18. Occupational Health






The ultimate challenge to a physician is to prevent what he treats.”

Joseph Sweere

Chiropractic has long played a vital role in the treatment of work-related injury and illness, compiling a solid record of clinical and cost-effectiveness. In recent years, development of a chiropractic specialty in occupational health (OH) has significantly expanded the range of work-related services that chiropractors provide. The profession’s focus on treatment has been enlarged to include prevention and interdisciplinary case management.

Traditional roles of OH physicians, safety professionals, and industrial hygienists have been limited and generally separated, but the evolution of modern industry, regulatory overlap, and marketplace forces are bringing these disciplines closer together. 1 The chiropractic OH and safety specialist is well equipped to offer a broad spectrum of needed services for a wide range of industry challenges.


INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION


Prevention Paradigm and Safety Philosophy

According to Heinrich, 88% of accidents are the result of human behavior and therefore preventable. 2 The American Public Health Association states that the cornerstones of prevention are anticipation of the potential for disease or injury, surveillance (accurate identification, reporting, and recording of occupational disease and injury), analysis of collected data, and control. 3

Traditional methods of controlling or eliminating workplace hazards include engineering out or removing the hazard, using personal protective equipment (PPE), administrative interventions, and training in the proper and safe use of equipment. Engineering is frequently quite costly and therefore cannot be used in many potentially hazardous environments. If the hazard cannot be engineered out, administrative controls may limit worker exposure time through job rotation or schedule changes. Worker selection strategies may limit exposure of workers who are incapable of performing certain jobs. Job training is essential to provide workers with instruction in safe and efficient performance of required duties; workers must be trained to minimize risk of injury or illness.

Corporate realities depend on the bottom line. Companies ask: if we commit to practicing prevention, can we stay in business, make a profit, and remain competitive? If the answer is yes, prevention and safety become part of the corporate culture. If not, prevention is reduced to after-injury record keeping, accident investigations, and invoking safety regulations. This reactive posturing results in increased accident rates and costly worker’s compensation (WC) claims.

Industrialized nations are moving toward prevention strategies. In many cases, this effort is driven by the high cost of work-related injury and illness, although in some instances, the desire to embrace prevention is an organic outgrowth of good management principles.


Chiropractor’s Role in Industry






Chiropractic OH consultant Robert Lynch was contacted by SACO Defense, Inc., a Maine firearm manufacturer, to assist in reducing musculoskeletal injury and lost workdays. After 3 months of detailed ergonomic analysis, Dr. Lynch advised implementation of a broad range of prevention strategies. Ergonomic improvements were made whenever possible. Over 500 employees were trained in workplace safety measures. Included was a regime of exercises designed by Dr. Lynch, which employees performed for approximately 5 minutes two or three times a day.

Lost workdays plummeted by 66%. SACO’s WC premiums dropped from $2 million in 1989 to $40,000 in 1993. In 1990, SACO experienced 44 lost-time injuries, with 913 workdays lost. In 1994, two lost-time injuries occurred, with a total of 3 days lost—an 82% improvement in lost-time injuries and a 73% reduction in WC costs per hours worked. 8


OCCUPATIONAL ERGONOMICS

Ergonomic science is the study of people in relation to their jobs. 9,10 Included are environmental aspects of the workplace, such as temperature, light, noise, adequate airflow, and the physical arrangement of the workplace. Because ergonomics is closely associated with neuromusculoskeletal (NMS) injury and disease, emphasis is placed on the design of the workplace as it relates to physical demands placed on the worker. Individuals have different physical capabilities and limitations. A key concept in applied ergonomics is to fit the job to the worker rather than force the worker to fit the job.910 and 11 Applied ergonomics seeks to improve worker comfort through analysis and application of ergonomic principles.

Chiropractic education and training provides an excellent foundation for understanding the biomechanical basis of applied ergonomics. Anatomy, physiology, pathophysiology, posture, and biomechanics are fundamental aspects of ergonomics. The chiropractic postgraduate OH program includes problem-solving skill development, anthropometrics, safety engineering, risk factor identification and analysis, methods for passive and active analysis of the workplace, safety engineering, development and implementation of control strategies, ergonomic programs, and communication skills to increase effectiveness with industry.


Anthropometrics
















NASA: Male 70.8 inches, 181 lb Female 61.8 inches, 113.5 lb
Chaffin: Male 69 inches Female 63.7 inches
Selan: Male 69 inches Female 63.9 inches

The Golden Rule of Design states that clearance allowances must be designed for the largest users and reach capabilities must be designed for the smallest users. Incorporating adjustability whenever possible is important.


Back Pain Risk Factors

Physical and emotional risk factors associated with low back pain (LBP) in the workplace are highly relevant to chiropractic practice. Correlations have been found between LBP and the following13:


• Lack of job satisfaction


• Duration of employment under 5 years


• Time of day (6:00 am to noon)


• Sense of monotony on the job


• Alcohol consumption


• Drug abuse


• Smoking tobacco


• Taller stature


Cumulative Trauma Disorders Risk Factors

Key risk factors associated with cumulative trauma disorders (CTDs) include repetition or frequency of motion, force of exertion, posture of the body, duration of task, recovery or cycle time, exposure to cold temperatures, and exposure to vibration.9141516171819 and 20

Gilkey and Williams provide a detailed synopsis of key points in the proposed Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) ergonomic standards. 21 Of particular importance are the following signal risk factors for CTDs:


• Performance of the same motion or motion pattern every few seconds for more than 2 continuous hours or for more than 4 hours total in the 8-hour work shift


• Fixed or awkward posture for more than a total of 2 to 4 hours


• Use of a vibrating or impact tool for more than a total of 2 to 4 hours


• Using forceful hand exertions for more than a total of 2 to 4 hours


• Unassisted frequent or forceful manual handling for more than a total of 1 to 2 hours

Other risk factors associated with developing CTDs include age (50% of claimants are over age 50), hypertension, coronary heart disease, stroke, hyperlipidemia, genetic factors, alcohol and tobacco use, lack of exercise, and poor diet. 22 Researchers have recently identified a carpal tunnel gene, suggestive of a genetic predisposition for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) that may exist in certain populations. The MCP-1 gene might be a candidate for the genetic marker of CTS development. Individuals with this gene are at increased risk for developing CTS. 23


Performing the Ergonomic Evaluation


Passive Analysis

The first step in ergonomic evaluation is passive analysis of workplace data, which should be performed every 2 years to ensure that negative trends in injury or illness are not occurring. If available, documents describing types and patterns of worker injuries and illness should be thoroughly evaluated by the OH physician. Simple review and analysis of company documents can reveal significant clues to the presence of ergonomic hazards and related injuries.

Passive analysis begins with a review of OSHA logs for incidence and details of back injuries or CTDs. 11,24,25 This appraisal is followed by review of accident investigation reports for details about injuries and calculation of incidence rates (IR) and severity rates (SR) for CTDs and back injuries. Next comes detailed assessment of employee records and WC claims, health care costs related to CTDs and back injuries, absenteeism rates, requests for job changes, employee turnover rates, employee training records, and past safety inspections, audits, and reports. Passive analysis calls for detective skills on the part of the analyst; the goal is to search for patterns contributing to injuries.

IR calculation can provide a comparison to a known industry standard. A high IR usually indicates a need for ergonomic and prevention intervention. SR calculation indicates the serious nature of injuries and potential costs associated with lost workdays. The calculation of IR and SR can be accomplished as follows11,24,25:




B9780323018128500232/si1.gif is missing




B9780323018128500232/si2.gif is missing


Active Analysis

Work site evaluation affords the chiropractic OH physician the opportunity to observe, sample, measure, and record the presence of potential ergonomic hazards. This active analysis requires the OH physician to select the best tools for the job; no single form or checklist exists that is applicable to all workplaces. 11 The specific nature of job tasks at each workplace determines the most appropriate approach for active analysis, which may include checklists, observations, interviews, videos, photographs, sampling, measuring, and monitoring. 11,24,25 The information gleaned from these various procedures is correlated with passive analysis findings to develop ergonomic prevention strategies. 11,24

Active analysis should emphasize surveillance for potential ergonomic hazards such as:


• Excessive force


• Frequent repetitions


• Awkward postures


• Contact stress


• Short cycle times


• Automated pace


• Monotony


• High psychologic stress


• Lack of control


• Excessive noise


• Excessive heat or cold


• Poor lighting


• Destructive work culture


Ergonomic Intervention

Implementation of ergonomic controls endeavors to fit the job to the worker. When possible, the first step is to engineer out the hazard. Today’s technological marketplace offers a wide array of ergonomic devices and equipment for both manufacturing and sedentary workplaces. Design solutions are specific to each work site. Recommendations may include engineering interventions such as mechanical lift assist devices, power-driven hand tools, and adjustable workstations; ergonomic PPE such as friction-enhancing gloves, protective eye wear, and hearing-conservation wear; ergonomic training in proper work postures, proper lifting techniques, and fitness instruction; and administrative interventions, including job rotations and changes in break schedule and production rate.

Some ergonomic challenges require only simple intervention, while others entail complex and costly solutions. Communication with company management and all affected individuals is essential. Once intervention has been completed and an ergonomic program is underway, results may be measured by the same passive and active analysis methods used earlier. Programs should be monitored on an ongoing basis and audited every 2 years to document results and the need for further intervention. 11


NEUROMUSCULOSKELETAL ILLNESS AND INJURY


Scope of the Problem

Between 60% and 80% of the general population will suffer from LBP at some point in their lives, and 5% to 30% experience LBP at any given time. 27 The burden to social and financial systems is significant. Estimates suggest that 22.4 million cases of back pain occur annually, equaling a 12-month period prevalence of 17.6% in the general populations, and 65% are work related. 28 Back pain is the most frequently cited reason for worker’s filing injury claims. According to the National Safety Council (NSC), low back disorders make up 30% to 40% of all WC injuries. 29 The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) reports that 19% to 25% of all WC claims are for back pain. 30 Back pain is the second most frequently recorded reason for lost workdays in America, the common cold being first. 31 The Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) reports that back pain accounts for more than 500 million lost workdays each year. 30 On any given day, an estimated 6.5 million people are home from work, in bed, as a result of back pain. New back pain cases are generated at a rate of 1.5 million per month. 31





Varicon, a glass manufacturing company with annual sales over $60 million, was suffering from an epidemic of low back injury cases when chiropractic physician and OH diplomate Joseph Sweere was called in to provide an ergonomic assessment. Dr. Sweere’s recommendations included ergonomic improvements, safety training, wellness education, and worker preplacement selection and screening.

Following implementation of Sweere’s prevention plans, Varicon’s incidence of low back injury decreased by 80%. 26 The Varicon case established the efficacy of the biomechanical stress index (BSI), which is now widely use by chiropractic OH consultants.

Equally significant as the prevalence of back pain and injury are the costs associated with it. The average cost of a work-related lower back injury in Ohio was $23,716 in 1990, which increased to $30,000 by 1994. 32,33 In addition, NSC reports that the total actual costs of all work-related injuries was $122.6 billion in 1999. 29 Most WC carriers agree that back injuries are the most expensive claims, comprising 65% to 90% of benefit costs. 32 The real economic impact of back pain also includes hidden costs, bringing total back pain expenses as high as $100 billion annually.3334 and 35 Because of the prevalence and costs, a growing shift in awareness and concern has occurred about NMS injury and illness in the workplace. Although back pain clearly remains the number one challenge to industry, CTDs have emerged as a sleeping giant.


Cumulative Trauma Disorders

Review of the literature from the United States shows a sharp rise in the number of CTDs affecting upper extremity (UE) between 1981 and 1994:


• 1981: CTDs make up 18% of occupational illness; approximately 20,500 cases reported. 36


• 1982: CTDs make up 21% of occupational illness; approximately 22,000 cases reported. 37


• 1988: CTDs make up 48% of occupational illness; 115,000 cases reported. 16


• 1990: CTDs make up 50% of occupational illness; 147,000 cases reported. 37


• 1991: CTDs make up 56% of occupational illness; 223,000 cases reported. 38


• 1992: CTDs make up 60% of occupational illness; 282,000 cases reported. 36


• 1993: CTDs make up 60% of occupational illness; 302,000 cases reported. 37


• 1994: CTDs make up 68% of occupational illness; 332,000 cases reported. 39


• 1995: CTDs make up 62% of occupational illness; 308,000 cases reported. 40

BLS, NIOSH, and OSHA began to consolidate the injury and illness data in 1994 by combining NMS disorders for both UE and lower back related to ergonomic risk factors such as overexertion and repetitive motion. These conditions are now identified as musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs):


• 1994: MSDs affecting UE and back; 705,800 cases reported. 39


• 1995: MSDs affecting UE and back; 705,000 cases reported. 40


• 1996: MSDs affecting UE and back; 647,344 cases reported. 41


• 1997: MSDs affecting UE and back; 603,096 cases reported. 42



• 1999: MSDs affecting UE and back; 598,000 cases reported. 44


• 2000: MSDs affecting UE and back; 577,800 cases reported. 45

A 770% increase in CTDs was reported between 1983 and 1993, a trend attributed to increased public awareness of CTDs, broader definitions of compensable claims, increased numbers of service industry workers, and increased use of video display terminals (VDTs).38

A decreasing trend has been evident since 1994 with nearly an 18% drop in the number of reported MSDs reported between 1994 and 2000. Explanations for this encouraging trend may include a positive response by industry to the increased emphasis by OSHA and labor organizations on curtailing the MSD epidemic in American workplaces. OSHA had allocated significant resources to developing the Ergonomic Standard, resulting in increased public awareness and concern over the number of workers affected with MSDs. The Standard, short lived as it was (discontinued in 2001), served as motivation for many businesses to engage prevention strategies to reduce ergonomic risk factors.

CTDs are reported as occupational illnesses, not injuries. CTDs make up only 4% of the reported work-related injuries but constitute approximately 60% of work-related illnesses. 46,47 Despite the alarming numbers, some experts believe that CTDs may be underreported, with IR as much as 130% higher. 46

CTDs are not only the fastest growing workplace illness, but also one of the most expensive occupational illnesses to treat. Cost estimates have recently been established at $20 billion to $27 billion per year in the United States. 36,48,49 The National Council on Compensation Insurance has stated that the average CTD case costs $29,000, including wage loss and treatment, in the early 1990s. Litigation and settlement costs exceed the medical and lost wage expenses, averaging $50,000 per case. 50 Costs for managing MSDs have risen to an average of $84,000 for surgical cases, with basic medical management averaging approximately $23,000 per case51 (Fig. 18-1).








B9780323018128500232/gr1.jpg is missing
Fig. 18-1

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics Safety and Health Statistics program.

(Additional information is available from Department of Labor: Lost-worktime injuries and illnesses: characteristics and resulting time away from work, 1999, [news release], USDL, 01-71.)



RESEARCH ON CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS

Only recently has serious research been undertaken to establish the relationship between workplace activities and exposures and specific ergonomic-related injury and illness. 20 This relationship is, of course, self-evident to many injured workers, and the existence of ergonomic hazards has long been recognized. Bernadini Ramazini, the father of occupational medicine, wrote in 1713:



So much for workers whose diseases are caused by the injurious qualities of the material they handle. I now wish to turn to other workers in whom certain morbid affections gradually arise from other causes, from particular posture of the limbs or unnatural movements of the body called for while they work. Such are the workers who all day long stand or sit, stoop or are bent double; who run or ride or exercise their bodies in all sorts of ways. 9

Despite this nearly 300-year-old warning, no formal study in ergonomics was undertaken until 1949 when the British Admiralty held the first ergonomics symposium. 52 A recent landmark in this evolving field came in 1995, when Silverstein and colleagues, in an evaluation of the literature on work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) prepared for OSHA’s ergonomics task force, 20 stated that, “The literature shows unarguably that certain jobs and certain work-related factors are associated with the manifold risk of contracting a WMSD compared to other population groups or groups not exposed to these risk factors.”

NIOSH and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) both set forth to assess the literature in a similar fashion using the same basic criteria as that used by Silverstein. The intent was to evaluate the state of science relating to work exposures and MSD endpoints. The initial searches yielded over 2000 studies examining risk factors followed by a detailed analysis of over 600 high-quality articles. The conclusions were overwhelmingly supportive of work relatedness of MSDs. 39,53

The literature search and evaluation process that Silverstein presented focused on cumulative trauma rather than musculoskeletal accidents or back injuries, 20 whereas the studies by NIOSH and NAS focused on all MSDs. 39,53 The basic cause-and-effect process for CTDs is described as follows. 20,39,53“It is assumed…that repeated efforts (movements, postures, etc.), static work, continuous loading of the tissue structures, or lack of recovery time trigger or cause a pathological process that then manifests itself as WMSD.”

Strength of data was ranked for a variety of CTDs, based on the following criteria20,39,53:


1. Do the results of the studies show an association between disease and work exposure?


2. Do the results show a temporal (time-related) relationship?


3. Is there consistency in the association?


4. Can a change in disease be predicted by a change in work exposure?


5. Is there coherence of evidence?

NIOSH ranked the scientific evidence for risk factors of repetition, force, posture, and vibration as: strong, evidence, insufficient evidence, and evidence of no effect. NIOSH then offered the status of understanding to each area of the body, including neck and neck-shoulder, shoulder, elbow, hand-wrist, and back (Table 18-1).






































































































































Table 18-1 EVIDENCE FOR CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHYSICAL WORK FACTORS AND MSDS
From Bernard BP: Musculoskeletal disorders and workplace factors, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1997, National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health, No. 97-141.© 1997
Body Part Risk Factor Strong Evidence (+++) Evidence (++) Insufficient Evidence (+/0) Evidence of No Effect (−)
NECK AND NECK/SHOULDER
Repetition

Force

Posture

Vibration

SHOULDER
Posture

Force

Repetition

Vibration

Elbow
Repetition

Force

Posture

Combination

HAND/WRIST
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
Repetition

Force

Posture

Vibration

Combination

Tendonitis
Repetition

Force

Posture

Combination

Hand-Arm Vibration Syndrome
Vibration

BACK
Lifting/forceful movement

Awkward posture

Heavy physical work

Whole body vibration

Static work posture

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Aug 22, 2016 | Posted by in MUSCULOSKELETAL MEDICINE | Comments Off on 18. Occupational Health

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access