Citation

Rempel D, Star D, Barr A, Janowitz I. J. Saf. Res. 2010; 41(3): 247-251.

Affiliation

Ergonomics Program, University of California, San Francisco, 1301 S. 46th Street, Richmond, CA 94804, USA. david.rempel@ucsf.edu

Copyright

(Copyright © 2010, U.S. National Safety Council, Publisher Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.jsr.2010.01.003

PMID

20630276

PMCID

PMC2905386

Abstract

PROBLEM: Drilling overhead into concrete or metal ceilings is a strenuous task done by construction workers to hang ductwork, piping, and electrical equipment. The task is associated with upper body pain and musculoskeletal disorders. Previously, we described a field usability evaluation of a foot lever and inverted drill press intervention devices that were compared to the usual method for overhead drilling. Both interventions were rated as inferior to the usual method based on poor setup time and mobility. METHOD: Three new interventions, which differed on the design used for aligning the drilling column to vertical, were compared to the usual method for overhead drilling by commercial construction workers (n=16). RESULTS: The usual method was associated with the highest levels of regional body fatigue and the poorest usability ratings when compared to the three interventions. CONCLUSION: Overall, the 'Collar Base' intervention design received the best usability ratings. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: Intervention designs developed for overhead drilling may reduce shoulder fatigue and prevent subsequent musculoskeletal disorders. These designs may also be useful for other overhead work such as lifting and supporting materials (e.g., piping, ducts) that are installed near the ceiling. Workplace health and safety interventions may require multiple rounds of field-testing prior to achieving acceptable usability ratings by the end users.

Language: en