Display Screen

Yo Tony,

GAS (General Adaptation Syndrome) is simply a way for the hemeostatic responses to adapt to withstanding increased levels of demand on the organisms systems building resiliance to on-going stressors be that physiological or mental and is a basic survival tool.

However, over time, if ignored, systems become overtaxed and gradually adaptive exhaustion ensues. MSD's, disease and auto-immune problems develop ensuring the organism escapes the stressor.

In the case of Screen Fatigue the well meaning visual adaptations to the stressor leaves the individual at risk of VD (Vigilance Decremation) in other words at increased risk of making work errors and as the 'temporary' affects may last for some time after coming off-screen more vulnerable to slip, trip and other mishaps for some time after work.

In reference to "perminent" comment this refers to adaptive changes to the individuals visual refractive acuity, myopia, hyperopia, and astigmia requiring the operater to ware screen glasses where they had not needed screen glasses before due to alteration in scleral and crystalline lens dynamics !

Whether DSE operater or brick layer distress founded in an unmitigated stressor WILL result in the chronic activation of the organisms stress responses if unable to escape or tolerate or persevere by well meaning adaptation, that whilst reducing a degree distress, it does not mitigated or prevent it - so 'if' no escape ' then ' the system will enforce escape by making the individual too ill to continue - the systems attempt at self preservation.

Hi James,

The problem with "Screen Fatigue" / Fuctional / Digital Literacy problems is simply that it is not solely an issue of 'refractive' acuity as a significant number who experience eyestrain, visual fatigue had/have 20/20 vision.

The numbers above were taken from the results of assessing over 4k uni students over four years who either didn't require glasses at the beginning of their degree and/or if prescribed over the course of their pupalage (28%)only 12% reported a benefit leaving (sorry) 57.14% of the 28% of students prescribed glasses reporting no benefit for DSE usage along with presenting and/or manifesting mild to more serious screen fatigue that could also be charactorised as a form of visual dyslexia. (in the case of students an ave of 5 mins reading time on-screen before requiring a mini to longer break)

The point being that visual acuity is only one element of Screen Fatigue leaving issues of "accessability" unmitigated for up to 58% (HSE RR561) who subjectively report eyestrain, eye / headaches, blurred or double vision etc.

Currently DSE operatoers are only entitled to an 'ergonomic' and/or basic 'refractive eyesight test' (including examination for disease) and there isn't, as yet, a 'reasonably practicable' and "objective" risk assessment for the foreseeable risks associated with 'Screen Fatigue' subjectively reported by 58% of users.

Sorry to confuse suffering an attack of shingles at present and distracted by headache and monocular vision ho hum but happy to clarify is i have still lost the plot - what, what carry on chaps ?

Nigel

It is important to distinguish between symptoms that arise while working, and work that can cause harm in the short or long term. Suggesting that staring at a screen all day might cause fatigue would not surprise most individuals with an ounce of common sense, and it is no surprise that failing to use appropriate corrective glasses is likely to make the problem worse. We could argue that bricklayers are at risk of developing 'bricklaying fatigue' from that dreadful business of having to lift and carry bricks all day long, or that professional athletes are at catastrophic risk of developing 'sports fatigue' from all that training.

Most jobs will cause physical symptoms of some sort, whether as a result of the physical activity, the posture adopted, or the requirement to concentrate. All we need to do is a risk assessment. In most cases the only way to avoid the risk is to stop everyone doing any activity at all; hardly a sensible solution.

We do need to be very careful about 'research' showing negative aspects of work. We are still trying to undo the damage done by media hype about work-related upper limb disorders in the '80s, and we have seen similar scare stories whenever new equipment has been introduced, such as the replacement of the quill pen with a steel nib, the development of the miner's lamp, train travel, and a good non-medical example, the Millenium Bug.

The fact that some individuals do have difficulty concentrating for long periods when looking at a screen does not mean they have been damaged by doing so; it is far more likely that they are simply not well suited to a role requiring constant screen use, in the same way that some drivers are just bad drivers and lose concentration after a while. You state that some eye symptoms are 'permanent if unmitigated over time' however there is no objective evidence to support this. We have to distinguish between what individuals say they are experiencing and what we can actually measure. What we do know is that most individuals who develop a 'permanent problem' and are pursuing litigation make a dramatic recovery as soon as the litigation process is completed.

If the research you report will produce a method to identify those who work well with screens and those who do not, it may prove useful to employers when selecting recruits or when assessing poor performance. It is most unlikely to come up with anything more useful other than to state that many employees get tired after a full day's work and develop symptoms associated with tiredness.

Nigel,

your paragraph:
"Of the 28% who are prescribed PPE i.e. 'screen glasses' by their employer only 12% experience any benefit from this aid leaving the remaining 46% with unresolved or mitigated risk of screen fatigue related issues surrounding impaired access to digital information presented on-screen."

As someone who read Maths at university, I'm struggling to see how these percentages add up. Am I missing something?

Tick-box 'compliance' may be perceived as adiquate even 'cost effective' but not necessarily provide sufficient mitigation to reduce let alone 'prevent' the visual and physiological risks associated with "Screen Fatigue" experienced by 58% of DSE operators both during and after use.

Of the 28% who are prescribed PPE i.e. 'screen glasses' by their employer only 12% experience any benefit from this aid leaving the remaining 46% with unresolved or mitigated risk of screen fatigue related issues surrounding impaired access to digital information presented on-screen.

At this time, it is true to say this information may be of little practicable help other than to raise awareness that it is a "known hazard for 58% of users" and that for 46% of operators solely having a basic cheep 'eye sight test' on it's own is insufficient to diagnose the visual stress related coping strategies:

eye & headaches, blurred or double vision, monocular vision, eye turns etc.

All of which may present temporarily during and/or for some time after screen use yet are perminant if they remain un-mitigated over time and will significantly affect performance or productivity on avarage by 20%.

Opticians can complete a full range of sight tests but this usually takes over an hour and therefore costs in excess of £100 but in terms of cost/benefit this may prove more cost-effective than 20% loss in performance / productivity !

As it is a "known and foreseeable risk" it would also be a "reasonably practicable" Health & Safety intervention to reduce, mitigate or prevent the hazards associated with Screen Fatigue ...........

Hi Sara

working in OH we do basic visual acuity and refer as appropriate. We have used a variety of opticians previously but now use Specsavers simply because they offer the best deal. You may find a local optitian can do a deal for you so it's worth shopping around.

Whilst it can be argued we are not giving the employee chioce in where they can go we are meeting the DSE Regs and doing so in the most cost-effective way.

Happy New Year

Now then, as they say, you do have a little problem.

As other than a solely ergonomic workstation risk assessment and a standard basic eye test (approx £24 + or - ) by optician of choice to establish whether DSE operator has any refractive defecit or disease there is currently nothing else on offer.

However, I can confirm that there is on-going research into developing a reasonably practicable "objective risk assessment" for "Screen Fatigue" that has remained subjectively reported for as long as there have been display screens and reviewed by HSE in RR561 2007 where 58% of users reported they experienced mild to more serious visual discomfort, eye, headaches etc. along with fatigue related neck, shoulder and back pain.

Nevertheless, because it is known that those with 20/20 vision are equally vulnerable to 'Screen Fatigue' this level of distress has been dismissed as a "temporary" problem although the affects are acknowledged to last for some time after working on-screen and may be linked to increased risk of work errors, slip or trip even hazard of mishap like car park bumps or worse on the journey home after work.

Early results of research suggests 68% of those reporting screen fatigue can be objectively identified or predicted with the majority experiencing a 20% reduction in visual stress and comperable improvement in performance.

Subject to academic peer review of research it is anticipated that results may be published by March 09 with evaluation of Screen Fatigue Risk Asessment tool-kit to follow over the summer.

If anyone is interested shall be happy to post link when published materials avaiable.

Was going to sign off with a non-pc wish but shall just say 'Merry Holidays'

would be interested to see what others are offering with regards to eyesight testing for DSE.

Am currently in the process of updating our Policy and we currently use an onsite Occ Health Department to offer initial screening and dependent on outcome refer onto an optician, however, the choice of optician is left with the individual, with varying costs.

What schemes do others use and how effective are these?