Rate this!
Nigel DuPree
Member - 171 posts
Why ? When also according to HSE (RR561 2007) there has been NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE of "improved health" in display screen operators since the introduction of the DSE Act over 14 years ago should we suddenly see a difference following this news.
Or does this just open the flood gates for DSE operators injury claims ????
As clearly evidence that regulations have not been complied with ???
Or clearly risk assessments insufficient or not been acted upon ??
Or are the real causes of risk to DSE operators not yet known?
Rate this!
Andrew Auty
Member - 14 posts
I look forward to reading the BMJ paper.
After 16 years of DSE regs, we are still waiting for unequivocal evidence of compliance leading to reduced incidence of idiopathic backpain. Perhaps a reference in this article to the manual handling regulations would have been more accurate?But the same is true, idiopathic backpain incidence is not significantly affected by compliance with the manual handling regs either. Well, if it is, the researchers have somehow missed it.
There is good evidence that people cope better with backpain if the work station is more comfortable. Coping leads to reduced levels of reporting and, earlier return to work and, increased retention at work. Improved coping could be mistaken for a sign that injury has been prevented. But to encourage the workforce to believe this interpretation, would be difficult to justify and may even be harmful.
EC funded researchers have recently concluded that the benefits of compliance are not yet domonstarted but, as if this was a thing to cheer, there was no evidence they did any direct harm. But what about indirect harm?
EC has occassionally promised to withdraw ineffective regulation, but let's not hold our breath. An alternative would be to clarify exactly what the DSE Regs and Man Hand Regs are expected to achieve in terms of injury prevention. Idiopathic Backpain should be on the list headed "probably irrelevent" or at best "hypothetical benefit".
Ensuring that backpain is properly managed is a more plausible aim, but currently exceeds the duty required of the employer.. A good employer would make accommodations and encourage coping. A tremendous employer would do this before a backpain episode occured. Coping is improved by comfort and now also, if the BMJ article is correct, by employing the Alexander Technique (AT). A duty to prevent injury is crystalised in the Regs but this ia a general requirement with no specific action required for people in pain.
I would encourage AT practitioners to offer views as to the benefits of AT and whether or not everyone is suited to this approach. It would be particularly interesting to discover whether patients who believe work caused their pain and even injury are easier to rehabilitate, or harder. Do AT practitioners use work outcome as a measure of success/ need to treat?
0 (0)
