EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
52,725,316
Abstracts:
28,411,598
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on Google+Follow on Google+
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Comparison of the Rapid Entire Body Assessment and the New Zealand Manual Handling 'Hazard Control Record', for assessment of manual handling hazards in the supermarket industry


Work 24(2): 111-116
Comparison of the Rapid Entire Body Assessment and the New Zealand Manual Handling 'Hazard Control Record', for assessment of manual handling hazards in the supermarket industry
This is a case study comparing the use of two different assessment tools (Rapid Entire Body Assessment versus New Zealand Manual Handling Hazard Control Record) to assess, plan and implement changes in manual handling practices in the supermarket industry. Existing manual handling practices being used within these supermarkets were assessed using each of these tools. The most hazardous tasks were revised to improve work methods and reviewed again using both tools, to determine the usefulness and effectiveness of these tools. The process generated considerable discussion regarding the benefits and drawbacks of each tool. The usefulness of each tool appears dependant on the reason for assessment and the anticipated outcome. REBA may be more useful if specific ergonomic or biomechanical changes are being implemented to decrease risk of work-related injury (particularly if an objective numeric score is required for re-assessment following modifications, to determine their effectiveness). The New Zealand Code of Practice for Manual Handling 'Hazard Control Record' Risk Score analysis process lacks specificity and objectivity, however it is less reductionistic and takes into account many factors other than biomechanics and ergonomics. It directs the user toward implementing controls, which are thorough, multi-factorial and useful to control hazards relating to several other areas, including task, load, environment, people and management factors.


Accession: 048606136

PMID: 15860900



Related references

Kinematic and electromyographic assessment of manual handling on a supermarket green- grocery shelf. Work 51(2): 261-271, 2014

Debunking the manual handling myth: an investigation of manual handling knowledge and practices in the Australian private health sector. International Journal of Nursing Practice 17(3): 231-237, 2011

Manual handling 1--assisted stand. The manual handling procedure to help a seated patient into a standing position. Nursing Times 104(50-51): 36-37, 2009

A comparison of risk assessment of single and combination manual handling tasks: 3. Biomechanical measures. Ergonomics 40(7): 708-728, 1997

A comparison of risk assessment of single and combination manual handling tasks: 1. maximum acceptable weight measures. Ergonomics 39(1): 128-140, 1996

Control of manual lifting hazards 1. training in safe handling. Journal of Occupational Medicine 24(8): 573-577, 1982

Control of manual lifting hazards: I. training in safe handling. Journal of Occupational Medicine. 24(8): 573-577, 1982

A comparison of risk assessment of single and combination manual handling tasks: 2. Discomfort, rating of perceived exertion and heart rate measures. Ergonomics 40(6): 656-669, 1997

Risk assessment would help manual handling decisions. Nursing Standard 1987) 13(31): 29-29, 1999

Testing a risk assessment tool for manual handling. Professional Nurse 16(9): 1344-1348, 2002