Long-term impact assessment of ergonomic training courses on professional practices

Transcription

1 Long-term impact assessment of ergonomic training courses on professional practices M. Duwelz a, J.F. Thibault b, P. Josse c a INRS Lorraine Département Formation BP Vandoeuvre Cedex - FR b LESC Université de Bordeaux rue Léo-Saignant Bordeaux Cedex - FR c CIDECOS 9 rue Puits Gaillo BP Lyon - FR Abstract A long-term assessment test focusing on changes in the professional practices of institutional preventionists, 3 to 5 years after the end of their training, forms the principal aim of this communication. Ergonomics training administered was of training-action type, centred on ergonomic work analysis (EWA) and ergonomic intervention at companies. The training scheme structure was designed to integrate an assessment process right from the start. Nevertheless, it appeared interesting to meet former trainees to observe how they had effectively integrated training content into their professional practices. This attempted long-term assessment enabled us to investigate just as effectively the directly intended effects of the training as those, which were not specifically sought a priori. Assessment Training Ergonomic work analysis - Preventionists 1. Preamble This communication follows on from the presentation made at the last IEA conference in SEOUL (Duwelz et col., 2003) entitled "When assessment of the changes in professional practices leads to a specific structure of ergonomic training course". The principal aim of this communication is to show how the method of structuring and building a training scheme is determining in relation to assessing transformations in preventionist professional practices. Implementation of this training structure allowed us to be aware of changes in these practices, but it appeared interesting to review, in the wake of past years, the impact of the long-term effects of such an ergonomics training scheme, in view of the fact that either formal or informal contact remains permanent with these trainees. 2. The context First and foremost, some basic facts related to the context, in which these training courses were run, should be recalled to understand better the content of this long-term assessment. Firstly, we recall that this is an original ergonomics Long-term impact assessment of ergonomic training courses on professional practices Page 1 of 1

2 training scheme offered by the Training Department at the Institut National de Recherche et de Sécurité (INRS[1]) to prevention department public employees at the Caisses Régionales d Assurance Maladie (CRAM[2]), regional health insurance funds operated by French social security. Several sessions of this type of training, run in cooperation with practising ergonomists [3], were implemented and 60 to 70 trainees are thought to have been trained in various French regions since Moreover, these actions fall within the scope of continuous training for institutional preventionists, some of whom have been performing their jobs for several years and who question the relevance of this training in relation to their pre-existing practices. Some even feel that this training could be a sign of changes in their preventionist profession, which would potentially call into question their professional capabilities. Finally, it should be stressed that these training courses requested by the prevention department manager are internally organised at department level and are not necessarily considered essential and useful to all public employees. Indeed, it was consideration of these different [1] INRS: association (Law of 1/07/1901) constituted under the aegis of the French National Health Insurance Fund. At national level, INRS is responsible for research, training, assistance and information in the domain of the prevention of work accidents and occupational diseases [2] Officers of the Risk Prevention department of the CRAMs are responsible within the Occupational Risk Prevention Institution for control and advisory assignments in enterprises relative to the prevention of work accidents and occupational diseases, and more generally occupational safety and health conditions [3] Pascal Josse Cidecos Conseil 21 rue longue BP LYON Cedex 01 pascal.josse@cidecos.com Marc JOURDAN Analusis La Figuière 130 avenue du club hippique AIX EN PROVENCE Jean-François THIBAULT Laboratoire d'ergonomie des Systèmes Complexes 146 rue Léo-Saignat BORDEAUX Cedex jeanfrançois.thibault@ergo.u-bordeaux2.fr context-related components, which led instructors and participants to build a specific ergonomics trainingaction scheme for these public employees. This scheme formed the subject of the previous communication presented at the IEA conference (SEOUL 2003). 3. Long-term assessment 3.1. Assessment structure and implementation Active participation of most trainees in developing and implementing this training course, the interest they showed in it, the quality of their work and the gradual development of their professional practices expressed during more or less formal contacts, led us to believe that this long-term assessment would be likely to provide us with information on the impact of such training. Our work was therefore initially directed towards defining and selecting possible relevant indicators allowing assessment of changes in these practices and subsequently towards organising contacts with former trainees. Data collection was based on a questionnaire aid, either during individual and/or collective direct meetings or, in view of the number of trainees, by transmitting the questionnaire and processing replies to it. The long-term assessment system was structured around the following three main lines, given the context-related components referred to above and initial informal contacts with former trainees. Assessment of intended effects in direct relation to the training content: work ergonomic analysis, ergonomic pre-diagnosis, ergonomic approach,. Assessment of intended effects on preventionist institutional assignments, Long-term assessment of induced effects Indicator selection For each main line of assessment defined above, our thinking was based on a number of indicators, which appeared most relevant to the trainee-negotiated aims of this training. For the first main line of assessment, given that trainees are and remain institutional preventionists, we felt it would be interesting to assess the way in which they position, after training, the ergonomic approach compared with their pre-existing prevention Long-term impact assessment of ergonomic training courses on professional practices Page 2 of 2

3 approaches (Chesnay, Rocher, 1995). In other words, do they believe they are more pertinent to: their capability in perceiving the usefulness of an ergonomic approach when confronted by a prevention problem, their capability in perceiving the feasibility of an ergonomic approach when confronted by a prevention problem, their capability in initiating and implementing partially or fully the ergonomic approach, their capability in initiating and implementing synergy with other participants, within the scope of this approach, the growth in their perception of the ergonomicsprevention relationship. The aim of the second main line of assessment was to assess possible changes in professional practices (Garrigou et col., 2001) within the scope of their institutional assignments. In other words, are the trainees more capable of perceiving a change in their method of: performing prevention diagnoses, assessing occupational risks and their significance, organising their company visits, proposing the company other solution routes or prevention measures, working in partnership with other institutional preventionists, assisting companies in preparing their "Document Unique" (DU) [single document] [4]. The third main line of assessment attempts to investigate training side effects that, we consider, combine all the effects in principle unsought in the aims defined by the training context, but which are nevertheless strongly associated with it. [4] "Document Unique" (DU) In France, "Evaluation des Risques Professionnels" (EvRP), i.e. occupational risk assessment falls within the responsibility of the employer, who has a general duty to ensure the safety and protect the health of his employees. EvRP is a concept emerging from the European Framework Directive of 12th June 1989, which lays down general prevention principles. Since French Decree n of the 5 th November 2001, results of this assessment must be transcribed in a so-called "Document Unique". Initial contacts with trainees, for example, enabled us to record effects on: their view on their own work activities as institutional preventionists, working relationships with other CRAM colleagues, their working habits with companies (influence on company requests), their view on developments in their own skills area and in the CRAM preventionist profession, the value they attach to this training course, compared with other training along their career path. 4. Assessment results 4.1. Effects directly related to training Effects emerging primarily from interviews conducted with former trainees are above all centred on better knowledge of ergonomics, ergonomic work analysis and the ergonomic approach. Criteria underlying the recruitment of prevention department public employees are such that engineer and technician profiles are effectively favoured and most of the interviewees had no clear view, indeed even a wrong view, of what ergonomics could contribute to occupational accident and disease prevention approaches. Appropriation of this new knowledge, in the form of concrete applications in the field, is found to vary and to be more or less pronounced, depending on trainee sensitivity. The large majority of trainees assure that they are capable of considering the usefulness of implementing an ergonomic approach. In other words, for the companies they have sometimes monitored for many years, they feel capable of determining whether, at a given moment, implementation of an ergonomic approach will be the best possible response, at that specific moment, to the prevention problem encountered. Indeed, in front of the company manager, some of them do not hesitate in arguing in favour of the usefulness and benefits, which could be drawn by the company in following an ergonomic approach. For these same public employees, analysis of the usefulness criteria of an ergonomic approach thereby leads to reflection on its feasibility criteria. They feel capable of being able to determine whether the context Long-term impact assessment of ergonomic training courses on professional practices Page 3 of 3

4 favours effectively this approach in view of the conditions helpful and necessary to its smooth running and whether the different partners, both internal and external to the company, will be party to this project. Some of them, after succeeding in convincing the company and at its request, have sometimes taken part in choosing and validating intervention structures proposed by external consultants. In these cases, the preventionists concerned acknowledge having more arguments and less difficulty in settling into the intervention and in positioning themselves with respect to different potential intervening parties (ergonomics consultants, occupational physicians, regional agency for improving working conditions, occupational risk prevention operators) after training. Public employees, who succeed in encouraging companies to implement this type of intervention, experience satisfaction on both professional and personal levels. In their opinion, they have in fact succeeded in "bringing about a shift" in the company's narrow view of ergonomics, which is most often limited to the work station dimensional aspect. They feel they have succeeded in: convincing the company to initiate this approach, which is not "in principle" the one it has in mind, showing the company manager that prevention technical problems do not necessarily have only technical responses, contributing to an evolution in the company requests made to them, which very often remain guided by the strong technicist-based view of their company contacts concerning the role of the institutional preventionist. These assessment results form part of the first main line of assessment Effects on preventionist assignments Training impact on preventionist professional practices of course varies widely with the public employees met but, overall, the long-term assessment reveals a significant impact on their way of organising company visits and on the information considered, when performing their prevention diagnoses. The way they view work situations and work itself has changed, the time spent with operators to understand their work has increased to the detriment of the time spent on technical aspects. Some preventionists admit to being more sensitive and permeable to the reality of work in not only its negative, but also its positive, aspects. Those who dedicate a little more time to closer consideration of work reality no longer formalise their prevention diagnosis in the same way. For them, the method of assessing the reality of occupational risks can no longer be limited to a straightforward "technical" approach, but must necessarily integrate greater knowledge of the work. This same transformation in their professional practice is encountered when companies seek their assistance in drafting the "document unique" (DU) [single document]. For the preventionists, who provided evidence on this subject, most companies would limit themselves to a technical approach focusing little on occupational diseases such a MSD, for example, and strongly conditioned by a view of work reduced to what is specified. Public employees trained in the ergonomic approach encouraged and helped companies to consider this approach. Furthermore, other aspects of preventionist professional practices have evolved since this training. Some showed us work situation studies they had conducted, for example for selecting a protective device suited to the work, for a feasibility study involving installation of seated work stations, etc. Sometimes, the training also led preventionists to develop their relationship with the company manager, especially in SMEs, by advising him, for example to consider work, when purchasing machinery or equipment and by helping him to think about operator work distribution. For some, the training effects have led to development of the vocabulary employed within the company and with the company manager. This ranges from explaining the difference between specified work and real work, to the use of different words; the preventionist concerned therefore uses purposely the term "recovery time" rather than the term "break time". In brief, these are essential components of this second main line of assessment focusing on the expression and observations of training impact on preventionist professional practices Induced effects Training induced effects have been defined above, as have all the effects in principle unsought through Long-term impact assessment of ergonomic training courses on professional practices Page 4 of 4

5 training, but which trainees attribute to it. The very nature of these effects results in their high variability and strong link with, amongst other factors, the trainee's personality and the image he develops of the profession of the institutional preventionist and his role both at companies and within the prevention department. For some public employees, it is the image they possess of their place and contributions to prevention approaches that has changed since the training course. They refer to a comprehensive approach to the operator, of the need to establish trusting relationships whenever possible, which requires time to achieve. They mention the need to take time to listen and to be able to listen to several opinions before making up their mind. Others state that the operator possesses all the knowledge and experience and that, when they are called upon to analyse occupational accidents, they consider the operator to be a work situation expert and no longer a guilty or responsible party. Public employees, who express these changes, are also those who integrate this view of work and of prevention actions into training courses for CHSCT members and company personnel, organised by the CRAM prevention department. Company expectations with regard to the evolution in today's contribution from these preventionists have little changed according to almost all the public employees questioned. On the other hand, these institutional preventionists are working continuously on this issue, during their regular contacts with companies, trying to develop the images that companies and, especially, SMEs have of the role and assignments of institutional preventionists. Other post-training benefits mentioned by public employees are based on the gradual building up of a language common to the different prevention players, whether they be institutional or not. Finally, their image of the preventionist profession and developments in prevention problems encountered at companies lead some to believe that recruitment criteria should be reconsidered for their successors. For these preventionists, knowledge of social sciences and an understanding of human functional behaviour are as, if not more, important than technical knowledge and should form an integral part of initial, or continuous, training of CRAM prevention department employees. Moreover, these results support those of Garrigou and Peissel-Cottenaz (2004), which were recorded on a more general preventionist population. 5. In conclusion We are here effectively concerned with long-term assessment testing of the impact of a training-action ergonomics course intended for CRAM prevention department employees. The purpose of this assessment attempt is to validate the relevance and efficiency of this training. Results collected are heterogeneous because integration of this training into professional practices depends on many factors, extending far beyond the preventionist's straightforward intention to implement it. Whilst the results we present are on the whole positive, they must nevertheless be moderated because they are less definite for other preventionists. Moreover, this is a difficult system to implement because interpretation of direct meetings with preventionists is of far greater value than interpretation of questionnaires, but requires much more time and geographic availability. It is for this reason that we could not physically meet all former trainees and that, if this had been the case, we could have probably enriched this assessment and moderate the results obtained. Finally, it is very difficult in absolute terms to take into account, 3 to 5 years after training, the effects that only result from this single training course. Many other factors probably contributed to accelerating or stemming this evolution in professional practices. Nevertheless, it would seem that the collected information is such that we are supported in the fact that this training scheme structure contributed effectively to development of prevention professional practices. Bibliography Chesnay M., Rocher M., 1995, Utilisation de la demarche ergonomique dans les pratiques de prévention des CRAM. Etude INNS-CRAM-CNRS A.1/ Paris, France Duwelz M., Thibault J.F., Josse P., 2003, When assessment of the changes in professional practices leads to a specific structure of ergonomic training course, in Ergonomics in digital age, Long-term impact assessment of ergonomic training courses on professional practices Page 5 of 5

6 IEA 2003, XVth Triennal congress and human factors and ergonomics society, Séoul, Corée. Garrigou A., Peissel-Cottenaz G., 2004, Contribution à la découverte du métier des préventeurs et à la caractérisation de leurs besoins en formation continue, Note scientifique & technique n 244, INRS, Paris. Garrigou A., Weill-Fassina A., Brun J.P., Six F., Chesnay M., Cru D., 2001, Preventionists activities: an issue not always well known, in Karwowski, International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors. Ed Taylor & Francis, London Long-term impact assessment of ergonomic training courses on professional practices Page 6 of 6