Discussion On Risk Assessment Tools: RAPP And ART
Question
Task:
Instructions:
-
Consider the following, true manual handling operations’ scenario that I prosecuted a few years ago, as described in a local newspaper: An “oven assembler…suffered a groin injury and was off work for nine weeks after moving a 96kg pizza oven with a colleague. He and his supervisor were moving five ovens, one at a time, from a waist-high assembly bench down to pallets on the floor, without mechanical lifting gear.” An (albeit poor quality) photograph taken at the time, by a fellow inspector, shows the injured person explaining the circumstances of the injury to me with his supervisor, following his return to work many weeks later. Please Note: the row of pizza ovens were located where the row of white drums are now seen, so a waist-high object was lifted off the bench towards them and then dropped onto the pallet located on the floor.
- Compare (look for similarities) and contrast (look for differences) the two manual handling risk assessment tools A and B below (courtesy of The University of Melbourne and The Health and Safety Executive).
- Apply the information from the scenario to the two risk assessment tools.
- During the two assessment processes, note at least five disadvantages and five advantages of each tool, e.g. whether it is easy to use, if it prompts practical, useful controls, etc..
- Answer the question in the forum: What are five strengths and five weaknesses of the two manual handling risk assessment tools A and B?
- Use your subsequent discussions in the forum to try to build up a broad consensus list of useful and unfavourable features of the two types of assessment tools.
- Please post your responses as a reply to this post.
Answer
Comparing and contrasting the manual handling risk assessment tool
The two-assessment tool that can be considered in this case where the person was injured with a groin injury is RAPP Assessment tool and ART Assessment tool. Comparing the two it can be seen that both the risk assessment tool enables to identify the high risk pushing as well as pilling operation and thus it helps to check the effectiveness of any risk reduction measures. Furthermore, the tools enable the assessment of the common risk factors in a repetitive wok that can enable to contribute to any upper limb disorder as seen in the scenario.
On the contrary, the difference that can be estimated from RAPP and ART tool is that in the case of the RAPP tool it is not sensitive in case of risk in some task that includes moving loads with hand pallet trucks or in case of the similar load. Whereas, on the other hand, the ART tool is mostly intended for the individuals performing the responsibility for designing, assessing, and inspecting repetitive work (Klussmann et al. 2017). Furthermore, it is also different from the RAPP assessment tool by providing step by a step flow chart that evaluates and grades the degree of risk. Thus, the two-assessment tool is different manual handling cases.
Applying the scenario to the different risk assessment tool
The manual handling operation scenario that is provided could have been minimized by using the two different tools that is RAPP and ART. RAPP could have been used while pushing and pulling loads that as seen in the scenario while handling the pizza oven. RAPP could help to assess the individual by putting the load on a specific trolley and thus by pushing it on the way in order to avoid carrying. In short, it can be stated that the key risk in manual pushing operation involves the entire body effort (Rose et al. 2020). It also includes colour coding as well as numerical scoring.
On the other hand, the ART assessment tool can also be considered to overcome the risk of a groin injury. It is mainly the method that can be used the employees identify the repetitive tasks that could have risk and therefore it focuses on the risk reduction measures. In addition, ART would have helped to meet the legal requirement to make sure that the health and safety of the employees who may perform a similar task as replacing the oven (Galeoto et al. 2017). It would have helped with identifying the risk reduction measures that can enable to minimize any handling risk.
Advantages and disadvantages of the tool
Advantage and disadvantage of using RAAP tool
|
Advantage |
Disadvantage |
|
? It mainly helps to guide the individuals in pushing as well as pulling operation that involved the entire body efforts which may cause to serious injury ? It provides a flow chart as a assessment guide with a score sheet ? It enables to identify the higher risk in pushing as well as pulling activities that may cause injuries such as groin injury (Galeoto et al. 2017) ? Best tools to be used for healthy and safety guidance ? Highly identifies the operations and effectiveness of risk reduction of high-risk pushing and pulling |
? It can only be used whenever the risk can be considered while pushing and pulling staff ? It is mainly designed for the task that seems to occur outdoor (Rose et al. 2020) ? It can be further affected by the weather and lack of knowledge regarding the specific risk can be difficult ? The design of the tool is not useful for all muscles injury of the human being ? The process has a limit towards the measuring system |
Advantage and disadvantage of ART tool
|
Advantage of ART Tool |
Disadvantage of ART |
|
? The assessment of repetitive task tool has an advantage that is it helps to assess the risk that is a case of repetitive movement of arms and hands (Yarmohammadi et al. 2016) ? It is mainly beneficial for the individuals who are responsible for the design, management as well as assessment of a significant task. ? Help in risk assess which are required for repetitive work of the upper limb ? It led to better development of the upper limbs ? Responsible for designing, managing, assessing and inspecting of the injury in the upper limbs |
? It can be only used in cases of repetitive task that could have risk ? It has the capability only to prioritize task for improvement ? The measuring capacity of the tool is limited for the use of the human purposes ? It does not resolves overall problem of upper limb ? It does not have the ability to measure every risk |
Strength and weakness of the manual handling risk assessment tool
Strength and weakness of RAAP tool
|
Strength |
Weakness |
|
The strengths are: ? Standardized method in order to complete the risk assessment ? It is also validated as well as proven effectiveness and thus the risk assessment can be relayed by the individual ? It is constantly update with the measures ? It is intended to be in short format ? Real-time reporting to track risk behaviours |
The weakness that has been evident are ? Lack of professional support ? Sometimes it become difficult to report on trends s well as an outcome over time ? Sometimes the obstacles cannot measures (Yarmohammadi et al. 2016) ? The environmental factor can affect the RAAP tool ? It can sometimes cannot consider the load as well as the weight of the equipment that is being used |
Strength and weakness of the ART tool
|
Strength |
weakness |
|
? It helps to assess the common risk factors that has been estimated in repetitive work ? It is mostly used as standalone resources ? It is used mostly for production, packing to provide guidance in the risk reduction method ? Provides guidance to meet legal obligations (Yarmohammadi et al. 2016) ? It also intends to provide guidance for health and safety |
? It is mostly not used in cases of Display Screen Equipment ? It may not accept any risk, eliminates or transfer ? It may not consider the control options to manage risk ? It may be difficult to understand without having significant knowledge (Gidikova and Sandeva, 2016) ? It can also be expensive |
Discussing the usefulness and unfavorable features of the two types of tool
The usefulness of using the two different types of the risk assessment tool is that it can be adopted as well as it can be implemented rapidly thus it helps to reduce any risk caused by manual handling. Furthermore, it is operated in terms of national standards of health and safety measures for the employees working with manual handling. Furthermore, the unfavourable features that it may involve are as if it may not be systematic or it may be difficult in implementing as well (Jankajová et al. 2016). Furthermore, regulatory compliance can also be found sometimes which makes it difficult.
Reference List
Galeoto, G., Sili, A., Tamburlani, M., Farina, M., Mannocci, A., Mollica, R. and Servadio, A., 2017. Construction and validation of a tool for the evaluation of environmental risks and limitations to the manual handling of loads: cross-sectional study. La Clinica Terapeutica, 168(6), p.e349.
Gidikova, P. and Sandeva, G., 2016. Manual Handling Risk Assessment and Morbidity Structure Among Workers Employed in Metal Producing and Processing. Trakia Journal of Sciences, 14(4), p.361.
Jankajová, E., Kotus, M., Holota, T. and Zach, M., 2016. Risk assessment of handling loads in production process. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 64(2), pp.449-453.
Klussmann, A., Liebers, F., Gebhardt, H., Rieger, M.A., Latza, U. and Steinberg, U., 2017. Risk assessment of manual handling operations at work with the key indicator method (KIM-MHO)—determination of criterion validity regarding the prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms and clinical conditions within a cross-sectional study. BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 18(1), p.184.
Rose, L.M., Eklund, J., Nilsson, L.N., Barman, L. and Lind, C.M., 2020. The RAMP package for MSD risk management in manual handling–A freely accessible tool, with website and training courses. Applied Ergonomics, 86, p.103101.
Yarmohammadi, H., Ziaei, M., Poursadeghiyan, M., Moradi, M., Fathi, B., Biglari, H. and Ebrahimi, M.H., 2016. Evaluation of occupational risk assessment of manual load carrying using KIM method on auto mechanics in Kermanshah City in 2015. Research Journal of Medical Sciences, 10(3).
