Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
research-article2017
WHSXXX10.1177/2165079917718852Workplace health & safetyWorkplace health & safety
Continuing Education
I
Abstract: A dearth of practical resources is available n dynamic hospital environments, the relationship
for evaluating ergonomic risk factors in dynamic health between the physical demands of work, and workplace
care work environments. Of particular need are tools policies and practices and the occurrence of occupational
for inspecting patient care environments for hazards. injuries, especially work-related musculoskeletal disorders
The goal of this study was to describe the development (WMSDs), are well documented (Burdorf, Koppelaar, &
and application of an inspection tool and a process for Evanoff, 2013; Hopcia, Dennerlein, Hashimoto, Orechia, &
identifying hazards inherent in the modifiable aspects of Sorensen, 2012; Koppelaar, Knibbe, Miedema, & Burdorf,
the physical environment to reduce injury risk to hospital 2013). Moreover, ergonomic practices aimed at reducing
workers. Through an iterative and participatory process, physical work demands appear to be associated with health
the tool and inspection process were developed with care worker self-reported ergonomic factors (i.e., pain, injuries,
three purposes in mind: (a) create a framework for the ergonomics practices; Dennerlein et al., 2012). However, often
inspection of physical work environments and physical not realized is the modification of the physical environment
conditions of work associated with injury risk (hazards), that can be controlled through ergonomic programs targeting
(b) document the physical conditions, and (c) provide the prevention of WMSDs (Caspi et al., 2013).
feedback to decision makers. The tool and process were Hazard recognition and control are essential and
used by an ergonomics researcher on four patient care fundamental elements of successful injury prevention programs
units as part of the Be Well, Work Well Total Worker (Cohen, 1997; National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health® intervention. The resulting inspection process Health [NIOSH], 2008; Occupational Safety and Health [OSHA],
provided a structured method for recognizing hazards in 2012). These successful programs use hazard recognition tools
the dynamic modifiable physical work environment and and practices to identify and anticipate workplace hazards. In
reporting both observations and recommendations to dynamic work settings (e.g., acute care hospitals), new hazards
decision makers. The development and implementation can materialize quickly as patient rooms are reconfigured to fit
of the inspection tool provided guidance to modify the the arrival of new patients requiring a variety of equipment.
physical work environment by implementing ergonomic Likewise, patient acuity and census levels can change daily,
solutions. The tool allowed the organization to plan and thereby changing the pace and physical demands of work.
prioritize ergonomic hazard abatement (e.g. resource Hence, for such environments, regular assessments and control
allocation and tracking trends). Within a Total Worker of hazards are often used through a continuous improvement
Health® framework, this tool can measure work practices safety model. Identification of modifiable ergonomic risk factors
which can then be used to inform organizational programs is essential due to the dynamic nature of these settings
and policies within a health care setting. (Manuele, 2006).
Keywords: total worker health, ergonomics, health care, Workplace inspections are a classic tool used to identify and
physical work environment, musculoskeletal disorders, anticipate hazards in the work environment, and implement
inspection tool, nursing, intervention corrective action. Higher inspection rates have been associated
DOI: 10.1177/2165079917718852. From 1Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 2Partners HealthCare, and 3Northeastern University. Address correspondence to: Michael P. Grant, Harvard
T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, 677 Huntington Ave., Boston, MA 02115, USA; email: mgrant@mail.harvard.edu.
For reprints and permissions queries, please visit SAGE’s Web site at http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav.
Copyright © 2017 The Author(s)
144
vol. 66 ■ no. 3 Workplace Health & Safety
145
Workplace Health & Safety March 2018
care, inpatient units. One unit was in a building constructed stations, storage areas, and patient rooms. Themes from the
within the last 5 years while the other three were in older general inspection process were grouped into the common
buildings. Observations were made about features of the hazard categories of manual materials handling, safe patient
physical environment that increased the risk for injury. handling, slips trips and falls, working with your hands over
One of the key aspects of this approach to developing the your head, and excessive bending and twisting while working
tool was to focus on the modifiable physical environment. The (National Research Council & Institute of Medicine, 2001;
purpose of this focus was to ensure that any observations could Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, n.d.).
be modified (e.g., storage space was not assessed). In the urban After the creation of a list of modifiable risk factors based on
Boston hospital setting, space is at a premium, and units often the inspections, the researchers sought input from the BWWW
do not have adequate storage space. Tool development was intervention working group responsible for designing and
focused on understanding the aspects of the physical implementing the overall intervention. The working group
environment that could be altered to make the unit work included a registered nurse, multiple research assistants,
environment safer for patient care workers. intervention effectiveness researchers specializing in ergonomics
After the inspections were completed, the ergonomic and wellness initiatives, and multiple health professionals from
researchers compiled a report outlining each of the units they the acute care hospital for which the tool was being designed.
observed including the type of care provided, observed and This team guided researcher efforts to define modifiable aspects
potential ergonomic hazards, and any other notes from the of the physical unit work environment and to refine the tool to
inspection or discussions with staff. The team of experts then be more applicable to the acute care environment. The team
distilled the report into a list of common issues and themes that made comments about and fine-tuned the original list of
recur from unit to unit. These themes became the basis for modifiable risk factors. Finally, the researchers asked staff from
creating a tool applicable to all hospital units in an acute care hospital occupational health to further refine the tool and align
inpatient facility. listed targets with hospital-wide initiatives. This step resulted in
The general inspections identified physical features common a draft of the final inspection tool, ready to be vetted and
across all units and some features unique to unit type. As part piloted within the hospital setting.
of the inspection, the team also determined to what extent
specific unit features were modifiable. An example of an Piloting the inspection tool
identified modifiable feature was the placement of the bed in The tool was used by a small team consisting of two
patient rooms. Oftentimes, the placement of beds can be ergonomic researchers and a staff member from the
changed, still allowing for access to the patient for care. occupational health group to pilot the inspection process on
Features considered fixed included aspects of the physical two units in the hospital. These units were not selected for the
environment that could not be modified by hospital staff (e.g., BWWW intervention study and thus represented an ideal setting
flooring material). When aspects of these “fixed” features posed to understand and refine the tool and process prior to
ergonomic risks, they were noted in the inspection tool along implementation as part of the intervention study. After the pilot
with recommendation for changes to be considered as part of studies, minor revisions (e.g., phrasing of statements and tool
future renovations. questions) were incorporated to enhance tool utility. Overall, no
changes to the substantive content of the tool were made.
Identifying a framework
The researchers used OSHAs Safety and Health Program The Inspection Process
Assessment Worksheet (Form 33) as a template for the tool The inspection tool was used as part of a process of
framework (OSHA, n.d.-a). The Assessment Worksheet was informing workers, managers, and researchers about WMSD risk
designed to assess organizational policies and programs for factors in the physical work environment. The process involved
OSHA, and was scored 0 through 5 (i.e., does not apply at all, several components including accessing and inspecting the unit,
somewhat, frequently, often, almost always, fully applies) in communicating immediate observations, compilation of the
regard to how well each statement applied to the observation. observations, review of inspection findings with occupational
Another beneficial aspect of the Assessment Worksheet was health staff, and communicating the observations back to the
the inclusion of space for notes in each section. This structure unit leadership and staff. These steps and processes were
allowed users to provide more than a simple “yes/no” answer developed with the hospital occupational health staff. The
and opportunities to track scores, and thus progress, over researchers wanted to ensure that the process could be easily
time. integrated into other health care environments with little to no
interference with existing work flow, policies, and practices on
Drafting a tool the units.
After choosing the structure of the tool, the researchers
assembled a list of the most important features and common Accessing and inspecting the unit
themes of the modifiable physical work environment identified Access required planning and scheduling a convenient time
in the general inspection. Common features included nurses’ for the inspection to occur. The individuals involved in the
146
vol. 66 ■ no. 3 Workplace Health & Safety
Figure 1. Flowchart of the inspection process including planning, meeting with occupational health, and final feedback to the
units.
inspection process (Figure 1) included a member of the between 15 and 30 minutes which allowed nurse directors to
research team serving as the inspector as well as a combination ask questions about the observations and recommendations.
of Nurse Director, Clinical Nursing Specialist, Resource Nurse, Unit leadership then disseminated results and action items to
and assorted nurses and patient care assistants depending on staff through staff meetings and email.
staffing and availability on the particular unit during the
inspection. Throughout the inspection, the tool was used to Results
guide the inspector and document specific observations. The The resulting inspection tool was comprised of two parts,
inspection lasted approximately 1 hour on each unit, providing one part for the inspection itself (Appendix A) and the other
ample time to observe the entire unit. part to guide a short interview with unit nurse management
(Appendix B). When combined, the two parts provided a
Communicating immediate observations
complete overview of and a structured method for recognizing
A key component of this process was the ability to
hazards in the modifiable physical environment.
communicate certain immediate observations to staff members.
The final inspection tool included three domains
Oftentimes, this communication included the inspector
(housekeeping, awkward postures, and safe patient handling
answering questions and concerns posed by staff members
and mobilization) which addressed the fundamental hazards of
encountered during the inspection. The inspector in this case
manual materials handling, safe patient handling, slips trips and
was a member of the research team but inspectors in other
falls, working with your hands over your head, and excessive
settings would not need extensive ergonomic training to fulfill
bending and twisting while working. The major component of
this role. Oftentimes, the immediate feedback consisted of
housekeeping was cord, cable, and tubing management
identifying how to adjust equipment (i.e., office chairs or display
including placement of equipment carts. The “Awkward
monitors) or reminding staff that most equipment in patient
Postures” section in Appendix A focused on accessibility of
rooms was on wheels (i.e., able to be maneuvered to provide
materials in storage rooms, placement of equipment (i.e., sharps
better access to patients without added strain on workers).
boxes within patient rooms), and computer workstations. The
Providing immediate feedback was well received resulting in
“Safe Patient Handling and Mobilization” section in Appendix A
unit leadership and staff trusting the inspection processes and
was of particular concern for the hospital. This section focused
sometimes in immediate modifications that had been identified.
on ceiling lift and sling availability. Virtually all patient rooms in
Review of inspection findings the hospital had ceiling lifts and thus this was an essential
Working with a staff member from occupational health aspect to include in the process, evaluating compliance and
familiar with in-house resources, the researchers developed a aligning with hospital initiatives.
list of recommendations to address ergonomic-related issues in The research team generated a feedback and
the work environment. The staff member aided the research recommendations report, a simple, meaningful, actionable,
team in focusing the list of observations to include only those two-column table (Figure 2). The left column included the final
observations that were considered modifiable and paired with a list of observations from the inspection and the right column
recommendation. All recommendations were designed to be included associated recommendations. Each recommendation
actionable with a description of the recommendation included the name of an employee or department to contact
accompanied by appropriate contact information (i.e., phone along with a phone number or email address. If the
number and contact for the office chair vendor to repair broken recommendation could be accomplished without outside
chairs covered under warranty). This was a collaborative, resources, the directions were explicit and thorough so the
in-person discussion that lasted approximately 30 minutes per recommendation was truly actionable. If the recommendation
unit. required purchasing a product, then the recommendations
included a website, company name, and approximate price.
Communicating findings with leadership and staff Wherever possible, pictures were added to increase the utility of
Recommendations were then communicated with the unit’s the report and reduce confusion over products or observations.
Nurse Director via a report consisting of observations from the The report then contributed to further discussions with the
inspection and associated recommendations. This report was nurse directors in subsequent management level BWWW
ideally communicated during an in-person meeting lasting intervention activities focusing on leadership development.
147
Workplace Health & Safety March 2018
Figure 2. Snapshot of the inspection tool report for unit leadership.
Note. The report has two columns, the first describing the observation and the second containing the recommendation to modify or mitigate the
observation.
148
vol. 66 ■ no. 3 Workplace Health & Safety
significantly from the study hospital. Thus, using this tool in an recommendations required in-house services from other
acute care inpatient environment will likely require only minor departments; often the units were unaware of these services.
adaptations. The researchers recommend that a member of the The researchers were not able to contact the units to determine
occupational health department review and modify the content whether any of the recommendations were followed or how
of the tool as needed prior to implementation to ensure that all well they were received.
tool statements align with the physical work environment. Although intended as a component of the BWWW
One aspect of the hospital environment that is particularly intervention and designed for use by an occupational health
difficult to quantify or overcome is the deeply engrained beliefs and safety professional, others could potentially use the tool in
and attitudes surrounding environmental health and safety the health care community. The physical environment is often
practices. Specifically, it is difficult for patient care staff to overlooked when assessing overall quality and occupational
devote time and effort toward any activity other than those health criteria for both patient and worker safety. This tool and
activities related to patient care (Sorensen et al., 2015). These process could be integrated into routine systematic assessments
beliefs can impede change to new unit policies and practices. In of nursing units by nurses and other clinicians.
this study, it was difficult to address practices related to safe Dynamic work environments like health care benefit from
patient handling and mobilization, particularly the use of strong organizational programs, policies, and practices
mechanical patient lifts. surrounding hazard identification. Total Worker Health® is a
This study did not use one of the more sophisticated useful framework for designing interventions in dynamic work
musculoskeletal injury hazard assessment tools (e.g., Rapid Upper environments like health care. The tool and process developed
Limb Assessment [RULA], the Strain Index, or the NIOSH lifting in this study can measure work practices and inform
equation) by design. The intervention was intended to be used by organizational programs and policies within a health care
hospital occupational health personnel with minimal training. setting. The ergonomic inspection tool can identify areas for
This study also has several strengths. First and foremost, the improvement in existing patient care environments to reduce
inspection protocol was designed to be meaningful and useful the likelihood of musculoskeletal pain and injury.
for all units. The researchers incorporated the needs and wants
of the organization wherever possible. The occupational health Implications for Practice
department was involved in nearly every step of the process, Given the dynamic nature of hospitals, simpler tools that
from design and process development through the evaluation require less time and resources are needed for continuous
and feedback steps. The researchers wanted to ensure that unit monitoring of the physical work environment and planning
needs were met and they were focusing on issues that would hazard abatement. This process and tool identified areas for
benefit the hospital. improvement in existing patient care environments to reduce
Another strength of this process was its ability to track the likelihood of work-related musculoskeletal pain and injury.
progress over time. Basing the inspection tool on the OSHA The tool provides workplace intervention programs with data to
Form 33, the researchers assigned a “score” to each unit. These effectively prioritize resource allocation and intervention efforts
metrics tracked trends for individual units over time with an and identify low-to-no-cost recommendations to address
inspection protocol that included additional inspections at ergonomic hazards in the physical work environment.
regular intervals. Occupational health practitioners, ergonomists, or insurance
An effort was made to ensure that unit management received companies working for or consulting with acute care hospitals
actionable and meaningful feedback so that it was easy to can use this tool and process to inspect the modifiable physical
respond to inspection findings, given the busy schedules of work environment, identify hazards, provide recommendations,
nurse directors and limited unit resources. Most and track trends and progress over time.
149
150
Appendix A
Ergonomic Inspection Tool
Unit: ______________ Date Completed: _________________ Inspector: _______________________
After reading each location and the hazard description, select the number in the corresponding cell that most accurately represents how the hazard applies to the area of the
unit. Specific notes can and should be added for each location, including room numbers and description of issues for each observation.
Housekeeping
Patient rooms Patient rooms should be free of STF, struck by/against, and collision hazards. This includes but is not 0 1 2 3 4 5
limited to:
•• Cables, straps, and cords (electrical, telephone, medical, etc) should be organized and managed
to appropriately mitigate STF hazards.
•• Equipment (patient handling equipment, trash/linen boxes, sharps containers, biohazard boxes,
etc) should be out of the way of the PCW (against the wall, moved to a storage area, etc) to
reduce STF and struck by/against and collision hazards.
•• The floor should be clear of debris (pens, paper, screws, small equipment like syringes, caps,
etc) to reduce STF hazards.
Notes
Storage areas Storage areas should be free of STF, struck by/against, and collision hazards. This includes but is not 0 1 2 3 4 5
limited to:
•• Equipment is stored in demarcated areas (out of the way on the sides of the hallway or in a
designated area) to reduce struck by/against and collision hazards.
•• Equipment (patient handling equipment, trash/linen boxes, sharps containers, biohazard boxes,
etc) should be out of the way of the PCW (against the wall, on shelving, etc) to reduce STF and
struck by/against and collision hazards.
•• Cables, straps and cords for equipment should be secured or tucked away to reduce STF
hazards.
•• The floor should be clear of debris (pens, paper, screws, small equipment like syringes, caps,
etc) to reduce STF hazards.
(continued)
March 2018
vol. 66 ■ no. 3
Appendix A. (continued)
Notes
Nurses’ Nurses’ workstations should be free of STF, struck by/against, and collision hazards. This includes 0 1 2 3 4 5
workstations but is not limited to:
•• Cables, straps and cords (electrical, telephone, medical, etc) should be organized and managed
to appropriately mitigate STF hazards.
•• Equipment (patient handling equipment, trash/linen boxes, sharps containers, biohazard boxes,
etc) should be out of the way of the PCW (against the wall, moved to a storage area, etc) to
reduce STF and struck by/against and collision hazards.
•• The floor should be clear of debris (pens, paper, screws, small equipment like syringes, caps,
etc) to reduce STF hazards.
Notes
Other When performing the assessment, were there any additional housekeeping hazards/concerns noticed
on the unit?
Note. STF = slip, trip, and fall; PCW = patient care worker.
Workplace Health & Safety
151
152
Awkward Postures
Patient rooms Patient rooms should be free of MSD (physical) hazards involving posture, lifting, pushing and 0 1 2 3 4 5
pulling. This includes but is not limited to:
•• Sharps boxes should be within easy reaching access and between knee and shoulder
height for PCW to avoid MSD posture related injuries.
•• Equipment heavier than a gallon of milk should be within shoulder to knee height to
Workplace Health & Safety
Storage areas Storage areas should be free of musculoskeletal disorder (physical) hazards involving 0 1 2 3 4 5
posture, lifting, pushing and pulling. This includes but is not limited to:
•• Equipment heavier than a gallon of milk should be within shoulder to knee height to
reduce MSD lifting hazards.
•• Supplies should be readily accessible and within knee to shoulder height whenever
possible to reduce MSD posture hazards.
•• Electrical outlets should be between knee and shoulder height and not at floor level to
reduce MSD posture hazards.
•• A safe step stool or other height assistance should be available to reach higher storage
to reduce overhead work and help keep movements within shoulder to knee area.
•• The lightest items should be stored below and above the knee to shoulder zone to
reduce MSD posture and lifting hazards.
(continued)
March 2018
vol. 66 ■ no. 3
Appendix A. (continued)
Notes
Computer Nurses’ workstations should be free of musculoskeletal disorder (physical) hazards involving 0 1 2 3 4 5
workstations posture, lifting, pushing and pulling. This includes but is not limited to:
Computer •• Chairs should be adjustable with arm rest supports to reduce MSD posture hazards.
workstations can
be anywhere— •• Workstations should be adjustable wherever possible (computers, height of workstation,
patient rooms, space to move keyboard and mouse, etc) to reduce MSD posture hazards.
halls, central
•• Equipment should be easily accessible to reduce MSD posture hazards.
nursing stations,
medication rooms •• Electrical outlets that are frequently accessed should be between knee and shoulder
height and not at floor level to reduce MSD posture hazards.
•• Workstations on wheels have designated recharging stations with outlets between knee
and shoulder height.
Notes
Other When performing the assessment, were there any additional awkward posture hazards/
concerns noticed on the unit?
153
Safe Patient Handling and Mobilization
154
Almost Fully
Location Hazard description Does not apply at all Somewhat Frequently Often always applies
Patient rooms Patient rooms should be free of MSD (physical) hazards 0 1 2 3 4 5
related to lifting, pushing, pulling, and twisting during SPH
and mobilization activities. This includes but is not limited
to:
•• There are ceiling lifts in the rooms to reduce MSD lifting,
Workplace Health & Safety
This guide is meant to be used on the day of the inspection during a prewalkthrough meeting. Notes regarding effectiveness, utility, and general feelings about each statement
should be taken. After reading each statement/description, select the number in the corresponding cell that most accurately represents how the statement applies to the unit.
Programmatic Activities
Does not
Statement/description apply at all Somewhat Frequently Often Almost always Fully applies
The unit has effective policies to manage SPH and mobilization. This can refer to a written or unwritten 0 1 2 3 4 5
policy on the unit that leads to avoiding SPH injuries and incidents. Might be a policy requiring the use
of SPH assist devices or a culture within the unit of commitment to injury-free SPH and mobilization.
Notes
Mesh repositioning slings under all patients that cannot boost, turn, or sit-up without assistance (unless 0 1 2 3 4 5
it is medically contraindicated).
Notes
Room types do not change across the unit. Private vs. semi private, shape, layouts are similar in the 0 1 2 3 4 5
unit. Please explain if they’re different and how. Include numbers if possible.
Notes
How often does a customer service call need to be made from the unit to material management because 0 1 2 3 4 5
a sling is not available?
Notes
Patient care workers (PCWs) feel comfortable and knowledgeable about reporting injuries. Ideally, the 0 1 2 3 4 5
PCWs should know where and how to report their injuries. Management should encourage them to
Notes
The unit performs a needs assessment to determine SPH and mobilization needs. For each patient, 0 1 2 3 4 5
there is a prehandling/mobilization assessment performed by the PCW to determine the appropriate
handling and mobilization techniques that should be applied to a given situation.
Notes
There are effective training practices on the unit. This refers to overall perception of training on the unit. 0 1 2 3 4 5
PCWs should feel knowledgeable of policies and procedures on the unit.
(continued)
Workplace Health & Safety
155
156
Appendix B. (continued)
Does not
Statement/description apply at all Somewhat Frequently Often Almost always Fully applies
Notes
Workplace Health & Safety
Cord and cable management is not an issue on the unit. This is getting at whether there are any 0 1 2 3 4 5
concerns regarding cable management from the point of view of the PCWs. Ideally, the PCWs would
feel comfortable that cables are appropriately managed to avoid STF injuries. Management of cables
includes streamlining the cables and keeping them against the wall, out of the areas frequented by
PCWs, patients, and other personnel.
Notes
The unit has an effective policy surrounding spill cleanup. This can refer to a written or unwritten 0 1 2 3 4 5
policy on the unit that leads to avoiding incidents related to spills. An effective policy would involve
immediate cleanup of spills and include a positive attitude of management when work stops to clean
up spills.
Notes
Notes
Do you have any concerns regarding injuries and work limitations for new and/or temporary employees? 0 1 2 3 4 5
Notes
What would you say is the most physically demanding job? Not necessarily heavy lifting—could also be 0 1 2 3 4 5
repetitive or fine motor focused.
Notes
Notes
Note. SPH = safe patient handling; PCW = patient care worker; STF = slip, trip, and fall.
March 2018
vol. 66 ■ no. 3 Workplace Health & Safety
Acknowledgment Hopcia, K., Dennerlein, J. T., Hashimoto, D., Orechia, T., & Sorensen,
G. (2012). Occupational injuries for consecutive and cumulative
This study would not have been accomplished without the shifts among hospital registered nurses and patient care associates:
participation of Partners HealthCare System and leadership from A case-control study. Workplace Health & Safety, 60, 437-444.
Dennis Colling, Sree Chaguturu, and Kurt Westerman. The doi:10.3928/21650799-20120917-39
authors would like to thank Partners Occupational Health Janowitz, I. L., Gillen, M., Ryan, G., Rempel, D., Trupin, L., Swig, L., .
Services including Marlene Freeley and Dean Hashimoto for . . Blanc, P. D. (2006). Measuring the physical demands of work
in hospital settings: Design and implementation of an ergonomics
their guidance, as well as Elizabeth Taylor, Elizabeth Tucker assessment. Applied Ergonomics, 37, 641-658. doi:10.1016/j.
O’Day, and Terry Snyder. Additionally, we wish to thank Evan apergo.2005.08.004
McEwing and Julie Theron, Project Directors. Koppelaar, E., Knibbe, J., Miedema, H., & Burdorf, A. (2013). The influence
of individual and organisational factors on nurses’ behaviour to
Conflict of Interest use lifting devices in healthcare. Applied Ergonomics, 44, 532-537.
doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2012.11.005
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this Manuele, F. A. (2006). ANSI/AIHA Z10-2005: The new benchmark for safety
management systems. Professional Safety, 51, 25-34.
article.
Mischke, C., Verbeek, J. H., Job, J., Morata, T. C., Alvesalo-Kuusi, A.,
Funding Neuvonen, K., . . . Pedlow, R. I. (2013). Occupational safety and health
enforcement tools for preventing occupational diseases and injuries.
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi:10.1002/14651858.
support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this CD010183.pub2
article: This work was supported by a grant from the National National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2008). Essential
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (U19 OH008861) elements of effective workplace programs and policies for improving
for the Harvard School of Public Health Center for Work, Health worker health and wellbeing (Worklife: A NIOSH Initiative). Retrieved
from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2010-140/pdfs/2010-140.pdf
and Well-being and in part by the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health Education and Research Center National Research Council & Institute of Medicine. (2001). Musculoskeletal
disorders and the workplace: low back and upper extremities.
at Harvard University (T42 OH008416). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
References Occupational Safety and Health. (2012). Injury and illness prevention
program: White paper. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/dsg/
Baumann, A., Holness, D. L., Norman, P., Idriss-Wheeler, D., & Boucher, topics/safetyhealth/OSHAwhite-paper-january2012sm.pdf
P. (2012). The ergonomic program implementation continuum
(EPIC): Integration of health and safety—A process evaluation in the Occupational Safety and Health. (n.d.-a). Safety and Health Program
healthcare sector. Journal of Safety Research, 43, 205-213. doi:10.1016/j. Assessment Worksheet (Safety & health management systems etool).
jsr.2012.07.003 Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/Directive_pdf/CSP_02-
00-003.pdf
Burdorf, A., Koppelaar, E., & Evanoff, B. (2013). Assessment of the impact
of lifting device use on low back pain and musculoskeletal injury claims Occupational Safety and Health. (n.d.-b). Hospital eTool (eTools 2015).
among nurses. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 70, 491-497. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/hospital/
doi:10.1136/oemed-2012-101210 Sorensen, G., Nagler, E., Hashimoto, D., Dennerlein, J., Theron, J.,
Caspi, C. E., Dennerlein, J. T., Kenwood, C., Stoddard, A. M., Hopcia, K., Stoddard, A., . . . Wagner, G. (2015). Implementing an integrated
Hashimoto, D., & Sorensen, G. (2013). Results of a pilot intervention health protection/health promotion intervention in the hospital setting:
to improve health and safety for health care workers. Journal Lessons learned from the Be Well, Work Well Study. Journal of
of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 55, 1449-1455. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 58, 185-194. doi:10.1097/
doi:10.1097/JOM.1440b1013e3182a1447e1465a. JOM.0000000000000592
Cohen, A. (1997). Elements of ergonomics programs: A primer based on Sparer, E. H., Herrick, R. F., & Dennerlein, J. T. (2015). Development of a
workplace evaluations of musculoskeletal disorders. Cincinnati, OH: safety communication and recognition program for construction. New
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute for Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy,
Occupational Safety and Health. 25, 42-58. doi:10.1177/1048291115569025
Dennerlein, J. T., Hopcia, K., Sembajwe, G., Kenwood, C., Stoddard, Szeto, G., Wong, T., Law, R., Lee, E., Lau, T., So, B., & Law, S. (2013). The
A. M., Tveito, T. H., . . . Sorensen, G. (2012). Ergonomic practices impact of a multifaceted ergonomic intervention program on promoting
within patient care units are associated with musculoskeletal pain and occupational health in community nurses. Applied Ergonomics, 44, 414-422.
limitations. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 55, 107-116. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2012.10.004
doi:10.1002/ajim.21036 Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. (n.d.). Training &
Fang, D., & Wu, H. (2013). Development of a safety culture interaction prevention—Sprains & strains (evaluation tools). Retrieved from http://
(SCI) model for construction projects. Safety Science, 57, 138-149. www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/SprainsStrains/pdfs/QECReferenceGuide.pdf
doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2013.02.003
Hinze, J., Hallowell, M., & Baud, K. (2013). Construction-safety best Author Biographies
practices and relationships to safety performance. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 139. doi:10.1061/(ASCE) Michael P. Grant is an industrial hygienist with the National
CO.1943-7862.0000751 Institute for Occupational Safety and Health where he performs
157
Workplace Health & Safety March 2018
health hazard evaluations. His research has involved designing, Glorian Sorensen is professor of social and behavioral sciences at
implementing, and evaluating integrated workplace the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, director for the
interventions through the Center for Work, Health and Wellbeing Center for Work, Health and Wellbeing, and was the Principal
at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Investigator for the Be Well–Work Well Study, for which this
study was conducted.
Cassandra A. Okechukwu investigates how work and working
conditions influence health and health behaviors. Her Jack T. Dennerlein is professor of physical therapy, movement,
occupational health studies have included epidemiological as and rehabilitation science at Northeastern University and
well as intervention research. co-principal investigator for the Center for Work, Health and
Wellbeing at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
Karen Hopcia is the associate director for Shared Services, His research aims to prevent work-related injuries and
Budget and Data Analysis, Partners HealthCare Occupational musculoskeletal disorders through multiple research
Health Services. She is also an investigator working with the approaches that in general examine how the design of the
Center for Work, Health and Wellbeing at the Harvard T.H. environment, both built and organizational, affects worker
Chan School of Public Health. health outcomes.
158