Testing the joint health and safety committee assessment tool in the education sector.

Joint Health and Safety Committee (JHSC) effectiveness has been identified as an area of concern for Ontario's education sector. The JHSC Assessment Tool has been previously tested in hospitals with positive results. This study assessed the feasibility and usability of the JHSC Assessment Tool in the education sector. Members of multi-workplace JHSCs from Ontario school boards used the tool to assess their committees' effectiveness before, during and after a committee meeting with usability testing conducted pre and post meeting. Results suggested that the JHSC Assessment Tool was feasible to use during a regular JHSC meeting, groups were able to come to consensus on the majority of items, and usability scores were high overall. Participant feedback provided insight that informed the development of a version relevant to multi-workplace committees.

Health survey of employees regularly using 3D printers.

Background: 3D printers emit potentially hazardous ultrafine particles and volatile organic compounds. Workers using 3D printing technologies may be at risk of respiratory illness from occupational exposure. Aims: To assess whether 3D printing is associated with health effects in occupational users. Methods: This was a preliminary survey. Workers in 17 companies using 3D printing, including commercial prototyping businesses, educational institutions and public libraries, in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada, were asked to complete survey questionnaires concerning demographic, occupational and health information. Associations between self-reported health history variables and occupational characteristics were examined by chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. Results: Among 46 surveyed workers, 27 (59% of participants) reported having respiratory symptoms at least once per week in the past year. Working more than 40 h per week with 3D printers was significantly associated with having been given a respiratory-related diagnosis (asthma or allergic rhinitis) (P < 0.05). We observed a wide variation in occupational hygiene practices in the 17 printing workplaces that we surveyed. Conclusions: Our finding of frequently reported respiratory symptoms suggests a need for additional studies on exposed workers in this field.

Awareness of occupational skin disease in the service sector.

BACKGROUND: Occupational skin disease (OSD) is a common occupational disease. Although primary prevention strategies are known, OSDs remain prevalent in a variety of work environments including the service sector (restaurant/food services, retail/wholesale, tourism/hospitality and vehicle sales and service). AIMS: To obtain information about awareness and prevention of OSD in the service sector. METHODS: Focus groups and a survey were conducted with two groups. The first consisted of staff of the provincial health and safety association for the service sector and the second group comprised representatives from sector employers. Focus groups highlighted key issues to inform the survey that obtained information about perceptions of awareness and prevention of OSD and barriers to awareness and prevention. RESULTS: Both provincial health and safety association staff and sector employer representatives highlighted low awareness and a low level of knowledge of OSD in the sector. Barriers to awareness and prevention included a low reported incidence of OSD, low priority, lack of training materials, lack of time and cost of training, lack of management support and workplace culture. CONCLUSIONS: A starting point for improving prevention of OSD in the service sector is increased awareness. Identification of the barriers to awareness and prevention will help to shape an awareness campaign and prevention strategies. Building on existing experience in Europe will be important.

Educational intervention among farmers in a community health care setting.

BACKGROUND: Farmers are at increased risk of developing work-related respiratory diseases including asthma, but little is known about their occupational health and safety (OHS) knowledge and exposure prevention practices. Educational interventions may improve knowledge and practice related to prevention. AIMS: To determine the feasibility of an educational intervention for farmers in a community health centre setting. METHODS: This was a pilot study. Farmers were recruited by the community health centre and completed a questionnaire on symptoms, OHS knowledge and exposure prevention practices. The intervention group received education on work-related asthma and exposure control strategies, and was offered spirometry and respirator fit testing. All subjects were asked to repeat the questionnaire 6 months later. RESULTS: There were 68 study participants of whom 38 formed the intervention group. At baseline, almost 60% of farmers reported having received OHS training and were familiar with material safety data sheets (MSDSs); fewer (approximately 40%) reported knowledge of OHS legislation and availability of MSDSs. Approximately, two-thirds of subjects reported using respiratory protection. The response rate for repeating the questionnaire was 76% in the intervention group and 77% in the controls. Among the intervention subjects, statistically significant increases were observed in reported safety training, familiarity and availability of MSDSs and knowledge of OHS legislation. CONCLUSIONS: Gaps in OHS knowledge were observed. The educational intervention on OHS knowledge and exposure prevention practices in the community health centre setting was feasible. Larger, more-controlled studies should be undertaken as this study suggests a positive effect on OHS knowledge and prevention practices.

Skin and respiratory symptoms among workers with suspected work-related disease.

BACKGROUND: Many workers are exposed to chemicals that can cause both respiratory and skin responses. Although there has been much work on respiratory and skin outcomes individually, there are few published studies examining lung and skin outcomes together. AIMS: To identify predictors of reporting concurrent skin and respiratory symptoms in a clinical population. METHODS: Patients with possible work-related skin or respiratory disease were recruited. An interviewer- administered questionnaire collected data on skin and respiratory symptoms, health history, smoking habits, workplace characteristics and occupational exposures. Predictors of concurrent skin and respiratory symptoms were identified using multiple logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex and atopy. RESULTS: In total, 204 subjects participated; 46% of the subjects were female and the mean age was 45.4 years (SD = 10.5). Most subjects (n = 167, 82%) had possible work-related skin disease, compared with 37 (18%) subjects with possible work-related respiratory disease. Subjects with a history of eczema (OR 3.68, 95% CI 1.7-7.8), those from larger workplaces (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.8-7.4) and those reporting respirator use at work (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.2-4.8) had significantly greater odds of reporting both work-related skin and respiratory symptoms. Current smoking was also associated with reporting concurrent skin and respiratory symptoms (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.2-5.8). CONCLUSIONS: Workers reported symptoms in both systems, and this may be under-recognised both in the workplace and the clinic. The association between history of eczema and concurrent skin and respiratory symptoms suggests a role for impaired barrier function but needs further investigation.

Workers with occupational contact dermatitis: workplace characteristics and prevention practices.

BACKGROUND: There are many gaps in knowledge related to prevention practices in place for workers who subsequently develop occupational contact dermatitis (OCD). AIMS: To describe the workplace characteristics and the prevention practices in workplaces where workers developed hand dermatitis. METHODS: Consecutive cases of probable OCD were enrolled from a specialist occupational health clinic. At the time of the initial assessment, questionnaires were administered to collect information about clinical presentation, workplace characteristics and prevention practices at work. RESULTS: 100 workers with hand dermatitis were enrolled in the study and 78 were considered to have OCD. Two-thirds of these had had some occupational health and safety or Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) training in their workplace, however, training related to glove use and skin care was less common. Unionized workers were more likely to have received training. Workers involved in wet work were less likely to report training. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that there are gaps in prevention programs for work-related skin disease. Research is needed on effective strategies that are sustainable in the workplace.

Occupational contact allergens: are they also associated with occupational asthma?

BACKGROUND: Workplace exposures that can potentially cause both allergic occupational contact dermatitis (AOCD) and occupational asthma (OA) are not clearly identified. METHODS: Occupational contact allergens (OCAs) were identified using North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) data. Reference documents and systematic reviews were used to determine whether each OCA had been reported to potentially cause OA. The presence or absence of a sensitizer notation in occupational hygiene reference documents was also examined. RESULTS: The 10 most common OCAs were: epoxy resin*, thiuram, carba mix, nickel sulfate*, cobalt chloride*, potassium dichromate*, glyceryl thioglycolate, p-phenylenediamine*, formaldehyde* and glutaraldehyde*. Seven (indicated by *) were determined to be possible causes of OA. Information on sensitizing potential from OH reference materials contained conflicting information. CONCLUSIONS: Several common OCAs can also potentially cause OA. Inhalation and dermal exposures to these agents should be controlled and both OA and AOCD should be considered as possible health outcomes. Increased consistency in sensitizer notations is needed.

Factors influencing respirator use at work in respiratory patients.

BACKGROUND: When engineering controls such as ventilation are not sufficient to prevent hazardous exposures in workplaces, respiratory protective devices (RPDs) may be provided to decrease workers' exposures. Often, workers do not use RPDs consistently when required. AIMS: Our goal was to determine important factors associated with RPD usage in workers with respiratory disease exposed to airborne hazards at work. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-nine respiratory clinic patients in jobs with self-identified hazardous airborne substances completed a questionnaire and their clinic files were reviewed. Statistical analysis using chi-squared test and binary logistical regression was done to identify associations with RPD usage. RESULTS: Forty-one per cent reported always wearing RPDs whenever a hazard was present; 33% never wore RPD. Compliance was highest among healthcare workers (72%) and lowest among workers in food and service industries (13 and 22%, respectively), P < 0.01. The compliance of co-workers, conveniently located RPDs, safety training discussing the use of RPDs, fit testing available at the workplace and age were positively associated with compliance (P < 0.05). Experiencing symptoms of shortness of breath and nasal stuffiness were negatively associated with compliance (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Addressing company factors and workers' symptoms apparently influencing compliance may optimize RPD usage.