Interventions for Overhead Drilling Demetra Dalamagas, MS, IH (Portland, OR)

Interventions for Overhead Drilling Demetra Dalamagas, MS, IH (Portland, OR) Billy Gibbons, MBA (Portland, OR) Ira Janowitz, PT, CPE Alan Barr, MS David Rempel, MD University of California, San Francisco University of California, Berkeley Center for Occupational and Environmental Health Ergonomics Program

Overhead Drilling into Concrete Sheet metal work inserts/anchors/racks/straps for ducts/pipes/conduits Building trades: sheet metal, plumbing, electrical

Risks from Overhead Drilling • Falls • Dust Exposure • Noise • Shoulder and Arm Disorders

Shoulder/arm loads

Interventions

5 year project • Phase I (YR1) – Develop Interventions • Phase II (YR2-4) – Evaluate Interventions • Phase III (YR 5) – Disseminate Findings • Funding • Center to Protect Workers Rights • NIOSH

Phase I - Development • 20 construction workers • Use 3 devices on one day – 1 hour each • Outcomes • Device Questionnaire • Comparison Questionnaire • Modify devices • Repeat

Phase II - Evaluation • 120 Construction workers • Use ‘best’ 2 interventions, each for 1 day • Outcomes • Arm, shoulder and neck pain • Shoulder and neck posture (inclinometer) • Peter Johnson (UW) • Steve Robinovitch (SFU) • Shoulder and forearm EMG • Handle vibration (Bernard Martin (UM)) • Productivity

Phase III - Dissemination • Trades • Contractors • Purchasers • Tool Manufacturers • H&S Construction Professionals

Phase I - Development

Inverted Drill Press Gen 1 Gen 2

Gen 1 Gen 2 Inverted Drill Press Close Up of Gears

Gen 1 Gen 2 Foot Lever Drill Press

Drills and Saddles

Successful Outreach Contractors Rosendin Electric Cherry City Electric JH Kelly Advanced Technology Group Temp Control Mechanical Interstate Mechanical Industries Streimer Sheetmetal LH Sowles Electric Construction Co Oregon Electric Group Construction Skanska Turner Layton Anderson Owner Intel Sea-Tac Unions IBEW Local 48 UA Local 290 SMWIA Local 16

GOSH Conference Booth

Cross Industry Partnerships • Toyota Logistics-Portland, Oregon • Toyota safety committee member (Teamster) saw our display at a conference • ODP /Toyota team consultation to incorporate modified version of our inverted drill press into their operation

Presentations UBC/UW Annual Safety and Health Conference, 2005 TNO, Amsterdam, 2005 International Ergonomics Association, Maastricht, 2006

Phase I - Development • 20 workers • Usual Overhead drilling • Demographic Questionnaire • Each device for 1 hr • Observer notes • Device Questionnaire • End of day • Comparison Questionnaire

Phase I - Development

Device Questionnaire Ease of Device On a Scale of 0-5 where 0 is difficult and 5 is easy, how would you rate this device for the following characteristics: Difficult Easy Setting-Up 0 1 2 3 4 5 Moving 0 1 2 3 4 5 Fine Positioning 0 1 2 3 4 5 Activating Drill 0 1 2 3 4 5 Drilling 0 1 2 3 4 5 Knowing when drilling 0 1 2 3 4 5 is complete

Device Questionnaire Appeal On a scale of 0-5, where 0 is poor and 5 is excellent, please rate the following: Poor Excellent Accuracy 0 1 2 3 4 5 Control 0 1 2 3 4 5 Stability 0 1 2 3 4 5 Looks (aesthetics) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Durability 0 1 2 3 4 5 Feel 0 1 2 3 4 5

Device Questionnaire How would you describe this device compared to your usual method of drilling? (circle one) Slower Same Faster What would you change to improve the ease of using this device?

Device Questionnaire Fatigue (Tiredness) On a scale of 0-5, where 0 is no fatigued and 5 is very fatigued, please rate the following after using the device: No Fatigue Very Fatigued Neck 0 1 2 3 4 5 Shoulders 0 1 2 3 4 5 Hands & Forearms 0 1 2 3 4 5 Low Back 0 1 2 3 4 5 Legs 0 1 2 3 4 5 How would you change this device to reduce pain or fatigue to the operator?

Device Questionnaire What three things do you like about this device? What three things do you dislike about this device? If available, would you use this device again next time? Yes No Why or why not?

Comparison Questionnaire Rank the drilling method for each characteristic, where 1 is the best, 2 is the second best, 3 is the worst. Photo Photo Usual Device 1 Device 2 Method Set-Up _______ _______ _______ Moving _______ _______ _______ Ease of Use _______ _______ _______ Accuracy _______ _______ _______ Productivity _______ _______ _______ Comfort _______ _______ _______ Overall _______ _______ _______

Phase I - Development • 14 workers • 14% female • 7% hispanic • Outcomes • Subject preferred usual method for ease and speed • Video analysis: device drilling faster • Less fatigue with devices • Preference: inverted drill press over foot lever • Improve • Mobility, balance • Decrease weight • Handle design • Ease of set-up – leveling, hitting hole mark • Cord handling

Phase Ib - Development • Phase 1b designs (3rd generation) • Modular (3 bases) • Rebuild gearing system • Change handles • Use aluminum for saddles and bases • Add locking castors • Channel power cords • Add depth stop

Phase Ib - Development Adjustable Castor Base

Phase Ib - Development Collar Base

Phase Ib - Development

Phase Ib - Development Feedback Very positive Collar and spring - top ratings 3 wheel base not 4 wheel Improve depth stop (add light) Add dust control Scissor lift device too tall – hinge drill base too large – attach to railing Not tall enough add extension Move switch closer to handle

Problems • Construction site access • Each setting learn something new • Redesigning and building devices takes time • Budget • Involving tool companies (e.g., Hilti, Milwaukee) • patent

Plans • Complete Phase I testing by May 31 • Begin Phase II testing August 1 • Inclinometers purchased and being field tested • Vibration measurement system purchased • Dissemination planning underway

Comments?

Interventions for Overhead Drilling Demetra Dalamagas, MS, IH (Portland, OR)