Healthy Workplaces Summit 2013

Transcription

1 Healthy Workplaces Summit 2013 Working together for OSH - successful organisational and individual interventions Rüdiger Trimpop, University of Jena Safety and health at work is everyone s concern. It s good for you. It s good for business.

2 Topics When and for whom is participation necessary? Which hazards cant be reduced without participation? Who needs which increased knowledge? What is the perception of leadership? 2

3 Hierarchy of success and participation! There are approach differences in OSH in Europe: Northern Countries: Participation plus Leadership plus Work design Middle Countries: Work design and Control plus Leadership Southern and Eastern Countries: Person centered and Control Comparison Former East vs. West Germany Similar safety standards through different approaches Participative approach versus technical approach 3

4 Change of Hazards and Loss Time In the past, the major focus was on production industry with a strong emphasis on avoiding work accidents. This type of accident has dropped significantly, partly because of effective OSH partly because accident-prone jobs have been automatized or outsorced. Many successful large companies have installed OSH Management Systems and changed the work design. Successful small companies rely on leadership and safety advice from outside. However, the focus of Health Promotion and Preservation is shifting! 4

5 New Threats! The two major sources for deadly accidents and time loss in many European countries are: Occupational traffic accidents have not been reduced and account for more than 50% of all deadly accidents. Tendency rising! Occupational Stress accounts for many health problems and is related to 40% of the loss time for example in Germany! These areas have gained little profit from the work design approach in accident prevention over the last years. 5

6 6

7 Occupational traffic safety: relevance Most companies do not address traffic accidents since they happen outside company properties and they feel they have no influence. Most state and insurance agencies treat all traffic accidents alike as an error of the driver alone, thus ignoring the occupational component, such as time pressure, lack of sleep,increased commuting etc. Our data with 2000 small and medium sized companys clearly show occupational stress as the main predictor, followed by exposition and distraction! 7

8 Sometimes people make wrong judgements and errors! 8

9 Reasons for Time Loss in Germany Illness (Infections, Backproblems, Cardiovascular) 40% Accidents (Work) 10% Psychological factors (Stress, etc.) 40% Environment (Personal and Family Factors) 10% 9

10 10

11 Stressparadox Leadership personnel works on average hours more per week but: Leadership is on average less ill and lives longer! One key difference is- Influence on work and time! 11

12 Stress at Work Study on 147 Mio. workers in the EU (2009): 52% say, they work under high time pressure. 33% have no influence on their work procedures. 27% have no influence on their work rhythm and breaks 45% have monotonous tasks, 44% have no job-rotation, 50% have short, repetitive time-relevant tasks 16% report little or no support through leadership and colleagues 12

13 Dimensions of stress and strain in a comparison study (possible ressources) Task Variety Feedback Chances for Development Education- Learning on the job Information Participation Personal Controlover work Social Support (possible stressors) Fear of Unemployment Productivity pressure Speed of work Interruptions Roleambiguity Roleconflict Conflicts with co-workers / leadership Physical demands Environmental factors 13

14 Comparison Expert- vs- Participative stressor analysis with 356 people in 12 work units Stressors Experts higher Employees higher Task Variety Feedback Chances for Development Education- Learning on the job Information Participation Personal Control over work Social Support X X X X X X X X Fear of Unemployment = = Productivity pressure Speed of work Interruptions Roleambiguity Roleconflict Conflicts with co-workers / leadership Physical demands Environmental factors X X X X X X X X 14

15 Take home messages First take home message: Risk Assessments through safety experts and employees differ significantly in relation to stress! Second take-home message Risk assessments for traffic safety and psychological health need participative approaches since nobody else knows the dangers on individual trips and what is perceived as stress! 15

16 Risk Assessments should include several factors and involve the people that experience and take the risks! One approach to that is GUROM ( GUROM is an adaptive online risk assessments for organisational mobility that includes stress and distraction! It incudes a Hazard Profile for the individual, the company and suggestions for preventive measures! 16

17 Most people perform a risk assessment and chose their actions accordingly! 17

18 Accidents are the result of various interacting factors Technichal /Environmental Factor (road, vehicle) Organisational Factors (time pressure, leadership) Personal Factors (risk inclination, experience) Situational Factors (stress, weather, distraction) Accident Probability 18

19 GUROM has different modules Modul 1: Commuting to work Modul 2: Commuting to school Modul 3: Travelling as part of the job Trucks, Taxis, Sales, Police, Fire-department, etc. Modul 4: Mobility within the company fork-lifts, bicycles, foot, trains Modul 5: Private mobility 19

20 People get feedback about their hazards in a profil companies get it anonymous 1 5 1,5 3,7 3,2 Your Value Your company / or population average and suggestions for interventions from our 600-Intervention database 20

21 All driver assistance techniques draw unwanted behavioural adaptations (risk-compensation) 21

22 unless they are specially designed! 4 22

23 Effective measures against occupational traffic accidents Gregersen, et al.(1996) examined 4000 drivers of the swedish Telekom, 1000 per intervention for 1 year Accident reduction in % Media only + 3% Lecture on the job - 2% Psych/educ. driver-training -31% Traffic safety circle -56% 23

24 Traffic safety circles Main Assumption: Use the knowledge of the workers/drivers to achieve safety! Leadership Circle Vertical Circle Worker Circle Circle participants make suggestions to reduce exposure, stress and distractions! The verticle circle up to the head of the company decides and performs the changes. 24

25 Traffic Safety Circles Examples of Structural Changes: Reduced km when on duty through change in work procedures Reduced telephoning on the road through rerouting of work Reduced driving hours through change of responsibility for assets Less time pressure through changed leadership behaviour Standardised load-check and car improvements 25

26 Some behavioural results from driving observations (Data from 13 companies, Projekt run through DVR) 70 Gesamt Fahrfehler PKW Dienstfahrten Gesamt Fahrfehler PKW Dienstfahrten/min 0, , ,4 0,2 10 Pilotgruppe Vergleichsgruppe Pilotgruppe Vergleichsgruppe 0 Vorher Nachher 0 Vorher Nachher Control group (dotted line) has no change or increase in driving errors Circle Group has a significant decrease in observed driving errors 26

27 Some attidudinal results from traffic safety circles (13 Companies, dotted lines: comparison group; straight lines: circle groups) 2,8 Skala Riskobereitschaft 2,5 2,3 2,0 Vorher Nachher Pilotgruppe Oschatz Vergleichsgruppe Frankfurt Pilotgruppe Frankfurt Pilotgruppe Rosenheim Vergelichsgruppe Rosenheim Control group (dotted line) has no change or increase in risk-inclination Circle Group has a significant decrease in risk inclination 27

28 289 Items for 5 general factors, leaders, work-councils, and medical doctors from 400 companies were used for matched validation External Factors General Corporate Conditions Person Activity Effectiveness 28

29 Timeline of the study preparation/ test analysis/ documentation first survey basic study in-depth & validation study as per May st follow-up survey basic study 2nd follow-up survey basic study in-depth & validation study 3rd follow-up survey Short versions of the basic study & the in-depth & validation study 29

30 Estimates about effectiveness in psychological stress reduction gar nicht kaum intensiv mittelmäßig intensiv ziemlich intensiv Betriebsarzt (eigene Wirksamkeitseinschätzung) Betriebsarzt (Wirksamkeitseinschätzung der Sifa) 2,7 2,8 Sifa (eigene Wirksamkeitseinschätzung) 2,4 Safety experts (green) ranked themselves lowest, Medical doctors (red) ranked the experts (blue) and themselves equal, but all of them below 3 on a 5-point scale 30

31 Fields of acitivity T1 Behaviour-related organisational protective measures 3,8 T2 Analysis of risk factors 3,7 T3 Management of occupational health and safety 3,3 T4 Technical and organisational design of work systems 3,2 T5 Human-centered design of work systems 2, low intensity high intensity Exploratory Factor analysis (EFA) with varimax rotation. Explained variance: 48% 31

32 Fields of effectiveness W1 Occupational health and safety organisation and safety culture 3,1 W2 Effectiveness relating to risk reduction 3,1 W3 Corporate benefit 3,0 W4 Effectiveness relating to the human-centered work design 2,6 1 2 Exploratory 3 Factor analysis 4 (EFA) with 5 low effective varimax rotation. Explained variance: 48% high effective 32

33 Access to TOP-Leadership is the key to success 33 If there is less access to leadership (darker blue), effectiveness is reduced 33

34 Economic Usefulness of human-centered work design and safety culture ranked by 400 leaders Leadership Economic-Usefulness Time 1 Time 2 Organisational structure and Health Culture Time 1.58 (N = 249) Time 2.55 (N = 167) Human-(health) centered work design Time 1.73 (N = 250) Time 2.79 (N = 167) p<.001, 34 34

35 35

36 Take home messages Third take home message: Psychological factors are currently not addressed with professional competence in most companies! Fourth take-home message There is a large number of evaluated and successful interventions in Europe that are based on participation and have proven to reduce accidents and illnesses! 36

37 Conclusions Participation in many modern areas of OSH is absolutely essential for success Human centered work design is recognized by leadership as economically useful, in spite of contradicting behaviour If we coordinate, cooperate and participate in our expertises, we can handle even complex systems! 37

38 The British way to solve complexity! 38

39 39

40 Thank you for your attention! 40