CTS Repetitive Motion Injury Report (August 1996) I. Introduction Ever since CTS staff members started spending most of their time working on computers, Repetitive Motion Injury has been a problem. Over the past few years the rate of injuries has fluctuated and remains unacceptably high. As a result the University, the Library, and affected employees sustain significant costs. In this report I explain what has been done so far to deal with the problem and what still needs to be done. II. The Current Situation For three of the last four years the number of work-related injuries in CTS per 100 employees has been about 18 percent. Of these injuries, between 58 and 77 percent have been identified as repetitive motion-upper extremities (RMI) injuries. (1) University-wide, RMI injuries account for about 35% of all illness and injuries. (2) The conclusion that CTS staff are getting hurt more often, if not to a greater degree, than other University staff is inescapable. The cost to the Library and the University of these injuries in terms of time lost and salaries paid for non-productive work is significant: About 210 person-days in 1993/94 and 1994/95, 54 person-days in 1995/96. (3) We do not know exactly why the numbers were so much lower last year. We think that it may be related to the fact that, unlike the previous years, we had no back injuries from which patients tend to take longer to recover. The cumulative cost to the Library of all RMI injuries suffered in CTS since July 1992 is in excess of $55,000. (4) For the past three years Ann Dyckman, Director of Library Human Resources, and I have been trying to develop a program to reduce and prevent RMI injuries. We have tried to accomplish three goals:
In furtherance of the first two goals we have worked with the following offices: Faculty/Staff Health Program, Occupational and Environmental Health, Organizational Development and Educational Services, Occupational Health Program, Back Injury Prevention Program, and the University Human Resources staff who deal with workers' compensation and disability issues. We have made some progress in promoting the idea that RMI, which is a University- wide, not just a Library, problem, required central coordination and that its solution required a commitment from the central University administration. However, this is just a beginning. The increased awareness has not yet been translated into an effective, coordinated program. So work, on this front, must continue. The University Librarian may have an important role to play here because a central program will happen only if the deans and top university officials agree that it must happen. To help reach our third goal we followed two paths. First, in 1993, with much help from Ann Dyckman, I created in CTS a self- managed Repetitive Motion Injuries Team. I charged this group with the following objectives: To increase CTS employee participation and responsibility for healthy work habits, and to develop a relevant continuing education program. Ann and I set this team up because of our conviction that solving the problem was not simply a matter of throwing enough money at it to buy state-of-the-art furniture and accessories. We believed that employees themselves had to take responsibility for insuring their health and well being. A major objective of the RMI Team is to help them to do that. Among other activities, the Team has conducted a workplace injury survey, organized a library of RMI-related resources, created a booklet for new employees, and made several presentations to the staff and also to the New York Library Association. It also helped with an ergonomic study which was carried out late last year and this year. Our second path took us outside of the Library. The workstations and related furnishings in CTS have been mentioned several times as being problematical by therapists and others who have helped our staff members. The furniture is generally old, eclectic, and never intended for people who make prolonged use of computers. So we enlisted the help of Alan Hedge, Professor of Design and Environmental Analysis in the College of Human Ecology. Professor Hedge is an expert on ergonomic issues. We asked him to do an ergonomic audit of CTS and to suggest solutions for us to consider. A team of his students conducted an exhaustive inventory last fall and did a Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) of 52 staff members. (5) Their major findings were sobering:
These results are obviously of great concern to us. The fact that we are maintaining a physical environment in which up to 90% of our employees are at risk of getting hurt, albeit at varying rates, is at the very least disconcerting and, in fact, unacceptable. But I have gone about as far as I can go on my own to deal with the problem. Over the past few years, I have purchased a significant number of chairs and tried to deal with the situations of people who were either hurt or most at risk. This has helped some but has not addressed the fundamental problem highlighted by Professor Hedge and his students: that the furniture in CTS is not only inadequate, it is potentially dangerous to a significant number of staff. Doing nothing more than I have been doing so far does not seem to me to be an option. For one thing, it is costly to the University and the Library and it impairs our mission. For another, it just does not seem right. But dealing with the problem will be costly too, requiring resources far in excess of what I have available. III. The Next Steps I would like permission to initiate two actions. The first is to ask vendors of office furniture to come in, review our situation, and prepare proposals to implement the recommendations made to us by Professor Hedge. Because of the physical layout of CTS and the fact that there are over half a million dollars worth of computer and communications lines to deal with, this review will probably cost money, but I won't know how much until I can talk to vendors. The second action that I would like to initiate is to prepare a plan for upgrading furniture in the whole department. This would not prevent us from deciding to implement this plan in stages, over a period of years. In order to review this document, and answer any questions about my requests, I would like to request a meeting of the following people: Sarah Thomas, Ann Dyckman, Lee Cartmill, John Hoffmann, Ross Atkinson, Scott Wicks, and me. Appended to this document are the sources quoted in the footnotes, and copies of the slides prepared by Dena Tepper, Professor Hedge's graduate student, for the presentation of her work to the Library staff. C.M. Boissonnas 1. Fyler, Deborah, "Work Related Injury and Illness: Central Technical Services, Cornell Libraries." Ithaca, NY: Faculty/Staff Health Program, Cornell University, August 7, 1996, p. 1. 2. Brophy, Mary, Recommendations for Continuation of Ergonomic Interventions at Central Technical Services, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Syracuse, NY: ARLS Consultants, 1996, p. 2. 3. Data furnished by Deborah Shigley, Library Human Resources Office Manager, in a private e-mail message sent to me on August 8, 1996. 4. Fyler, Ibid. 5. The purpose of the RULA is to assess the degree to which body components (here the upper arm, lower arm, wrist, neck, trunk, and leg) are at risk of injury. The scale of score ranges from 1 to 7: 1-2 = Acceptable; 3-4 = Investigate further; 5-6 = Investigate further and change soon; 7 = Investigate and change immediately. | |