Case Studies

In today’s challenging economic times, improvements in operations become critical to staying in business. Money spent on preventable work-related injuries, or losses to productivity, affect the bottom line revenue of a facility. The following evidence-based case studies demonstrate how work practices and equipment that reduce injury can improve productivity and outcomes, and ultimately reduce waste and errors and improve workplace satisfaction and bottom line finances.

Participatory Ergonomics Training:Case Study

Courage to Change lecture programs provide engaging,inspiring and insightful looks into implementing safe practices in the workplace. Based on a holistic approach to work life balance and a practical look at safety, workers are guided to making positive changes through breaking down processes into manageable pieces. Although the causes of work related injury are complex, education in ergonomics empowers workers with the tools to manage their risk for injury.

Industry:	Healthcare, Environmental Services
Employees:	100
Problem:	These 100 workers represent 3.3% of the total workforce of this community hospital, yet they sustain 30% of all injuries for the institution. Many workers are older, working two jobs and speak English as a second language (ESL). Work safety training has been difficult to achieve.
Solution:	Provided multi-format in-service training in body mechanics and injury avoidance. A combination of learning styles was accommodated through the use of verbal, visual and auditory communication. Employees were provided tools for participating in their own risk assessment and safety management.
Success:	Prior to the training, 44% said they’d had more than an average amount of prior work safety training, and 54% said their prior training was highly effective, however, only 38% felt confident with their understanding of postural alignment as it relates to work safety. Following the training, 76% felt that their understanding of postural alignment as it relates to work safety was above average, and 88% felt confident that they could take the information back into their work environment and apply it. Of note: 50% of the attendees were of ESL designation, with 11 different languages represented (although some did not specify their native language).
Impact:	A one week follow up showed that 50% of attendees actively used the body mechanics training for problem solving in their work environment, demonstrating a successful start to an ergonomics program driven by employee participation. Further follow up pending.

Participatory Ergonomics Training: Case Study

Catalyst In-Service Training provides detailed instruction for staff specific to their work environment. Training included:
a. Understanding and recognizing risks for work-related injury in sonography
b. Ergonomic optimization of current exam table, chair, U/S system
c. Proper positioning for the reduction of risk for injury
d. Alternate scanning techniques for reducing exposure to risk factors
e. PACS workstation tips for injury prevention

A two-hour hands-on training was provided in an in-service format, held at the work site, with the opportunity for each sonographer to walk through the concepts presented, utilizing their own workstation equipment. Although the causes of work-related injury are complex, education in ergonomics empowers workers with the tools to manage their risk for injury.

Industry:	Healthcare, Perinatal Ultrasound Services
Employees:	4
Problem:	These workers represent a highly skilled workforce, providing high level services not available at all hospitals. Historically, they sustain a rate of work related injury greater than 80%. Replacement staff is not readily available due to the specific expertise of these workers.
Solution:	Provided multi-format in-service training in body mechanics and injury avoidance. A process of risk identification was presented, along with tools for the application of risk prevention techniques.
Success:	Prior to the training, half of the group said they’d had more than an average amount of prior work safety training and felt confident with their understanding of postural alignment as it relates to work safety. Following the training, all but one person (75%) felt that their understanding of postural alignment as it relates to work safety was improved, and felt confident that they could take the information back into their work environment and apply it. The one who reported no change in their understanding of work safety concepts unfortunately had missed a large part of the in-service because of patient scheduling conflicts. Of note: In spite of prior work safety knowledge, half reported an average degree of work-related injury symptoms and the remaining half reported an above average level of symptoms. This suggests an inability to achieve risk-reducing postures as a result of equipment barriers. Workstation equipment was evaluated, and found to the lack suitable for the reduction of risk during scanning. Specifically, there were concerns both related to patient safety and worker safety.
Impact:	A one week follow up showed that all participants attempted applying countermeasures to several different work tasks involving both scanning and computer activities. Successful outcomes were reported on 70% of the countermeasures. Unsuccessful outcomes were reported on 30% of attempted countermeasures. There was a definite pattern to the unsuccessful outcomes, which was also confirmed in reviewing the equipment barriers. These areas of challenge consistently involved duties related to scanning, specifically with respect to exam table adjustments, ultrasound system monitor adjustments and scanning chair adjustability. The greatest successes were reported in modifications to the tasks related to the PACS/computer workstation area—not surprising, because this is a task for which we specifically discussed abatement methods during the session training.