“Working Late”...

Caring for animal care workers

 Who are we?
 Esme Shanley
Researcher, Checkland Kindleysides

 Elaine Yolande Williams

Research Associate, Loughborough Design School

 Diane Gyi
Reader in Health Ergonomics and Design,
Loughborough Design School

 Roger Haslam
Professor of Ergonomics, Loughborough Design School

 Alistair Gibb
Professor of Construction Engineering Management,
Department of Civil and Building Engineering
 What is Working Late: Ageing productively
through design?

 This “Working Late” project investigates the role of good design and
ergonomics in healthy working.

 The research will be used to create an online resource called OWL (Organiser
for “Working Late”) which will facilitate healthy working through better more
intelligent workplace design.

 “Working Late” is NOT about ‘over time’ or ‘long working hours’

 “Working Late” through ‘design’

fun intelligent desirable

non-stigmatising
individual choice & control

preventative healthcare
Design

flexible

sustainable encourages good habits

accessible and intuitive
 What is OWL?

 The OWL resource will support line managers in facilitating

healthy ageing at work through design.

 It will be made up of education & training tools

 Generic tool kit – tool box talks,
discussion tools
 Personal Stories - design examples,
video stories

 OWL will empower and support worker involvement in design

decision making processes especially when “Working Late”.
 Introduction

 Collaboration between an animal charity in the Midlands and

Loughborough Design School, Loughborough University
 Work & improve centre design

 ‘Caring for animal care workers’ Ergonomics Undergraduate

research project

 In collaboration with the NDA “Working Late”

 Introduction

 The project was undertaken

 October 2010 – June 2011.

 The site assessed has now moved

 During the project they were in the
process of moving.
 Background

 The animal care centre is a charity concerned with the prevention of

cruelty to animals;
 Care centres
 Animal hospitals
 Wildlife centres

 The care centres adopt a range of jobs caring for animals

 Concern for the animal care workers’: Health & Safety

 Awkward postures
 Work related injuries; musculoskeletal ill health
 Facts & Figures

 Training Animal Care Worker’s in manual handling is limited

 31% of UK small animal practices having trained staff in H&S (D’Souza et
al, 2009)

 Animal care workers experiencing lower back problems

 60% - 63% (O’Sullivan & Curran, 2008 & Smith et al, 2009)

 75% of veterinary practices, around Hampshire in the UK, have

access to adjustable tables
 95% treat heavy dogs on the floor (D’Souza et al, 2009)

 Reducing manual lifting within the kitchen improved the

protection of the shoulders (Pehkonen et al, 2009)
 Methods

 First stage: Baseline Data Collection

 Preliminary meetings and informal
discussions
 Questionnaire Survey

 Second stage: In-depth Data Collection

 Observations
 Focus Groups

 Third stage: Feedback

 Project write up
 Presentation of co-design solutions
 Methods

 Baseline Data Collection – Questionnaire Survey

 The ‘working late’ questionnaire was used for this project to gain
insights into the environment animal care staff work in.

 The areas are:

 Air qulaity, ligthing and noise
 Temperature
 MSD
 Working ability
 Ageing affects
 Methods

 In-depth data collection: Observations

 These took place in the food preparation room.

 The methods used include:

 Ergonomic audit
 Link analysis
 REBA assessments
 Methods

 In-depth data collection: Focus Groups

 Two focus groups

 animal care workers
 animal care managers

 The three areas which were explored were:

1. Storage
2. Food preparation
3. Cleaning
 Results

 Questionnaire Survey
 26% (n=23) completed questionnaires
 83% female
 Average age 34 (range 20-63)
 Height ranged from 1.52m – 1.98m
 32 average hours worked per week
 3 years 5 months average time respondents had worked at the RSPCA
 The majority of equipment used was cleaning, follwed by medical and IT
 All respondents rate their ability to work between 7-10
 Results

 Questionnaire Survey
 Results

 Questionnaire Survey
Working posture & frequency
 Results

 Observations: Ergonomics Audit

 Layout of the food prepartion room
 Results

 Observations - Ergonomic Audit

 Lifting heavy equipment.
 Cleaning was an issue.
 Innefficent storage.
 Results

 Observations – Link Analysis

 Results

 Observations – REBA

 Necessary action to be taken for both tasks

 Medium Risk Level; preparing food bowls
 High Risk Level; filling up food barrels

REBA Score Risk Level Action Level Action

1 Negligible 0 None necessary

2–3 Low 1 May be necessary

4–7 Medium 2 Necessary

8 – 10 High 3 Necessary soon

11 – 15 Very High 4 Necessary NOW

 Results

 Co-Design Focus Groups

 Wants
 Waist height storage/access
 Higher sink
 Drying rack
 Disinfectant at worktop height
 Push swing door ‘Ideally everything wants to be at waist height,
 Set area for each food type but unfortunately we don’t live in an ideal world’.
 More weighting scales
 Drawer for miscellaneous items

 Do not want
 Not keen on a dishwasher
 Not keen on hand dryer
 Conclusions

 Workers adopt awkward postures when performing job tasks

 working posture; standing (74%), lifting and handling heavy equipment
(78%).

 Lower back period prevalence MSDs was 65% and 56% for
shoulders.

 High occurrence of manual handling throughout the site.

 Conclusions

 Limited space is a major negative contributing factor to the

manual handling of food

 Storage of dry food used for food preparation could be

improved to reduce;
 poor postures and manual handling.

 Food bowls, barrels and scales were the most frequently used
items in the food preparation room
 Conclusions; Design Solutions
sink areas, worktops and storage of
cleaning equipment

1. Improved manual handling training

2. Food storage to be in the same room as food
preparation
3. Improved storage of cleaning equipment.
4. “Swinging doors”, with glass panels.
5. Sinks at higher levels.
6. Drying racks for food bowls.
7. Waist height food storage

Height adjustable counters, sinks storage solutions

 References

D’Souza, E., Barraclough, R., Fishwick, D., Curran, A. 2009, Management of occupational health risks in small-animal
veterinary practices. Occupational Medicine. 59, 316-322.

O’Sullivan, K., Curran, N. 2008, It Shouldn’t Happen to a Vet. Occupational injuries in veterinary practitioners working in
Ireland. Ireland Veterinary Journal. 61, 584-587.

Pehkonen, I., Miranda, H., Haukka, E., Luukonen, R., Takala, E-P., Ketola, R., Leino-Arjas, P., Riihimaki, H., Viikari-Juntura, E.
2009b, Prospective study on shoulder symptoms among kitchen workers in relation to self-percieved and observed
work load. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 66, 416-423.

Smith, D.R., Leggat, P.A., Speare, R. 2009, Musculoskeletal disorders and psychosocial risk factors among veterinarians in
Queensland, Australia. Australian Veterinarian Journal. 87, 260-265.
 Thank you!

Any questions please contact:

Esme Shanley Elaine Yolande Williams Diane Gyi

 esme.shanley@hotmail.co.uk  e.y.williams2@lboro.ac.uk  d.e.gyi@lboro.ac.uk
 + 44 (0) 1509 228816  +44 (0) 1509 223043