The company started a detailed ergonomics program for its employees in the year 1991. It spends about 2. 5 million dollars on the program. Committees were formed in the company to plan, implement and monitor the ergonomics program. Employees at different levels of the company were included as committee members. A professional ergonomist was also employed to enable training of the employees, bringing about changes, reducing the risk factors, evaluating the program, surveying the discomfort levels and medical management of problems.
The program was kept as simple and traditional as possible. Employees were asked to report symptoms as early as possible, and treatment was made conservatively. The employees were also taught exercises to strengthen their back muscles and avoid ways of reducing traumatic movements. Results: Following the ergonomics program, the workers compensation claims decreased, and their productivity increased. The company invested about $ 2. 5 million in the program, but the benefits during the same financial period was roughly $ 3. 5 million. The return of investment was 40%.
Cumulative trauma disorders (CTD) reduced by about 80% and the worker time lost due to the disorder reduced dramatically. Initially, following awareness spread by the introduction of the program and installation of a more efficient medical management system, the reporting of CTD by the employees increased. However, this dropped to below 50% within a very short period of time. As the program remains active, the employees still give complaints of CTD. Certain types of injuries to the upper limbs and the back are reduced by about 50% following introduction of the program.
Surveys conducted to determine the discomfort levels of the employees, demonstrated positive changes. A total of 40% reduction in the discomfort levels was achieved. The discomfort levels were seemingly stagnant in an area of the company where the ergonomics program was not implemented. Employee surveys instruments have been a very vital tool in studying the efficiency of the overall ergonomics package. The improvements in productivity in different sectors of the company varied from 0% to 200%, with an average of 25%. This was equivalent to $700,000 savings.
The company also managed to save costs through reduced errors and lower medical expenses. The ergonomics program involved installing automatic devices that either reduced or totally eliminated repeated body movements of the workers. These devices also enabled higher production rates. Conclusion: It is very important that the company makes a corporate effort to reduce the injury and illness rates of the employees. Improved health status of the employees will ensure reduced worker compensation claims, lower worker hours lost due to illness and higher productivity rates.
Several other factors such as a good organization structure, responsibility, provision of training at all levels and installation of monitoring and evaluation devices, play a very important role in determining the efficiency of the program.
References:
Adams, J. C. , & Hamblen, D. L. (2001). Outline of Orthopaedics (13th ed). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. Apley, A. G. , & Solomon, L. (1997). Apley’s System of Orthopaedics and Fractures (7th ed). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Allen, C. M. C. , & Lueck, C. J. (1999). Diseases of the Nervous System. In Haslett, C, Chilvers, E. R. , Hunter J. A. A. , & Boon N. A.
(Eds), Davidson’s Principles and Practice of medicine (18th ed). London: Churchill Livingstone. Clarke, C. R. A. (2002). Neurological Disease. In Kumar, P. , & Clark, M. (Eds), Clinical Medicine (5th ed). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders. Engstrom, J. W. (2001). Back and Neck Pain. In: Braunwald, E. , Fauci, A. S. , Kasper, D. L. et al (Eds) Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine (Vol. 1, 15th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill. Fast, A. (1988). Low back disorders: conservative management. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 69(10), 880-891. http://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/entrez/query. fcgi? cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2972268