Hazard recognition

Hazard recognition is vital in achieving and maintaining occupational hygiene. This essay will seek to explore hazard recognition and its role and interaction within the occupational hygiene paradigm, in addition to listing the steps of hazard recognition and their implications in the workplace, as well as associated administration and documentation requirements. The prioritization matrix will be demonstrated to ascertain risk, with challenges and improvements highlighted. First, it is important to address the evolvement and importance of contemporary hazard recognition.

Importance and history According to Occupational Safety Group, (OSG 2017) a hazard is any practice, behaviour, or physical condition that can cause either injury, illness, damage to property or environment, or loss to process. Therefore, hazard recognition is comprised mainly of identification of these hazards, prior to and in prevention of their inception. This step is vital in maintaining occupational health, however there is still an extreme number of work-related deaths and illnesses per year. On a global scale, the World Health Organisation estimates 2, 000, 000 work-related deaths each year (Davies 2017, lecture 12). Of these, 386, 000 deaths are attributed to exposure to airborne particles, and 152, 000 deaths are attributed to carcinogens in the work place each year (Davies 2017). For those who suffer from low back pain, 37% of these cases are attributed to occupation (Davies 2017). Evidence of this link between occupation and health was first noted in 1700 Ramazzini, who, in addition to the list of question Hippocrates asked, queried patients on their occupation when taking their history (Davies 2017). So what does hazard recognition look like today?

Hazard recognition Hazard recognition forms part of the occupational hygiene paradigm, with the other segments control and evaluation (OSG 2017). Hazard recognition, also referred to as the “anticipation and recognition stage” is the initial step in the paradigm (OSG 2017; Davies 2017). For full effectiveness in this stage, one must understand the workplace and utilize tools at hand. Onwards, and in application, there are three steps to hazard recognition.

3 steps to hazard recognition These three steps include process identification, task identification and hazards within the task (OSG 2017). The first step, process identification suggests that in order to identify hazards, the processes that take place within a facility must be determined. An exemplary list of these examples include; maintenance, painting, welding, office work, lift truck operation, production facilities, packaging, cleaning and sanitation, security and shipping and receiving (OSG 2017). The second step is task identification, and focuses on determining what tasks are performed within the processes. Some examples of what may be implemented by maintenance personnel include; electrical installations and repair, mechanical repairs and preventative maintenance, grounds keeping and snow removal and building maintenance (OSG 2017). Finally, step three in this process is to recognize the hazards within each task. A synonym to this step is P.E.M.E.P, because all identified hazards group into either one of five categories; being people, equipment, materials, environment and process (OSG 2017). These categories may contain many hazardous situations.

Hazardous situations P.E.M.E.P The hazards that people create are interesting, and mostly surround “safety culture”, which is a phenomenon that largely surrounds “the way we do things here”, and how that mentality applies to upholding safety procedures and protocols (WorkSafeBC 2017). Examples of people created hazards are; horseplay, lack of attention, untrained workers, using improper techniques, using inappropriate equipment and rushing to get the job done (OSG 2017). When using equipment, various hazards exist which add on to the hazards listed above; using improper equipment for the job, using an improper technique, points of operation causing injury, exposure to moving parts, poor maintenance leading to equipment failure, failure of hand tools and inappropriate personal protective equipment for the job (OSG 2017). Additionally, hazards that are associated with materials in the workplace are many, with some more obvious than others. They include; sharp, heavy or hot objects, hazardous materials, improper stacking or storage of material, unsecured loads, unknown load capacity, lifted high into the air and difficult to hand manually (OSG 2017). Furthermore, hazards in the work environment are multitudinous and variant, including; walking surfaces, airborne contaminants, congestion or clutter, noise, heat stress or cold, vibration or radiation and lighting (OSG 2017). Lastly, hazards that can be associated with processes are dynamic and may include; workplace design, job design, blind corners, schedules for production, ergonomic conditions, improper equipment and inadequate spill responses (OSG 2017). Through these examples, it is evident how complex hazard recognition is, especially when there is a simultaneous interplay of situations. In this case, it is important to determine the risk of one situation compared to another.

The prioritization matrix This comparison and scaling of situations is offered by the prioritization matrix. This matrix is used in a variety of settings where ranking items in order of importance is needed (Gosenheimer 2012). However, it is particularly useful when considering potentially hazardous situation. This prioritization matrix provides understanding and highlights what hazard should be prioritized, based on probability, consequence and exposure of a hazard (Davies 2017). In application, each probability, consequence and exposure are given a scale of 1-4, with one being rare or negligible, and four being likely, catastrophic and continuous respectively (Davies 2017). Finally, for each situation the value of these separate items are multiplied together, and thus the highest value equates to the highest priority. To illustrate, two hazardous situations will be compared. Workers in a petrol station face multiple hazards; with slippery surfaces and potential for robbery two examples. In the prioritization of slippery surfaces, one may denote; possibility – 2, significant – 3 and frequent – 3, which equals 18. In the case of a robbery, the associated scale may be; rare – 1, catastrophic – 4, and continuous – 4, which equals 16. Thus, utilizing the prioritization matrix in the workplace during the hazard recognition phase assists occupational hygienists in identifying key areas for preventative focus.

Role of occupational hygienist in hazard recognition An occupational hygienist holds the forefront role of prevention, which can be seen in the image below. For hazard recognition, the occupational hygienists carry out their role following the above mentioned steps. Sometimes information is ascertained through worker interviews, observing exposure tasks, material safety data sheets, workforce scheduling, production data, equipment and maintenance schedules to identify potential exposure agents and people possibly exposed (Wikipedia 2017). A variety of measuring devices may be used, with each device specifically designed to measure a certain contaminant (Wikipedia 2017). Prior to use, calibration of equipment is often required. Additionally, different organisational bodies have specific methodologies in measuring contaminants (Wikipedia 2017). These factors make it difficult for occupational hygienists to effectively carry out hazard recognition.

Challenges within hazard recognition Challenges within this step of the occupational hygiene paradigm are ubiquitous. “Anticipation” of hazards requires many steps, plenty of time, countless equipment and dispensable funding. Tackling the “safety culture” of a workplace is also challenging, and the occupational hygienist may often face the problem of ‘us’ and ‘them’. This may be overcome by adopting more of an inclusive procedure in recognizing hazard, by encouraging workers to voluntarily input more during the process. Additionally, with disregard to the prioritization matrix, an occupational hygienist may be more inclined to prioritize acute hazards over chronic hazards, despite the potency and perhaps increased likelihood of the latter. However, this is only if the prioritization matrix was not referred to.

Conclusion In conclusion, hazard recognition is an important element of the occupational hygiene paradigm. If achieved correctly, by; adhering to the steps outilned above, prioritizing hazards and overcoming the associated challenges of this step, the prevention of many fatalities may occur. This is the primary goal within occupational health.

References Davies, H 2017, Lesson 12, PowerPoint Slides, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Gosenheimer, C 2012, ‘Project Prioritization: A structured approach to working on what matters most’, Office of Quality Improvement, viewed 1 March 2017, <https://oqi.wisc.edu/resourcelibrary/uploads/resources/Project_Prioritization_Guide_v_1.pdf>. OSG 2017, Recognizing, Assessing, Controlling & Evaluating Hazards, viewed 1 March 2017, <https://www.osg.ca/recognizing-assessing-and-controlling-hazards/>. Wikipedia 2017, Occupational Hygiene, viewed 1 March 2017, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_hygiene>. WorkSafeBC 2017, Enhancing health & safety culture & performance, viewed 1 March 2017, <https://www.worksafebc.com/en/health-safety/create-manage/enhancing-culture-performance>.