...
首页> 外文期刊>Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation >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
【24h】

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

机译:快速整体身体评估与新西兰人工处理“危害控制记录”的比较,用于评估超市行业中的人工处理危害

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

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.
机译:这是一个案例研究,比较了使用两种不同的评估工具(快速全身评估与新西兰人工处理危害控制记录)来评估,计划和实施超市行业中人工处理做法的变化。这些工具中的每一个都评估了这些超市中现有的手动处理方法。修订了最危险的任务,以改进工作方法,并再次使用这两种工具进行审查,以确定这些工具的有用性和有效性。该过程引起了关于每种工具的利弊的大量讨论。每个工具的有用性似乎取决于评估的原因和预期的结果。如果正在实施特定的人体工程学或生物力学更改以降低与工作相关的伤害的风险(尤其是在修改后需要重新评估以确定其有效性的客观数字评分),则REBA可能会更有用。新西兰人工处理“危害控制记录”风险评分分析的实践准则缺乏特异性和客观性,但是它的归纳性较低,并考虑了生物力学和人体工程学以外的许多因素。它指导用户实施全面,多因素且有用的控件,以控制与其他几个领域(包括任务,工作量,环境,人员和管理因素)相关的危害。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号