against to take weight (without obstructingmovement), and provide legroom underneath the tray to get the load closer to their centre of gravity.

E

2. Guttee stations with standing platform: move it as close as possible to the carcass to reduce forward leaning andworking away from the body. E

3. Optimise lighting to improve task visibility (e.g. moveable spotlight behind guttee, headtorch). I

Medium Medium

Download - Industry Interventions for Addressing MSD in NZ Meat Processing

Top Related