Health and Safety
Executive
Evaluation of the pushing and pulling
operations risk assessment tool by
duty holders
Prepared by the Health and Safety Laboratory
for the Health and Safety Executive 2014
RR999
Research Report
Health and Safety
Executive
Evaluation of the pushing and pulling
operations risk assessment tool by
duty holders
Dr Olanre Okunribido and Dr Chrysanthi Lekka
Health and Safety Laboratory
Harpur Hill
Buxton
Derbyshire SK17 9JN
This report describes the usability testing of a prototype tool for assessing the manual handling risks associated
with tasks involving pushing or pulling of loads. It builds on earlier work by HSL to develop Pushing and Pulling
Operations Assessment Charts (PPAC) (see Research Report 998). Feedback on the assessment of typical
operations in the field indicated that the risk factors included in the tool are relevant, useful, relatively easy to
identify and that they covered most of the conditions found in workplaces.
Duty holders who took part in the study were able to differentiate between categories of risk for most of the
factors, they were also able to argue and justify their choices. The findings indicate that the tool is sufficiently
usable and reliable, and it is useful for increasing duty holder confidence in assessing pushing and pulling
operations.
This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents,
including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily
reflect HSE policy.
HSE Books
© Crown copyright 2014
First published 2014
You may reuse this information (not including logos) free
of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the
Open Government Licence. To view the licence visit
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/,
write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew,
London TW9 4DU, or email psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk.
Some images and illustrations may not be owned by the
Crown so cannot be reproduced without permission of the
copyright owner. Enquiries should be sent to
copyright@hse.gsi.gov.uk.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank members of the HSE/HSL
Ergonomics team, and HSE/LA regulatory inspectors who
assisted the project. We would also like to thank the individuals
involved in the expert appraisal of the tool and those people
who facilitated the industry-specific usability presentations and
user trialling of the tool within individual worksites. Thank you
for your valuable contributions and time.
ii
KEY MESSAGES
A pushing and pulling operations assessment tool has been developed that is able to help duty
holders and health & safety practitioners to screen pushing and pulling operations for those that
present a significant risk and to identify where improvements are needed.
The tool helps duty holders to meet their legal obligations to assess hazardous pushing and
pulling tasks and helps increase awareness and understanding of how to improve such tasks.
The tool developed is helpful for increasing workers’ confidence in identifying and assessing
risks in pushing and pulling operations.
The tool is not intended for use with animate loads (such as patients in hospital). It will have
limited utility where pushing and pulling is already a predictable and well controlled operation.
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Objectives
In a previous project, which was completed in June 2010, the Health and Safety Laboratory
(HSL) developed a prototype approach, the Pushing and Pulling Operations Assessment Charts
tool (PPAC), for risk assessment of the pushing and pulling aspects of manual handling
operations (MHO). The developed prototype uses a similar approach to the manual handling
assessment charts (MAC) leaflet tool (HSE, 2003), which currently only covers lifting and
carrying tasks.
HSL was commissioned to carry out further testing of the PPAC. The specific aim of this
project was to ensure that the PPAC prototype was developed into a tool that is both usable and
effective for duty holders in different industry settings. There were three main objectives:
•
To appraise the validity of the prototype PPAC with a small sample of external
ergonomics/manual handling risk assessment experts, and identify and make
appropriate improvements;
•
To test and measure the operability of the prototype PPAC (revised version after
appraisal by external experts), i.e. usability and effectiveness in field trials with samples
of duty holders, in a bid to identify aspects that may need further modification; and
•
To revise the prototype in the light of the results from the duty holder tests.
Main Findings
The expert appraisers of the tool and duty holder participants considered that the focus on
workplace factors was beneficial as it helps increase awareness and understanding of the
workplace factors that can affect push-pull operations.
Not only were duty holders able to differentiate between the categories of risk for most of the
factors, they were also able to argue and justify their choices when these differed from expert
consensus.
Feedback on the assessment of typical operations in the field indicated that the risk factors
included in the tool are relevant, useful, relatively easy to identify and that they covered most of
the conditions found in workplaces.
Conclusions and Ways forward
The general positive feedback obtained from duty holders about the prototype PPAC’s usability
and operability in field trials indicates that the pushing and pulling operations assessment tool is
a practicable process that duty holders will be able to use to screen typical operations.
The findings indicate that the tool is sufficiently usable and reliable, and it is useful for
increasing duty holder confidence in assessing pushing and pulling operations.
v
The study aim of testing the effectiveness in field applications has been met, and
recommendations from users have been incorporated into the tool.
Ways forward
The basic MAC tool for risk assessment of manual handing operations currently only covers
lifting and carrying tasks. In the long term, therefore, perhaps the PPAC can be made available
to duty holders, as part of a future revision of the MAC.
However, to roll the tool out as a standalone document in the first instance, the following further
actions would be required:
Compilation of sufficient supporting information and materials to enable publication of the tool
on the HSE website, i.e., specific guidance on how to use the tool, including what to do with
scores obtained;
Compilation of case studies and/or demonstrations that illustrate how to complete an assessment
using the tool and how the tool helps identify correction measures;
Compilation of a library of frequently asked questions, i.e., questions that may be asked by
prospective users of the tool and the most suited responses (frequently asked questions); and,
Organisation and/or planning for attendance at awareness events such events as SHADs and
other industry specific Health and Safety management meetings.
vi
CONTENTS PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1 2. METHODOLOGY .................................................................... 3 3. RESULTS ................................................................................ 8 4. DISCUSSION ........................................................................ 20 5. CONCLUSIONS AND WAYS FORWARD ............................ 21 6. REFERENCES ...................................................................... 22 7. APPENDICES ....................................................................... 23 1.1 1.2 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 3.3 A. B. C. D. E. F. Background
Aims and objectives
1 1 Expert appraisal
Duty holder appraisal
4 4 Expert appraisal
Duty holder appraisal – Usability evaluation
Duty holder approaisal – Field trials
The usability assessment questionnaire
The field trials questionnaire
Post expert-appraisal revision of Prototype A
The usability questionnaire responses
The field trials questionnaire responses
The final push-pull operations risk assessment tool (Prototype C)
vii
8 10 14 23 26 32 33 36 40 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Expert appraisal – Basic details about the experts
Table 2.
Expert appraisal – The main opinions/concerns about the tool (Prototype A)
Table 3.
Usability evaluation – Basic details about the participants
Table 4.
Usability evaluation – The set of usability questionnaire statements/questions in
the questionnaire
Table 5.
Usability evaluation – Duty holders’ opinions/comments about the tool
(Prototype B)
Table 6.
Field trials – Basic details about the trials conducted by duty holders
Table 7.
Field trials – Basic details about the questionnaire respondents
Table 8.
Field trials – The duty holders’ comments/opinions about the tool’s strengths
Table 9.
Field trials – The duty holders’ comments/opinions about the tool’s weaknesses
Table 10.
Field trials – Positive responders to the question about ease of characterising
risk factors
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Part of the proposed PPAC tool – Assessment guide of risk factors for pushing
and pulling operations
Figure 2.
Overview of the methodology applied
Figure 3.
The protocol followed in the usability evaluation sessions conducted
Figure 4.
Usability evaluation – Distribution of overall percentages (%) of positive
responders to questions about clarity and ease of use
Figure 5.
Usability evaluation – Distribution of overall percentages (%) of positive
responders to questions about scoring and interpretation of scores
Figure 6.
Usability evaluation – Distribution of positive responders (%) to questions
about future use of the tool
Figure 7.
Field trials – Distribution of the respondents’ perception of the tool as an easy
method of identifying risk factors in the workplace
Figure 8.
Field trials – Distribution of the respondents’ perception of the tool as a
method for increasing awareness of risk factors in the workplace
Figure 9.
Field trials – Distribution of the respondents’ perception of the tool as a means
of meeting Health & Safety responsibilities
Figure 10.
Field trials – Distribution of the respondents’ perception of the tool as a means
of increasing workers’ confidence
ix
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1
BACKGROUND
In a previous project, completed in June 2010 (Okunribido, 2010), the Health and Safety Laboratory
(HSL) developed a prototype Pushing and Pulling Operations Assessment Charts tool (PPAC), for risk
assessment of the pushing and pulling aspects of manual handling operations (MHO), part of which is
presented in Figure 1. The prototype uses a similar approach to the manual handling assessment charts
(MAC) leaflet (HSE, 2003), which currently only covers lifting and carrying tasks.
The prototype tool was trialled in the field with input from Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
ergonomics specialists, HSE general regulatory inspectors and Local Authority (LA) inspectors. For
the PPAC to progress to being made available to duty holders, then in following the development
process employed for the MAC and the assessment of repetitive tasks (ART) tool (HSE, 2010), it
would need to undergo further end-user testing and evaluation, with possible revision. This is needed
to ensure that it is effective as a risk assessment tool and that it is reliable and practical for use by nonspecialist duty-holders, to assist them in achieving compliance with the relevant legislation.
1.2
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
HSL was commissioned to carry out further testing of the PPAC. The specific aim of this project was
to ensure that the PPAC prototype was developed into a procedure that is both usable and effective for
duty-holders in different industry settings. There were three main objectives:
•
To appraise the validity of the PPAC with a small sample of external manual handling risk
assessment experts, and identify and make appropriate improvements;
•
To test and measure the operability of the PPAC (revised version after appraisal by external
experts), i.e. usability and effectiveness in field trials with samples of duty holders, in a bid to
identify its strengths and weaknesses as well as aspects that may need further modification;
and,
•
To revise the prototype in the light of the results from the duty holder tests.
1
Operation – Wheeled equipment operation
Non wheeled item operation
Equipment/load weight (kg): Identify equipment, note its weight and load carried
Small – has 1 or 2 wheels: e.g. wheel barrows, sack trucks
Low G/0
Medium A/2
High R/4
V High P/8
< 50 kg
50 – 100 kg
100 – 200 kg
> 200 kg
Medium – has 3 or more wheels and/or castors: e.g., roll cages, Euro bins
Low G/0
Medium A/2
High R/4
V High P/8
< 250 kg
250 – 500 kg
500 – 750 kg
> 750 kg
Activity /load weight (kg): Identify activity, note its weight and load moved
Dragging/hauling or sliding
Low G/0
Medium A/2
High R/4
V High P/8
< 25 kg
25 – 50 kg
50 – 80 kg
> 80 kg
Churning – Loads are moved by pivoting/rolling along the base edges
Low G/0
Medium A/2
High R/4
V High P/8
< 80 kg
80 – 120 kg
120 – 150 kg
> 150 kg
Large – And steer able, e.g. pallet truck, or runs on rail:
Low G/0
Medium A/2
High R/4
< 600 kg
600 – 1000 kg 1000 – 1500 kg
Rolling
V High P/8
> 1500 kg
Low G/0
< 400 kg
Posture: Observe the general position of the hands and body
Good G/0
Reasonable A/1
Poor R/6
Hands are between hip and
shoulder level, and
Hands are below hip or
above shoulder level, or
One hand is often used
Hands are on one side
of body, or
Medium A/2
400 – 600 kg
High R/4
600 – 1000 kg
Hand grip: Note main action and how hand(s) grip load
Action
Good G/0
Reasonable A/1
Pulling
Handles or holds Handles or holds
allow power grip
only allow partial
hand contact
Pushing
Handles/surfaces
Surfaces
allow
allow
comfortable partial
hand
hand contact
contact
V High P/8
> 1000 kg
Poor R/2
No
handles,
surfaces allow only
few fingers
Surfaces
allow
uncomfortable
hand contact
Work pattern: Identify how the pace of work is set, find out about work/rest pattern
Good G/0
Reasonable (A/2
Poor R/6
Pace is set by worker, and Pace is set by process, but
Pace is set by process, and
There is opportunity for There is opportunity for No formal breaks, only
rest through breaks
rest through formal breaks limited informal breaks
Condition of equipment: Note general state of repair, enquire about maintenance
Good G/0
Reasonable (A/2
Poor R/6
Good state of repair, and Reasonable state of repair
Poor state of repair and/or
Maintenance is planned, Maintenance is reactive Maintenance
is
not
preventative and reactive only
planned or preventative
Floor surface: Identify the general floor condition
Good G/0
Reasonable A/1
Good condition, i.e. Dry,
Uncontaminated, but
Level
Visibly sloping (>3°)
Stable
Unstable under foot
Not slippery
Slippery due to finish
Obstacles en route: e.g. steps, high edges, steep ramps, closed doors/screens, bends
Low G/)
Medium A/2
High R/3
There are no obstacles
There are one or two types There are flights of steps
but no flights of steps
or more than two others
Other factors: e.g. loading of equipment, size of load, work environment
Low G/0
Medium A/1
High R/2
No other factors present
One factor is present
Two or more factors
Poor R/4
Contaminated, or
Steep sloping (>8°)
Unstable under foot
Very slippery
Figure 1. Part of the proposed PPAC tool – Assessment guide of risk factors for pushing and pulling operations
2
2. METHODOLOGY
Figure 2 provides an overview of the applied methodology. The draft tool proposed by Okunribido
(2010) served as the starting reference for this project (Prototype A) and there were three distinct
phases of further work as follows: Appraisal by invited ergonomics experts, Duty holder usability
evaluation, and Duty holder field trialling.
Prototype A
(Okunribido, 2010)
Expert appraisal
Invited Experts
Validity and effectiveness
Analyse
comments
Prototype B
Industry group
meetings/workshops
Duty holder ‘usability’
evaluation
Comments &
Opinions
Duty holder field
trialling
Duty holder sites
Operative
Performance
Records
Selected operations
Prototype C
Figure 2. Overview of the methodology applied
3
2.1
EXPERT APPRAISAL
In line with previous risk assessment tool development, comments and opinions on the tool were
obtained from ergonomics specialists outside of HSE and HSL, before presentation to non-specialist
duty holders. For this, six external ergonomics consultants were selected and contacted directly by email to explain the project and request their participation. However, only four finally consented
(herein identified by their initials, JR, MH, TR and AP). The four persons were each sent e-copies of
the tool (Prototype A) and given the following tasks:
First, they were asked to critique the design and technical aspects of the tool for robustness and
operational utility.
Secondly, they were asked to apply the tool to at least three different tasks over a one-month period, in
their role as a specialist ergonomist but from the perspective of a non-specialist duty holder, either in
the course of visits to workplaces or using video footage and information collected during previous
assessment visits.
Finally, the experts were required to provide an overall evaluation including comments on the
following:
•
•
•
The PPAC’s ability to help non-specialist duty holder operatives to screen pushing and pulling
tasks that present a significant risk and to identify where improvements are needed.
The appropriateness/viability of the PPAC for a wide spectrum of health and safety
practitioners.
Usability of the PPAC and improvements that might be needed.
At the end of the set expert appraisal period (after all comments were received), the tool was amended
based on the expressed opinions/suggestions.
2.2
DUTY HOLDER APPRAISAL
2.2.1
Usability evaluation
Figure 3 presents the protocol followed in the usability evaluation sessions conducted. The aim of the
usability evaluation sessions was to explore duty holders’ opinions about the tool i.e., its design, the
relevance of the risk factors selected for inclusion and the definitions of the attached risk filters. The
draft PPAC produced following the expert appraisals (Prototype B) served as the starting reference for
the usability evaluation by duty holders.
The PPAC was presented at four industry-organised conferences/meetings or half-day workshops of
health and safety managers, supervisors and front line staff responsible for risk assessment of work
tasks. The industry groups involved were:
•
•
•
•
Supermarkets/retail (Retail);
Motor Manufacturing (Motor);
Logistics/distribution; and (Logistics),
Medical/health care (Care).
During the Retail, Motor and Logistics industry presentations
First, an introduction to the project was given, which included briefing about the rational for
developing the tool, and the participants were shown video clips of two work scenarios to illustrate the
assessment process.
4
Secondly, the participants were shown video clips of two other work scenarios (wheelie bins collection
and transfer; offloading of portaloos from a truck) and asked to assess them using the PPAC. Details
about the work scenarios assessed are provided elsewhere (Okunribido, 2010). The participants were
encouraged to complete the assessments for the two work scenarios without assistance from other
participants, though questioning about the tool was permitted. Their records in the work scenario selfassessments were clarified against expert consensus during the session in open discussion.
Introduction and project
briefing
Demonstration assessment
Task 1
Processing large paper reels
Participants’ input:
Questions, concerns
and comments
Task 2
Loading roll cage trolleys from
dairy warehouse
Self-assessment
#1 Refuse collection in wheelie bins
#2 Delivering portaloo units
Discussion
Assessments and risk criteria
Usability evaluation
Completion of questionnaire
Figure 3. The protocol followed in the usability evaluation sessions conducted
Thirdly, the participants completed a usability questionnaire (presented in Appendix A), which was
designed to give a global view of the PPAC’s usability. The questionnaire consisted of 18
statements/questions capturing the following topics:
•
•
•
Clarity and ease of use, which concerns the extent to which the language and terms used in the
tool were clear, and whether the tool was easy to use (e.g. steps within the tool are easy to
follow and adequately explained) (9 questions);
Scoring system and interpretation of scores, meant to examine duty holders’ perceptions of the
extent to which the tool’s scoring system was easy to use and the output useful and easy to
interpret (5 questions);
Future use of the tool, to examine the extent to which duty holders were likely to use the tool
in the future or recommend its use to others and their perceived competence in using the tool
(4 questions).
5
For each of the 18 questions, the participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or
disagreed with the statement on a scale from 1 to 5 (1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree). The
questionnaire also included an additional question which asked the participants to indicate whether
there were any issues or additional information that the tool should include. Those who responded
‘Yes’ were asked to briefly explain the additional information that should be included. They were also
asked to indicate their willingness to participate in field trialling of the tool.
During the Care industry presentation
First, an introduction to the project was given, which included briefing about the rational for
developing the tool, and the participants were shown video clips of two typical work scenarios to
illustrate the assessment process. They were then required to complete and return the usability
questionnaire. The presentation at this meeting was somewhat impromptu, as it was carried out in
response to an opportunity that became available at short notice, and the allotted time did not allow
conduct of the self-assessment session with this group. None of the participants at this presentation
volunteered to participate in the field trials.
2.2.2
Field trials
This consisted mainly of on-the-job application of the tool by duty holders, to test its operability in
real work situations. It involved participants at three of the industry-focused usability evaluation
meetings/workshops (Retail, Motor and Logistics), and volunteers from two other industry groups
(Food and Drinks and Metal processing), recruited with the help of facilitators of manual handling
training courses and workshops at HSL. These participants were provided e-copies of the tool through
a named contact person for the group or directly, and requested to apply the tool themselves and/or
have others apply it, in real work situations at their work sites over a three-month period. Follow-up
phone calls were made and/or e-mails sent to the participants or group contact, to remind them that
their trialling of the tool was important in the development process.
At the end of the agreed trialling period the participants were provided with a field trials questionnaire
(Appendix B) for completion and return by a prescribed date. The questionnaire was provided to
facilitate their provision of collated feedback, on the experiences from applying the tool at their
workplace, and opinions on the following specific issues:
•
•
The tool’s strengths and weaknesses
Ease of identification of the risk factors
The questionnaire also included questions to obtain the duty holders’ overall perceptions and
confidence about using the tool. Specifically, duty holders were required to rate the tool (on a scale
from 1 to 5) on the following:
•
•
•
•
The ease in identifying the workplace risk factors (1=very easy and 5=very difficult),
Its usefulness for increasing duty holder awareness of the key risks in pushing and pulling
operations (1=very useful and 5=not at all useful),
Its usefulness for fulfilling legal duties (1=very useful and 5=not at all useful),
Its usefulness for increasing worker confidence in identifying and assessing risks in pushing
and pulling operations (1=not at all confident and 5=extremely confident). For this, the trial
participants were required to indicate their level of confidence before and after using the tool.
Those who attended a planned usability evaluation meeting/workshop first received the questionnaire
through a named contact person for each group, and then directly a month later when no response was
received from the first distribution. Those who did not attend a usability meeting/workshop received
the questionnaire alongside the assessment tool. Follow-up/reminder correspondence with the
6
individual participants also occurred periodically thereafter. After the agreed date for return of the
completed questionnaires expired, follow-up e-mails were sent to each of the participants to remind
them that their feedback was important in the development process and to obtain their completed
questionnaire and other feedback.
7
3. RESULTS
3.1
EXPERT APPRAISAL
Table 1 presents basic details about the four expert appraisers of the tool.
Table 1. Expert appraisal – Basic details about the experts
Appraiser
JR
MH
TH
AP
Designation
Consultant
Principal
Handling Assessor
Principal Consultant
Specialism
Ergonomics
Ergonomics
Physiotherapy
Human Factors
W-wheeled equipment operations; NW-non-wheeled item operations
Years in practice
36
19
Not specified
10
Evaluated Operations
Yes; W-3, NW-1
Yes; W-3, NW-1
Yes; W-3
Yes; W-1, NW-1
Generally, the experts considered that the included risk factors included in the tool were useful and
appropriate and that the two types of operations defined capture most of those commonly performed in
workplaces. The tool’s focus on workplace factors was seen as beneficial for duty holders as it will
help increase their awareness and understanding of the workplace factors that can affect push-pull
operations. In line with the specific issues that were addressed, their main comments and opinions are
presented in the sections below.
3.1.1
Usefulness for screening tasks and identifying improvements needed
The experts were generally positive about the tool in this regards, the comments indicated that:
•
•
The tool would help identify which elements in a task presented a risk (and therefore where
improvements are needed),
The tools simple design and format, and overall scoring system will help users identify tasks
of highest risk levels and which require more urgent action. The flow chart is very clear and
gives users an easy reference guide for prioritising actions on higher elements of the task.
Concerns were, however, expressed that the tool is not useful for determining whether a task posed a
risk overall, as there is no way of gauging what the total score actually means in terms of risk level.
Furthermore, the experts felt that it is important that duty holders are made to understand/recognise
that application of the tool does not constitute a final risk assessment.
3.1.2
Usability, robustness and operational utility
The experts were generally positive about the tool in this regards, the comments indicated that:
•
•
•
•
•
The tool is relatively simple, straightforward to use, and the steps are easy to follow.
The illustrations and descriptions make it straightforward to assess and categorise the various
risk aspects.
The presentation and format of the tool makes it very accessible to non-expert users and
engages people to consider risks.
The tool will instantly be recognizable for users who have previously applied the MAC tool.
The categories for each included risk factor are fairly well defined. This would ensure a
reasonably high degree of both inter- and intra-rater reliability.
8
3.1.3
Appropriateness for non-ergonomist health and safety practitioners
The experts were generally positive about the tool in this regards, the comments indicated that:
The tool is helpful for non-ergonomist health and safety practitioners, but may need to ensure
that qualitative interpretations are provided for interpretation of total scores.
Concerns were, however, raised that:
• The tool may have limited applicability by non-ergonomists in specialised work environments,
such as hospitals. In these environments, the obstacles and the operations performed are often
not predictable and can vary widely e.g., the obstacles encountered during the task would not
only be inanimate objects, but also people, i.e. patients (in various states of physical and
mental health) either on foot or being transported on beds, trolleys or wheelchairs.
• The tool may not be useful for push/pull operations with beds/trolleys carrying patients,
particularly those who have sustained serious injuries (e.g. spinal cord injuries), the nature of
which requires specific clinical moving and handling techniques and equipment.
•
3.1.4
Revisions that are needed
Table 2 presents the main concerns/opinions of the experts regarding revisions.
Table 2. Expert appraisal – The main opinions/concerns about the tool (Prototype A)
Section of tool
Background information
Miscellaneous
Opinions/comments
There is currently no guidance for interpretation and use of the
total scores obtained from an assessment.
Comparing the contents of the tool with the risk factors identified
for consideration in L23, the following may need to be included
somewhere: Travel distance (for wheeled equipment operations),
Frequency of exertions, and Suitability of the wheels (for the type
of load and floor surface).
Section A: Wheeled equipment operations
Type of Equipment/load weight
Be clear about why equipment weight information is important
and how it is to be utilised.
Posture
Some of the illustration diagrams do not support/reflect the
corresponding risk category.
Hand grip
Inclusion of some illustrations diagrams of different types of grip
would be a benefit
Work pattern
The wordings of the risk categories may need to be reviewed
Condition of equipment
Review the risk definitions for clarity about maintenance levels
and important equipment features. The wordings of the risk
categories need to be revised.
Inclusion of illustration diagrams of different related types of
grips would be helpful.
Floor surface
Damaged/pitted conditions are not covered by the risk definitions
and the limits for floor slope are not consistently defined.
Obstacles en route
This label is not commonly used in everyday work situations,
duty holders may not readily identify with it and some factors that
need to be considered were missing, e.g., confined space.
Other factors:
The factors identified are not logically presented in the
introductory sentence; this may lead to confusion during an
assessment exercise.
What is the scientific basis for the risk filters?
Section B: Non-wheeled item operations
Type of activity/load weight
Provide alternate illustration diagrams for dragging and churning
activities; the current illustrations may encourage the indicated
practices which are in themselves high risk practices.
Travel distance
The instruction for multiple trips with varying distances is slightly
confusing.
9
Details about how the Prototype A tool was revised, taking into consideration the experts comments
and identified concerns, are presented in the Appendix C.
3.2
DUTY HOLDER APPRAISAL – USABILITY EVALUATION
In all, at least 78 managers, supervisors and front line staff attended the planned meetings/workshops,
where the tool was presented (Table 3). Some of the participants had previous experience of applying
the MAC tool and so were quite familiar with the flow chart procedure of the PPAC.
Table 3. Usability evaluation – Basic details about the participants
Industry group
Retail
Motor
Logistics
Care
3.2.1
Attendance at presentations
Participants
Worksites
8
7
6
6
14
8
< 50
Various
Questionnaire assessments
Participant
Worksites
8
7
3
3
14
8
10
10
Assessment of work scenarios
The assessment records generally demonstrated that the participants were able to use the flow chart to
focus their attention on each of the risk factors and to use the assessment guides to select a risk filter
category that best describes the condition seen. The views expressed during the discussions indicated
that the flow chart procedure is easy to follow, that the tool improved their understanding of work
place risk factors for push-pull operations, and that the risk filter categories could help determine
actions required to reduce risks. However, arising from the discussions of their work scenarios, was
the observation that compared to expert consensus, the participants were stricter in their scoring of the
factors (often erring on the side of caution by choosing a more severe condition). In both the wheelie
bin and portaloo handling task assessments, the duty holder scores for floor surface, condition of
equipment and other factors tended to be higher than expert consensus, while the assessments for load
weight, work pattern, and obstacles along the route tended to agree with expert consensus. Generally,
the participants attributed the differences in their assessments to lack of clarity in the risk filter
descriptions and insufficient information.
3.2.2
Questionnaire responses
Table 4 presents the statements/questions in the usability questionnaire completed by the duty holders,
while their summarised responses are presented in Appendix D.
Completed usability questionnaires were received from all the participants at the retail and logistics
meetings on the day, and from 3 participants at the motor industry meeting and 10 participants at the
care industry conference at a later date by post or e-mail message (Table 3). The comments about
issues and / or additional information that are needed are presented in Table 5, while the main findings
are described in the following sections.
10
Table 4. Usability evaluation – The set of statements/questions in the questionnaire
Topic
Clarity and ease of use
Scoring system and
interpretation of scores
Future use of tool
Related issues
1. Complexity of the procedure
2.
3.
Ease of use
Need for specialist advice
4.
Logic of steps
5.
Clarity of language
6.
Explanations for steps
7.
Time required for assessments
8.
Illustrations/photos
9.
Instructions for use
1.
2.
Simplicity of scoring system
Difficulty in recording scores
3.
Information for scoring system
4.
5.
Interpretation of scores
Usefulness of scores
1.
Frequency of use
2.
Confidence in use
3.
Required learning
4.
Recommendation
Questionnaire query
The
assessment
procedure
is
unnecessarily complex
The tool is easy to use
I will need to consult a technical
person to use tool
The various steps in the tool are logical
and easy to follow
The language used in the tool is easy
to understand (adequately explained)
Each step of the tool is adequately
explained
The tool takes a lot of time to complete
(it is time consuming)
The amount of illustrations/photos
provided is adequate
The instructions on how to use the tool
are easy to follow
The scoring system is easy to use
I found the scoring sheet difficult to
complete
There is adequate information
provided on how to use the scoring
system
The scores were easy to interpret
The tool is useful for identifying
activities that require attention
I think that I would like to use the tool
frequently
I feel very confident about using the
tool
I need to learn a lot of things before I
can use the tool
I would recommend the tool to others
Table 5. Usability evaluation – Duty holders’ opinions/comments about the tool (Prototype B)
Risk factor
Type of equipment/
weight of load
Condition of
equipment
Posture
Obstacles along the
route
Scoring sheet
Other issues
Opinions/comments
Wheeled equipment: The equipment options don't include or clarify
where standard trolleys might fit, i.e. those with 4 wheels of which two
are fixed.
Do the weight guides link with the L23 guidelines and information on
the HSE website?
What about the effect of size and type of wheels on wheeled
equipment?
What about other characteristics of the person performing the task, e.g.
height? May be good to include in notes as something to consider.
Is the tool designed to accommodate at least 90% of population?
The red category of risk may need further clarification. Currently it is
open to misinterpretation where there are three or more obstacles but
no steep ramp; flight of steps needs to be treated like a steep ramp.
Needs to be simplified. Consider having the numerical scores column
before the colour band column and such that there is a separate column
for each colour. Include reference label for risk factors as in the
assessment guide.
What is the scientific basis for the risk filters?
11
Identified by
1-Motor
1-Logistics
3-Care
1-Logisitics
1-Motor
1-Retail
Clarity and ease of use
The data in Table D-1 (Appendix D), indicated that the duty holders were generally positive in their
responses about the tool’s clarity and ease of use (as depicted by the questions asked [Table 4]), and
they showed little or no strong/serious negative anticipations. Overall, at least 60% of all the
respondents answered positively to each of the nine questions posed (Figure 4), i.e., they confirmed
the positively cast questions and dismissed the negatively cast questions.
•
•
•
•
At least 75% of the respondents in each of the industry groups disagreed that the tool was
unnecessarily complex (question 1), and that they would need a technical person or specialist
to be able to use it (question 3).
At least 75% of the respondents in each group agreed that the tool is easy to use (question 2),
that the steps in the tool are logical and easy to follow (question 4), that the language of the
tool is easy to understand (question 5), and that each step is adequately explained (question 6),
At least 80% of the respondents in three of the groups agreed that the amount of
illustrations/photos provided is adequate (question 8), and that the ‘how to use’ instructions
are easy to follow (question 9). In question 8, four of the Retail group respondents (50%)
answered positively (agreed), while the other 50% was neutral - they neither agreed nor
disagreed; in question 9, two of the Motor group respondents (67%) answered positively and
one was neutral.
At least 70% of the respondents in two groups (Logistics, and Care) disagreed that the tool
takes a lot of time to apply (question 7). In this question, four of the Retail respondents (50%)
answered positively (disagreed), three were neutral and one answered negatively (agreed); all
the three Motor respondents answered negatively (agreed).
Figure 4. Usability evaluation – Distribution of overall percentages (%) of positive responders
to each of the questions about clarity and ease of use
The scoring system and interpretation of scores
The duty holders’ responses in respect of the tool’s scoring system and interpretation of scores (as
depicted by the questions asked [Table 4]), were also generally favourable (Table D-2); overall, at
least 60% of all the respondents answered positively to the questions posed (Figure 5), and they
showed little or no strong/serious negative anticipations.
12
•
•
•
At least 60% of the respondents in each of the industry groups agreed that the scores obtained
are easy to interpret (question 4), and that the scores are useful for identifying activities
requiring attention (questions 5).
At least 60% of the respondents in three groups agreed that the scoring system is easy to use
(question 1), and that the information for the scoring system is adequate (question 3). In
question 1, one of the three Motor respondents (33%) answered positively (agreed), one was
neutral and one answered negatively (disagreed); in question 3, none of the Motor respondents
answered positively, two (67%) answered negatively (disagreed) and one was undecided.
At least 70% of the respondents in three groups disagreed that they found the scoring sheet
difficult to complete (question 2). In this question, one of the Motor respondents (33%)
answered positively (disagreed), and the other two answered negatively (agreed or strongly
agreed).
Figure 5. Usability evaluation – Distribution of overall percentages (%) of positive responders
to each of the questions about scoring and interpretation of scores
Future use of the tool
The duty holders’ responses concerning future use of the tool (as depicted in the questions asked
[Table 4]) were generally favourable (Table D-3); overall, at least 60% of all the respondents
answered positively to the questions (Figure 6) and there were little or no strong/serious negative
anticipations.
•
•
•
At least 70% of the respondents in each of the industry groups disagreed that a lot needs to be
learnt to use the tool (question 3),
At least 70% of the respondents in two groups agreed that they felt very confident about using
the tool (question 2). In this question, two of the three Motor respondents (67%) and five of
the ten Care respondents (50%) answered positively; however, the remaining one Motor
respondent and four of the remaining five Care respondents gave neutral responses.
At least 70% of the respondents in two groups agreed that they would like to use the tool
frequently (question 1), and that they would recommend the tool to others (question 4). In
question 1, none of the Motor respondents (0%) and only one of the Retail respondents (14%)
answered positively. However, the three Motor respondents and four of the remaining Retail
respondents gave neutral responses. In question 4, one Motor respondent (33%) and three
Retail respondents (43%) answered positively; the other respondents in the two groups gave
neutral responses.
13
Figure 6. Usability evaluation – Distribution of overall percentages (%) of positive responders
to each of the questions about future use of the tool
Summary
In the main, the results suggest industry trends in the duty-holders’ responses, such that compared to
other groups:
• The Care respondents were particularly concerned about how individual differences were
accommodated in the design of the tool;
• The Motor industry respondents were less certain about future use of the tool; and
• The Retail industry respondents were more concerned about the utility of the
illustrations/photos provided and generally most positive about future use of the tool.
3.3
DUTY HOLDER APPROAISAL – FIELD TRIALS
The tool was trialled across five industry areas and in 18 work sites as detailed in Table 6, and
completed field trials questionnaires were received for each of the sites (Table 7). It was trialled on
wheeled equipment operations at all the 18 worksites and on non-wheeled item operations at nine
worksites. The assessed wheeled equipment operations mainly involved 4-wheeled dollies, trolleys,
roll cages, 2/4-wheeled sack barrows, hand pallet trucks, in-flight catering / service trolleys, and
wheeled aircraft style ladders. The non-wheeled item operations mainly involved tote boxes,
barrels/casks, and tubs.
•
•
•
All but one of the respondents to the field trials questionnaire reported that prior to trialling
the tool they had undergone some sort of ergonomics training on manual handling such as a
course/workshop, or part of a full degree/professional qualification course.
All but two respondents reported that they had previous experience of assessing pushing and
pulling operations, which was mainly using the L23 guidance and by direct measurement of
task forces.
All but two respondents reported that they did not require/request specialist support to assess
the push-pull operations, and all but three of the respondents had previous experience of using
the MAC tool. Those that said they requested specialist support did so to improve their own
competence (logistics) or to complement their own assessment (retail); those that had not used
the MAC said they found it too simplistic for their purposes (retail) and that they had not been
trained (logistics).
14
Table 6. Field trials – Basic details about the trials conducted by duty holders
Industry group
Worksites
involved
Retail
Motor
Logistics
Food and Drinks (F &D)
Metal processing (MP)
3
1
11
2
1
Number of push-pull operations assessed /worksites involved
Wheeled equipment
Non-wheeled item
Total
Worksites
Total
Worksites
7
3
1
1
4
1
0
0
49
11
13
6
8
2
3
1
10
1
0
0
Table 7. Field trials – Basic details about the questionnaire respondents
Industry
Work years
avg (range)
Retail
Motor
Logistics
F& D
MP
12.9 (5-28)
0.5
7.0 (1-16)
13.0 (7-19)
4.0
3.3.1
Ergonomics
Training
MH
Degree
2
1
0
1
10
0
2
0
1
0
Push-pull
Experience
Y
N
3
0
1
0
9
2
2
0
1
0
Specialist
Support
Y
N
1
2
0
1
1
10
0
2
0
1
MAC
experience
Y
N
1
2
1
0
10
1
2
0
1
0
Strengths and weaknesses of the tool
The opinions/comments about strengths and weakness are presented in Table 8 and Table 9. For
wheeled equipment operations, specific weaknesses were identified for all the risk factors (except
posture) and score sheet, by five respondents from the Logistics Industry, though no more than two
respondents identified issues for the same risk factors. Concerns were raised by the Motor industry
respondent about four risk factors (equipment/load weight, posture, travel distance, and obstacles
along the route), by the two F & D respondents about two risk factors (obstacles along the route and
other factors), and by the MP respondent about two factors (equipment/load weight, and obstacles
along the route). For non-wheeled item operations, concerns were only raised about activity/weight of
load (by logistics industry respondents) and other factors (by F & D respondents).
Table 8. Field trials – The duty holders’ comments/opinions about the tool’s strengths
Risk factor
Operation/Weight of
load (A/Wt)
Posture (P)
Hand grip (HG)
Work pattern (WP)
Travel distance (TD)
Floor surface (FS)
Obstacles along the
route (OR)
Other factors (OF)
Wheeled equipment
This is a very relevant factor
Risk filter definitions: Good & relevant
Images/illustrations: representative, very
useful, simple & easy to work with
Risk filters definitions: Good & relevant
Images/illustrations: very useful, cover
most scenarios
Risk filter definitions: Good & relevant
Images/illustrations: very relevant,
presented in a useful format
Risk filter definitions: Good & clear
The definitions cover most scenarios
Risk filter definitions: Good & relevant
Definitions cover most scenarios
Risk filter definitions: Good & relevant
Definitions cover most scenarios
Useful to have in the tool
Risk filter definitions: Good & relevant
The examples cover most scenarios
Risk filter definitions: Good & relevant
The examples cover most scenarios
15
Non-wheeled items
Risk filter definitions: Useful & relevant
Images/illustrations: Easy to follow
A very relevant factor
Risk filters definitions: Useful & relevant
Images/illustrations: cover most
situations
Risk filter definitions: Useful & relevant
Images/illustrations: Easy to follow,
presented in a useful format
Risk filter definitions: useful & relevant
The definitions cover most scenarios
Risk filter definitions: Useful & relevant
Limits defined are reasonable
Risk filter definitions: useful & relevant
The examples cover most scenarios
Risk filter definitions: useful & relevant
The examples cover most scenarios
Risk filter definitions: useful &relevant
The examples cover most scenarios
In the main, the comments indicated that the risk factors included for both wheeled equipment and
non-wheeled item operations, are relevant and clearly defined, and that the risk filter definitions cover
most possible scenarios. Furthermore, they indicated that many of the illustrations provided are
representative of what occurs in the workplace, and they are easy to work with.
Table 9. Field trials – The duty holders’ comments/opinions about the tool’s weaknesses
Risk factor
Wheeled equipment
Operation /
Weight of load
Not clear what to do when;
2 or more types are used;
weight of loads varies widely;
weight of load is not easy to
measure or to identify; and,
more than one is pushed a time.
Not clear what to do when
posture is very variable
Images are not clear enough
Not all situations are covered
Does not allow consideration of
variable work patterns
Red zone lower limit is too low
Not clear on how lots of small
travels should be treated
Does not include specific
maintenance problems, e.g.
wheels, bearings and joints
Needs to be clearer about slope
as a characteristic of the floor
Not clear what to do when:
There are more than two factors
but no steps, when there are
steep ramps. More clarity is
needed for the medium and high
risk filters
Not clear how to treat
changing weather conditions
and extreme weather conditions
Posture (P)
Hand grip
(HG)
Work pattern
(WP)
Travel distance
(TD)
Condition of
equipment (CE)
Floor surface
(FS)
Obstacles along
the route (OR)
Other factors
(OF)
Identified by
Non-wheeled item
Identified
by
1-MP
1-Logisitcs
1-Motor
Could do with more
illustrations for dragging /
hauling and sliding activities
1-Logistics
No guidance for identifying
extreme weather conditions
1-F&D
1-Logistics
1-Motor
1-Logistics
1-Logistics
1-Logistics
1-Logisitcs
1-Motor
1-Logisitics
1-Logisitics
1-Motor
2-Logistics
1-F&D
1-Logisitics
1-F&D
Aside of the strengths and weaknesses identified, suggestions for improving the tool were also made
which related to the design of the record sheet and interpretation/follow-on utility of the scores
obtained. Specifically, that:
•
•
3.3.2
Some guidance is needed for interpretation of scores obtained,
Separate score sheets should be provided for each type of operation and such that different
types of equipment/ activity can be noted.
Questionnaire responses
The collated duty holders’ responses to the questions in the field trials questionnaire are presented in
Appendix E.
Ease of characterising risks
Overall, at least 70% of the sites where the tool was trialled (respondents) provided favourable
feedback about effort in characterising the risk in each risk factor, i.e., that this was easy or very easy
(Table 10).
16
For wheeled equipment operations, the percentage of the respondents that reported favourably was
highest for posture and lowest for obstacles along the route and other factors (Table E-1 in Appendix
E). However, respondents from the Motor and Logistics industries gave unfavourable responses about
the equipment/load weight factor, i.e., that this was hard or very hard to identify and respondents from
the Logistics industry reported that work pattern, condition of equipment and floor surface were hard
but not very hard to identify. For non-wheeled item operations, none of the respondents reported that a
risk factor was hard or very hard to identify (Table E-2).
Table 10. Field trials – Distribution of positive responders (%) to the question about ease of
characterising risk factors
Operation
Wheeled
equipment
Non-wheeled
item
Load
weight
14
(77%)
7
(75%)
Posture
18
(100%)
8
(100%)
Hand
Grip
16
(89%)
7
(88%)
Work
Pattern
15
(83%)
8
(100%)
Travel
Distance
15
(83%)
8
(100%)
Cond of
Equip
13
(72%)
Floor
Surface
16
(89%)
8
(100%)
Obstacles
on Route
13
(72%)
7
(88%)
Other
Factors
13
(72%)
7
(88%)
Overall perceptions and confidence about the tool
The questions in this regards related to how duty holders perceive the tool as a whole and their
confidence in using it (Table E-3).
First, the feedback from all the respondents (sites where the tool was trialled) was favourable about the
tool as a method of identifying the key workplace risks in pushing and pulling operations; for both
wheeled equipment and non-wheeled item operations, the feedback generally indicated that the tool
was an easy or very easy method (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Field trials – Distribution of the respondents’ perception of the tool as an easy
method of identifying risk factors in the workplace
Secondly, the majority of the respondents (83%, n=15) reported favourably about the tool as a method
for increasing duty holder awareness of the key risks in pushing and pulling operations (Figure 8).
•
For wheeled equipment operations, all but three of the respondents reported that the tool is
very useful or useful; the feedback from the Motor respondent and one Logistics respondent
was neutral (they were not sure), and feedback from the one Retail respondent was
unfavourable, i.e., that the tool was not very useful.
17
•
For non-wheeled item operations, only the feedback from the Retail respondent was
unfavourable, i.e., that the tool was not very useful.
Figure 8. Field trials – Distribution of the respondents’ perception of the tool as a method for
increasing awareness of risk factors in the workplace
Thirdly, the majority of the site respondents (n= 14, 78%) reported favourably about the tool as a
means of helping duty holders meet their legal responsibilities (Figure 9). The feedback from one
Logistics respondent was neutral (they were not sure), and the three Retail respondents provided
unfavourable feedback, i.e., that the tool was not very useful or not useful at all.
Figure 9. Distribution of the respondents’ perception of the tool as a means of meeting
Health and Safety responsibilities
Finally, the majority of the site respondents reported favourably about the tool as a means of
increasing workers’ confidence about assessing and identifying risks in pushing and pulling operations
(Figure 10). The feedback from the majority of the respondents (62%, n= 11), six Logistics
respondents, and the other five respondents, indicated that participants involved in the trials generally
reported that using the tool improved their confidence.
18
Figure 10. Distribution of the respondents’ perception of the tool as a means of increasing
workers’ confidence
3.3.3
Revision of the PPAC
The duty holder usability and field trials evaluations have determined strengths and weaknesses of the
PPAC tool, and more importantly, how it can be improved. As a result of the field trials and based on
specific comments made about different sections of the tool, which the development considered to be
useful and practical, a set of revision changes to improve the PPAC’s overall effectiveness (Table 11)
have been made.
Table 11. Duty holder comments and the development team’s revisions
Section of tool
Assessment guide
Type of
equipment/
Weight of load
Condition of
equipment
Obstacles along
the route
Score sheets
Duty holder comments/recommendations
Development team action
Not clear what to do when;
2 or more types are used;
weight of loads varies widely;
weight of load is not easy to measure or to
identify; and, more than one is pushed a
time.
Does not include specific maintenance
problems, e.g. wheels, bearings and joints
Not clear what to do when:
There are more than two factors but no
steps, and when there are steep ramps. More
clarity is needed for the medium and high
risk filters
Separate score sheets should be provided for
each type of operation and such that
different types of equipment/ activity can be
noted.
Reviewed the opening instruction statement to
include what to do when two or more
equipment are moved a time, two or more
equipment are used during the operation or the
loads moved vary widely in weight
19
Revised the instruction to include reference to
condition of wheels, bearings and joint
Revised the amber and red risk categories to
be clear about steps and steep ramps
Introduced separate section A and Section B
score sheets;
Redesigned the score sheet to enable
recording of different types of equipment
(Section A) and different types of activity
(Section B)
4. DISCUSSION
The final draft of the pushing and pulling operations risk assessment tool (Prototype C), is presented in
Appendix F.
Overall, the expert appraisers and duty holder participants considered that the tool’s focus on
workplace factors was beneficial as it helps increase awareness and understanding of the workplace
factors that can affect push-pull operations. Views expressed during the discussions about the selfassessment exercises showed generally that, not only were duty holders able to differentiate between
the categories of risk for most of the factors, they were able to argue and justify their choices when
these differed from expert consensus. Furthermore, feedback on their assessment of typical operations
in the field indicated that the risk factors included in the tool are relevant, useful, relatively easy to
identify and that they covered most of the conditions found in workplaces.
Having different industry groups represented was valuable as a means of gauging group attitudes.
Thus, from the usability evaluations, differences between industry groups were suggested in the
responses about the tool’s clarity and ease of use, scoring system and interpretation of scores and
future use of the tool. The indications were that sites where operations had been standardised, they
were predictable and/or specific to the site (such as is the case in the Motor industry), users may not
find the tool very useful. Sites where the operations are neither predictable or site specific (such as is
the case in the Distribution/Logistics industry) are likely to find it useful. It may be that in
predictable/standardised task situations, the need to revisit various risk factors is seen as overly
burdensome. Secondly, the comments from the duty holders during the usability evaluation meetings
indicated that organisations that employ a team/number of health and safety specialists for conducting
risk assessments of manual handling tasks (such as was the case in the Motor Industry and sections of
the Retail Industry) are not likely to find the tool useful. The comments also indicated that operatives
in industries where animate objects are involved (such as in the Health and Farming Industries) are not
likely to find the tool useful. However, when considering the results with a view to exploring
differences between industry-sectors, any conclusions drawn should be treated tentatively as, for many
of the industry groups, the number of sites involved in this trial was low. Nevertheless, as the majority
of the duty holders respondents were very favourable about the tool even though many received it for
the first time at the usability workshops and that a considerable range of industry sectors were
involved, the indications are that duty holders are capable of making useful assessments based on the
provisions of the tool, even with little prior briefing about the tool.
Unlike other HSL studies that evaluated usability and / or reliability of risk assessment tools developed
for HSE, and emphasised inter-/intra-scoring reliability (for example, Tapley, 2002 and Lee and
Ferreira, 2003), this study was more concerned with understanding how duty holders interpreted the
guidance information and risk filter definitions. According to Legg and Burgess-Limerick (2007)
interclass correlation coefficients are not sensitive reliability measures when small ranges of values are
involved. Efforts were therefore not on recruiting a large number of participants but on involving
participants from a wide spectrum of industries. As such there was a relative diversity in the locations
of the worksites that volunteered participants, which made it quite difficult to physically visit each site
to follow up on the trialling exercise. The project was therefore very much reliant on the duty holders
being willing to pilot the tool, and there were delays in the return of both the usability questionnaires
and the field trial questionnaires which caused the time scales of this study to slip. Furthermore, the
low number of returned completed questionnaires meant that mainly a qualitative analysis of the data
could be made.
20
5. CONCLUSIONS AND WAYS FORWARD
The general positive feedback obtained from the duty holders about its usability and operability in
field trials indicates that the pushing and pulling operations assessment tool is a practicable process
that duty holders will be able to use to screen typical operations.
The findings indicate that the tool is sufficiently usable and reliable, and it is useful for increasing duty
holder confidence in assessing pushing and pulling operations.
The study aim of testing the effectiveness in field applications has been met, and recommendations
from users have been incorporated into the tool.
Ways forward
The basic MAC tool for risk assessment of manual handing operations, currently only covers lifting
and carrying tasks. In the long term, therefore, perhaps the PPAC can be made available to duty
holders, as part of a future revision of the MAC.
However, to roll the tool out as a standalone document in the first instance, the following further
actions would be required:
Compilation of sufficient supporting information and materials to enable publication of the tool on the
HSE website, i.e., specific guidance on how to use the tool, including what to do with scores obtained;
Compilation of case studies and/or demonstrations that illustrate how to complete an assessment using
the tool and how the tool helps identify correction measures;
Compilation of a library of frequently asked questions, i.e., questions that may be asked by prospective
users of the tool and the most suited responses (frequently asked questions); and,
Organisation and/or planning for attendance at awareness events such events as SHADs and other
industry specific Health and Safety management meetings.
21
6. REFERENCES
Health and Safety Eexecutive (2003). Manual handling Assessment Charts (MAC)-ING383, HSE
Books, Sudbury, Suffolk
Health and Safety Executive (2010). Assessment of repetitive tasks of the upper limbs (the ART tool):
Guidance for health and safety practitioners, consultants, ergonomists and large organisationsING438, HSE Books, Sudbury, Suffolk
Lee, D. and Ferreira, J.J. (2003). Reliability and usability evaluation of the Manual Handling
Assessment Charts (MAC) for use by non-regulatory professionals, Health and Safety Laboratory,
HSL/2003/19
Legg, J. and Burgess-Limerick, R. (2007). Reliability of the JobFit system Pre-employment functional
assessment tool, Work, 28, 299-312
Okunribido, O.O. (2010). Further work for development of an inspection tool for risk assessment of
pushing and pulling operations, Health and Safety Laboratory, ERG/10/20
Tapley, S.E. (2002). Reliability of Manual handling Assessment Charts (MAC) developed for health
and safety inspectors in the UK – A field study, Health and Safety Executive,
www.hse.gov.uk/msd/mac/pdf/reliability.pdf (last sighted 21/02/13)
22
7. APPENDICES
A. THE USABILITY ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
The following questions ask for your views on different aspects of the Pushing and Pulling Task Assessment
Tool. We’d really appreciate it if you could spare a few minutes to complete the questionnaire. Your responses
will help inform future improvements to the tool.
Unless stated otherwise, please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each statement by ticking one
box only.
Clarity and ease of use
Strongly
Disagree
1.
Neither
agree/nor
disagree
The push-pull tool is unnecessarily complex
1
2
Strongly
Disagree
2.
2
Strongly
Disagree
3.
I would need to consult a technical person to be able to
use the push-pull tool
1
The various steps in the push-pull tool are logical and
easy to follow
1
2
I found the language used in the tool easy to understand
(e.g. terms adequately explained)
1
2
2
2
Strongly
Disagree
7.
The push and pull tool takes a lot of time to complete/is
time-consuming
1
2
23
4
3
3
3
2
3
5
Strongly
Agree
4
5
Strongly
Agree
4
5
Strongly
Agree
4
Neither
agree/nor
disagree
The amount of illustrations/photos provided is adequate
1
3
5
Strongly
Agree
Neither
agree/nor
disagree
Strongly
Disagree
8.
4
Neither
agree/nor
disagree
Each step of the tool is adequately explained
1
3
5
Strongly
Agree
Neither
agree/nor
disagree
Strongly
Disagree
6.
4
Neither
agree/nor
disagree
Strongly
Disagree
5.
3
5
Strongly
Agree
Neither
agree/nor
disagree
Strongly
Disagree
4.
4
Neither
agree/nor
disagree
The push-pull tool is easy to use
1
3
Strongly
Agree
5
Strongly
Agree
4
5
Strongly
Disagree
9.
Neither
agree/nor
disagree
The instructions on how to use the tool are easy to follow.
1
2
3
Strongly
Agree
4
5
Scoring and interpretation
Strongly
Disagree
1.
The scoring system was easy to use
1
Neither
agree/nor
disagree
2
Strongly
Disagree
2.
I found the scoring sheet difficult to complete
1
There is adequate information provided on how to use the
scoring system
1
2
The scores were easy to interpret
1
2
The tool is useful in identifying activities that require
attention
1
4
3
2
3
4
3
5
Strongly
Agree
4
Neither
agree/nor
disagree
2
5
Strongly
Agree
Neither
agree/nor
disagree
Strongly
Disagree
5.
3
5
Strongly
Agree
Neither
agree/nor
disagree
Strongly
Disagree
4.
4
Neither
agree/nor
disagree
Strongly
Disagree
3.
3
Strongly
Agree
5
Strongly
Agree
4
5
Future use of the tool
Strongly
Disagree
1.
I think that I would like to use the push-pull tool
frequently
1
Neither
agree/nor
disagree
2
Strongly
Disagree
2.
3.
4.
I need to learn a lot of things before I could use the pushpull tool
4
Neither
agree/nor
disagree
I feel very confident about using the push-pull tool
1
3
Strongly
Agree
2
3
Strongly
Agree
4
Strongly
Disagree
1
1
24
5
Strongly
Agree
2
3
4
Strongly
Disagree
I would recommend the push-pull tool to others
5
5
Strongly
Agree
2
3
4
5
Is there any information that should be added in the push-pull tool? (please tick one box only)
Yes
No
If your answer to this Question was ‘Yes’, please briefly explain:
Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire.
25
B. THE FIELD TRIALS QUESTIONNAIRE
SECTION 1 – Background information
1.1
What industry does your organization operate in? ______________________
1.2 How many employees work in your organisation? (please give number) _________
5.3.
How long have you worked for the organization?_____ years ____ months
1.4
Have you received any training in ergonomics or other related topics (e.g.
musculoskeletal disorders, manual handling)?
Yes
No
1.4.1 If you answered YES to the above, please give brief details of training courses you have
attended:
1.5 Have you carried out risk assessments for pushing/pulling activities in the past?
Yes
1.5.1
No
If you answered Yes to Question 1.5, please indicate how frequently you carried out risk
assessments of push/pull activities in the last calendar year? (e.g. once a week, once a month)
1.6 Have you used any other tools to help you carry out risk assessments of push/pull activities?
Yes
1.6.1
used:
No
If you answered YES to the above, please provide brief details of the types of tools you have
1.7 Have you used the manual handling risk assessment chart tool (MAC) to assess manual
handling activities in the workplace?
Yes
1.7.1
No
If you answered ‘NO’ to Question 1.7, please briefly explain why you have not used the
MAC:
26
1.8 Have you required external specialist advice to carry out risk assessments of push/pull
activities?
Yes
1.8.1
No
If you answered ‘Yes’ to question 1.8, please briefly explain how frequently you have
required specialist advice and the type of advice that you have received:
SECTION 2 – YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE TOOL
2.1
Have you had an opportunity to trial the pushing and pulling operations assessment tool
in your workplace since you received it?
Yes
No
2.2 For what type of activities/operations did you use the tool?
Wheeled equipment operations (Section A)
Non-wheeled item operations (Section B)
Both wheeled and non-wheeled operations
2.3 Approximately how many times have you used the tool for each of the following operations?
Wheeled equipment operations (Section A): ________
Non-wheeled item operations (Section B): ________
If you have used the tool for Wheeled equipment operations only, please complete
section 2.4.
If you have used the tool for Non-wheeled item operations only, please complete section
2.5.
If you have used the tool for both wheeled equipment operations and non-wheeled item
operations, please complete Section 2.4, and section 2.5.
27
2.4 Wheeled equipment operations
How easy was it to identify the risks arising from: (tick one box only)
Type of equipment /Load
weight
Posture
Hand grip
Work pattern
Travel distance
Condition of equipment
Floor surface
Obstacles en route
Other factors
Very easy to
identify
Easy to
identify
Fairly easy to
identify
Not very
easy to
identify
Not at all easy
to identify
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Please specify any strengths and/or weaknesses of the tool in enabling you to identify the risks
associated with each of the following factors:
Strengths
Weaknesses
Type of equipment /Load
weight
Posture
Hand grip
Work pattern
Travel distance
Condition of equipment
Floor surface
Obstacles en route
Other factors
28
2.5 Non-wheeled item operations
How easy was it to identify the risks arising from: (tick one box only)
Type of activity /Load
weight
Posture
Hand grip
Work pattern
Travel distance
Floor surface
Obstacles en route
Other factors
Very easy to
identify
Easy to
identify
Fairly easy to
identify
Not very
easy to
identify
Not at all easy
to identify
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Please specify any strengths and/or weaknesses of the tool in enabling you to identify the risks
associated with each of the following factors:
Strengths
Weaknesses
Type of activity /Load
weight
Posture
Hand grip
Work pattern
Travel distance
Floor surface
Obstacles en route
Other factors
2.6 Were there any pushing/pulling operations where you felt that the tool was not sufficiently
robust or suitable to fully assess the risks?
Yes
No
29
2.6.1
If you answered ‘YES’ to the above, please briefly describe the situation.
SECTION 3 – OVERALL PERCEPTIONS AND CONFINDENCE ABOUT USING THE
TOOL
The following questions relate to your perceptions of the tool as a whole and your confidence in using
the tool to assess pushing and pulling operations in the workplace.
3.1
How easy did you find the tool as a method of identifying the key workplace risks in
pushing and pulling operations? (tick one box only)
Wheeled equipment
operations
Non-wheeled item
operations
Very
Easy
Easy
Not sure/Don’t
know
Difficult
Very
Difficult
Not
applicable
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
3.2
How useful did you find the tool as a method of increasing duty holder awareness of the
key risks in pushing and pulling operations? (tick one box only)
Wheeled equipment
operations
Non-wheeled item
operations
Very
Useful
Useful
Not sure/
Don’t
know
Not very
useful
Not at all
useful
Not applicable
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
3.3 How useful do you think the tool will be in helping you to meet your responsibilities under
the Health and Safety at Work Act in relation to manual handling?
Very Useful
Useful
Not sure/Don’t know
Not very useful
Not at all useful
1
2
3
4
5
3.4 Before using the assessment tool, how confident did you feel about assessing and identifying
the risks in pushing and pulling operations?
Not at all confident
A little confident
Fairly confident
Very confident
Extremely confident
1
2
3
4
5
30
3.5 Having used the assessment tool, how confident do you feel about identifying and assessing
the risks in pushing and pulling operations?
Not at all confident
A little confident
Fairly confident
Very confident
Extremely confident
1
2
3
4
5
3.6 Do you have any further comments regarding the tool? Please include comments on the
overall layout and format of the assessment tool and any modifications you think could be
made.
Thank you for completing the questionnaire.
If you have any questions regarding the tool, please contact:
Dr Olanre Okunribido Tel: 01298218 366; e-mail: olanrewaju.okunribido@hsl.gov.uk
31
C. POST EXPERT-APPRAISAL REVISION OF PROTOTYPE A
Table C-1. Details about how the tool was revised to achieve Prototype B
Section of report
Background
Section A: Wheeled equipment factors
Type of equipment/Load weight
Posture
Hand grip
Work pattern
Conditions of equipment
Floor surface
Obstacles en route
Other factors
Flow chart
Miscellaneous
Section B: non-wheeled item
Activity/load weight
Posture
Hand grip
Work pattern
Conditions of equipment
Travel distance
Floor surface
Obstacles en route
Other factors
Flow chart
Effected Amendments
Introduced table of risk levels/actions, in “how to complete an
assessment” section for interpretation of scores obtained
Reviewed and reworded definitions of the equipment categories
One ‘reasonable risk’ illustration moved to poor risk grid
One reasonable risk illustration removed from grid
Two new illustrations introduced to reasonable risk grid
New illustration diagrams introduced for each grid
Reviewed and reworded definitions of the risk categories
Reviewed and reworded definitions of the risk categories
Reviewed and reworded the definitions of the risk categories
Reviewed and reworded definitions of the risk categories to
include damaged/pitted conditions, and for consistency of the
floor slope feature
‘Confined space’ added as an obstacle
Label changed to ‘obstacles along the route’
Introductory statement rearranged so that the visibility factor is at
the end of the sentence
Revised the layout of the factor groups, for symmetry on the page
Relocated, so that is it now before the assessment guide
Introduced “Travel distance” for consistency with L23
Replaced illustration diagram for dragging activity with one
showing single box being moved
Replaced illustration diagram for churning with one where barrel
is not on pallet
Ditto as for Section A
Ditto as for Section A
Ditto as for Section A
Not applicable
Reviewed and reworded definitions of the risk categories
Ditto as for Section A
Ditto as for Section A
Ditto as for Section A
Ditto as for Section A
32
D. THE USABILITY QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
Table D-1, Table D-2 and Table D-3 summarises the duty holders’ responses.
Table D-1. The responses concerning clarity and ease of use
Questionnaire item/Industry group
1. PPAC is unnecessary complex
Supermarkets/Retail (N=8)
Motor Manufacturing (N=3)
Logistics/Distribution (N =14)
Medical/Health Care (N=10)
Total responders
2. PPAC is easy to use
Supermarkets/Retail (N=8)
Motor Manufacturing (N=3)
Logistics/Distribution (N =14)
Medical/Health Care (N=10)
Total responders
3. Need technical person to use PPAC
Supermarkets/Retail (N=8)
Motor Manufacturing (N=3)
Logistics/Distribution (N =14)
Medical/Health Care (N=10)
Total responders
4. Steps in PPAC are logical and easy to follow
Supermarkets/Retail (N=8)
Motor Manufacturing (N=3)
Logistics/Distribution (N =14)
Medical/Health Care (N=10)
Total responders
5. Language is easy to understand
Supermarkets/Retail (N=8)
Motor Manufacturing (N=3)
Logistics/Distribution (N =14)
Medical/Health Care (N=10)
Total responders
6. Each step is adequately explained
Supermarkets/Retail (N=8)
Motor Manufacturing (N=3)
Logistics/Distribution (N =14)
Medical/Health Care (N=10)
Total responders
7. PPAC takes a lot of time to complete
Supermarkets/Retail (N=8)
Motor Manufacturing (N=3)
Logistics/Distribution (N =14)
Medical/Health Care (N=10)
Total responders
8. Illustrations / photos provided is adequate
Supermarkets/Retail (N=8)
Motor Manufacturing (N=3)
Logistics/Distribution (N =14)
Medical/Health Care (N=10)
Total responders
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
%
+ve
2
0
8
3
13
4
3
4
6
17
2
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
75
100
85
90
86
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
3
4
3
5
6
18
2
0
8
3
13
75
100
98
90
89
7
1
8
5
21
1
2
4
3
10
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
100
100
85
80
89
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
3
5
3
5
5
18
2
0
8
3
13
88
100
98
80
89
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
1
0
3
4
3
4
5
16
2
0
9
4
15
75
100
98
90
89
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
1
0
3
4
2
5
5
16
2
1
8
4
15
75
100
98
90
89
1
0
6
1
8
3
0
4
7
14
3
0
2
1
6
1
3
2
1
7
0
0
0
0
0
50
0
71
80
63
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
2
6
3
3
10
6
22
1
0
4
2
7
50
100
100
80
83
# - Percentage of positive responders, i.e., those that confirm the positively cast questions and dismiss the negative questions
Shaded areas – Actual number of positive responders in each group
33
Table D-1. The responses concerning clarity and ease of use (continued)
Questionnaire item
9. The ‘how to use’ instructions are easy to follow
Supermarkets/Retail (N=8)
Motor Manufacturing (N=3)
Logistics/Distribution (N =14)
Medical/Health Care (N=10)
Total responders
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
%#
+ve
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
5
5
1
7
6
19
2
1
6
2
11
88
67
98
80
86
Strongly
agree
%#
+ve
1
0
6
3
10
75
33
93
70
77
0
1
0
0
1
88
33
86
70
77
1
0
4
1
6
75
67
93
50
69
1
0
3
2
7
63
67
93
90
83
1
1
6
5
13
75
100
100
90
91
#-Percentage of positive responders, i.e., those that confirm the positively cast questions and dismiss the negative questions
Shaded areas – Actual number of positive responders in each group
Table D-2. The responses concerning scoring and interpretation of scores
Questionnaire item
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree
disagree
1. The scoring system is easy to use
Supermarkets/Retail (N=8)
5
0
0
2
Motor Manufacturing (N=3)
1
1
1
0
Logistics/Distribution (N =14)
7
0
0
1
Medical/Health Care (N=10)
4
0
2
1
Total responders
0
3
5
17
2. I found the scoring sheet difficult to complete
Supermarkets/Retail (N=8)
2
5
1
0
Motor Manufacturing (N=3)
1
0
1
0
Logistics/Distribution (N =14)
7
5
2
0
Medical/Health Care (N=10)
2
5
3
0
Total responders
11
16
6
1
3. The information for the scoring system is
adequate
Supermarkets/Retail (N=8)
0
0
2
5
Motor Manufacturing (N=3)
0
2
1
0
Logistics/Distribution (N =14)
9
0
0
1
Medical/Health Care (N=10)
4
0
1
4
Total responders
8
18
0
3
4. The scores obtained are easy to interpret
Supermarkets/Retail (N=8)
4
0
1
2
Motor Manufacturing (N=3)
2
0
0
1
Logistics/Distribution (N =14)
9
0
0
2
Medical/Health Care (N=10)
7
0
0
1
0
1
6
22
Total responders
5. The tool helps identify activities that need
attention
Supermarkets/Retail (N=8)
0
1
1
5
Motor Manufacturing (N=3)
2
0
0
0
Logistics/Distribution (N =14)
8
0
0
0
Medical/Health Care (N=10)
4
0
0
1
Total responders
0
1
2
19
#-Percentage of positive responders, i.e., those that confirm the positively cast questions and dismiss the negative questions
Shaded areas – Actual number of positive responders in each group
34
Table D-3. The responses concerning Future use of the tool
Questionnaire item
Strongly Disagree
disagree
1. I would like to use the push-pull tool frequently
Supermarkets/Retail (N=8)
1
1
Motor Manufacturing (N=3)
0
0
Logistics/Distribution (N =14)
0
0
Medical/Health Care (N=10)
0
0
Total responders
1
1
2. I feel very confident about using the push-pull
tool
Supermarkets/Retail (N=8)
0
0
Motor Manufacturing (N=3)
0
0
Logistics/Distribution (N =14)
0
0
Medical/Health Care (N=10)
0
1
0
1
Total responders
3. A lot needs to be learnt to use the push-pull tool
Supermarkets/Retail (N=8)
2
4
Motor Manufacturing (N=3)
1
2
Logistics/Distribution (N =14)
8
4
Medical/Health Care (N=10)
3
4
Total responders
14
14
4. I would recommend the push-pull tool to others
Supermarkets/Retail (N=8)
0
0
Motor Manufacturing (N=3)
0
0
Logistics/Distribution (N =14)
0
0
Medical/Health Care (N=10)
0
1
Total responders
1
0
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
%#
+ve
4
3
0
3
10
1
0
9
5
15
0
0
5
2
7
14
0
100
70
65
2
1
0
4
7
4
1
7
2
14
1
1
7
3
12
71
67
100
50
76
1
0
0
3
4
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
86
100
86
70
82
4
2
1
1
8
1
1
8
6
16
2
0
5
2
9
43
33
93
80
74
#-Percentage of positive responders, i.e., those that confirm the positively cast questions and dismiss the negative questions
Shaded areas – Actual number of positive responders in each group
35
E. THE FIELD TRIALS QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
Table E-1, Table E-2 and Table E-3 summarises the duty holders’ responses.
Table E-1. Characterising risk factors for wheeled equipment operations
Risk factor/Industry group
1. Equipment/load weight
Supermarkets/Retail (N=3)
Motor Manufacturing (N=1)
Logistics/Distribution (N =11)
Food and Drinks (N=2)
Metal processing (N=1)
Total responders
2. Posture
Supermarkets/Retail (N=3)
Motor Manufacturing (N=1)
Logistics/Distribution (N =11)
Food and Drinks (N=2)
Metal processing (N=1)
Total responders
3. Hand grip
Supermarkets/Retail (N=3)
Motor Manufacturing (N=1)
Logistics/Distribution (N =11)
Food and Drinks (N=2)
Metal processing (N=1)
Total responders
4. Work pattern
Supermarkets/Retail (N=3)
Motor Manufacturing (N=1)
Logistics/Distribution (N =11)
Food and Drinks (N=2)
Metal processing (N=1)
Total responders
5. Travel distance
Supermarkets/Retail (N=3)
Motor Manufacturing (N=1)
Logistics/Distribution (N =11)
Food and Drinks (N=2)
Metal processing (N=1)
Total responders
6. Condition of equipment
Supermarkets/Retail (N=3)
Motor Manufacturing (N=1)
Logistics/Distribution (N =11)
Food and Drinks (N=2)
Metal processing (N=1)
Total responders
7. Floor surface
Supermarkets/Retail (N=3)
Motor Manufacturing (N=1)
Logistics/Distribution (N =11)
Food and Drinks (N=2)
Metal processing (N=1)
Total responders
Very easy
Easy
Neutral
Hard
Very Hard
% +ve
2
0
4
1
1
8
1
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
100
0
82
50
100
78
1
0
7
1
0
9
2
1
4
1
1
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
100
100
100
100
1
0
7
2
0
10
2
1
2
0
1
6
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
82
100
100
89
1
1
2
2
0
6
2
0
7
0
0
9
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
82
100
0
83
1
0
7
2
1
11
2
1
1
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
73
100
100
83
1
0
7
1
0
9
2
0
1
0
1
4
0
1
2
1
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
0
73
50
100
72
1
1
8
1
0
11
2
0
1
1
1
5
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
82
100
100
89
#-Percentage of positive responders, i.e., those who response was very easy or easy
36
Table E-1. Characterising risk factors for wheeled equipment operations (continued)
Risk factor/Industry group
8. Obstacles along the route
Supermarkets/Retail (N=3)
Motor Manufacturing (N=1)
Logistics/Distribution (N =11)
Food and Drinks (N=2)
Metal processing (N=1)
Total responders
9. Other factors
Supermarkets/Retail (N=3)
Motor Manufacturing (N=1)
Logistics/Distribution (N =11)
Food and Drinks (N=2)
Metal processing (N=1)
Total responders
Very easy
Easy
Neutral
Hard
Very Hard
% +ve
1
1
4
1
0
7
2
0
3
0
1
6
0
0
3
1
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
64
50
100
72
1
1
1
1
0
4
1
0
7
1
0
9
1
0
3
0
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
67
100
73
50
0
72
#-Percentage of positive responders, i.e., those who’s response was very easy or easy
37
Table E-2. Characterising risk factors for non-wheeled item operations
Risk factor/Industry group
1. Activity/load weight
Supermarkets/Retail (N=1)
Logistics/Distribution (N=6)
Food and Drinks (N=1)
Total responders
2. Posture
Supermarkets/Retail (N=1)
Logistics/Distribution (N=6)
Food and Drinks (N=1)
Total responders
3. Hand grip
Supermarkets/Retail (N=1)
Logistics/Distribution (N =6)
Food and Drinks (N=1)
Total responders
4. Work pattern
Supermarkets/Retail (N=1)
Logistics/Distribution (N =6)
Food and Drinks (N=1)
Total responders
5. Travel distance
Supermarkets/Retail (N=1)
Logistics/Distribution (N =6)
Food and Drinks (N=1)
Total responders
6. Floor surface
Supermarkets/Retail (N=1)
Logistics/Distribution (N =6)
Food and Drinks (N=1)
Total responders
7. Obstacles along the route
Supermarkets/Retail (N=1)
Logistics/Distribution (N =6)
Food and Drinks (N=1)
Total responders
8. Other factors
Supermarkets/Retail (N=1)
Logistics/Distribution (N =6)
Food and Drinks (N=1)
Total responders
Very easy
Easy
Neutral
Hard
Very Hard
% +ve
1
1
0
2
0
4
0
4
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
83
0
78
1
5
0
6
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
100
100
1
5
0
6
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
0
88
1
2
0
3
0
4
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
100
100
1
2
0
3
0
4
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
100
100
1
1
0
2
0
5
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
100
100
1
1
1
3
0
4
0
4
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
83
100
86
1
1
0
2
0
4
1
5
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
83
100
86
#-Percentage of positive responders, i.e., those who response was very easy or easy
38
Table E-3. Overall perceptions of the tool and confidence after using it
Issue/Industry group
1. A method for identifying risk
factors
Wheeled equipment operation
Supermarkets/Retail (N=3)
Motor Manufacturing (N=1)
Logistics/Distribution (N =11)
Food and Drinks (N=2)
Metal processing (N=1)
Total responders
Non-wheeled item operation
Supermarkets/Retail (N=1)
Logistics/Distribution (N =6)
Food and Drinks (N=1)
Total responders
2. Increasing awareness of risk factors
Wheeled equipment operation
Supermarkets/Retail (N=3)
Motor Manufacturing (N=1)
Logistics/Distribution (N =11)
Food and Drinks (N=2)
Metal processing (N=1)
Total responders
Non-wheeled item operation
Supermarkets/Retail (N=1)
Logistics/Distribution (N =6)
Food and Drinks (N=1)
Total responders
3. An aid for meeting responsibilities
Supermarkets/Retail (N=3)
Motor Manufacturing (N=1)
Logistics/Distribution (N =11)
Food and Drinks (N=2)
Metal processing (N=1)
Total responders
4. Effect on confidence
Supermarkets/Retail (N=3)
Motor Manufacturing (N=1)
Logistics/Distribution (N =11)
Food and Drinks (N=2)
Metal processing (N=1)
Total responders
Very
easy
Easy
Neutral
Hard
Very Hard
% +ve
3
0
6
1
1
11
0
1
5
1
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
100
100
100
100
1
4
0
5
Very
useful
0
2
1
3
Definitely
useful
0
0
0
0
Not sure
0
0
0
0
Somewhat
useful
0
0
0
0
Not at all
useful
100
100
100
100
% +ve
1
0
3
2
0
6
1
0
7
0
1
9
0
1
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
67
0
91
100
100
83
0
3
1
4
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
88
0
0
6
2
0
8
Greatly
improved
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
4
0
1
6
Definitely
improved
1
1
1
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
1
Improved
2
0
0
0
0
2
Not
improved
2
0
5
0
0
7
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
100
91
100
100
78
0
0
5
2
0
7
#-Percentage of positive responders, i.e. those whose response was very easy or easy, very useful or useful, and/or improved
39
33
100
54
100
100
61
F. THE FINAL PUSH-PULL OPERATIONS RISK ASSESSMENT TOOL (PROTOTYPE
C)
INTRODUCTION
This draft assessment tool is designed to help assess the key risks in manual pushing and pulling
operations (as defined by the Manual Handling Operations Regulations guidance MHOR (HSE, 2004))
involving whole body effort, e.g. moving loaded trolleys, roll cages, etc; dragging, hauling, sliding or
rolling loads. It is intended to be an addition to the Manual Handling Assessment Charts (MAC),
which helps assess lifting and carrying operations, and assumes familiarity with MAC. This tool is
intended to help Enforcing Authority visiting officers and those responsible for health and safety in
workplaces to identify high-risk pushing and pulling activities. It is also intended to help duty holders
evaluate the effectiveness of intervention by before and after assessments.
STRUCTURE OF THE TOOL
There are two types of assessment that can be carried out with this tool:
•
•
Pushing and pulling operations involving wheeled equipment, such as hand trucks, trolleys, carts
or wheelbarrows (Section A).
Pushing and pulling operations involving non-wheeled items, e.g. dragging, /sliding, churning
[pivoting and rolling] and rolling (Section B).
For each type of assessment there is a flow chart, an assessment guide and a score sheet to complete.
The flow charts provide an overview of the risk factors and assessment process while the assessment
guides provide information to help you determine the level of risk for each risk factor.
Note: The tool is not appropriate for assessing the following pushing and/or pulling operations:
Those involving just the upper limbs, e.g. pushing buttons/knobs, pulling levers, moving loads
which are on a conveyor (these are considered in other publications, e.g. HSG60), and
• Those involving just the lower limbs, e.g. pushing on pedals, or with the feet.
• Those involving powered handling equipment.
Furthermore, as with MAC, Use of this tool does not comprise a full risk assessment.
•
HOW TO COMPLETE AN ASSESSMENT
•
•
•
•
Spend some time observing the workers and activity to ensure that what you are seeing is
representative of normal working practice. Consult with the employees and safety representatives
during the assessment process. Where several people do the same activity, make sure you have
some insight into the demands of the operation from all workers’ perspective.
Select the appropriate type of assessment to be conducted (i.e., pushing and pulling wheeled
equipment or pushing and pulling non-wheeled items). If both types of operation occur, consider
them both separately.
Ensure you read the assessment guide before you make your assessment.
Follow the appropriate flow chart and assessment guide to determine the level of risk for each risk
factor. The levels of risk are classified below:
G = GREEN – Low level of risk
A = AMBER – Medium level of risk
40
•
•
R = RED – High level of risk
P = PURPLE – Very high level of risk
Enter the colour band and corresponding numerical score in the appropriate column of the score
sheet. It is possible to use intermediate scores if the factor you are assessing is not clear-cut
but falls between two categories. Enter the remaining task information asked for on the score
sheet.
Add up the scores to obtain the total Operation Score. A system for interpreting the total score for
an operation is presented in the following table:
Operation Score
0–7
8 – 14
15 or more
•
Estimated level of risk /Recommended action
Low
Medium
High
Consider the individual elements
Examine the operation closely
Investigate the operation urgently
(Consider expert intervention)
The total Operation Scores help prioritise those activities that need most urgent attention and help
check the effectiveness of any interventions applied. The colour bands help determine which
elements of the operation require attention.
Further reading
Health and Safety Executive HSE (2002)
Upper limb disorders in the workplace HSG60 (2nd Edition)
HSE Books, ISBN 0 7176 1978 8
Health and Safety Executive HSE (2004)
Manual Handling Operations Regulations, 1992 (as amended): Guidance on Regulations (L23), 3rd
Edition
HSE Books, Sudbury, Suffolk
41
SECTION A. PUSH-PULL OPERATIONS INVOLVING WHEELED EQUIPMENT
Flow chart
Please insert the
colour
and
numerical scores
on the score
sheet (page 47)
Start
Low
1. Load weight
Medium
High
Very high
Good
2. Posture
Reasonable
Poor
9. Other factors
0
2
Few
1
8
8. Obstacles along
the route
0
Low
0
Medium
2
High
6
0
Reasonable
1
Good
0
Reasonable
1
Poor
2
Good
0
Reasonable
1
Poor
3
3
6. Condition of
equipment
5. Travel
distance
3
0
Reasonable
2
4
Short
0
Medium
1
Long
42
4
Good
Poor
4. Work pattern
2
4
Good
Poor
0
Several
7. Floor surface
3. Hand
grip/
coupling
None
3
SECTION A. PUSH-PULL OPERATIONS INVOLVING WHEELED EQUIPMENT
Assessment guide
A-1 Type of equipment / Load weight (kg)
Identify the type of equipment; Note the number of equipment that is moved at a time; Note the total
load on each equipment (weight of the equipment and weight of load carried) moved from labelling,
by questioning the workers or by direct measurement of a sample of the items.
1 If one equipment is moved at a time and different loads are involved, assess the heaviest load.
2
If two or more equipment are moved at a time, assess the total load moved.
3
If two or more different types of equipment are used, do assessment for each type
Type of equipment
Weight of load moved
Low
Medium
G/0
A/2
High
R/4
Very high
P/8
Small, with one or two wheels: for example
wheelbarrows, wheelie bins or sack trucks. With this
equipment, the worker supports some of the load.
less
than 50
kg
50 kg to
100 kg
100 kg to 200
kg
more than 200
kg, or more
than capacity of
equipment
(manufacturer’s
recommended
maximum
weight)
less
than
250 kg
250 kg to
500 kg
500 kg to 750
more than 750
kg, more than
capacity of
equipment
(manufacturer’s
recommended
maximum
weight)
less
than
600 kg
600 kg to
1000 kg
1000 kg to
1500 kg
Medium, with three or more fixed wheels
and/or castors: for example, roll cages and Euro
bins.
kg
Large, steer able: for example pallet truck, or
runs on rails.
more than 1500
kg, or more
than capacity of
equipment
(manufacturer’s
recommended
maximum
weight)
Note: If the rated capacity of the equipment is not exceeded, and all the other factors turn out to be
green then it may be possible that the effort required can be acceptable even for a load weight within
the purple zone. This will however, need to be verified by further investigation or specialist advice.
43
SECTION A. PUSH-PULL OPERATIONS INVOLVING WHEELED EQUIPMENT
Assessment guide (continued)
A-2 Posture
Observe the general position of the hands and the body during the operation.
Good G/0
Reasonable A/3
Poor R/6
Trunk is largely upright and
not twisted, and
Hands are usually between
hip and shoulder level
Trunk is noticeably bent or twisted,
or
Hands are usually above shoulder
level, or One hand is usually used, or
Body is noticably inclined in the
direction of exertion
Trunk is severely bent/twisted, or
Both hands are behind or on one
side of body, or
Body is considerably inclined in
direction of exertion, or
Worker squats, kneels or needs to
push with the back
A-3 Hand grip
Observe the main direction of the push or pull and how the hand(s) grip the equipment. If pushing and
pulling is performed relatively equally do the assessment for both actions.
Action
Good G/0
Reasonable A/1
Poor R/2
Pulling
There are well designed
handles or handhold areas,
They allow a comfortable
grip
There are handhold areas
There are no handles,
They only allow a partial grip i.e.
fingers clamped at 90º
The surfaces only allow
pinch grasping
There are fit for purpose
handles, or
Surfaces allow comfortable
full hand contact
Surfaces allow partial hand
contact, i.e. the areas are too
small for contact with the whole
open hand
Surfaces only allow
uncomfortable hand
contact, i.e., there are
pressure points and/or
sharp edges
Pushing
44
SECTION A. PUSH-PULL OPERATIONS INVOLVING WHEELED EQUIPMENT
Assessment guide (continued)
A-4 Work pattern
Observe the work, note whether the operation is repetitive (there are five or more transfers per minute)
and whether the worker sets the pace of working. Find out what the general work/break pattern is.
Good G/0
Reasonable A/1
Poor R/3
Work is not repetitive (4 or
less transfers per minute) and
The pace of working is set by
the worker
Work is repetitive, but
Work is repetitive, and
There is opportunity for rest or
recovery through formal breaks
and/or job rotation
No formal breaks or job rotation
opportunities are provided
A-5 Travel distance
Determine the distance from start to finish for a single trip (if the operation is repetitive, determine the
average distance for at least five trips).
Short G/0
Medium A/1
Long R/3
< 10 m
10 to <30 m
≥ 30 m
A-6 Condition of equipment
Enquire about the maintenance programme, observe the general state of repair of the equipment
(condition of the wheels, bearings, and joints).
Good G/0
Reasonable A/2
Poor R/4
Maintainance is planned and
preventive and/or
Equipment is in a good state
of repair
Maintenance is corrective (occurs
only as problems arise) and/or
Equipment is in a reasonable state
of repair
Maintenance is not planned (there
is no clear system in place) and/or
Equipment is in a poor state of
repair
A-7 Floor surface
Identify the general condition of the floors and determine the level of risk using the following criteria.
Good G/0
Reasonable A/1
Poor R/4
Dry and Clean,
Generally dry and clean
(Damp or litter in some areas),
Sloping (gradient is 3º to 5º), or
Generally stable (carpet)
Poor condition (few areas are
damaged or pitted)
Contaminated
(Wet or litter in several area)
Steep (gradient is > 5º), or
Unstable under foot (gravel, sand)
Very poor condition (many areas
are damaged / pitted)
Level,
Stable, and
Good condition (not damaged
or pitted)
45
SECTION A. PUSH-PULL OPERATIONS INVOLVING WHEELED EQUIPMENT
Assessment guide (continued)
A-8 Obstacles along the route
Note if the equipment is moved over trailing cables, across raised edges, up and/or down steep ramps
(gradient is more than 5º), up and/or down flight of two or more steps (steps), through closed/narrow
doors, or confined spaces, around bends, corners or objects. Each type of obstacle should only be
counted once no matter the number of times it occurs.
Low G/0
Medium A/2
High R/3
There are no obstacles
present
One or two obstacles are present
but no steps or steep ramp
Three or more obstacles but no
steps or steep ramps, or
There are steps or steep ramps
A-9 Other factors
Observe the loading of the equipment and the work environment e.g., extreme temperatures, strong air
movements or high vibration/rocking; poor visibility (either because the load is large and obstructs
operator’s vision or because the lighting is poor). Select the most appropriate category below.
None G/0
Few A/1
Several R/2
No other factors present
One factor is present
Two or more factors are present
46
SECTION A. PUSH-PULL OPERATIONS INVOLVING WHEELED EQUIPMENT
Score sheet
47
SECTION B. PUSH-PULL OPERATIONS NOT INVOLVING WHEELED EQUIPMENT
Flow chart
Please insert the
colour
and
numerical scores on
the score sheet (page
52)
Start
1. Load weight
Low
0
Medium
2
High
Very high
Good
2. Posture
Reasonable
Poor
Good
3. Hand grip
Reasonable
Poor
4. Work pattern
0
Few
1
4
Several
8
0
7. Obstacles
the route
3
along
0
Medium
2
6
0
6. Floor surface
0
Reasonable
1
Poor
2
Reasonable
1
5. Travel
distance
48
4
Short
0
Medium
1
Long
3
3
Good
1
0
2
Low
High
Good
Poor
8. Other factors
None
3
SECTION B. PUSH-PULL OPERATIONS NOT INVOLVING WHEELED EQUIPMENT
Assessment guide
B-1 Activity / Load weight (kg)
Identify the work activity; Note the weight of the load moved (from any labelling provided, by
questioning the workers or by direct measurement of a sample of the loads).
Activity
Weight of load moved
Low
Medium
G/0
A/2
High
R/4
Very high
P/8
Rolling
less
than
400 kg
400 kg to
600 kg
600 kg to
1000 kg
more than 1000
kg
less
than 80
kg
80 kg to
120 kg
120 kg to 150
kg
more than 150
kg
less
than 25
kg
25 kg to 50
kg
50 kg to 80
kg
more than 80 kg
Churning (loads are moved by pivoting and rolling
along the base edges)
Dragging/hauling or sliding
Note: If all the other factors are green, then it may be possible that the effort required can be
acceptable even for a load with weight within the purple zone. This will however, need to be verified
by further investigation or specialist advice.
49
SECTION B. PUSH-PULL OPERATIONS NOT INVOLVING WHEELED EQUIPMENT
Assessment guide (continued)
B-2 Posture
Observe the general position of the hands and body during the operation.
Good G/0
Reasonable A/3
Poor R/6
Trunk is largely upright and
not twisted, and
Hands are often between hip
and shoulder level,
Trunk is noticeably bent or
twisted, or
Hands are usually above shoulder
level, or
Body is noticably inclined in the
direction of exertion
One hand is occationally used
Trunk is severely bent/twisted, and
Only one hand is usually used
Both hands are on one side of
body, or
Body is considerably inclined in
direction of exertion, or
Worker squats, kneels or needs to
push with the back
B-3 Hand grip
Identify the main direction of the push or pull and how the hand(s) grip the load. If pushing and
pulling is performed relatively equaly, do the assessment for both actions.
Action
Good G/0
Reasonable A/1
Poor R/2
Pulling
There are handles or
handhold areas, and
They allow a comfortable
grip
There are handhold areas
There are no handles
They only allow a partial grip i.e.
fingers clamped at 90º
The surfaces only allow
uncomfortable hand contact
or pinch grasping
There are fit for purpose
handles, or
Surfaces allow
comfortable full hand
contact
Surfaces allow partial hand
contact, i.e. the areas are too
small for contact with the whole
open hand
Surfaces only allow holding
with stretched out fingers, or
there are pressure points
and/or sharp edges
Pushing
50
SECTION B. PUSH-PULL OPERATIONS NOT INVOLVING WHEELED EQUIPMENT
Assessment guide (continued)
B-4 Work pattern
Observe the work, note whether the worker sets the pace of working, and whether the operation is
repetitive (five loads or more are moved per minute) .Find out what the general work/break pattern is.
Good G/0
Reasonable A/1
Poor R/3
Work is not repetitive (4 or
less transfers per minute) and
The pace of working is set by
the worker
The work is repetitive, but
The work is repetitive, and
There is opportunity for rest or
recovery through formal breaks
and/or job rotation
No formal breaks or job rotation
opportunities are provided
B-5 Travel distance
Determine the distance from start to finish for a single trip (if the operation is repetitive determine the
average distance for at least five trips, if not determine the distance of the longest trip).
Short G/0
Medium A/1
Long R/3
<2m
2 to <10 m
≥ 10 m
B-6 Floor surface
Identify the general condition of the floors and determine the level of risk using the following criteria.
Good G/0
Reasonable A/1
Poor R/4
Dry / clean,
Generally dry/clean (Damp or litter
in some areas), or
Poor condition (few areas are
damaged or pitted)
Sloping (3º to 5 º, gradient), or
Generally stable (carpet)
Generally contaminated (Wet or
litter in several area), and/or
Very poor condition (many areas
are damaged / pitted)
Steep (gradient is > 5º), or
Unstable under foot (gravel, sand)
Good condition (not damaged
or pitted)
Level, and
Stable,
B-7 Obstacles along the route
Note if the load is moved over trailing cables, across raised edges, up and/or down steep ramps
(gradient is more than 5º), up and/or down flight of two or more steps (steps), through closed/narrow
doors, or confined spaces, around bends, corners or objects. Each type of obstacle should only be
counted once no matter the number of times it occurs.
Low G/0
Medium A/2
High R/3
There are no obstacles
present
One or two obstacles are present
but no steps or steep ramp
Three or more obstacles but no
steps or steep ramps, or
There are steps or steep ramps
B-8 Other factors
Observe the loading of the equipment and the work environment e.g., extreme temperatures, strong air
movements or high vibration/rocking; poor visibility (either because the load is large and obstructs
operator’s vision or because the lighting is poor). Select the most appropriate category below.
None G/0
No other factors present
Few A/1
One factor present
Several R/2
Two or more factors present
51
SECTION B. PUSH-PULL OPERATIONS NOT INVOLVING WHEELED EQUIPMENT
Score sheet
52
Published by the Health and Safety Executive
02/14
Health and Safety
Executive
Evaluation of the pushing and pulling
operations risk assessment tool by
duty holders
This report describes the usability testing of a prototype
tool for assessing the manual handling risks associated with
tasks involving pushing or pulling of loads. It builds on earlier
work by HSL to develop Pushing and Pulling Operations
Assessment Charts (PPAC) (see Research Report 998).
Feedback on the assessment of typical operations in the field
indicated that the risk factors included in the tool are relevant,
useful, relatively easy to identify and that they covered most of
the conditions found in workplaces.
Duty holders who took part in the study were able to
differentiate between categories of risk for most of the factors,
they were also able to argue and justify their choices. The
findings indicate that the tool is sufficiently usable and reliable,
and it is useful for increasing duty holder confidence in
assessing pushing and pulling operations.
This report and the work it describes were funded by the
Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including
any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the
authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.
RR999
www.hse.gov.uk