Manual Handling Report

A Report of the results of the Manual Handling

Inspection Programme 2001

Prepared By: Frank Power, Ergonomist (Health & Safety Inspector)

Submissions from: Louise Fitzgerald and Bernadette Gannon

November 20, 2001.

Introduction

In 2000, 35% of the accidents reported to the Health and Safety Authority were injuries

resulting from manual handling activity. Across Europe the prevalence of back injury

amongst workers remains consistent at over 30%.

The Health and Safety Authority has recognised that this is a serious workplace issue that

needs to be addressed. At the beginning of 2001 the Health and Safety Authority

launched a four year manual handling initiative within its work programme. A key part

of this programme was the completion of a specific set of inspections in the first year of

the programme, across a number of sectors with a focus on manual handling. This report

is a summary of the main findings from this initial inspection programme. In 2002 to

2004 the Authority will roll out its prevention strategy.

Objective

The objective of this report is to summarise the main findings from the manual handling

inspection programme 2001 and to make recommendations on actions needed as part of

the next phase of this programme of work.

Summary

This initial Manual handling inspection programme was completed during the period

February – July 2001. The results of the inspections have being detailed in this report and

a number of recommendations for future action have been proposed. These include

further enforcement and education on the importance of risk assessment, investigation to

determine if there is a need to have a system in place for assessing training bodies,

education of designers/architects on their duties in relation to manual handling, a more indepth

study of manual handling in the five sectors considered and in particular the

construction sector, development of links with the Department of Health and the

Insurance Federation and the need for further scientific research. This inspection

programme has highlighted important issues to be addressed however it should not be

assumed that this study alone will identify all the reasons for the high rates of injury due

to manual handling activity.

To achieve a target of reducing reported injuries due to manual handling injuries by 20%

in 4 years may be difficult for a number of reasons; injury rates reported will increase as

awareness improves, the nature of the injuries are cumulative over a number of years and

the root causes need to be identified through further research. 1

1 HSE Target is to reduce the incidence rate of Work related Musculoskeletal disorders MSD by 12% by

2004

Methodology

In early January 2001 the Manual Handling Expert Group got together to decide on an

approach for carrying out the manual handling inspections. The group was made up of:

Pat Griffin Inspector Grade 1

Bernadatte Gannon Operations Inspector

Louise Fitzgerald Occupational Health (Inspector)

Frank Power Ergonomist (Inspector)

The group agreed that the inspections should aim to gather information under a number

of headings including general observations, training, risk assessment and task analysis.

A checklist tool was developed in order to assess tasks where it was feasible.

The inspections were carried out during the period February – July 2001. At the end of

August the group met again to decide on a procedure for analysing the quantitative and

qualitative results of the inspections. By the middle of October 2001 the analysis from

each group member were presented for inclusion in this final report.

Other activities carried out during the year included talks to interested bodies on

Ergonomics and Manual Handling. These bodies included the Irish Bank Official

Association (IBOA), who represent a large number of people working in the call centre

sector, Teagasc, and the Irish Society of Chartered Physiotherapists.

Meetings were also held with parties working in the construction sector including CIF,

ICTU and building contractors.

Initial research was carried out to identify international approaches and developments in

relation to manual handling, ergonomics and management of musculoskeletal disorders.

Work was also started on drafting a guide for inspectors on Manual handling which will

evolve and develop over the next year.

Results

The results of the inspections are broken down by sector, however the overall quantitative

analysis is detailed below:

• Manual Handling Risk Assessment

Total Number of Inspections 180

• Manual Handling Training

Total Number of Inspections 180

A major finding of this study is that training provided was generally not based on

adequate task risk assessment, a basic requirement of the current manual handling

regulations.

The sector specific results are detailed below. The qualitative findings are detailed in the

main report with supporting analysis in the Appendices.

Manual Handling Risk

Assessment across

all sectors

17%

83%

Yes

Manual Handling Training across

all sectors

40%

60%

Yes

Manufacturing Sector

• Manual Handling Risk Assessment

Total Number of Inspections 61

An engineering company visited had a number of hoists in place for handling heavy

loads. However there were still a number of manual handling activities being carried out

which had not been assessed. For example, an accident resulted in an operative hurting

his back while handling a metal vice weighing 60kg. This was a regular activity, which

had never been assessed. The vice was replaced with a light weight vice weighing 20kg.

In sites where a risk assessment did exist the assessment contained the following basic

and inadequate information:

Process: Manual Handling

Risk: Muscle Strain

Control: Get assistance if lifting equipment is not suitable

One facility had documented in their risk assessment that a suitable control measure was

to provide training in safe lift techniques to reduce the risk of injury. While inspecting

this site there were a number of major issues identified including pushing/pulling 1 tonne

loads using a hand pallet truck, lack of maintenance of mechanical aids and overloaded

pallets.

Manual Handling Risk Assessment in

the Manufacturing sector

26%

74%

Yes

• Qualitative Analysis

Poor design of the workplace often causes problems in relation to manual handling. In

one heavy engineering company visited, there was a need to carry out high levels of

manual handling of heavy loads. Ideally these loads should be moved with a hoist,

however the building design did not lend itself to the installation of hoists in the confined

spaces where the handling was taking place.

One light engineering company, which had a high manual handling injury rate addressed

the issue by introducing a number of strategies to reduce manual handling injuries

including:

- External consultant gave intensive training to engineers on how to assess manual

handling activity using the NIOSH lifting equation2

- Assessments were carried out and changes were made to systems of work which

were identified as high risk

- A system was developed for dealing with light/restricted work duties for injured

workers

- All accidents were investigated thoroughly and dubious claims were dealt with

appropriately

- All new equipment and systems of work had to adhere to strict health and safety

requirements

The injury rates had dropped significantly after three years.

• Training

Total Number of Inspections 61

Training was quite common in this sector. There were some issues in terms of the quality

of training; most courses failed to address risk assessment, some people giving the

training had not completed the 5 day instructor training course and also the practical on

safe lifting was not related to tasks in the workplace.

2 NIOSH Equation: This is a risk assessment tool for assessing manual handling activity, which is, was

developed by NIOSH in the United States.

Manual Handling Training in the

Manufacturing sector

57%

43% Yes

Construction

• Manual Handling Risk Assessment

Total Number of Inspections 27

In general risk assessment was non existent, the risk assessments observed identified the

following generic controls

- Items lifted should be marked with weight

- Wear gloves

• Training

Total Number of Inspections 27

A low level of training is being provided in the construction sector, the reasons for this

need to be established. The training that was provided was basic and in most cases

consisted of showing a video on safe lift techniques. This Training was considered by

Manual Handling Risk Assessmentt

in the Construction sector

93%

Yes

Manual Handling Training in the

Construction sector

22%

78%

Yes

most in this sector to be acceptable in terms of meeting the requirements of the manual

handling regulations. In studies carried out in the US, it was found that training will only

gain credibility when genuine thought is put into reviewing the actual tasks that have to

be performed on site. Another critical aspect was carrying out follow up visits to

determine if improvements in systems of work were possible. This approach had very

positive results in the U.S. study.

• Qualitative Analysis

Concrete window sills weighing 152kg were being handled manually on one site by

general operatives, the operation would require manipulation and awkward posture in

order to transfer the sill onto the ledge. The Safety Officer on site had raised this as an

issue with the Architect. This is an example of a manual handling issue, which must be

researched thoroughly in order to identify the following:

- Who specified the sill?

- Are there methods of transferring the sill mechanically?

- Are these sills used countrywide?

Many issues on construction sites will have impact across the industry; therefore it is

necessary to take this into account when deciding on further action.

Designers recommend T32 steel for steel fixing which is very heavy and awkward to

handle. One steel fitting contractor stated that T16 steel is easy to move and work with as

it is lighter in weight despite the fact that you would need to lift two instead of one.

There are so many tasks involving manual handling taking place on construction sites,

that it will be necessary to carry out further in-depth inspection; to gain an understanding

of tasks completed, the range of load weights handled, the range of mechanical aids

available, the potential to develop smarter and better planned systems of work as well as

looking at the role of designers, manufacturers and suppliers.

Scaffold Company: Scaffold components were lifted manually over long distances and

then carried up concrete stairways. Work was not planned so that materials could be left

adjacent to workers by use of mechanical aids.

A meeting was held in the Health and Safety Authority Head Office with interested

parties in the construction sector. There were many comments and views expressed by

different parties including those detailed below:

• 50kg bags of cement should not be allowed on site

• Workers may carry two 25kg bags at a time

• Training should be more applicable to the tasks being carried out on site

• It is costly to reduce the risk, as two 25kg bags would cost more than one 50kg

bag

• Manufacturers should give instruction on how materials can be handled safely

using a good system of work or using mechanical aids.

• Contractors have limited scope to make effective changes after the

designer/architect has finalised the specification

• Designers/Architects do not consider manual handling when developing

specifications. Reducing the risk from manual handling will only add to the cost

of the project.

Wholesale/Retail Sector

• Manual Handling Risk Assessment

Total Number of Inspections 47

According to the Manual handling regulations the employer has a duty to avoid manual

handling and to assess unavoidable manual handling in order to reduce the risk through

the use of mechanical means or organisational measures.

The level of risk assessment being carried out is very low and in some cases where risk

assessment is carried out; the controls do not relate to the actual work practices. At one

site the control measure stated that all loads should be transferred at waist height or

below. Despite this there was ample evidence of heavy loads having to be handled above

shoulder height. In the retail sector, the risk assessments do not address tasks such as

handling heavy loads in the bakery, handling fruit and vegetables, design of checkouts, or

handling of cash in the secure areas.

In Garden centres the loads handled were heavy and included fertilisers, garden

accessories and garden furniture. Risk assessment was largely ignored as borne out in the

statistics. Another issue of concern in this work environment is the risk posed to younger

part time workers who may not be provided with any training or mechanical aids when

handling loads.

Manual Handling Risk Assessment in

the Wholesale/Retail sector

19%

81%

Yes

• Training

Total Number of Inspections 47

In all cases the focus of training was on safe lift techniques with little reference to tasks

being completed on site. However in some cases the training content was expanded to

address the legislation, and functions of the spine. There is great variation in the training

content even though most of those giving the training have completed a 5-day instructortraining

course. The Health and Safety Authority has no remit to assess the training

bodies who provide the instructor courses.

• Qualitative Analysis

Damaged forklifts and mechanical aids were the norm and very often such equipment

was not included in the preventive maintenance schedule.

Also in many situations the follow up to accidents was very poor in that accidents were

not investigated to address the root cause. This problem is consistent across all sectors.

Example

In one example the corrective action resulting from a manual handling accident was to

ensure operative was retrained. No effort was made to assess the activity that led to the

injury to determine if there were risk factors which may have contributed to the accident.

Manual Handling Training in the

Wholesale/Retail sector

43%

57%

Yes

Hotels and Restaurants Sector

• Manual Handling Risk Assessment

Total Number of Inspections 45

A low level of documented risk assessment. In one hotel the risk assessment primarily

depended on administrative controls rather than engineering controls.

Example:

“ Take care when carrying heavy items, do not carry equipment in two hands when going

up and down stairs”

• Training

Total Number of Inspections 45

Manual Handling Risk Assessment in

the Hotel/Restaurant sector

91%

Yes

Manual Handling Training in the

Hotel/Restaurant sector

29%

71%

Yes

The content of training provided was consistent in that it addressed the relevant areas

such as legislation, anatomy, safe lift techniques and fitness for work. The issue of fitness

for work is difficult to influence in a work setting unless there is active health promotion.

There may be benefit in working with the Department of Health to improve awareness of

the importance of fitness.

• Qualitative Analysis

Accident data at a number of hotels did not highlight injuries from manual handling

activity as a major concern. There are a number of tasks in this sector where manual

handling would be a constituent of the job including hotel porters, accommodation staff,

and kitchen staff and bar staff.

Recycling of bottles is a new practice in this sector which introduces high levels of

manual handling with exposure to risk factors such as heavy loads, lifting above shoulder

level and repetitive lifting.

In some hotels efforts were made to source lightweight furniture for use in conference

centres and chair trolleys for the transfer of chairs.

Tasks can be made difficult due to poor design. A new hotel visited had a situation where

a carvery unit had to be lifted into position in the bar each day by lifting it down a

stairway. This introduced unnecessary and hazardous lifting activity. Also kitchens were

small and goods inwards storage was located at a level below or distant from the food

preparation area with no dumbwaiter (small service lift) available. In one large premises,

prepared food was lifted in food containers from the kitchen to the secure area via a 16

step stairwell.

Conclusions

The results are quite detailed both in terms of quantitative and qualitative analysis. The

main analysis has been included in the main report but there is more detailed analysis

referenced in the Appendices, which supports the main report.

Manual Handling Risk Assessment

• 83% of all sites inspected across all five sectors do not carry out any risk

assessment. The manual handling regulations do state the an employer has a duty

to assess unavoidable manual handling in order to identify suitable organisational

measures or mechanical means to reduce the risk. This is not happening on the

ground and it will always be difficult to reduce the risk of injury from manual

handling activity unless efforts are made to assess the activity

• Again the quality of risk assessments produced were poor in that there were very

few specific assessments of activity and the control measures were generic. Some

organisations did state that they were unsure how to do a proper risk assessment

and others were unaware that it was required at all.

• The quality, content and general effectiveness of training where risk assessment is

not first properly carried out is questionable.

Training:

• 60% of all sites inspected across all sectors do not carry out manual handling

training

• Although 40% of the sites do provide training, the quality of training is poor in

many cases. Apart from instruction on safe lift techniques, little else is provided

as part of the training. The effectiveness of training greatly depends on the way it

is designed and delivered to the target audience. The training should have clear

objectives and a clearly defined syllabus. It is also necessary to evaluate the

effectiveness of training through follow up questionnaires or audits.

• Training is generally perceived as the only requirement in terms of complying

with the manual handling regulations. There is very little focus on risk assessment

in the training materials. Training in safe lift techniques alone will not reduce the

number of manual handling injuries. When combined with work design and risk

assessment it is an important element in the prevention of injuries (EU Agency for

Health and Safety at Work, 1999). A good training programme should make the

worker aware of the hazards, demonstrate ways of avoiding unnecessary stress

and teach the worker to handle materials safely.

• There is no system in place for assessing the training bodies who provide

instructor-training courses in terms of the quality of the training materials and the

expertise of the trainer. It is worth posing the question as to whether or not this is

something that should be considered. In the UK the Ergonomics Society has a

system in place to vet training bodies who want to provide Ergonomics or manual

handling training. The society has criteria, which must be met before a training

body can be approved.

General Conclusions

• Designers/Architects do not always consider the implications of their

decisions/specifications on manual handling in terms of the loads that have to be

handled, the access and egress when handling, the ability to use mechanical aids

in confined spaces and on the workers who have to do the handling.

• The construction sector has a wide range of manual handling activity taking place

(See Appendices). It is necessary to do more research/inspection in this sector to

further assess the range of tasks being carried out, to establish why risk

assessment does not occur, to determine if risk assessment of systems of work can

make a difference, to understand the scope for improvements at design stage, to

identify what manufacturers/suppliers do in terms of providing instruction on safe

lift techniques/mechanical aids for handling materials, to work with cement

manufacturers in terms of eliminating the 50kg bag of cement and to look at any

other issues that may arise.

• Accident Investigation was largely non-existent across all sectors considered and

the lack of focus on root cause analysis was conspicuous by its absence. Many

sites are already ISO9000 approved and are experienced in carrying out root

cause analysis to establish why they produced defective product or provided poor

service. This discipline is lacking in terms of analysis of accidents and trying to

establish why they occur. Also the systems for health surveillance and medical

management were informal. When injuries occur, the individual is referred to the

doctor. There is little or no follow up to ensure other people are not exposed to the

risks and there were no systems in place to get individuals back to work early by

introducing a system of light duties or restricted work activity.

• Work planning was highlighted as an issue in terms of the unnecessary repetition

of handling activity and loads not being stored close to their point of use.

(Eg: Ground workers lifting blocks which could be moved on pallets with the use

of lifting equipment and the provision of a safe loading bay on the scaffold.)

• In certain sites inspected where accident data was made available, injuries due to

manual handling were a significant percentage of accidents reported. These

companies work closely with their insurance company in terms of handling

compensation claims. The whole area of spurious claims is not addressed in this

report however there is merit in meeting with the Insurance Federation to

ascertain a number of issues including the number of claims, the types of work

activity, the types of industry most affected and the level of work completed by

companies in terms of risk assessment and training.

• This study although worthwhile is only scraping the surface in terms of trying to

understand why there are so many injuries resulting from manual handling

activity. It is important that efforts are made to encourage external bodies to carry

out further scientific research in this area to ascertain the root causes of this

problem. This study has offered some insight into some of the issues that exist but

there are possibly other issues at play, which are beyond the scope of this

inspection programme.

Recommendations for further Action

The recommendations below are not exhaustive and are not all achievable in the short

term, but should be considered as actions to take place over the next few years:

• Risk assessment needs to be addressed both in terms of enforcement aswell as

guidelines for inspectors/employers. The enforcement action may include

prosecution where necessary. H.S.A. guidance needs to be reviewed to assess its

applicability and consistency. Awareness Campaigns on risk assessment and

training should also be considered.

• Further inspection and research needed in the construction sector. This is

necessary in order to further assess the range of tasks being carried out, to

establish why risk assessment does not occur, to determine if risk assessment of

systems of work can make a difference, to understand the scope for improvements

at design stage.

• Identify what manufacturers/suppliers do in terms of providing instruction on safe

lift techniques/mechanical aids for handling materials, work with cement

manufacturers in terms of eliminating the 50kg bag of cement and look at any

other issues that may arise.

• Further Scientific Research should be carried out to support this work programme

in trying to establish the root causes of the high rate of injuries at work due to

manual handling activity.

• An approach must be developed to improve awareness and education of

designers/architects in terms of the manual handling regulation. This should

explore the incorporation of an Ergonomics module into third level

Civil/Construction and Architectural Engineering courses. This module already

exists in Industrial Engineering courses

• Manual handling training should be provided where it is necessary and it should

have clear objectives, a clearly defined syllabus including risk assessment and

follow up on its effectiveness

• Further investigation should be carried out to determine if there is a need to have

a system in place for assessing the training bodies who provide the instructor

training and if needed; who should be responsible for the assessment and

approval. .

• Accident investigation should be more comprehensive and detailed and should

focus on the root cause of accidents. This can be implemented through

enforcement and awareness/education.

• Meet with the Insurance Federation to ascertain the number of claims, the types of

work activity resulting in claims, the types of industry most affected and the level

of work completed by companies in terms of risk assessment and training.

• Further work to be carried out to explore the benefits of medical management.

The US is pushing forward with new Regulations on Ergonomics and a major

requirement of these regulations will be the provision of a medical management

system. Efforts should be made to encourage companies to establish a health

surveillance programme for workers involved in manual handling activity. This

was one recommendation from research completed by the European Agency for

Health and Safety at Work, Bilbao, 1999.

• Links should be developed with the Department of Health to discuss the issue of

fitness for work.

Note: The Agricultural Sector was not inspected as part of this programme due to Foot

and Mouth restrictions. This report recognises that injuries due to manual handling do

occur in other sectors and must be addressed aswell.