health

Post-Offer Physical Abilities Success Story

Quin Bond, CEAS IIILeave a comment

“You can arrive at your dream a lot of different ways, but you also arrive there as a different version of yourself based on whatever pathway you choose.”  – Joanna Gaines

Post-offer physical abilities testing is something that should really be straight forward.  Testing based on the minimum essential postural and physical demands for the position that has been offered to the candidate.  Seems pretty simple, the candidate either meets or does not meet the minimum essential demands.  But, it isn’t always that simple because the process involves people.

When a candidate fails a post-offer physical abilities test, the employer has to choose what path they will take.  Some employers may look to see if the candidate’s abilities meet the demands of different position.  Other employers may offer the candidate the opportunity to repeat the test at a later date.  Some employers may choose to not re-test.

One of the employers that we work closely with allows candidates to work on improving in the areas in which they did not meet the demands and attempt the test again with the next new hire class.  This particular employer has a fairly high passing rate (which is due to a phenomenal hiring process by the employer that helps to make sure that the demands of the position are consistently reinforced during every contact with the candidate), so the number of candidates who do not meet the demands is fairly low.  Of those that do not meet the demands on the initial test, some come back to test again.  It is a good job with solid benefits and is worth the time and effort for these candidates to try again.  Nearly everybody who re-tests comes back physically stronger and with improved range of motion and physical abilities and passes the test.  Many comment that not meeting the demands on the initial test was a significant wake-up call about their previous level of fitness.  They wish they were able to start the jobs with their original classmates but they are also content with the fact that they have not only done what was required to earn the job but have made lifestyle changes that will benefit them for years to come.  We don’t mind repeat tests for this employer as we know most candidates return, changed for the better.

Recently, we had a second test for a candidate from a different employer.  This candidate’s scenario was much different.  It was the first post-offer failure for the employer and it was a result of lack of medical treatment for an auto-immune disorder that attacked the candidate’s upper extremities in a way that did not allow the candidate to meet the minimum essential demands.  The employer did not have alternative positions with decreased physical demands to offer.  As the candidate had not yet received treatment for their condition, we suggested to the employer (along with the instruction of talking to their lawyers) that if the candidate has a change in physical function due to treatment that they be re-tested. 

When this candidate was scheduled for a second test, I was unsure of what to expect.  Luckily, the candidate returned with significantly improved function due to appropriate medical treatment and they were able to meet the minimum essential postural and physical demands of the position.  The candidate told us that as a result of not meeting the demands for a position,  they realized that they needed to become more proactive with their physician in seeking a successful treatment regimen for their condition.  For this candidate, not only did they obtain the position they wanted on the second test, they were able to become a successful advocate for their own healthcare status and understand the importance of that in keeping their condition in check. 

In each of these success cases, the post-offer candidates arrived at Point B – meeting the demands and obtaining the position – but they also arrived at Point B as improved versions of themselves with better fitness and abilities, and in the second case a better advocate for their own healthcare.

 

What Not To Do Wednesday – 3/15/17

Quin Bond, CEAS IIILeave a comment

A recent article in The Daily Meal focused on bad kitchen hygiene habits that can be observed by watching most of the television shows featuring celebrity chefs.  These habits include unsafe handling of meats and vegetables, lack of personal protective equipment (gloves), and unsafe techniques for tasting food while cooking.  The article points out that a reminder during the show about safe techniques could go along way to prevent unsafe and unhealthy techniques being used for cooks at home.  A “Don’t Do What I Do” reminder, if you will.

The celebrity food shows are not the only media in which poor or unsafe techniques are shown.

chip on top step of ladder

I hate to pick on Fixer Upper (it’s a favorite show in our home) as Chip’s goofiness is always the source of a few laughs.  But, this morning as my kids were watching a rerun, I heard him discuss some issues with the roof of a house that they were renovating.  When the word “ladder” came across the speaker of the television, I knew that I needed to take a quick peak.  I grabbed a quick picture with my cell phone as I saw them pull out the sketchy wooden A-frame ladder which was well below the roof line of the house.  Not only did Chip stand on the top step of the ladder with not great holding by his wife, he used this top step as a launching point to climb on to the roof.

In defense of Fixer Upper, almost every home improvement/home repair show on HGTV and DIY features moments just like this one – whether it is with ladders, saws, hammers, etc.  As Joanna Fantozzi of The Daily Meal pointed out in her article, a quick reminder of safety principles could go along way towards better safety practices of homeowners as they are attempting to do home renovations and repairs.

While This Old House may not be as fun and glitzy as its HGTV relatives, they include a lot of safety information as they take on different tasks on the show.

Ladder accidents cause nearly 500,000 injuries per year and the rate of ladder injuries has been increasing every year.  A significant portion of these injuries are not work related and occur at home.

There are several simple solutions to reducing the number of ladder related injuries:

  • Use the right type of ladder.
    • Use wood or fiberglass ladders when dealing with electricity.
    • Make sure that the ladder is of sufficient height for the task being performed.
    • Make sure that the ladder has a sufficient strength rating for the weight of the user and and tools/materials that are being carried or used.
  • Make sure that the ladder is in good shape.
    • If the ladder is worn or damaged, make sure that the ladder is repaired to manufacturer standards or replaced.
  • Make sure that you are using the ladder properly.
    • Maintain 3 points of contact when climbing.
    • Don’t reach out of your base of support.
    • When necessary, climb down, move the ladder, and climb again.
  • Make sure that you use proper ladder placement.
    • Place ladder on firm, even ground.
    • Use an assistant/helper to support the base of the ladder to prevent slipping.
    • Don’t place the ladder in front of doors that have not been secured.

One last suggestion comes from a recent paper in Injury by Ackland et al.  In their review of admissions to intensive care units due to ladder related injuries, they recommend that ladder users wear helmets to reduce the risk of traumatic brain injuries in the event of a fall from a ladder.  They note that this is especially important in home based environments as typical worksite occupational health and safety regulations are not in effect.

 

 

Friday Five – 3/10/17

Quin Bond, CEAS IIILeave a comment

The Friday Five is a set of five links that I have come across this week that pertain to ergonomics, occupational health, safety, human performance, or human factors.  For whatever reason, I found them interesting, but they are provided with minimal or no commentary and are not meant to be endorsement for a given product.

The news media this morning had several stories noting that beginning in July medical residents may work consecutively from 16 hours to 24 hours.  Interestingly, there were many medical residents that were in favor of this change.   Taking this change to resident’s shifts and the upcoming changing of the clocks for Daylight Saving Time, this Friday Five is focused on shift work.

Some residents looked forward to the increased hours as a way of reducing mid-case handoff of ER cases due to hitting the 16 hour mark.  A research letter by Charlie Wray, DO et al. in JAMA looked at handoff policies for residents at hospitals as implemenation of these practices, despite guidelines, is left to each hospital to implement.

A study published last year investigated the effect of hours per week worked by an admitting resident on patient outcomes.  It found that individuals admitted by residents working 80+ hours per week had longer hospital stays and more ICU transfers than those admitted by residents working less than 80 hours per week.  However, there did not appear to be a relationship between hours worked and 30 day readmission rates or in-hospital mortality rates.

Fernando and Roswell looked at the work performed during nursing shifts and noted that the types of work and volume of work performed varied through a 24 hour work cycle.  They note that the scheduling of shifts needs to take type of work and work volume into account.

Two older studies looked at the incidence of work related injuries following onset of Daylight Saving Time.  A study of American mine workers found an increase in injuries on the Monday following the start of DST and a decrease in total sleep for that night by 40 minutes.  A Canadian study found no statistical relationship between injuries and the onset of DST.

Interestingly,  researchers found that the rate of ischemic strokes increases during the first two days after the onset of daylight saving time.

 

Friday Five – 1/27/17

Quin Bond, CEAS IIILeave a comment

The Friday Five is a set of five links that I have come across this week that pertain to ergonomics, occupational health, safety, human performance, or human factors.  For whatever reason, I found them interesting, but they are provided with minimal or no commentary and are not meant to be endorsement for a given product.

This article by NHL defenseman Bryce Salvador discusses the changes in both behaviors and attitudes that he had to make following a concussion after being hit in the head with a puck at 90 miles per hour.

Steven Dubner of Freakonomics and Freakonomics radio did a two episode series on the economics of sleep.  It covers a lot of interesting areas that are impacted by the amount and quality of sleep.  While it’s broad in scope, it isn’t a deep dive into all of  the areas.  There’s some brief discussion of safety and productivity/efficiency.  Episode 1 provides an introduction to the issues of sleep and overall economics and Episode 2 looks a little bit more into timing of sleep and quality with a quick discussion with Heather Schofield who is doing some interesting research into the affect of sleep on data entry jobs.

Sometimes job training needs to start before you get the job.  The Kessler Foundation has awarded a grant to the University of Michigan to look at virtual reality based training modules to help youth with disabilities become more confident with their actions when interviewing for a job.  (As a quick disclosure, I used to work for the Kessler Foundation within their research division a long time ago).

Researchers in Canada are beginning to dig deeper into a fairly large set of data on construction workers to determine the differences between injury rates between unionized and non-unionized construction workers.

Besides the science that goes into the ballistic properties of bullet proof vests, there is a lot of ergonomics that goes into determining which vests work better at allowing personnel to be able to accurately and effectively perform job tasks.  Issues looked at include heat generation/dissipation, performance in obstacle courses, and more. Employees and end users should look to make sure that the issued vests are able to suitably perform all aspects of the job.

 

 

Friday Five

Quin Bond, CEAS IIILeave a comment

The Friday Five is a set of five links that I have come across this week that pertain to ergonomics, occupational health, safety, human performance, or human factors.  For whatever reason, I found them interesting, but they are provided without commentary and are not meant to be endorsement for a give product.

Ergonomic recycling containers – the lids are open to all sides allowing for easier access to deposit recyclables

American Airlines flight staff seem to be having health issues since their new uniforms were put into service.

Ergonomic mice and keyboards aren’t only for data entry – it can be the difference between winning and losing for gamers.

There are a lot of options for ergonomic keyboards.  This site reviews 10 of them.

While there have been reductions in sprains, strains, and other MSDs in many occupations, construction workers still have high rates of MSDs.