Prepared by the Health and Safety Laboratory for the Health and Safety Executive 2014

Health and Safety Executive

Evaluation of the pushing and pulling operations risk assessment tool by duty holders

RR999Research Report

Dr Olanre Okunribido and Dr Chrysanthi LekkaHealth and Safety LaboratoryHarpur HillBuxtonDerbyshire SK17 9JN

This report describes the usability testing of a prototype tool for assessing the manual handling risks associated with tasks involving pushing or pulling of loads. It builds on earlier work by HSL to develop Pushing and Pulling Operations Assessment Charts (PPAC) (see Research Report 998). Feedback on the assessment of typical operations in the field indicated that the risk factors included in the tool are relevant, useful, relatively easy to identify and that they covered most of the conditions found in workplaces.

Duty holders who took part in the study were able to differentiate between categories of risk for most of the factors, they were also able to argue and justify their choices. The findings indicate that the tool is sufficiently usable and reliable, and it is useful for increasing duty holder confidence in assessing pushing and pulling operations. This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.

Evaluation of the pushing and pulling operations risk assessment tool by duty holders

HSE Books

Health and Safety Executive

© Crown copyright 2014

First published 2014

You may reuse this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view the licence visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/, write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk.

Some images and illustrations may not be owned by the Crown so cannot be reproduced without permission of the copyright owner. Enquiries should be sent to copyright@hse.gsi.gov.uk.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank members of the HSE/HSL Ergonomics team, and HSE/LA regulatory inspectors who assisted the project. We would also like to thank the individualsinvolved in the expert appraisal of the tool and those people who facilitated the industry-specific usability presentations and user trialling of the tool within individual worksites. Thank you for your valuable contributions and time.

ii

iii

KEY MESSAGES

A pushing and pulling operations assessment tool has been developed that is able to help duty holders and health & safety practitioners to screen pushing and pulling operations for those that present a significant risk and to identify where improvements are needed.

The tool helps duty holders to meet their legal obligations to assess hazardous pushing and pulling tasks and helps increase awareness and understanding of how to improve such tasks.

The tool developed is helpful for increasing workers’ confidence in identifying and assessing risks in pushing and pulling operations.

The tool is not intended for use with animate loads (such as patients in hospital). It will have limited utility where pushing and pulling is already a predictable and well controlled operation.

v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Objectives

In a previous project, which was completed in June 2010, the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) developed a prototype approach, the Pushing and Pulling Operations Assessment Charts tool (PPAC), for risk assessment of the pushing and pulling aspects of manual handling operations (MHO). The developed prototype uses a similar approach to the manual handling assessment charts (MAC) leaflet tool (HSE, 2003), which currently only covers lifting and carrying tasks.

HSL was commissioned to carry out further testing of the PPAC. The specific aim of this project was to ensure that the PPAC prototype was developed into a tool that is both usable and effective for duty holders in different industry settings. There were three main objectives:

• To appraise the validity of the prototype PPAC with a small sample of external ergonomics/manual handling risk assessment experts, and identify and make appropriate improvements;

• To test and measure the operability of the prototype PPAC (revised version after appraisal by external experts), i.e. usability and effectiveness in field trials with samples of duty holders, in a bid to identify aspects that may need further modification; and

• To revise the prototype in the light of the results from the duty holder tests.

Main Findings

The expert appraisers of the tool and duty holder participants considered that the focus on workplace factors was beneficial as it helps increase awareness and understanding of the workplace factors that can affect push-pull operations.

Not only were duty holders able to differentiate between the categories of risk for most of the factors, they were also able to argue and justify their choices when these differed from expert consensus.

Feedback on the assessment of typical operations in the field indicated that the risk factors included in the tool are relevant, useful, relatively easy to identify and that they covered most of the conditions found in workplaces.

Conclusions and Ways forward

The general positive feedback obtained from duty holders about the prototype PPAC’s usability and operability in field trials indicates that the pushing and pulling operations assessment tool is a practicable process that duty holders will be able to use to screen typical operations.

The findings indicate that the tool is sufficiently usable and reliable, and it is useful for increasing duty holder confidence in assessing pushing and pulling operations.

vi

The study aim of testing the effectiveness in field applications has been met, and recommendations from users have been incorporated into the tool.

Ways forward

The basic MAC tool for risk assessment of manual handing operations currently only covers lifting and carrying tasks. In the long term, therefore, perhaps the PPAC can be made available to duty holders, as part of a future revision of the MAC.

However, to roll the tool out as a standalone document in the first instance, the following further actions would be required:

Compilation of sufficient supporting information and materials to enable publication of the tool on the HSE website, i.e., specific guidance on how to use the tool, including what to do with scores obtained;

Compilation of case studies and/or demonstrations that illustrate how to complete an assessment using the tool and how the tool helps identify correction measures;

Compilation of a library of frequently asked questions, i.e., questions that may be asked by prospective users of the tool and the most suited responses (frequently asked questions); and,

Organisation and/or planning for attendance at awareness events such events as SHADs and other industry specific Health and Safety management meetings.

vii

CONTENTS PAGE

1.  INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1 1.1  Background 1 1.2  Aims and objectives 1 

2.  METHODOLOGY .................................................................... 3 2.1  Expert appraisal 4 2.2  Duty holder appraisal 4 

3.  RESULTS ................................................................................ 8 3.1  Expert appraisal 8 3.2  Duty holder appraisal – Usability evaluation 10 3.3  Duty holder approaisal – Field trials 14 

4.  DISCUSSION ........................................................................ 20 

5.  CONCLUSIONS AND WAYS FORWARD ............................ 21 

6.  REFERENCES ...................................................................... 22 

7.  APPENDICES ....................................................................... 23 A.  The usability assessment questionnaire 23 B.  The field trials questionnaire 26 C.  Post expert-appraisal revision of Prototype A 32 D.  The usability questionnaire responses 33 E.  The field trials questionnaire responses 36 F.  The final push-pull operations risk assessment tool (Prototype C) 40 

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Expert appraisal – Basic details about the experts

Table 2. Expert appraisal – The main opinions/concerns about the tool (Prototype A)

Table 3. Usability evaluation – Basic details about the participants

Table 4. Usability evaluation – The set of usability questionnaire statements/questions in

the questionnaire

Table 5. Usability evaluation – Duty holders’ opinions/comments about the tool (Prototype B)

Table 6. Field trials – Basic details about the trials conducted by duty holders

Table 7. Field trials – Basic details about the questionnaire respondents

Table 8. Field trials – The duty holders’ comments/opinions about the tool’s strengths

Table 9. Field trials – The duty holders’ comments/opinions about the tool’s weaknesses

Table 10. Field trials – Positive responders to the question about ease of characterising risk factors

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Part of the proposed PPAC tool – Assessment guide of risk factors for pushing

and pulling operations

Figure 2. Overview of the methodology applied

Figure 3. The protocol followed in the usability evaluation sessions conducted

Figure 4.

Usability evaluation – Distribution of overall percentages (%) of positive responders to questions about clarity and ease of use

Figure 5.

Usability evaluation – Distribution of overall percentages (%) of positive responders to questions about scoring and interpretation of scores

Figure 6.

Usability evaluation – Distribution of positive responders (%) to questions about future use of the tool

Figure 7.

Field trials – Distribution of the respondents’ perception of the tool as an easy method of identifying risk factors in the workplace

Figure 8.

Field trials – Distribution of the respondents’ perception of the tool as a method for increasing awareness of risk factors in the workplace

Figure 9. Field trials – Distribution of the respondents’ perception of the tool as a means of meeting Health & Safety responsibilities

Figure 10. Field trials – Distribution of the respondents’ perception of the tool as a means of increasing workers’ confidence

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

In a previous project, completed in June 2010 (Okunribido, 2010), the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) developed a prototype Pushing and Pulling Operations Assessment Charts tool (PPAC), for risk assessment of the pushing and pulling aspects of manual handling operations (MHO), part of which is presented in Figure 1. The prototype uses a similar approach to the manual handling assessment charts (MAC) leaflet (HSE, 2003), which currently only covers lifting and carrying tasks.

The prototype tool was trialled in the field with input from Health and Safety Executive (HSE) ergonomics specialists, HSE general regulatory inspectors and Local Authority (LA) inspectors. For the PPAC to progress to being made available to duty holders, then in following the development process employed for the MAC and the assessment of repetitive tasks (ART) tool (HSE, 2010), it would need to undergo further end-user testing and evaluation, with possible revision. This is needed to ensure that it is effective as a risk assessment tool and that it is reliable and practical for use by non-specialist duty-holders, to assist them in achieving compliance with the relevant legislation.

1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

HSL was commissioned to carry out further testing of the PPAC. The specific aim of this project was to ensure that the PPAC prototype was developed into a procedure that is both usable and effective for duty-holders in different industry settings. There were three main objectives:

• To appraise the validity of the PPAC with a small sample of external manual handling risk assessment experts, and identify and make appropriate improvements;

• To test and measure the operability of the PPAC (revised version after appraisal by external experts), i.e. usability and effectiveness in field trials with samples of duty holders, in a bid to identify its strengths and weaknesses as well as aspects that may need further modification; and,

• To revise the prototype in the light of the results from the duty holder tests.

2

Operation – Wheeled equipment operation Non wheeled item operationEquipment/load weight (kg): Identify equipment, note its weight and load carried Activity /load weight (kg): Identify activity, note its weight and load moved Small – has 1 or 2 wheels: e.g. wheel barrows, sack trucks Dragging/hauling or sliding

Low G/0 Medium A/2 High R/4 V High P/8 Low G/0 Medium A/2 High R/4 V High P/8 < 50 kg 50 – 100 kg 100 – 200 kg > 200 kg < 25 kg 25 – 50 kg 50 – 80 kg > 80 kg

Medium – has 3 or more wheels and/or castors: e.g., roll cages, Euro bins Churning – Loads are moved by pivoting/rolling along the base edges Low G/0 Medium A/2 High R/4 V High P/8

Low G/0 Medium A/2 High R/4 V High P/8

< 250 kg 250 – 500 kg 500 – 750 kg > 750 kg < 80 kg 80 – 120 kg 120 – 150 kg > 150 kg

Large – And steer able, e.g. pallet truck, or runs on rail: Rolling

Low G/0 Medium A/2 High R/4 V High P/8

Low G/0 Medium A/2 High R/4 V High P/8 < 600 kg 600 – 1000 kg 1000 – 1500 kg > 1500 kg < 400 kg 400 – 600 kg 600 – 1000 kg > 1000 kg

Posture: Observe the general position of the hands and body Hand grip: Note main action and how hand(s) grip load Good G/0 Reasonable A/1 Poor R/6 Action Good G/0 Reasonable A/1 Poor R/2

Pulling Handles or holds allow power grip

Handles or holds only allow partial hand contact

No handles, surfaces allow only few fingers

Hands are between hip and shoulder level, and

Hands are below hip or above shoulder level, or One hand is often used

Hands are on one side of body, or

Pushing Handles/surfaces allow comfortable hand contact

Surfaces allow partial hand contact

Surfaces allow uncomfortable hand contact

Work pattern: Identify how the pace of work is set, find out about work/rest pattern Condition of equipment: Note general state of repair, enquire about maintenance Good G/0 Reasonable (A/2 Poor R/6 Good G/0 Reasonable (A/2 Poor R/6 Pace is set by worker, and There is opportunity for rest through breaks

Pace is set by process, but There is opportunity for rest through formal breaks

Pace is set by process, and No formal breaks, only limited informal breaks

Good state of repair, and Maintenance is planned, preventative and reactive

Reasonable state of repair Maintenance is reactive only

Poor state of repair and/or Maintenance is not planned or preventative

Floor surface: Identify the general floor condition Obstacles en route: e.g. steps, high edges, steep ramps, closed doors/screens, bends Good G/0 Reasonable A/1 Poor R/4 Low G/) Medium A/2 High R/3 Good condition, i.e. Dry, Uncontaminated, but Contaminated, or There are no obstacles There are one or two types There are flights of steps Level Visibly sloping (>3°) Steep sloping (>8°) but no flights of steps or more than two others Stable Unstable under foot Unstable under foot Other factors: e.g. loading of equipment, size of load, work environment Not slippery Slippery due to finish Very slippery Low G/0 Medium A/1 High R/2 No other factors present One factor is present Two or more factors Figure 1. Part of the proposed PPAC tool – Assessment guide of risk factors for pushing and pulling operations

3

2. METHODOLOGY

Figure 2 provides an overview of the applied methodology. The draft tool proposed by Okunribido (2010) served as the starting reference for this project (Prototype A) and there were three distinct phases of further work as follows: Appraisal by invited ergonomics experts, Duty holder usability evaluation, and Duty holder field trialling.

Figure 2. Overview of the methodology applied

Prototype A (Okunribido, 2010)

Prototype C

Invited Experts

Prototype B

Validity and effectiveness Analyse comments

Duty holder ‘usability’ evaluation

Industry group meetings/workshops

Comments & Opinions

Operative Performance Records

Duty holder sites

Selected operations

Duty holder field trialling

Expert appraisal

4

2.1 EXPERT APPRAISAL

In line with previous risk assessment tool development, comments and opinions on the tool were obtained from ergonomics specialists outside of HSE and HSL, before presentation to non-specialist duty holders. For this, six external ergonomics consultants were selected and contacted directly by e-mail to explain the project and request their participation. However, only four finally consented (herein identified by their initials, JR, MH, TR and AP). The four persons were each sent e-copies of the tool (Prototype A) and given the following tasks:

First, they were asked to critique the design and technical aspects of the tool for robustness and operational utility. Secondly, they were asked to apply the tool to at least three different tasks over a one-month period, in their role as a specialist ergonomist but from the perspective of a non-specialist duty holder, either in the course of visits to workplaces or using video footage and information collected during previous assessment visits. Finally, the experts were required to provide an overall evaluation including comments on the following:

• The PPAC’s ability to help non-specialist duty holder operatives to screen pushing and pulling tasks that present a significant risk and to identify where improvements are needed.

• The appropriateness/viability of the PPAC for a wide spectrum of health and safety practitioners.

• Usability of the PPAC and improvements that might be needed. At the end of the set expert appraisal period (after all comments were received), the tool was amended based on the expressed opinions/suggestions.

2.2 DUTY HOLDER APPRAISAL

2.2.1 Usability evaluation

Figure 3 presents the protocol followed in the usability evaluation sessions conducted. The aim of the usability evaluation sessions was to explore duty holders’ opinions about the tool i.e., its design, the relevance of the risk factors selected for inclusion and the definitions of the attached risk filters. The draft PPAC produced following the expert appraisals (Prototype B) served as the starting reference for the usability evaluation by duty holders. The PPAC was presented at four industry-organised conferences/meetings or half-day workshops of health and safety managers, supervisors and front line staff responsible for risk assessment of work tasks. The industry groups involved were:

• Supermarkets/retail (Retail); • Motor Manufacturing (Motor); • Logistics/distribution; and (Logistics), • Medical/health care (Care).

During the Retail, Motor and Logistics industry presentations First, an introduction to the project was given, which included briefing about the rational for developing the tool, and the participants were shown video clips of two work scenarios to illustrate the assessment process.

5

Secondly, the participants were shown video clips of two other work scenarios (wheelie bins collection and transfer; offloading of portaloos from a truck) and asked to assess them using the PPAC. Details about the work scenarios assessed are provided elsewhere (Okunribido, 2010). The participants were encouraged to complete the assessments for the two work scenarios without assistance from other participants, though questioning about the tool was permitted. Their records in the work scenario self-assessments were clarified against expert consensus during the session in open discussion.

Figure 3. The protocol followed in the usability evaluation sessions conducted

Thirdly, the participants completed a usability questionnaire (presented in Appendix A), which was designed to give a global view of the PPAC’s usability. The questionnaire consisted of 18 statements/questions capturing the following topics:

• Clarity and ease of use, which concerns the extent to which the language and terms used in thetool were clear, and whether the tool was easy to use (e.g. steps within the tool are easy tofollow and adequately explained) (9 questions);

• Scoring system and interpretation of scores, meant to examine duty holders’ perceptions of theextent to which the tool’s scoring system was easy to use and the output useful and easy tointerpret (5 questions);

• Future use of the tool, to examine the extent to which duty holders were likely to use the toolin the future or recommend its use to others and their perceived competence in using the tool(4 questions).

Introduction and project briefing

Task 1 Processing large paper reels

Task 2 Loading roll cage trolleys from

dairy warehouse

Participants’ input: Questions, concerns and comments

Demonstration assessment

Discussion Assessments and risk criteria

Usability evaluation Completion of questionnaire

Self-assessment #1 Refuse collection in wheelie bins #2 Delivering portable toilets units

6

For each of the 18 questions, the participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statement on a scale from 1 to 5 (1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree). The questionnaire also included an additional question which asked the participants to indicate whether there were any issues or additional information that the tool should include. Those who responded ‘Yes’ were asked to briefly explain the additional information that should be included. They were also asked to indicate their willingness to participate in field trialling of the tool.

During the Care industry presentation First, an introduction to the project was given, which included briefing about the rational for developing the tool, and the participants were shown video clips of two typical work scenarios to illustrate the assessment process. They were then required to complete and return the usability questionnaire. The presentation at this meeting was somewhat impromptu, as it was carried out in response to an opportunity that became available at short notice, and the allotted time did not allow conduct of the self-assessment session with this group. None of the participants at this presentation volunteered to participate in the field trials.

2.2.2 Field trials

This consisted mainly of on-the-job application of the tool by duty holders, to test its operability in real work situations. It involved participants at three of the industry-focused usability evaluation meetings/workshops (Retail, Motor and Logistics), and volunteers from two other industry groups (Food and Drinks and Metal processing), recruited with the help of facilitators of manual handling training courses and workshops at HSL. These participants were provided e-copies of the tool through a named contact person for the group or directly, and requested to apply the tool themselves and/or have others apply it, in real work situations at their work sites over a three-month period. Follow-up phone calls were made and/or e-mails sent to the participants or group contact, to remind them that their trialling of the tool was important in the development process.

At the end of the agreed trialling period the participants were provided with a field trials questionnaire (Appendix B) for completion and return by a prescribed date. The questionnaire was provided to facilitate their provision of collated feedback, on the experiences from applying the tool at their workplace, and opinions on the following specific issues:

• The tool’s strengths and weaknesses • Ease of identification of the risk factors

The questionnaire also included questions to obtain the duty holders’ overall perceptions and confidence about using the tool. Specifically, duty holders were required to rate the tool (on a scale from 1 to 5) on the following:

• The ease in identifying the workplace risk factors (1=very easy and 5=very difficult), • Its usefulness for increasing duty holder awareness of the key risks in pushing and pulling

operations (1=very useful and 5=not at all useful), • Its usefulness for fulfilling legal duties (1=very useful and 5=not at all useful), • Its usefulness for increasing worker confidence in identifying and assessing risks in pushing

and pulling operations (1=not at all confident and 5=extremely confident). For this, the trial participants were required to indicate their level of confidence before and after using the tool.

Those who attended a planned usability evaluation meeting/workshop first received the questionnaire through a named contact person for each group, and then directly a month later when no response was received from the first distribution. Those who did not attend a usability meeting/workshop received the questionnaire alongside the assessment tool. Follow-up/reminder correspondence with the

7

individual participants also occurred periodically thereafter. After the agreed date for return of the completed questionnaires expired, follow-up e-mails were sent to each of the participants to remind them that their feedback was important in the development process and to obtain their completed questionnaire and other feedback.

8

3. RESULTS

3.1 EXPERT APPRAISAL

Table 1 presents basic details about the four expert appraisers of the tool.

Table 1. Expert appraisal – Basic details about the experts Appraiser Designation Specialism Years in practice Evaluated Operations JR Consultant Ergonomics 36 Yes; W-3, NW-1 MH Principal Ergonomics 19 Yes; W-3, NW-1 TH Handling Assessor Physiotherapy Not specified Yes; W-3 AP Principal Consultant Human Factors 10 Yes; W-1, NW-1 W-wheeled equipment operations; NW-non-wheeled item operations

Generally, the experts considered that the included risk factors included in the tool were useful and appropriate and that the two types of operations defined capture most of those commonly performed in workplaces. The tool’s focus on workplace factors was seen as beneficial for duty holders as it will help increase their awareness and understanding of the workplace factors that can affect push-pull operations. In line with the specific issues that were addressed, their main comments and opinions are presented in the sections below.

3.1.1 Usefulness for screening tasks and identifying improvements needed The experts were generally positive about the tool in this regards, the comments indicated that:

• The tool would help identify which elements in a task presented a risk (and therefore where improvements are needed),

• The tools simple design and format, and overall scoring system will help users identify tasks of highest risk levels and which require more urgent action. The flow chart is very clear and gives users an easy reference guide for prioritising actions on higher elements of the task.

Concerns were, however, expressed that the tool is not useful for determining whether a task posed a risk overall, as there is no way of gauging what the total score actually means in terms of risk level. Furthermore, the experts felt that it is important that duty holders are made to understand/recognise that application of the tool does not constitute a final risk assessment.

3.1.2 Usability, robustness and operational utility The experts were generally positive about the tool in this regards, the comments indicated that:

• The tool is relatively simple, straightforward to use, and the steps are easy to follow. • The illustrations and descriptions make it straightforward to assess and categorise the various

risk aspects. • The presentation and format of the tool makes it very accessible to non-expert users and

engages people to consider risks. • The tool will instantly be recognizable for users who have previously applied the MAC tool. • The categories for each included risk factor are fairly well defined. This would ensure a

reasonably high degree of both inter- and intra-rater reliability.

9

3.1.3 Appropriateness for non-ergonomist health and safety practitioners The experts were generally positive about the tool in this regards, the comments indicated that:

• The tool is helpful for non-ergonomist health and safety practitioners, but may need to ensure that qualitative interpretations are provided for interpretation of total scores.

Concerns were, however, raised that: • The tool may have limited applicability by non-ergonomists in specialised work environments,

such as hospitals. In these environments, the obstacles and the operations performed are often not predictable and can vary widely e.g., the obstacles encountered during the task would not only be inanimate objects, but also people, i.e. patients (in various states of physical and mental health) either on foot or being transported on beds, trolleys or wheelchairs.

• The tool may not be useful for push/pull operations with beds/trolleys carrying patients, particularly those who have sustained serious injuries (e.g. spinal cord injuries), the nature of which requires specific clinical moving and handling techniques and equipment.

3.1.4 Revisions that are needed Table 2 presents the main concerns/opinions of the experts regarding revisions.

Table 2. Expert appraisal – The main opinions/concerns about the tool (Prototype A) Section of tool Opinions/comments Background information There is currently no guidance for interpretation and use of the

total scores obtained from an assessment. Miscellaneous Comparing the contents of the tool with the risk factors identified

for consideration in L23, the following may need to be included somewhere: Travel distance (for wheeled equipment operations), Frequency of exertions, and Suitability of the wheels (for the type of load and floor surface).

Section A: Wheeled equipment operations Type of Equipment/load weight Be clear about why equipment weight information is important

and how it is to be utilised. Posture Some of the illustration diagrams do not support/reflect the

corresponding risk category. Hand grip Inclusion of some illustrations diagrams of different types of grip

would be a benefit Work pattern The wordings of the risk categories may need to be reviewed Condition of equipment Review the risk definitions for clarity about maintenance levels

and important equipment features. The wordings of the risk categories need to be revised.

Inclusion of illustration diagrams of different related types of grips would be helpful.

Floor surface Damaged/pitted conditions are not covered by the risk definitions and the limits for floor slope are not consistently defined.

Obstacles en route This label is not commonly used in everyday work situations, duty holders may not readily identify with it and some factors that need to be considered were missing, e.g., confined space.

Other factors:

The factors identified are not logically presented in the introductory sentence; this may lead to confusion during an assessment exercise. What is the scientific basis for the risk filters?

Section B: Non-wheeled item operations Type of activity/load weight Provide alternate illustration diagrams for dragging and churning

activities; the current illustrations may encourage the indicated practices which are in themselves high risk practices.

Travel distance The instruction for multiple trips with varying distances is slightly confusing.

10

Details about how the Prototype A tool was revised, taking into consideration the experts comments and identified concerns, are presented in the Appendix C.

3.2 DUTY HOLDER APPRAISAL – USABILITY EVALUATION

In all, at least 78 managers, supervisors and front line staff attended the planned meetings/workshops, where the tool was presented (Table 3). Some of the participants had previous experience of applying the MAC tool and so were quite familiar with the flow chart procedure of the PPAC.

Table 3. Usability evaluation – Basic details about the participants Industry group Attendance at presentations Questionnaire assessments

Participants Worksites Participant Worksites Retail 8 7 8 7 Motor 6 6 3 3 Logistics 14 8 14 8 Care < 50 Various 10 10

3.2.1 Assessment of work scenarios

The assessment records generally demonstrated that the participants were able to use the flow chart to focus their attention on each of the risk factors and to use the assessment guides to select a risk filter category that best describes the condition seen. The views expressed during the discussions indicated that the flow chart procedure is easy to follow, that the tool improved their understanding of work place risk factors for push-pull operations, and that the risk filter categories could help determine actions required to reduce risks. However, arising from the discussions of their work scenarios, was the observation that compared to expert consensus, the participants were stricter in their scoring of the factors (often erring on the side of caution by choosing a more severe condition). In both the wheelie bin and p o r t a b l e toilets handling task assessments, the duty holder scores for floor surface, condition of equipment and other factors tended to be higher than expert consensus, while the assessments for load weight, work pattern, and obstacles along the route tended to agree with expert consensus. Generally, the participants attributed the differences in their assessments to lack of clarity in the risk filter descriptions and insufficient information.

3.2.2 Questionnaire responses

Table 4 presents the statements/questions in the usability questionnaire completed by the duty holders, while their summarised responses are presented in Appendix D.

Completed usability questionnaires were received from all the participants at the retail and logistics meetings on the day, and from 3 participants at the motor industry meeting and 10 participants at the care industry conference at a later date by post or e-mail message (Table 3). The comments about issues and / or additional information that are needed are presented in Table 5, while the main findings are described in the following sections.

11

Table 4. Usability evaluation – The set of statements/questions in the questionnaire Topic Related issues Questionnaire query Clarity and ease of use 1. Complexity of the procedure The assessment procedure is

unnecessarily complex 2. Ease of use The tool is easy to use 3. Need for specialist advice I will need to consult a technical

person to use tool 4. Logic of steps The various steps in the tool are logical

and easy to follow 5. Clarity of language The language used in the tool is easy

to understand (adequately explained) 6. Explanations for steps Each step of the tool is adequately

explained 7. Time required for assessments The tool takes a lot of time to complete

(it is time consuming) 8. Illustrations/photos The amount of illustrations/photos

provided is adequate 9. Instructions for use The instructions on how to use the tool

are easy to follow Scoring system and 1. Simplicity of scoring system The scoring system is easy to use interpretation of scores 2. Difficulty in recording scores I found the scoring sheet difficult to

complete 3. Information for scoring system There is adequate information

provided on how to use the scoring system

4. Interpretation of scores The scores were easy to interpret 5. Usefulness of scores The tool is useful for identifying

activities that require attention Future use of tool 1. Frequency of use I think that I would like to use the tool

frequently 2. Confidence in use I feel very confident about using the

tool 3. Required learning I need to learn a lot of things before I

can use the tool 4. Recommendation I would recommend the tool to others Table 5. Usability evaluation – Duty holders’ opinions/comments about the tool (Prototype B) Risk factor Opinions/comments Identified by Type of equipment/ weight of load

Wheeled equipment: The equipment options don't include or clarify where standard trolleys might fit, i.e. those with 4 wheels of which two are fixed. Do the weight guides link with the L23 guidelines and information on the HSE website?

1-Motor

Condition of equipment

What about the effect of size and type of wheels on wheeled equipment?

1-Logistics

Posture What about other characteristics of the person performing the task, e.g. height? May be good to include in notes as something to consider. Is the tool designed to accommodate at least 90% of population?

3-Care

Obstacles along the route

The red category of risk may need further clarification. Currently it is open to misinterpretation where there are three or more obstacles but no steep ramp; flight of steps needs to be treated like a steep ramp.

1-Logisitics

Scoring sheet Other issues

Needs to be simplified. Consider having the numerical scores column before the colour band column and such that there is a separate column for each colour. Include reference label for risk factors as in the assessment guide. What is the scientific basis for the risk filters?

1-Motor 1-Retail

12

Clarity and ease of use The data in Table D-1 (Appendix D), indicated that the duty holders were generally positive in their responses about the tool’s clarity and ease of use (as depicted by the questions asked [Table 4]), and they showed little or no strong/serious negative anticipations. Overall, at least 60% of all the respondents answered positively to each of the nine questions posed (Figure 4), i.e., they confirmed the positively cast questions and dismissed the negatively cast questions.

• At least 75% of the respondents in each of the industry groups disagreed that the tool was unnecessarily complex (question 1), and that they would need a technical person or specialist to be able to use it (question 3).

• At least 75% of the respondents in each group agreed that the tool is easy to use (question 2), that the steps in the tool are logical and easy to follow (question 4), that the language of the tool is easy to understand (question 5), and that each step is adequately explained (question 6),

• At least 80% of the respondents in three of the groups agreed that the amount of illustrations/photos provided is adequate (question 8), and that the ‘how to use’ instructions are easy to follow (question 9). In question 8, four of the Retail group respondents (50%) answered positively (agreed), while the other 50% was neutral - they neither agreed nor disagreed; in question 9, two of the Motor group respondents (67%) answered positively and one was neutral.

• At least 70% of the respondents in two groups (Logistics, and Care) disagreed that the tool takes a lot of time to apply (question 7). In this question, four of the Retail respondents (50%) answered positively (disagreed), three were neutral and one answered negatively (agreed); all the three Motor respondents answered negatively (agreed).

Figure 4. Usability evaluation – Distribution of overall percentages (%) of positive responders

to each of the questions about clarity and ease of use

The scoring system and interpretation of scores The duty holders’ responses in respect of the tool’s scoring system and interpretation of scores (as depicted by the questions asked [Table 4]), were also generally favourable (Table D-2); overall, at least 60% of all the respondents answered positively to the questions posed (Figure 5), and they showed little or no strong/serious negative anticipations.

13

• At least 60% of the respondents in each of the industry groups agreed that the scores obtained are easy to interpret (question 4), and that the scores are useful for identifying activities requiring attention (questions 5).

• At least 60% of the respondents in three groups agreed that the scoring system is easy to use (question 1), and that the information for the scoring system is adequate (question 3). In question 1, one of the three Motor respondents (33%) answered positively (agreed), one was neutral and one answered negatively (disagreed); in question 3, none of the Motor respondents answered positively, two (67%) answered negatively (disagreed) and one was undecided.

• At least 70% of the respondents in three groups disagreed that they found the scoring sheet difficult to complete (question 2). In this question, one of the Motor respondents (33%) answered positively (disagreed), and the other two answered negatively (agreed or strongly agreed).

Figure 5. Usability evaluation – Distribution of overall percentages (%) of positive responders

to each of the questions about scoring and interpretation of scores Future use of the tool The duty holders’ responses concerning future use of the tool (as depicted in the questions asked [Table 4]) were generally favourable (Table D-3); overall, at least 60% of all the respondents answered positively to the questions (Figure 6) and there were little or no strong/serious negative anticipations.

• At least 70% of the respondents in each of the industry groups disagreed that a lot needs to be learnt to use the tool (question 3),

• At least 70% of the respondents in two groups agreed that they felt very confident about using the tool (question 2). In this question, two of the three Motor respondents (67%) and five of the ten Care respondents (50%) answered positively; however, the remaining one Motor respondent and four of the remaining five Care respondents gave neutral responses.

• At least 70% of the respondents in two groups agreed that they would like to use the tool frequently (question 1), and that they would recommend the tool to others (question 4). In question 1, none of the Motor respondents (0%) and only one of the Retail respondents (14%) answered positively. However, the three Motor respondents and four of the remaining Retail respondents gave neutral responses. In question 4, one Motor respondent (33%) and three Retail respondents (43%) answered positively; the other respondents in the two groups gave neutral responses.

14

Figure 6. Usability evaluation – Distribution of overall percentages (%) of positive responders

to each of the questions about future use of the tool

Summary In the main, the results suggest industry trends in the duty-holders’ responses, such that compared to other groups:

• The Care respondents were particularly concerned about how individual differences were accommodated in the design of the tool;

• The Motor industry respondents were less certain about future use of the tool; and • The Retail industry respondents were more concerned about the utility of the

illustrations/photos provided and generally most positive about future use of the tool.

3.3 DUTY HOLDER APPROAISAL – FIELD TRIALS The tool was trialled across five industry areas and in 18 work sites as detailed in Table 6, and completed field trials questionnaires were received for each of the sites (Table 7). It was trialled on wheeled equipment operations at all the 18 worksites and on non-wheeled item operations at nine worksites. The assessed wheeled equipment operations mainly involved 4-wheeled dollies, trolleys, roll cages, 2/4-wheeled sack barrows, hand pallet trucks, in-flight catering / service trolleys, and wheeled aircraft style ladders. The non-wheeled item operations mainly involved tote boxes, barrels/casks, and tubs.

• All but one of the respondents to the field trials questionnaire reported that prior to trialling the tool they had undergone some sort of ergonomics training on manual handling such as a course/workshop, or part of a full degree/professional qualification course.

• All but two respondents reported that they had previous experience of assessing pushing and pulling operations, which was mainly using the L23 guidance and by direct measurement of task forces.

• All but two respondents reported that they did not require/request specialist support to assess the push-pull operations, and all but three of the respondents had previous experience of using the MAC tool. Those that said they requested specialist support did so to improve their own competence (logistics) or to complement their own assessment (retail); those that had not used the MAC said they found it too simplistic for their purposes (retail) and that they had not been trained (logistics).

15

Table 6. Field trials – Basic details about the trials conducted by duty holders Industry group Worksites Number of push-pull operations assessed /worksites involved involved Wheeled equipment Non-wheeled item Total Worksites Total Worksites Retail 3 7 3 1 1 Motor 1 4 1 0 0 Logistics 11 49 11 13 6 Food and Drinks (F &D) 2 8 2 3 1 Metal processing (MP) 1 10 1 0 0

Table 7. Field trials – Basic details about the questionnaire respondents Industry Work years

avg (range) Ergonomics Training

Push-pull Experience

Specialist Support

MAC experience

MH Degree Y N Y N Y N Retail 12.9 (5-28) 2 1 3 0 1 2 1 2 Motor 0.5 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 Logistics 7.0 (1-16) 10 0 9 2 1 10 10 1 F& D 13.0 (7-19) 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 MP 4.0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0

3.3.1 Strengths and weaknesses of the tool The opinions/comments about strengths and weakness are presented in Table 8 and Table 9. For wheeled equipment operations, specific weaknesses were identified for all the risk factors (except posture) and score sheet, by five respondents from the Logistics Industry, though no more than two respondents identified issues for the same risk factors. Concerns were raised by the Motor industry respondent about four risk factors (equipment/load weight, posture, travel distance, and obstacles along the route), by the two F & D respondents about two risk factors (obstacles along the route and other factors), and by the MP respondent about two factors (equipment/load weight, and obstacles along the route). For non-wheeled item operations, concerns were only raised about activity/weight of load (by logistics industry respondents) and other factors (by F & D respondents). Table 8. Field trials – The duty holders’ comments/opinions about the tool’s strengths

Risk factor Wheeled equipment Non-wheeled items Operation/Weight of load (A/Wt)

This is a very relevant factor Risk filter definitions: Good & relevant Images/illustrations: representative, very useful, simple & easy to work with

Risk filter definitions: Useful & relevant Images/illustrations: Easy to follow A very relevant factor

Posture (P) Risk filters definitions: Good & relevant Images/illustrations: very useful, cover most scenarios

Risk filters definitions: Useful & relevant Images/illustrations: cover most situations

Hand grip (HG) Risk filter definitions: Good & relevant Images/illustrations: very relevant, presented in a useful format

Risk filter definitions: Useful & relevant Images/illustrations: Easy to follow, presented in a useful format

Work pattern (WP) Risk filter definitions: Good & clear The definitions cover most scenarios

Risk filter definitions: useful & relevant The definitions cover most scenarios

Travel distance (TD) Risk filter definitions: Good & relevant Definitions cover most scenarios

Risk filter definitions: Useful & relevant Limits defined are reasonable

Floor surface (FS) Risk filter definitions: Good & relevant Definitions cover most scenarios Useful to have in the tool

Risk filter definitions: useful & relevant The examples cover most scenarios

Obstacles along the route (OR)

Risk filter definitions: Good & relevant The examples cover most scenarios

Risk filter definitions: useful & relevant The examples cover most scenarios

Other factors (OF) Risk filter definitions: Good & relevant The examples cover most scenarios

Risk filter definitions: useful &relevant The examples cover most scenarios

16

In the main, the comments indicated that the risk factors included for both wheeled equipment and non-wheeled item operations, are relevant and clearly defined, and that the risk filter definitions cover most possible scenarios. Furthermore, they indicated that many of the illustrations provided are representative of what occurs in the workplace, and they are easy to work with. Table 9. Field trials – The duty holders’ comments/opinions about the tool’s weaknesses

Risk factor Wheeled equipment Identified by Non-wheeled item Identified by

Operation / Weight of load

Not clear what to do when; 2 or more types are used; weight of loads varies widely; weight of load is not easy to measure or to identify; and, more than one is pushed a time.

1-MP 1-Logisitcs 1-Motor 1-Logistics

Could do with more illustrations for dragging / hauling and sliding activities

1-Logistics

Posture (P) Not clear what to do when posture is very variable

1-Motor

Hand grip (HG)

Images are not clear enough Not all situations are covered

1-Logistics 1-Logistics

Work pattern (WP)

Does not allow consideration of variable work patterns

1-Logistics

Travel distance (TD)

Red zone lower limit is too low Not clear on how lots of small travels should be treated

1-Logisitcs 1-Motor

Condition of equipment (CE)

Does not include specific maintenance problems, e.g. wheels, bearings and joints

1-Logisitics

Floor surface (FS)

Needs to be clearer about slope as a characteristic of the floor

1-Logisitics

Obstacles along the route (OR)

Not clear what to do when: There are more than two factors but no steps, when there are steep ramps. More clarity is needed for the medium and high risk filters

1-Motor 2-Logistics 1-F&D

Other factors (OF)

Not clear how to treat changing weather conditions and extreme weather conditions

1-Logisitics 1-F&D

No guidance for identifying extreme weather conditions

1-F&D

Aside of the strengths and weaknesses identified, suggestions for improving the tool were also made which related to the design of the record sheet and interpretation/follow-on utility of the scores obtained. Specifically, that:

• Some guidance is needed for interpretation of scores obtained, • Separate score sheets should be provided for each type of operation and such that different

types of equipment/ activity can be noted.

3.3.2 Questionnaire responses The collated duty holders’ responses to the questions in the field trials questionnaire are presented in Appendix E. Ease of characterising risks Overall, at least 70% of the sites where the tool was trialled (respondents) provided favourable feedback about effort in characterising the risk in each risk factor, i.e., that this was easy or very easy (Table 10).

17

For wheeled equipment operations, the percentage of the respondents that reported favourably was highest for posture and lowest for obstacles along the route and other factors (Table E-1 in Appendix E). However, respondents from the Motor and Logistics industries gave unfavourable responses about the equipment/load weight factor, i.e., that this was hard or very hard to identify and respondents from the Logistics industry reported that work pattern, condition of equipment and floor surface were hard but not very hard to identify. For non-wheeled item operations, none of the respondents reported that a risk factor was hard or very hard to identify (Table E-2). Table 10. Field trials – Distribution of positive responders (%) to the question about ease of

characterising risk factors Operation Load

weight Posture Hand

Grip Work Pattern

Travel Distance

Cond of Equip

Floor Surface

Obstacles on Route

Other Factors

Wheeled equipment

14 (77%)

18 (100%)

16 (89%)

15 (83%)

15 (83%)

13 (72%)

16 (89%)

13 (72%)

13 (72%)

Non-wheeled item

7 (75%)

8 (100%)

7 (88%)

8 (100%)

8 (100%)

8 (100%)

7 (88%)

7 (88%)

Overall perceptions and confidence about the tool The questions in this regards related to how duty holders perceive the tool as a whole and their confidence in using it (Table E-3). First, the feedback from all the respondents (sites where the tool was trialled) was favourable about the tool as a method of identifying the key workplace risks in pushing and pulling operations; for both wheeled equipment and non-wheeled item operations, the feedback generally indicated that the tool was an easy or very easy method (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Field trials – Distribution of the respondents’ perception of the tool as an easy

method of identifying risk factors in the workplace Secondly, the majority of the respondents (83%, n=15) reported favourably about the tool as a method for increasing duty holder awareness of the key risks in pushing and pulling operations (Figure 8).

• For wheeled equipment operations, all but three of the respondents reported that the tool is very useful or useful; the feedback from the Motor respondent and one Logistics respondent was neutral (they were not sure), and feedback from the one Retail respondent was unfavourable, i.e., that the tool was not very useful.

18

• For non-wheeled item operations, only the feedback from the Retail respondent was unfavourable, i.e., that the tool was not very useful.

Figure 8. Field trials – Distribution of the respondents’ perception of the tool as a method for increasing awareness of risk factors in the workplace

Thirdly, the majority of the site respondents (n=14, 78%) reported favourably about the tool as a means of helping duty holders meet their legal responsibilities (Figure 9). The feedback from one Logistics respondent was neutral (they were not sure), and the three Retail respondents provided unfavourable feedback, i.e., that the tool was not very useful or not useful at all.

Figure 9. Distribution of the respondents’ perception of the tool as a means of meeting Health and Safety responsibilities

Finally, the majority of the site respondents reported favourably about the tool as a means of increasing workers’ confidence about assessing and identifying risks in pushing and pulling operations (Figure 10). The feedback from the majority of the respondents (62%, n=11), six Logistics respondents, and the other five respondents, indicated that participants involved in the trials generally reported that using the tool improved their confidence.

19

Figure 10. Distribution of the respondents’ perception of the tool as a means of increasing workers’ confidence

3.3.3 Revision of the PPAC The duty holder usability and field trials evaluations have determined strengths and weaknesses of the PPAC tool, and more importantly, how it can be improved. As a result of the field trials and based on specific comments made about different sections of the tool, which the development considered to be useful and practical, a set of revision changes to improve the PPAC’s overall effectiveness (Table 11) have been made. Table 11. Duty holder comments and the development team’s revisions

Section of tool Duty holder comments/recommendations Development team action Assessment guide

Type of equipment/ Weight of load

Not clear what to do when; 2 or more types are used; weight of loads varies widely; weight of load is not easy to measure or to identify; and, more than one is pushed a time.

Reviewed the opening instruction statement to include what to do when two or more equipment are moved a time, two or more equipment are used during the operation or the loads moved vary widely in weight

Condition of equipment

Does not include specific maintenance problems, e.g. wheels, bearings and joints

Revised the instruction to include reference to condition of wheels, bearings and joint

Obstacles along the route

Not clear what to do when: There are more than two factors but no steps, and when there are steep ramps. More clarity is needed for the medium and high risk filters

Revised the amber and red risk categories to be clear about steps and steep ramps

Score sheets Separate score sheets should be provided for each type of operation and such that different types of equipment/ activity can be noted.

Introduced separate section A and Section B score sheets; Redesigned the score sheet to enable recording of different types of equipment (Section A) and different types of activity (Section B)

20

4. DISCUSSION

The final draft of the pushing and pulling operations risk assessment tool (Prototype C), is presented in Appendix F.

Overall, the expert appraisers and duty holder participants considered that the tool’s focus on workplace factors was beneficial as it helps increase awareness and understanding of the workplace factors that can affect push-pull operations. Views expressed during the discussions about the self-assessment exercises showed generally that, not only were duty holders able to differentiate between the categories of risk for most of the factors, they were able to argue and justify their choices when these differed from expert consensus. Furthermore, feedback on their assessment of typical operations in the field indicated that the risk factors included in the tool are relevant, useful, relatively easy to identify and that they covered most of the conditions found in workplaces.

Having different industry groups represented was valuable as a means of gauging group attitudes. Thus, from the usability evaluations, differences between industry groups were suggested in the responses about the tool’s clarity and ease of use, scoring system and interpretation of scores and future use of the tool. The indications were that sites where operations had been standardised, they were predictable and/or specific to the site (such as is the case in the Motor industry), users may not find the tool very useful. Sites where the operations are neither predictable or site specific (such as is the case in the Distribution/Logistics industry) are likely to find it useful. It may be that in predictable/standardised task situations, the need to revisit various risk factors is seen as overly burdensome. Secondly, the comments from the duty holders during the usability evaluation meetings indicated that organisations that employ a team/number of health and safety specialists for conducting risk assessments of manual handling tasks (such as was the case in the Motor Industry and sections of the Retail Industry) are not likely to find the tool useful. The comments also indicated that operatives in industries where animate objects are involved (such as in the Health and Farming Industries) are not likely to find the tool useful. However, when considering the results with a view to exploring differences between industry-sectors, any conclusions drawn should be treated tentatively as, for many of the industry groups, the number of sites involved in this trial was low. Nevertheless, as the majority of the duty holders respondents were very favourable about the tool even though many received it for the first time at the usability workshops and that a considerable range of industry sectors were involved, the indications are that duty holders are capable of making useful assessments based on the provisions of the tool, even with little prior briefing about the tool.

Unlike other HSL studies that evaluated usability and / or reliability of risk assessment tools developed for HSE, and emphasised inter-/intra-scoring reliability (for example, Tapley, 2002 and Lee and Ferreira, 2003), this study was more concerned with understanding how duty holders interpreted the guidance information and risk filter definitions. According to Legg and Burgess-Limerick (2007) interclass correlation coefficients are not sensitive reliability measures when small ranges of values are involved. Efforts were therefore not on recruiting a large number of participants but on involving participants from a wide spectrum of industries. As such there was a relative diversity in the locations of the worksites that volunteered participants, which made it quite difficult to physically visit each site to follow up on the trialling exercise. The project was therefore very much reliant on the duty holders being willing to pilot the tool, and there were delays in the return of both the usability questionnaires and the field trial questionnaires which caused the time scales of this study to slip. Furthermore, the low number of returned completed questionnaires meant that mainly a qualitative analysis of the data could be made.

21

5. CONCLUSIONS AND WAYS FORWARD

The general positive feedback obtained from the duty holders about its usability and operability in field trials indicates that the pushing and pulling operations assessment tool is a practicable process that duty holders will be able to use to screen typical operations.

The findings indicate that the tool is sufficiently usable and reliable, and it is useful for increasing duty holder confidence in assessing pushing and pulling operations.

The study aim of testing the effectiveness in field applications has been met, and recommendations from users have been incorporated into the tool.

Ways forward

The basic MAC tool for risk assessment of manual handing operations, currently only covers lifting and carrying tasks. In the long term, therefore, perhaps the PPAC can be made available to duty holders, as part of a future revision of the MAC.

However, to roll the tool out as a standalone document in the first instance, the following further actions would be required:

Compilation of sufficient supporting information and materials to enable publication of the tool on the HSE website, i.e., specific guidance on how to use the tool, including what to do with scores obtained;

Compilation of case studies and/or demonstrations that illustrate how to complete an assessment using the tool and how the tool helps identify correction measures;

Compilation of a library of frequently asked questions, i.e., questions that may be asked by prospective users of the tool and the most suited responses (frequently asked questions); and,

Organisation and/or planning for attendance at awareness events such events as SHADs and other industry specific Health and Safety management meetings.

22

6. REFERENCES

Health and Safety Eexecutive (2003). Manual handling Assessment Charts (MAC)-ING383, HSE Books, Sudbury, Suffolk

Health and Safety Executive (2010). Assessment of repetitive tasks of the upper limbs (the ART tool): Guidance for health and safety practitioners, consultants, ergonomists and large organisations-ING438, HSE Books, Sudbury, Suffolk

Lee, D. and Ferreira, J.J. (2003). Reliability and usability evaluation of the Manual Handling Assessment Charts (MAC) for use by non-regulatory professionals, Health and Safety Laboratory, HSL/2003/19

Legg, J. and Burgess-Limerick, R. (2007). Reliability of the JobFit system Pre-employment functional assessment tool, Work, 28, 299-312

Okunribido, O.O. (2010). Further work for development of an inspection tool for risk assessment of pushing and pulling operations, Health and Safety Laboratory, ERG/10/20

Tapley, S.E. (2002). Reliability of Manual handling Assessment Charts (MAC) developed for health and safety inspectors in the UK – A field study, Health and Safety Executive, www.hse.gov.uk/msd/mac/pdf/reliability.pdf (last sighted 21/02/13)

23

7. APPENDICES

A. THE USABILITY ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

The following questions ask for your views on different aspects of the Pushing and Pulling Task Assessment Tool. We’d really appreciate it if you could spare a few minutes to complete the questionnaire. Your responses will help inform future improvements to the tool. Unless stated otherwise, please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each statement by ticking one box only.

Clarity and ease of use

Strongly Disagree

Neither agree/nor disagree

Strongly Agree

1. The push-pull tool is unnecessarily complex 1

2

3

4

5

Strongly Disagree

Neither agree/nor disagree

Strongly Agree

2. The push-pull tool is easy to use 1

2

3

4

5

Strongly Disagree

Neither agree/nor disagree

Strongly Agree

3. I would need to consult a technical person to be able to use the push-pull tool

1

2

3

4

5

Strongly Disagree

Neither agree/nor disagree

Strongly Agree

4. The various steps in the push-pull tool are logical and easy to follow

1

2

3

4

5

Strongly Disagree

Neither agree/nor disagree

Strongly Agree

5. I found the language used in the tool easy to understand (e.g. terms adequately explained)

1

2

3

4

5

Strongly Disagree

Neither agree/nor disagree

Strongly Agree

6. Each step of the tool is adequately explained 1

2

3

4

5

Strongly Disagree

Neither agree/nor disagree

Strongly Agree

7. The push and pull tool takes a lot of time to complete/is time-consuming

1

2

3

4

5

Strongly Disagree

Neither agree/nor disagree

Strongly Agree

8. The amount of illustrations/photos provided is adequate 1

2

3

4

5

24

Strongly Disagree

Neither agree/nor disagree

Strongly Agree

9. The instructions on how to use the tool are easy to follow. 1

2

3

4

5

Scoring and interpretation

Strongly Disagree

Neither agree/nor disagree

Strongly Agree

1. The scoring system was easy to use 1

2

3

4

5

Strongly Disagree

Neither agree/nor disagree

Strongly Agree

2. I found the scoring sheet difficult to complete 1

2

3

4

5

Strongly Disagree

Neither agree/nor disagree

Strongly Agree

3. There is adequate information provided on how to use the scoring system

1

2

3

4

5

Strongly Disagree

Neither agree/nor disagree

Strongly Agree

4. The scores were easy to interpret 1

2

3

4

5

Strongly Disagree

Neither agree/nor disagree

Strongly Agree

5. The tool is useful in identifying activities that require attention

1

2

3

4

5

Future use of the tool

Strongly Disagree

Neither agree/nor disagree

Strongly Agree

1. I think that I would like to use the push-pull tool frequently

1

2

3

4

5

Strongly Disagree

Neither agree/nor disagree

Strongly Agree

2. I feel very confident about using the push-pull tool 1

2

3

4

5

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

3. I need to learn a lot of things before I could use the push-pull tool

1

2

3

4

5

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

4. I would recommend the push-pull tool to others 1

2

3

4

5

25

Is there any information that should be added in the push-pull tool? (please tick one box only)

Yes No

If your answer to this Question was ‘Yes’, please briefly explain:

Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire.

26

B. THE FIELD TRIALS QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION 1 – Background information 1.1 What industry does your organization operate in? ______________________ 1.2 How many employees work in your organisation? (please give number) _________ 5.3. How long have you worked for the organization?_____ years ____ months 1.4 Have you received any training in ergonomics or other related topics (e.g. musculoskeletal disorders, manual handling)? Yes No 1.4.1 If you answered YES to the above, please give brief details of training courses you have attended:

1.5 Have you carried out risk assessments for pushing/pulling activities in the past? Yes No 1.5.1 If you answered Yes to Question 1.5, please indicate how frequently you carried out risk

assessments of push/pull activities in the last calendar year? (e.g. once a week, once a month) 1.6 Have you used any other tools to help you carry out risk assessments of push/pull activities? Yes No 1.6.1 If you answered YES to the above, please provide brief details of the types of tools you have used: 1.7 Have you used the manual handling risk assessment chart tool (MAC) to assess manual

handling activities in the workplace? Yes No 1.7.1 If you answered ‘NO’ to Question 1.7, please briefly explain why you have not used the

MAC:

27

1.8 Have you required external specialist advice to carry out risk assessments of push/pull

activities? Yes No 1.8.1 If you answered ‘Yes’ to question 1.8, please briefly explain how frequently you have

required specialist advice and the type of advice that you have received:

SECTION 2 – YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE TOOL 2.1 Have you had an opportunity to trial the pushing and pulling operations assessment tool in your workplace since you received it? Yes No 2.2 For what type of activities/operations did you use the tool? Wheeled equipment operations (Section A) Non-wheeled item operations (Section B) Both wheeled and non-wheeled operations 2.3 Approximately how many times have you used the tool for each of the following operations? Wheeled equipment operations (Section A): ________ Non-wheeled item operations (Section B): ________

If you have used the tool for Wheeled equipment operations only, please complete section 2.4. If you have used the tool for Non-wheeled item operations only, please complete section 2.5. If you have used the tool for both wheeled equipment operations and non-wheeled item operations, please complete Section 2.4, and section 2.5.

28

2.4 Wheeled equipment operations How easy was it to identify the risks arising from: (tick one box only)

Very easy to identify

Easy to identify

Fairly easy to identify

Not very easy to identify

Not at all easy to identify

Type of equipment /Load weight

1

2

3

4

5

Posture 1

2

3

4

5

Hand grip 1

2

3

4

5

Work pattern 1

2

3

4

5

Travel distance 1

2

3

4

5

Condition of equipment 1

2

3

4

5

Floor surface 1

2

3

4

5

Obstacles en route 1

2

3

4

5

Other factors 1

2

3

4

5

Please specify any strengths and/or weaknesses of the tool in enabling you to identify the risks associated with each of the following factors:

Strengths Weaknesses

Type of equipment /Load weight

Posture

Hand grip

Work pattern

Travel distance

Condition of equipment

Floor surface

Obstacles en route

Other factors

29

2.5 Non-wheeled item operations How easy was it to identify the risks arising from: (tick one box only)

Very easy to identify

Easy to identify

Fairly easy to identify

Not very easy to identify

Not at all easy to identify

Type of activity /Load weight

1

2

3

4

5

Posture 1

2

3

4

5

Hand grip 1

2

3

4

5

Work pattern 1

2

3

4

5

Travel distance 1

2

3

4

5

Floor surface 1

2

3

4

5

Obstacles en route 1

2

3

4

5

Other factors 1

2

3

4

5

Please specify any strengths and/or weaknesses of the tool in enabling you to identify the risks associated with each of the following factors:

Strengths Weaknesses

Type of activity /Load weight

Posture

Hand grip

Work pattern

Travel distance

Floor surface

Obstacles en route

Other factors

2.6 Were there any pushing/pulling operations where you felt that the tool was not sufficiently

robust or suitable to fully assess the risks? Yes No

30

2.6.1 If you answered ‘YES’ to the above, please briefly describe the situation.

SECTION 3 – OVERALL PERCEPTIONS AND CONFINDENCE ABOUT USING THE TOOL The following questions relate to your perceptions of the tool as a whole and your confidence in using the tool to assess pushing and pulling operations in the workplace. 3.1 How easy did you find the tool as a method of identifying the key workplace risks in pushing and pulling operations? (tick one box only)

Very Easy

Easy Not sure/Don’t know

Difficult Very Difficult

Not applicable

Wheeled equipment operations

1

2

3

4

5

6

Non-wheeled item operations

1

2

3

4

5

6

3.2 How useful did you find the tool as a method of increasing duty holder awareness of the key risks in pushing and pulling operations? (tick one box only)

Very Useful

Useful Not sure/ Don’t know

Not very useful

Not at all useful

Not applicable

Wheeled equipment operations

1

2

3

4

5

6

Non-wheeled item operations

1

2

3

4

5

6

3.3 How useful do you think the tool will be in helping you to meet your responsibilities under

the Health and Safety at Work Act in relation to manual handling?

Very Useful

1

Useful

2

Not sure/Don’t know

3

Not very useful

4

Not at all useful

5 3.4 Before using the assessment tool, how confident did you feel about assessing and identifying

the risks in pushing and pulling operations?

Not at all confident

1

A little confident

2

Fairly confident

3

Very confident

4

Extremely confident

5

31

3.5 Having used the assessment tool, how confident do you feel about identifying and assessing

the risks in pushing and pulling operations?

Not at all confident

1

A little confident

2

Fairly confident

3

Very confident

4

Extremely confident

5

3.6 Do you have any further comments regarding the tool? Please include comments on the

overall layout and format of the assessment tool and any modifications you think could be made.

Thank you for completing the questionnaire. If you have any questions regarding the tool, please contact: Dr Olanre Okunribido Tel: 01298218 366; e-mail: olanrewaju.okunribido@hsl.gov.uk

32

C. POST EXPERT-APPRAISAL REVISION OF PROTOTYPE A Table C-1. Details about how the tool was revised to achieve Prototype B

Section of report Effected Amendments Background Introduced table of risk levels/actions, in “how to complete an

assessment” section for interpretation of scores obtained Section A: Wheeled equipment factors

Type of equipment/Load weight Reviewed and reworded definitions of the equipment categories Posture One ‘reasonable risk’ illustration moved to poor risk grid

One reasonable risk illustration removed from grid Two new illustrations introduced to reasonable risk grid

Hand grip New illustration diagrams introduced for each grid Reviewed and reworded definitions of the risk categories

Work pattern Reviewed and reworded definitions of the risk categories Conditions of equipment Reviewed and reworded the definitions of the risk categories Floor surface Reviewed and reworded definitions of the risk categories to

include damaged/pitted conditions, and for consistency of the floor slope feature

Obstacles en route ‘Confined space’ added as an obstacle Label changed to ‘obstacles along the route’

Other factors Introductory statement rearranged so that the visibility factor is at the end of the sentence

Flow chart Revised the layout of the factor groups, for symmetry on the page Relocated, so that is it now before the assessment guide

Miscellaneous Introduced “Travel distance” for consistency with L23 Section B: non-wheeled item

Activity/load weight Replaced illustration diagram for dragging activity with one showing single box being moved Replaced illustration diagram for churning with one where barrel is not on pallet

Posture Ditto as for Section A Hand grip Ditto as for Section A Work pattern Ditto as for Section A Conditions of equipment Not applicable Travel distance Reviewed and reworded definitions of the risk categories Floor surface Ditto as for Section A Obstacles en route Ditto as for Section A Other factors Ditto as for Section A Flow chart Ditto as for Section A

33

D. THE USABILITY QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES Table D-1, Table D-2 and Table D-3 summarises the duty holders’ responses. Table D-1. The responses concerning clarity and ease of use

Questionnaire item/Industry group Strongly disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

% +ve

1. PPAC is unnecessary complex Supermarkets/Retail (N=8) 2 4 2 0 0 75 Motor Manufacturing (N=3) 0 3 0 0 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =14) 8 4 1 0 1 85 Medical/Health Care (N=10) 3 6 0 0 1 90

Total responders 13 17 3 0 2 86 2. PPAC is easy to use Supermarkets/Retail (N=8) 0 1 1 4 2 75 Motor Manufacturing (N=3) 0 0 0 3 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =14) 0 0 1 5 8 98 Medical/Health Care (N=10) 0 0 1 6 3 90

Total responders 0 0 3 18 13 89 3. Need technical person to use PPAC Supermarkets/Retail (N=8) 7 1 0 0 0 100 Motor Manufacturing (N=3) 1 2 0 0 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =14) 8 4 1 0 1 85 Medical/Health Care (N=10) 5 3 1 0 1 80

Total responders 21 10 2 0 2 89 4. Steps in PPAC are logical and easy to follow Supermarkets/Retail (N=8) 0 0 1 5 2 88 Motor Manufacturing (N=3) 0 0 0 3 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =14) 0 0 1 5 8 98 Medical/Health Care (N=10) 0 1 1 5 3 80

Total responders 0 1 3 18 13 89 5. Language is easy to understand Supermarkets/Retail (N=8) 0 0 2 4 2 75 Motor Manufacturing (N=3) 0 0 0 3 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =14) 0 0 1 4 9 98 Medical/Health Care (N=10) 0 1 0 5 4 90

Total responders 0 1 3 16 15 89 6. Each step is adequately explained Supermarkets/Retail (N=8) 0 0 2 4 2 75 Motor Manufacturing (N=3) 0 0 0 2 1 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =14) 0 0 1 5 8 98 Medical/Health Care (N=10) 0 1 0 5 4 90

Total responders 0 1 3 16 15 89 7. PPAC takes a lot of time to complete Supermarkets/Retail (N=8) 1 3 3 1 0 50 Motor Manufacturing (N=3) 0 0 0 3 0 0 Logistics/Distribution (N =14) 6 4 2 2 0 71 Medical/Health Care (N=10) 1 7 1 1 0 80

Total responders 8 14 6 7 0 63 8. Illustrations / photos provided is adequate Supermarkets/Retail (N=8) 0 0 4 3 1 50 Motor Manufacturing (N=3) 0 0 0 3 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =14) 0 0 0 10 4 100 Medical/Health Care (N=10) 0 0 2 6 2 80

Total responders 0 0 6 22 7 83 # - Percentage of positive responders, i.e., those that confirm the positively cast questions and dismiss the negative questions Shaded areas – Actual number of positive responders in each group

34

Table D-1. The responses concerning clarity and ease of use (continued)

Questionnaire item Strongly disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

%# +ve

9. The ‘how to use’ instructions are easy to follow Supermarkets/Retail (N=8) 0 0 1 5 2 88 Motor Manufacturing (N=3) 0 0 1 1 1 67 Logistics/Distribution (N =14) 0 0 1 7 6 98 Medical/Health Care (N=10) 0 0 2 6 2 80

Total responders 0 0 5 19 11 86 #-Percentage of positive responders, i.e., those that confirm the positively cast questions and dismiss the negative questions Shaded areas – Actual number of positive responders in each group Table D-2. The responses concerning scoring and interpretation of scores

Questionnaire item Strongly disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

%# +ve

1. The scoring system is easy to use Supermarkets/Retail (N=8) 0 0 2 5 1 75 Motor Manufacturing (N=3) 0 1 1 1 0 33 Logistics/Distribution (N =14) 0 0 1 7 6 93 Medical/Health Care (N=10) 0 2 1 4 3 70

Total responders 0 3 5 17 10 77 2. I found the scoring sheet difficult to complete Supermarkets/Retail (N=8) 2 5 1 0 0 88 Motor Manufacturing (N=3) 0 1 0 1 1 33 Logistics/Distribution (N =14) 7 5 2 0 0 86 Medical/Health Care (N=10) 2 5 3 0 0 70

Total responders 11 16 6 1 1 77 3. The information for the scoring system is adequate

Supermarkets/Retail (N=8) 0 0 2 5 1 75 Motor Manufacturing (N=3) 0 2 1 0 0 67 Logistics/Distribution (N =14) 0 0 1 9 4 93 Medical/Health Care (N=10) 0 1 4 4 1 50

Total responders 0 3 8 18 6 69 4. The scores obtained are easy to interpret Supermarkets/Retail (N=8) 0 1 2 4 1 63 Motor Manufacturing (N=3) 0 0 1 2 0 67 Logistics/Distribution (N =14) 0 0 2 9 3 93 Medical/Health Care (N=10) 0 0 1 7 2 90

Total responders 0 1 6 22 7 83 5. The tool helps identify activities that need attention

Supermarkets/Retail (N=8) 0 1 1 5 1 75 Motor Manufacturing (N=3) 0 0 0 2 1 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =14) 0 0 0 8 6 100 Medical/Health Care (N=10) 0 0 1 4 5 90

Total responders 0 1 2 19 13 91 #-Percentage of positive responders, i.e., those that confirm the positively cast questions and dismiss the negative questions Shaded areas – Actual number of positive responders in each group

35

Table D-3. The responses concerning Future use of the tool

Questionnaire item Strongly disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

%# +ve

1. I would like to use the push-pull tool frequently Supermarkets/Retail (N=8) 1 1 4 1 0 14 Motor Manufacturing (N=3) 0 0 3 0 0 0 Logistics/Distribution (N =14) 0 0 0 9 5 100 Medical/Health Care (N=10) 0 0 3 5 2 70

Total responders 1 1 10 15 7 65 2. I feel very confident about using the push-pull tool

Supermarkets/Retail (N=8) 0 0 2 4 1 71 Motor Manufacturing (N=3) 0 0 1 1 1 67 Logistics/Distribution (N =14) 0 0 0 7 7 100 Medical/Health Care (N=10) 0 1 4 2 3 50

Total responders 0 1 7 14 12 76 3. A lot needs to be learnt to use the push-pull tool Supermarkets/Retail (N=8) 2 4 1 0 0 86 Motor Manufacturing (N=3) 1 2 0 0 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =14) 8 4 0 2 0 86 Medical/Health Care (N=10) 3 4 3 0 0 70

Total responders 14 14 4 2 0 82 4. I would recommend the push-pull tool to others Supermarkets/Retail (N=8) 0 0 4 1 2 43 Motor Manufacturing (N=3) 0 0 2 1 0 33 Logistics/Distribution (N =14) 0 0 1 8 5 93 Medical/Health Care (N=10) 0 1 1 6 2 80

Total responders 0 1 8 16 9 74 #-Percentage of positive responders, i.e., those that confirm the positively cast questions and dismiss the negative questions Shaded areas – Actual number of positive responders in each group

36

E. THE FIELD TRIALS QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES Table E-1, Table E-2 and Table E-3 summarises the duty holders’ responses. Table E-1. Characterising risk factors for wheeled equipment operations

Risk factor/Industry group Very easy Easy Neutral Hard Very Hard % +ve 1. Equipment/load weight Supermarkets/Retail (N=3) 2 1 0 0 0 100 Motor Manufacturing (N=1) 0 0 0 0 1 0 Logistics/Distribution (N =11) 4 5 1 1 0 82 Food and Drinks (N=2) 1 0 1 0 0 50 Metal processing (N=1) 1 0 0 0 0 100 Total responders 8 6 2 1 1 78 2. Posture Supermarkets/Retail (N=3) 1 2 0 0 0 100 Motor Manufacturing (N=1) 0 1 0 0 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =11) 7 4 0 0 0 100 Food and Drinks (N=2) 1 1 0 0 0 100 Metal processing (N=1) 0 1 0 0 0 100

Total responders 9 9 0 0 0 100 3. Hand grip Supermarkets/Retail (N=3) 1 2 0 0 0 100 Motor Manufacturing (N=1) 0 1 0 0 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =11) 7 2 2 0 0 82 Food and Drinks (N=2) 2 0 0 0 0 100 Metal processing (N=1) 0 1 0 0 0 100

Total responders 10 6 2 0 0 89 4. Work pattern Supermarkets/Retail (N=3) 1 2 0 0 0 100 Motor Manufacturing (N=1) 1 0 0 0 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =11) 2 7 1 1 0 82 Food and Drinks (N=2) 2 0 0 0 0 100 Metal processing (N=1) 0 0 1 0 0 0

Total responders 6 9 2 1 0 83 5. Travel distance Supermarkets/Retail (N=3) 1 2 0 0 0 100 Motor Manufacturing (N=1) 0 1 0 0 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =11) 7 1 2 1 0 73 Food and Drinks (N=2) 2 0 0 0 0 100 Metal processing (N=1) 1 0 0 0 0 100

Total responders 11 4 2 1 0 83 6. Condition of equipment Supermarkets/Retail (N=3) 1 2 0 0 0 100 Motor Manufacturing (N=1) 0 0 1 0 0 0 Logistics/Distribution (N =11) 7 1 2 1 0 73 Food and Drinks (N=2) 1 0 1 0 0 50 Metal processing (N=1) 0 1 0 0 0 100

Total responders 9 4 4 1 0 72 7. Floor surface Supermarkets/Retail (N=3) 1 2 0 0 0 100 Motor Manufacturing (N=1) 1 0 0 0 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =11) 8 1 2 0 0 82 Food and Drinks (N=2) 1 1 0 0 0 100 Metal processing (N=1) 0 1 0 0 0 100

Total responders 11 5 2 0 0 89 #-Percentage of positive responders, i.e., those who response was very easy or easy

37

Table E-1. Characterising risk factors for wheeled equipment operations (continued)

Risk factor/Industry group Very easy Easy Neutral Hard Very Hard % +ve 8. Obstacles along the route Supermarkets/Retail (N=3) 1 2 0 0 0 100 Motor Manufacturing (N=1) 1 0 0 0 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =11) 4 3 3 1 0 64 Food and Drinks (N=2) 1 0 1 0 0 50 Metal processing (N=1) 0 1 0 0 0 100

Total responders 7 6 4 1 0 72 9. Other factors Supermarkets/Retail (N=3) 1 1 1 0 0 67 Motor Manufacturing (N=1) 1 0 0 0 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =11) 1 7 3 0 0 73 Food and Drinks (N=2) 1 1 0 0 0 50 Metal processing (N=1) 0 0 1 0 0 0

Total responders 4 9 5 0 0 72 #-Percentage of positive responders, i.e., those who’s response was very easy or easy

38

Table E-2. Characterising risk factors for non-wheeled item operations

Risk factor/Industry group Very easy Easy Neutral Hard Very Hard % +ve 1. Activity/load weight Supermarkets/Retail (N=1) 1 0 0 0 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N=6) 1 4 1 0 0 83 Food and Drinks (N=1) 0 0 1 0 0 0 Total responders 2 4 2 0 0 78 2. Posture Supermarkets/Retail (N=1) 1 0 0 0 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N=6) 5 1 0 0 0 100 Food and Drinks (N=1) 0 1 0 0 0 100

Total responders 6 2 0 0 0 100 3. Hand grip Supermarkets/Retail (N=1) 1 0 0 0 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =6) 5 1 0 0 0 100 Food and Drinks (N=1) 0 0 1 0 0 0

Total responders 6 1 1 0 0 88 4. Work pattern Supermarkets/Retail (N=1) 1 0 0 0 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =6) 2 4 0 0 0 100 Food and Drinks (N=1) 0 1 0 0 0 100

Total responders 3 5 0 0 0 100 5. Travel distance Supermarkets/Retail (N=1) 1 0 0 0 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =6) 2 4 0 0 0 100 Food and Drinks (N=1) 0 1 0 0 0 100

Total responders 3 5 0 0 0 100 6. Floor surface Supermarkets/Retail (N=1) 1 0 0 0 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =6) 1 5 0 0 0 100 Food and Drinks (N=1) 0 1 0 0 0 100

Total responders 2 6 0 0 0 100 7. Obstacles along the route Supermarkets/Retail (N=1) 1 0 0 0 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =6) 1 4 1 0 0 83 Food and Drinks (N=1) 1 0 0 0 0 100

Total responders 3 4 1 0 0 86 8. Other factors Supermarkets/Retail (N=1) 1 0 0 0 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =6) 1 4 1 0 0 83 Food and Drinks (N=1) 0 1 0 0 0 100

Total responders 2 5 1 0 0 86 #-Percentage of positive responders, i.e., those who response was very easy or easy

39

Table E-3. Overall perceptions of the tool and confidence after using it

Issue/Industry group 1. A method for identifying risk factors

Very easy

Easy Neutral Hard Very Hard % +ve

Wheeled equipment operation Supermarkets/Retail (N=3) 3 0 0 0 0 100 Motor Manufacturing (N=1) 0 1 0 0 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =11) 6 5 0 0 0 100 Food and Drinks (N=2) 1 1 0 0 0 100 Metal processing (N=1) 1 0 0 0 0 100 Total responders 11 7 0 0 0 100 Non-wheeled item operation Supermarkets/Retail (N=1) 1 0 0 0 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =6) 4 2 0 0 0 100 Food and Drinks (N=1) 0 1 0 0 0 100 Total responders 5 3 0 0 0 100 2. Increasing awareness of risk factors

Very useful

Definitely useful

Not sure Somewhat useful

Not at all useful

% +ve

Wheeled equipment operation Supermarkets/Retail (N=3) 1 1 0 1 0 67 Motor Manufacturing (N=1) 0 0 1 0 0 0 Logistics/Distribution (N =11) 3 7 1 0 0 91 Food and Drinks (N=2) 2 0 0 0 0 100 Metal processing (N=1) 0 1 0 0 0 100 Total responders 6 9 2 1 0 83 Non-wheeled item operation Supermarkets/Retail (N=1) 0 0 0 1 0 0 Logistics/Distribution (N =6) 3 3 0 0 0 100 Food and Drinks (N=1) 1 0 0 0 0 100 Total responders 4 3 0 1 0 88 3. An aid for meeting responsibilities Supermarkets/Retail (N=3) 0 0 0 2 1 0 Motor Manufacturing (N=1) 0 1 0 0 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =11) 6 4 1 0 0 91 Food and Drinks (N=2) 2 0 0 0 0 100 Metal processing (N=1) 0 1 0 0 0 100 Total responders 8 6 1 2 1 78 4. Effect on confidence Greatly

improved Definitely improved

Improved Not improved

Supermarkets/Retail (N=3) 0 1 0 2 33 Motor Manufacturing (N=1) 0 1 0 0 100 Logistics/Distribution (N =11) 0 1 5 5 54 Food and Drinks (N=2) 0 0 2 0 100 Metal processing (N=1) 1 0 0 0 100 Total responders 1 3 7 7 61

#-Percentage of positive responders, i.e. those whose response was very easy or easy, very useful or useful, and/or improved

40

F. THE FINAL PUSH-PULL OPERATIONS RISK ASSESSMENT TOOL (PROTOTYPE C)

INTRODUCTION

This draft assessment tool is designed to help assess the key risks in manual pushing and pulling operations (as defined by the Manual Handling Operations Regulations guidance MHOR (HSE, 2004)) involving whole body effort, e.g. moving loaded trolleys, roll cages, etc; dragging, hauling, sliding or rolling loads. It is intended to be an addition to the Manual Handling Assessment Charts (MAC), which helps assess lifting and carrying operations, and assumes familiarity with MAC. This tool is intended to help Enforcing Authority visiting officers and those responsible for health and safety in workplaces to identify high-risk pushing and pulling activities. It is also intended to help duty holders evaluate the effectiveness of intervention by before and after assessments. STRUCTURE OF THE TOOL

There are two types of assessment that can be carried out with this tool: • Pushing and pulling operations involving wheeled equipment, such as hand trucks, trolleys, carts

or wheelbarrows (Section A). • Pushing and pulling operations involving non-wheeled items, e.g. dragging, /sliding, churning

[pivoting and rolling] and rolling (Section B). For each type of assessment there is a flow chart, an assessment guide and a score sheet to complete. The flow charts provide an overview of the risk factors and assessment process while the assessment guides provide information to help you determine the level of risk for each risk factor. Note: The tool is not appropriate for assessing the following pushing and/or pulling operations:

• Those involving just the upper limbs, e.g. pushing buttons/knobs, pulling levers, moving loads which are on a conveyor (these are considered in other publications, e.g. HSG60), and

• Those involving just the lower limbs, e.g. pushing on pedals, or with the feet. • Those involving powered handling equipment. Furthermore, as with MAC, Use of this tool does not comprise a full risk assessment. HOW TO COMPLETE AN ASSESSMENT

• Spend some time observing the workers and activity to ensure that what you are seeing is representative of normal working practice. Consult with the employees and safety representatives during the assessment process. Where several people do the same activity, make sure you have some insight into the demands of the operation from all workers’ perspective.

• Select the appropriate type of assessment to be conducted (i.e., pushing and pulling wheeled equipment or pushing and pulling non-wheeled items). If both types of operation occur, consider them both separately.

• Ensure you read the assessment guide before you make your assessment. • Follow the appropriate flow chart and assessment guide to determine the level of risk for each risk

factor. The levels of risk are classified below:

G = GREEN – Low level of risk A = AMBER – Medium level of risk

41

R = RED – High level of risk P = PURPLE – Very high level of risk

• Enter the colour band and corresponding numerical score in the appropriate column of the score sheet. It is possible to use intermediate scores if the factor you are assessing is not clear-cut but falls between two categories. Enter the remaining task information asked for on the score sheet.

• Add up the scores to obtain the total Operation Score. A system for interpreting the total score for an operation is presented in the following table:

Operation Score

Estimated level of risk /Recommended action

0 – 7 Low Consider the individual elements 8 – 14 Medium Examine the operation closely

15 or more High Investigate the operation urgently (Consider expert intervention)

• The total Operation Scores help prioritise those activities that need most urgent attention and help

check the effectiveness of any interventions applied. The colour bands help determine which elements of the operation require attention.

Further reading

Health and Safety Executive HSE (2002) Upper limb disorders in the workplace HSG60 (2nd Edition) HSE Books, ISBN 0 7176 1978 8 Health and Safety Executive HSE (2004) Manual Handling Operations Regulations, 1992 (as amended): Guidance on Regulations (L23), 3rd Edition HSE Books, Sudbury, Suffolk

42

SECTION A. PUSH-PULL OPERATIONS INVOLVING WHEELED EQUIPMENT Flow chart

Start

Please insert the colour and numerical scores on the score sheet (page 47)

3. Hand grip/ coupling

Good

Reasonable

Poor

0

1

2

5. Travel distance

Short

Medium

Long

0

1

3

2. Posture

Good

Reasonable

Poor

0

3

6

6. Condition of equipment

Good

Reasonable

Poor

0

2

4

9. Other factors

None

Few

Several

0

1

2

8. Obstacles along the route

Low

Medium

High

0

2

3

7. Floor surface

Good

Reasonable

Poor

0

1

4

Very high

1. Load weight

Low

Medium

High

0

2

4

8

4. Work pattern Good

Reasonable

Poor

0

1

3

43

SECTION A. PUSH-PULL OPERATIONS INVOLVING WHEELED EQUIPMENT Assessment guide A-1 Type of equipment / Load weight (kg) Identify the type of equipment; Note the number of equipment that is moved at a time; Note the total load on each equipment (weight of the equipment and weight of load carried) moved from labelling, by questioning the workers or by direct measurement of a sample of the items.

1 If one equipment is moved at a time and different loads are involved, assess the heaviest load. 2 If two or more equipment are moved at a time, assess the total load moved. 3 If two or more different types of equipment are used, do assessment for each type

Type of equipment Weight of load moved Low G/0

Medium A/2

High R/4

Very high P/8

Small, with one or two wheels: for example wheelbarrows, wheelie bins or sack trucks. With this equipment, the worker supports some of the load.

less than 50 kg

50 kg to 100 kg

100 kg to 200 kg

more than 200 kg, or more than capacity of equipment (manufacturer’s recommended maximum weight)

Medium, with three or more fixed wheels

and/or castors: for example, roll cages and Euro bins.

less than 250 kg

250 kg to 500 kg

500 kg to 750 kg

more than 750 kg, more than capacity of equipment (manufacturer’s recommended maximum weight)

Large, steer able: for example pallet truck, or runs on rails.

less than 600 kg

600 kg to 1000 kg

1000 kg to 1500 kg

more than 1500 kg, or more than capacity of equipment (manufacturer’s recommended maximum weight)

Note: If the rated capacity of the equipment is not exceeded, and all the other factors turn out to be green then it may be possible that the effort required can be acceptable even for a load weight within the purple zone. This will however, need to be verified by further investigation or specialist advice.

44

SECTION A. PUSH-PULL OPERATIONS INVOLVING WHEELED EQUIPMENT Assessment guide (continued) A-2 Posture Observe the general position of the hands and the body during the operation.

Good G/0

Reasonable A/3

Poor R/6

Trunk is largely upright and not twisted, and

Trunk is noticeably bent or twisted, or

Trunk is severely bent/twisted, or

Hands are usually between hip and shoulder level

Hands are usually above shoulder level, or One hand is usually used, or

Both hands are behind or on one side of body, or

Body is noticably inclined in the direction of exertion

Body is considerably inclined in direction of exertion, or

Worker squats, kneels or needs to push with the back

A-3 Hand grip Observe the main direction of the push or pull and how the hand(s) grip the equipment. If pushing and pulling is performed relatively equally do the assessment for both actions. Action

Good G/0

Reasonable A/1

Poor R/2

Pulling There are well designed

handles or handhold areas, There are handhold areas There are no handles,

They allow a comfortable grip

They only allow a partial grip i.e. fingers clamped at 90º

The surfaces only allow pinch grasping

Pushing There are fit for purpose handles, or

Surfaces allow partial hand contact, i.e. the areas are too

Surfaces only allow uncomfortable hand

Surfaces allow comfortable full hand contact

small for contact with the whole open hand

contact, i.e., there are pressure points and/or sharp edges

45

SECTION A. PUSH-PULL OPERATIONS INVOLVING WHEELED EQUIPMENT Assessment guide (continued) A-4 Work pattern Observe the work, note whether the operation is repetitive (there are five or more transfers per minute) and whether the worker sets the pace of working. Find out what the general work/break pattern is. Good G/0

Reasonable A/1

Poor R/3

Work is not repetitive (4 or less transfers per minute) and The pace of working is set by the worker

Work is repetitive, but There is opportunity for rest or recovery through formal breaks and/or job rotation

Work is repetitive, and No formal breaks or job rotation opportunities are provided

A-5 Travel distance Determine the distance from start to finish for a single trip (if the operation is repetitive, determine the average distance for at least five trips). Short G/0

Medium A/1

Long R/3

< 10 m 10 to <30 m ≥ 30 m A-6 Condition of equipment Enquire about the maintenance programme, observe the general state of repair of the equipment (condition of the wheels, bearings, and joints). Good G/0

Reasonable A/2

Poor R/4

Maintainance is planned and preventive and/or

Maintenance is corrective (occurs only as problems arise) and/or

Maintenance is not planned (there is no clear system in place) and/or

Equipment is in a good state of repair

Equipment is in a reasonable state of repair

Equipment is in a poor state of repair

A-7 Floor surface Identify the general condition of the floors and determine the level of risk using the following criteria. Good G/0

Reasonable A/1

Poor R/4

Dry and Clean, Generally dry and clean Contaminated Level, Stable, and

(Damp or litter in some areas), Sloping (gradient is 3º to 5º), or Generally stable (carpet)

(Wet or litter in several area) Steep (gradient is > 5º), or Unstable under foot (gravel, sand)

Good condition (not damaged or pitted)

Poor condition (few areas are damaged or pitted)

Very poor condition (many areas are damaged / pitted)

46

SECTION A. PUSH-PULL OPERATIONS INVOLVING WHEELED EQUIPMENT Assessment guide (continued) A-8 Obstacles along the route Note if the equipment is moved over trailing cables, across raised edges, up and/or down steep ramps (gradient is more than 5º), up and/or down flight of two or more steps (steps), through closed/narrow doors, or confined spaces, around bends, corners or objects. Each type of obstacle should only be counted once no matter the number of times it occurs. Low G/0

Medium A/2

High R/3

There are no obstacles present

One or two obstacles are present but no steps or steep ramp

Three or more obstacles but no steps or steep ramps, or There are steps or steep ramps

A-9 Other factors Observe the loading of the equipment and the work environment e.g., extreme temperatures, strong air movements or high vibration/rocking; poor visibility (either because the load is large and obstructs operator’s vision or because the lighting is poor). Select the most appropriate category below. None G/0

Few A/1

Several R/2

No other factors present One factor is present Two or more factors are present

47

SECTION A. PUSH-PULL OPERATIONS INVOLVING WHEELED EQUIPMENT Score sheet

48

SECTION B. PUSH-PULL OPERATIONS NOT INVOLVING WHEELED EQUIPMENT Flow chart

Start Please insert the colour and numerical scores on the score sheet (page 52)

1. Load weight

Low

Medium

High

Very high

0

2

4

8

3. Hand grip

Good

Reasonable

Poor

0

1

2

4. Work pattern

Good

Reasonable

Poor

0

1

3

2. Posture

Good

Reasonable

Poor

0

3

6

5. Travel distance

Short

Medium

Long

0

1

3

8. Other factors

None

Few

Several

0

1

2

7. Obstacles along the route

Low

Medium

High

0

2

3

6. Floor surface

Good

Reasonable

Poor

0

1

4

49

SECTION B. PUSH-PULL OPERATIONS NOT INVOLVING WHEELED EQUIPMENT Assessment guide B-1 Activity / Load weight (kg) Identify the work activity; Note the weight of the load moved (from any labelling provided, by questioning the workers or by direct measurement of a sample of the loads). Activity Weight of load moved

Low G/0

Medium A/2

High R/4

Very high P/8

Rolling less than 400 kg

400 kg to 600 kg

600 kg to 1000 kg

more than 1000 kg

Churning (loads are moved by pivoting and rolling

along the base edges) less than 80 kg

80 kg to 120 kg

120 kg to 150 kg

more than 150 kg

Dragging/hauling or sliding

less than 25 kg

25 kg to 50 kg

50 kg to 80 kg

more than 80 kg

Note: If all the other factors are green, then it may be possible that the effort required can be acceptable even for a load with weight within the purple zone. This will however, need to be verified by further investigation or specialist advice.

50

SECTION B. PUSH-PULL OPERATIONS NOT INVOLVING WHEELED EQUIPMENT Assessment guide (continued) B-2 Posture Observe the general position of the hands and body during the operation.

Good G/0

Reasonable A/3

Poor R/6

Trunk is largely upright and not twisted, and

Trunk is noticeably bent or twisted, or

Trunk is severely bent/twisted, and Only one hand is usually used

Hands are often between hip and shoulder level,

Hands are usually above shoulder level, or

Both hands are on one side of body, or

Body is noticably inclined in the direction of exertion

Body is considerably inclined in direction of exertion, or

One hand is occationally used Worker squats, kneels or needs to push with the back

B-3 Hand grip Identify the main direction of the push or pull and how the hand(s) grip the load. If pushing and pulling is performed relatively equaly, do the assessment for both actions. Action

Good G/0

Reasonable A/1

Poor R/2

Pulling There are handles or handhold areas, and

There are handhold areas There are no handles

They allow a comfortable grip

They only allow a partial grip i.e. fingers clamped at 90º

The surfaces only allow uncomfortable hand contact or pinch grasping

Pushing There are fit for purpose

handles, or Surfaces allow partial hand contact, i.e. the areas are too

Surfaces only allow holding with stretched out fingers, or

Surfaces allow comfortable full hand contact

small for contact with the whole open hand

there are pressure points and/or sharp edges

51

SECTION B. PUSH-PULL OPERATIONS NOT INVOLVING WHEELED EQUIPMENT Assessment guide (continued) B-4 Work pattern Observe the work, note whether the worker sets the pace of working, and whether the operation is repetitive (five loads or more are moved per minute) .Find out what the general work/break pattern is. Good G/0

Reasonable A/1

Poor R/3

Work is not repetitive (4 or less transfers per minute) and The pace of working is set by the worker

The work is repetitive, but There is opportunity for rest or recovery through formal breaks and/or job rotation

The work is repetitive, and No formal breaks or job rotation opportunities are provided

B-5 Travel distance Determine the distance from start to finish for a single trip (if the operation is repetitive determine the average distance for at least five trips, if not determine the distance of the longest trip). Short G/0

Medium A/1

Long R/3

< 2 m 2 to <10 m ≥ 10 m B-6 Floor surface Identify the general condition of the floors and determine the level of risk using the following criteria. Good G/0

Reasonable A/1

Poor R/4

Dry / clean, Generally dry/clean (Damp or litter in some areas), or

Generally contaminated (Wet or litter in several area), and/or

Good condition (not damaged or pitted)

Poor condition (few areas are damaged or pitted)

Very poor condition (many areas are damaged / pitted)

Level, and Sloping (3º to 5 º, gradient), or Steep (gradient is > 5º), or Stable, Generally stable (carpet) Unstable under foot (gravel, sand) B-7 Obstacles along the route Note if the load is moved over trailing cables, across raised edges, up and/or down steep ramps (gradient is more than 5º), up and/or down flight of two or more steps (steps), through closed/narrow doors, or confined spaces, around bends, corners or objects. Each type of obstacle should only be counted once no matter the number of times it occurs. Low G/0

Medium A/2

High R/3

There are no obstacles present

One or two obstacles are present but no steps or steep ramp

Three or more obstacles but no steps or steep ramps, or There are steps or steep ramps

B-8 Other factors Observe the loading of the equipment and the work environment e.g., extreme temperatures, strong air movements or high vibration/rocking; poor visibility (either because the load is large and obstructs operator’s vision or because the lighting is poor). Select the most appropriate category below. None G/0

Few A/1

Several R/2

No other factors present One factor present Two or more factors present

52

SECTION B. PUSH-PULL OPERATIONS NOT INVOLVING WHEELED EQUIPMENT Score sheet

Published by the Health and Safety Executive 02/14

Evaluation of the pushing and pulling operations risk assessment tool by duty holders

Health and Safety Executive

RR999

www.hse.gov.uk

This report describes the usability testing of a prototype tool for assessing the manual handling risks associated with tasks involving pushing or pulling of loads. It builds on earlier work by HSL to develop Pushing and Pulling Operations Assessment Charts (PPAC) (see Research Report 998). Feedback on the assessment of typical operations in the field indicated that the risk factors included in the tool are relevant, useful, relatively easy to identify and that they covered most of the conditions found in workplaces.

Duty holders who took part in the study were able to differentiate between categories of risk for most of the factors, they were also able to argue and justify their choices. The findings indicate that the tool is sufficiently usable and reliable, and it is useful for increasing duty holder confidence in assessing pushing and pulling operations. This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.