Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Improving workplace safety with new data-driven approach
Similar to Improving workplace safety with new data-driven approach (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Improving workplace safety with new data-driven approach
- 1. Improving workplace safety: A new approach delivering real change
- 2. // 2 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 Today’s speakers • Dr. Nic Patee, Founder & President, Work Right NW Dr. Patee is the Founder & President of Work Right NW, a cutting edge injury prevention corporation whose aim is to revolutionize workplace safety by prioritizing the physical needs of the individual. Dr. Patee has a Bachelor’s of Science in Pre-Physical Therapy from Northwest Nazarene University and achieved his Doctorate of Physical Therapy from Arizona School of Health Sciences. • Dr. Andrew Ronchi, CEO, dorsaVi Andrew’s background includes 20 years as a practicing physical therapist and a PhD in Computer and Systems Engineering on the validity of sensors to measure complex human movement. Andrew then Co- Founded dorsaVi Ltd, and is the CEO responsible for the operational performance and growth of dorsaVi’s across Australia, USA and Europe. dorsaVi pride’s itself on bringing about real change in industry, allowing organizations to make important workplace changes based on objective data rather than opinion. • Amanda Hollis, Risk Manager & Corp Safety Dir., Columbia Distributing Amanda has extensive background in claims management services beginning her career working for a top 3 TPA. She transitioned her focus from claims management to industry safety & risk management and has climbed the ladder to her current role as Risk & Safety Director for Columbia Distributing. She has helped guide Columbia’s corporate safety path to a progressive program targeting total worker health & safety.
- 4. // 4 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017
- 6. // 6 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 “The Mad Major” Colonel John Boyd
- 7. // 7 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 Opportunity in front of us… • Workers’ compensation system incentivizes treatment • MSD’s are preventable & rarely the result of 1 instance Fee For Service Medical Market MSD Injuries
- 8. // 8 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 The current system 1. The Fee For Service System reimburses medical providers for providing medical treatment – Providers are reimbursed on a per charge basis – Providers generate revenue by providing care after an injury has occurred 2. For Example: – Employee has a sore shoulder. They go to see the physician who does the following: I. Medical Exam - $300 (reimbursed $250) II. X-Ray Examination - $250 (reimbursed $200) III. Prescription for 800 mg Ibuprofen - $50 (reimbursed $35) IV. Follow up Exam - $200 (reimbursed $180) If that injury is prevented, the medical system loses out on $665. Our system does not incentivize injury prevention, it encourages our medical experts to wait for people to break & capitalize accordingly
- 9. // 9 Musculoskeletal injury development Muscle Fatigue Inflammation Tissue BreakdownPoor Posture
- 10. // 10 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 Work Right Injury Prevention Program Industrial Sports Medicine Program Ergonomic Observation & Small Group Training Work Right University
- 11. // 11 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 Industrial Sports Medicine Program • Onsite Athletic Training Room – Physical Therapist & Athletic Trainers – Triage early symptoms of MSD’s – Provide first aid treatment – Provide: • Massage • Taping • Exercise • Stretching • Hot/Cold Treatment • Integrates easily into construction & corporate environments
- 12. // 12 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 Ergonomic Observation & Small Group Training • Ergonomic Observation – Continuous analysis of the ergonomic risk factors in the work environment – Coaching on best practices – Evaluation of potential risk factors • Small Group Training – Follow up on risk factors identified in Sports Medicine Program & pass learnings on to the other people in the same work environment
- 13. // 13 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 Work Right University • Customized trainings targeting identified challenges – Creating Stretching Champions – Back Safety 101 – PREPARED Industrial Athlete – Office Ergonomics – Elev8 Safety – Human Movement – Dynamic Movement Program • Offered in multiple different avenues – Live training – Online LMS – Train the Trainer program
- 14. // 14 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 • Eric presented with low back pain from an extended period of time working off a lift – Triage, coached on body mechanics, reminded of microstretch breaks, taped for postural cueing to engage his core – Industrial Sports Medicine Program • Small group training with the other guys on the job – Coached on lunge stance when reaching & core contraction – Weekly newsletter produced for the supervisors for their toolbox talk – Ergonomic Observation & Small Group Training • Integrated Corporate Wide Dynamic Movement Program – Integrated core strengthening, dynamic strengthening program to improve lumbar stability in the workforce – Did a Train the Trainer with all superintendents & safety leads – Work Right University The Program in Motion…
- 15. // 15 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 Outcomes
- 16. // 16 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 Dr. Andrew Ronchi CEO, dorsaVi
- 17. // 17 Bringing new insights to HSE • Reduced workplace injury risk • Improved productivity • Increased compliance • Workers compensation savings • Enhanced safety culture CLINICAL SPORT
- 18. // 18 SOLUTION CONSULTING PROJECTS IN HOUSE MONITORING PLATFORM Centralised Data For Manager/ExecutiveEmployee Supervisor Data gathered out in the field
- 19. // 19 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 How works
- 20. // 20 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 How works Centralised data, remote visibility Manager/Executive Employee Supervisor Data gathered out in the field
- 21. // 21 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017
- 22. // 22 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 Appendix
- 23. // 23
- 24. // 24 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 • Objective movement analytics • Assess, evaluate, measure, monitor Hierarchy of control E – Extreme risk, requiring immediate action. H – High risk issue requiring research or some immediate action M – Moderate risk issue that is likely to benefit from adaptation measures L – Low risk issues that can be dealt with as and when they happen Risk matrix
- 25. // 25 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 • Multiple sensors • Precise measurement • Real-time data • In real-life situations • Identify issues • Organization-wide visibility • Intuitive Dashboard to track myViSafe assessments across locations, business units, tasks and employees Assessment of complex movement
- 26. // 26 Task Subtask Back Left Shoulder Right Shoulder ROM % time outside preferred movement zone Preferred Attention 33% Attention 53% Repetitions per minute Attention 2 reps Alert 5 reps Alert 4 reps Sustained positions Preferred Preferred Attention 1 sustained EMG Alert Alert Alert Score 3 6 Task Score 9
- 27. // 27 ViSafe assessment scoring 1. Apply alerts and attentions in each category 2. Count number of alerts and attentions for each body part to generate Back and Shoulder scores, with the total Shoulder score being the higher of the Left and Right individual Shoulder scores: Alert = 2, Attention = 1 0: Score Green 1 – 4: Score Amber 5 – 8: Score Red 3. Add Back and Shoulder scores to generate total Task Score, representing the number of alerts and attentions: 0 – 1 : Score Green 2 – 8: Score Amber 9 – 16: Score Red 1. 2. 3. Task Subtask Back Left Shoulder Right Shoulder ROM % time outside preferred movement zone Preferred Attention 33% Attention 53% Repetitions per minute Attention 2 reps Alert 5 reps Alert 4 reps Sustained positions Preferred Preferred Attention 1 sustained EMG Alert Alert Alert Score 3 6 Task Score 9
- 28. // 28 ViSafe scoring example Move boxes Load boxes Back Left Shoulder Right Shoulder ROM % time outside preferred movement zone Attention 32% Alert 21% Alert 29% Repetitions Attention 2 reps Alert 5 reps Alert 7 reps Sustained positions Preferred Preferred Attention 1 sustained EMG Alert Preferred Alert Score 4 7 Total Score 11
- 29. // 29 Case Study Manufacturer Baseline Assessment Icon made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com Manufacturing
- 30. // 30 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 • Project Overview – Three employees – Six hours of video data – 12 hours of sensor data – 27 individual task assessments • Process – Onsite assessment – Data analysis – Workshop to review findings and review recommendations – Final report US manufacturer case study
- 31. // 31 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 Shoulder raw data (Whole session) 3 HOUR SESSION
- 32. // 32 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 Shoulder raw data (One task) 5 MINUTE TASK
- 33. // 33 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 Shoulder data (Right & Left)
- 34. // 34 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 Assessment summary AREA TASK BACK SHOULDER Station 1 Hub assemble Urethane gun Disassemble Station 2 Assemble operation Disassemble operation Stack small molds Station 3 Scanning Unload Ford drive High lift boxes BEST PRACTICE No action Action advised Action
- 35. // 35 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 Potential injury area summary BEST PRACTICE No action Action advised Action TASK SUBTASK POTENTIAL INJURY AREA BACK SHOULDER Assemble 1. Get moulds 2. Spray release 3. Assemble brush 4. Use air gun 5. Remove plate 6. Move brush Urethane 1. Assemble gun 2. Inject urethane 3. Moulds to burners 4. Disassemble gun Disassemble 1. Moulds from burners 2. Disassemble brush 3. Take brush from mould 4. Return moulds 5. Clean brush
- 36. // 36 Case Study Construction Group Comparative Assessment 17% increase in productivity, 85% reduction in back bending Icon made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com
- 37. // 37 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 • Project Overview – Issue with low back injuries for brick layers – Initial assessment to understand loads on lower back and shoulders – Tested 4 alternatives to reduce load on low back (mud boards and different heights) – Comparative assessment to find best alternative to reduce back injury • Process – Onsite assessment of 3 workers across 4-6 hours each – Analysis over 2 weeks – Workshop with company on results with productivity analysis – Initiated roll out, implementation and training Construction case study
- 38. // 38 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 Low Back data (normal process)
- 39. // 39 REDUCED BENDING AND INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY – VINCI CONSTRUCTION Post Intervention • Reduced low back bending over 20º by 85% • Improved productivity by 17%
- 40. // 40 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 The new bricklaying method reduced the risk of back injury • 84% less strain on low back muscles • Time spent with back bent over 20 degrees reduced by up to 85% • Repetition of higher risk movements reduced by up to 70% • 17% increase in productivity, measured in bricks per minute Summary and outcomes
- 41. // 41 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 Amanda Hollis Risk Manager, Columbia Distributing
- 42. // 42 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 • One of the nation’s largest beverage distributor/wholesaler - largest malt beverage distributor in the NW • 3,400 employees in WA, OR, & CA • Self Insured in WA for Comp in 2013 • Claims frequency initially declines, then plateaus in 2015 • Union v Management – Strained Relationship • Claims frequency nearly 2x’s corporate • New approach to impact frequency? Company Background
- 43. // 43 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 • Started the program in 2015 at our largest facility in Seattle • Began working with Operations & Delivery Business Units • Have since integrated the program at multiple facilities within the corporation Industrial Sports Medicine Program
- 44. // 44 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 • Year 1 Results: • Most Recent, 2017 Results: – 22% Reduction in Claims ROI 98 96 91 81 82 67 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 CLAIMS
- 45. // 45 Case Study Distribution Baseline Assessment Icon made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com Distribution
- 46. // 46 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 • Looking at integrating exoskeletons into their distribution process • Was going to run a pilot that was fairly substantial • Set up a project where we ran 3 workers through 10 different job functions in a controlled environment • Compared the data following the study to help in their decision making process Exoskeleton Case Study
- 47. // 47 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 Worker #1: Raw Data (Back & Shoulder) Movement Risk Score Back Shoulder Individual Score 3 2 Overall Score 5 Movement Risk Score Back Shoulder Individual Score 5 2 Overall Score 7 Movement Risk Score Back Shoulder Individual Score 3 2 Overall Score 5 Suit #1 Suit #2No Suit
- 48. // 48 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 Worker #1: Raw Data (Back & Shoulder) Worker 1 Task #1 & #2 Back Score Shoulder Score Total Score No Suit 3 3 6 Suit #1 3 5 8 Suit #2 4 4 8 Worker 2 Back Score Shoulder Score Total Score 2 3 5 5 2 7 5 4 9
- 49. // 49 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 Worker #1: Raw Data (Back & Shoulder) Suit #1 Suit #2No Suit For Task #2, combining all of worker 1 and worker 2 repetitions, the Suit #2 had the highest percentage of time of 12% where the workers’ back was in the Red zone.
- 50. // 50 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 Summary Task #1 (Overall task score & Time) Hand Truck No Suit W1 W2 W1 Avg time (mins) W2 Avg time (mins) Task #1A 5 5 2.6 3.5 Task #1B 4 5 0.2 0.3 Task #1C 3 5 0.2 0.2 Task 1D 4 5 0.3 0.3 Suit #1 W1 W2 W1 Avg time (mins) W2 Avg time (mins) 7 7 2.0 4.2 3 6 0.2 0.3 3 6 0.2 0.2 6 6 0.3 0.3 Suit #2 W1 W2 W1 Avg time (mins) W2 Avg time (mins) 5 8 3.0 3.6 5 4 0.2 0.3 6 5 0.2 0.3 6 5 0.3 0.3 Green boxes represent tasks where the worker improved in efficiency when wearing the exoskeleton compared to no suit. All other tasks either had the same or increase in time to complete the task
- 51. // 51 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 Summary Task #2 (Overall task score & Time) Green boxes represent tasks where the worker improved in efficiency when wearing the exoskeleton compared to no suit. All other tasks either had the same or increase in time to complete the task All tasks that resulted in time improvements when wearing the exoskeleton was 0.1 minute or 6 seconds quicker. Keg No Suit W1 W2 W1 Avg time (mins) W2 Avg time (mins) Task 2A 2 4 0.2 0.3 Task 2B (16 ft.) 3 4 0.3 0.4 Task 2C (16 ft.) 2 3 0.2 0.3 Task 2D 4 4 0.1 0.2 Suit #1 W1 W2 W1 Avg time (mins) W2 Avg time (mins) 6 7 0.1 0.2 4 7 0.3 0.3 3 4 0.2 0.2 6 6 0.1 0.2 Suit #2 W1 W2 W1 Avg time (mins) W2 Avg time (mins) 4 6 0.2 0.2 6 5 0.2 0.3 7 3 0.2 0.2 6 4 0.1 0.2
- 52. // 52 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 Overall Average ROM (Back) Average Back ROM No Suit Avg Back ROM Task #1 Worker 1 18° Task #1 Worker 2 21° Task #2 Worker 1 25° Task #2 Worker 2 9° Suit #1 Avg Back ROM 25° 30° 24° 13° Suit #2 Avg Back ROM 27° 29° 17° 16° On average the exoskeletons increased the workers’ average back range of motion for both workers during Hand Truck and Keg tasks. • Task #1 Worker 1 – Suit #1 increased by 39% or 7°, Suit #2 increased by 50% or 9° • Task #1 Worker 2 – Suit #1 increased by 43% or 9°, Suit #2 increased by 38% or 8° • Task #2 Worker 1 – Suit #1 decreased by 4% or 1 degree, Suit #2 decreased by 32% or 8° • Task #2 Worker 2 – Suit #1 increased by 44% or 4 °, Suit #2 increased by 78% or 7°
- 53. // 53 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 • Did not move forward with the pilot project with the exoskeletons • Have connected with the exoskeleton suppliers and discussed opportunities for improvement • Committed to re-evaluating this with improvement in the future What were the Results?
- 54. // 54 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 Why does it all matter?
- 55. // 79 © dorsaVi Ltd 2017 Worker #1: Data (Back & Shoulder) Movement Risk Score Back Shoulder Individual Score 3 2 Overall Score 5 Movement Risk Score Back Shoulder Individual Score 5 2 Overall Score 7 Movement Risk Score Back Shoulder Individual Score 3 2 Overall Score 5 Suit #1 Suit #2No Suit