Download
1 / 19
200 likes | 210 Views
This study evaluates the effectiveness of industry hearing conservation programmes in the US, UK, and South Africa. It assesses if these programmes are achieving their goals in mitigating and preventing noise-induced hearing loss. Results, implications, conclusions, and recommendations for stakeholders are discussed.
E N D
O Rikhotso; Dr JL Harmse; Prof JC Engelbrecht Are industry implemented hearing conservation programmes effective? Industry evaluation
CONTENT • Background • Research question • Study design • Results and discussion • Implications of results for stakeholders • Conclusion • Recommendations • Acknowledgements
Research Question Based on presented NIHL statistics – are industry HCPs achieving stated goals/purpose i.e. NIHL mitigation & prevention of hearing threshold deterioration HCP: Elements • Government policy and company policy • Noise exposure monitoring • Noise control • Provision of HPDs – selection and use • Audiometric testing programme • Training programme • Record keeping • Ethical approval (FCRE 2016/03/012(SCI))
Results: HPD rating labels - Single number methods 1 HPD labelled with “NNR”
Results: Rating labels: Assumed protection values 2 HPDs without APVs (UVEX3000H & Profit earplug)
Pass/Fail criteria for HPDsHPDs used in RSA: SANS 1451-1, 1451-2, 1451-3 (EN 352 equivalent)
ResultsNOISE LEVELS * Above noise rating limit
Calculation procedures & HPD adequacy rating scale Calculation procedures HPD adequacy rating scale • HSE (HML method, SNR method) • NIOSH (NIOSH method 2 & 3) • OSHA (Appendix V – OSHA adjusted method) • OBM (HSE, OSHA & NIOSH) – similar across • Safety factors
Results: Adequacy rating outcomes Table 1: : NIOSH & OSHA NRR methods
Results: Adequacy rating outcomes Table 2: SNR and HML methods
Results: Adequacy rating outcomes Table 3: Octave band method
CONCLUSION • Compensation statistics indicate gaps in industry implemented HCPs • HPD selection and use not always correct • Multiple adopted ratings contributes to incorrect selection and use • Regulatory uncertainty contribution – AS/NZS case country statement • Employers (embraced self-regulation) partly bear responsibility for uncertainty • Study demonstrated that HCP effectiveness only possible if all elements are in place
RECOMMENDATIONS Regulatory • Regulator to propose a common rating scheme: Basis for legal compliance. HPD policy informed by regulator guidance • Regulatory system: goal setting or a combination. Voluntary protection propramme, Cooperative compliance programme • Noise regulation should require formal HCP evaluation. Advocate for progress reports on noise reduction initiatives • Adopt the AS/NZS approach. Merge SANS 10083 with SANS 11688 parts 1, 2 and 3/ SANS 11690 parts 1 & 2 mandatory. Employers forced to consider noise engineering controls • Introduce intra-company NIHL incidence rate as measure for HCP effectiveness. NIHL incidence rate proposal: <3dB PLH shift 2%; 3- <9db PLH shift 1%; 10dB PLH shift 3% • Country compendium of HPDs approved for use in SA industry.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • Dr JL Harmse and Prof JC Engelbrecht for their academic supervision. • Prof Karabo Shale (now with MUT): Academic guidance and encouragement during initial stage of project. THANK YOU!
