then, now and beyond - ergonomics

17-19 November 2014, National Wine Centre Adelaide

Then, Now and Beyond HFESA 50 th Annual Conference 2014

50th Annual Conference, 2014

ii


iii

Then, Now and Beyond Proceedings of the 50th Annual Conference of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia Inc. Published by The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia Inc. Baulkham Hills. 2014 ISBN: 978-‐0-‐9871751-‐0-‐6 Editor: Rebecca Mitchell © The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia Inc. Baulkham Hills. Abstract and conference paper reviewers for HFESA Conference 2014 Submitted abstracts and full conference papers were peer-‐reviewed. Full conference papers are published in Ergonomics Australia, available at: www.ergonomics.org.au The editor would like to thank the following reviewers: Christine Aickin, Melissa Baysari, Fiona Begg, Alison Bell, David Caple, Carlo Caponeccia, Paul Cockayne, Margaret Cook, Belinda Cox, Heather Dale, Tony Daly, Sidney Dekker, Gary Dennis, Marlyn Di Stefano, Naomi Dunn, Roger Hall, Max Hely, Tim Horberry, Gareth Hughes, Stephen Isam, Bill Green, Gitte Lindgaard, Airdrie Long, Jennifer Long, Marcia Lusted, Danellie Lynas, Wendy MacDonald, Barbara McPhee, Jenni Miller, Rebecca Mitchell, Brett Molesworth, Helen Moody, Anjum Naweed, Jodi Oakman, Valerie O’Keeffe, Sharonne Phillips, Janette Rose, Paul Salmon, Rwth Stuckey, Angela Summers, Trudy Tilbury, Kirsten Vallmuur, Stephen Ward, Kirsten Way, Fiona Weigall, Mark Wiggins, Wes Wilkinson, Louise Whitby and Christine Zupanc. Conference Organising Committee Valerie O’Keeffe Co-‐Convenor Nicole Walters Co-‐Convenor Paul Dewing Treasurer Rebecca Mitchell Scientific Convenor Committee Members Paul Dickinson Saody Lee Helen Moody Ramona Ramamoorthy Sara Warren Mardi Webber Professional Conference Organiser Annabel Holliss, Arinex


iv

Table of Contents

Foreword............................................................................................................. vi Program at a glance ............................................................................................vii

Conference venue................................................................................................ x Social program information .................................................................................xi

Welcome reception.............................................................................................................. xi

Optional wine dinner ........................................................................................................... xi

Conference dinner ............................................................................................................... xi

Housekeeping ......................................................................................................xi HFESA registration desk ....................................................................................................... xi

Speaker presentations ......................................................................................................... xi

Wireless and internet access .............................................................................................. xii

Lunch, morning and afternoon tea ..................................................................................... xii

Conference satchels ............................................................................................................ xii

No smoking ......................................................................................................................... xii

Conference evaluation........................................................................................................ xii

HFESA AGM......................................................................................................................... xii

Transport to the conference venue .................................................................................... xii

Site visit meeting place ...................................................................................................... xiii

Exhibitors details ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..xii

Conference sponsorship ....................................................................................xiv Inaugural Patron Address, Keynote and Plenary Abstracts ................................. 2

HFESA Patron ....................................................................................................... 3 Winthrop Professor Carmen Lawrence.................................................................................3

Keynote and plenary speaker biographies........................................................... 4 Professor Drew Dawson........................................................................................................4

Affiliate Professor Barbara Silverstein ..................................................................................5

Mr Peter Hibbert...................................................................................................................6

The Cumming Memorial Lecture ......................................................................... 7 Professor Penelope Sanderson .............................................................................................7

Oral paper abstracts ............................................................................................ 9 Safety, risk and performance ..............................................................................................10

Transport, new technology and safety ...............................................................................13

The History Project ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13

Safety, risk and error...........................................................................................................16

Office work..........................................................................................................................18

Psychosocial health, safety and comfort ............................................................................20

HFE PhD Snapshots .............................................................................................................22


v

Healthcare and ergonomics ................................................................................................24

Fit for purpose.....................................................................................................................30

Ergonomics and sustainability ............................................................................................33

Work simulation, useability and work design .....................................................................36

Workshop abstracts ........................................................................................... 38

Site Visits............................................................................................................ 48

Presenter biographies........................................................................................ 49 Presenter Index.................................................................................................. 59


vi

Foreword We extend a warm welcome to all delegates to the 50th National Annual Conference of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia, in Adelaide. This is a special conference for the Society marking 50 years of promoting human factors and ergonomics practice and research in Australia. It is fitting that we return to Adelaide to celebrate this event as the first conference was held at the University of Adelaide back in 1964. In keeping with the celebration of this milestone, we have chosen the theme Then, Now and Beyond to emphasise our rich history and contribution as a profession to improving the health, safety, performance and productivity of our workplaces and communities. Our theme also looks to the future, acknowledging the relevance and value of ergonomics and human factors into the 21st century and beyond. Human factors and ergonomics is all about interactions and this conference emphasises the collaborative efforts of academia, industry, regulators, designers and developers in producing a stimulating program of presentations, workshops and site visits. Central to this is the contribution of the Special Interest Groups of the Society who have brought together streams on healthcare ergonomics, defence human factors, transport, and anthropmetry and design. We are delighted to have the participation of our invited speakers Prof Carmen Lawrence, our Inaugural Society Patron, Prof Barbara Silverstein, Prof Drew Dawson, Mr Peter Hibbert and our Cumming Memorial Lecturer Prof Penny Sanderson. The program also includes 32 oral presentations, 5 workshops, 3 site visits and a panel discussion to engage, inform and challenge. The program comprises a diverse mix of topics representing the physical, cognitive and organisational systems domains of human factors and ergonomics, which we hope will stimulate the exchange of ideas, and highlight opportunities and challenges. In addition, a special history project prepared by Dr Andrew Petersen, will highlight key events and memories over the course of the last 49 conferences and the years in between. This conference draws together the work of many people over the past 18 months. We acknowledge and thank all those who have contributed to the planning and delivery of our conference. We are deeply indebted to Dr Rebecca Mitchell who generously managed the Scientific Program, prepared the proceedings and published the conference papers in Ergonomics Australia. The assistance and support of the HFESA Secretariat, the SA Branch Committee, the Executive and HFESA Board have been highly valued and are gratefully acknowledged. We have also appreciated the very capable guidance of Annabel Holliss from Arinex, our professional conference organiser. In particular, we convey a special thank you to our sponsors for their support and promotion of this 50th conference. Finally, we hope that all delegates and sponsors enjoy the conference experience and make the most of every opportunity to learn, share and interact as we celebrate our half century in beautiful Adelaide.

Valerie O’Keeffe Nicole Walters Conference Co-‐convenor Conference Co-‐convenor


vii

Program at a glance

MONDAY, 17 November 08.00 Conference registration

08.45 Welcome and Inaugural HFESA Patron’s Address, Carmen Lawrence Hickinbotham Hall l

09.30-‐10.30 Keynote: The next safety frontier: Managing when self and/or organisation is the hazard -‐ Drew Dawson

10.30-‐11.00 MORNING TEA SAFETY, RISK & PERFORMANCE TRANSPORT & TECHNOLOGY WORKSHOP Hickinbotham Hall Vines Room Gallery

11.00-‐11.25 Can the decision ladder

framework help inform industry risk assessment processes? -‐

Maureen Hassall

Addressing pregnancy in the operational rail environment -‐

Katherine Hill

11.30-‐11.55 Bow-‐tie analysis of an underground coal mine fatality -‐

Robin Burgess-‐Limerick

The pattern of use of the Siri iPhone voice control interface by drivers in Australia -‐ Nurul Ikhmar Ibrahim

12.00-‐12.25 Investigating the efficacy of the Verbal Protocol Method as a

measure of Situation Awareness – Janette Rose

A streetcar undesired: Eyewitness accounts of design flaws in the driver-‐cab interface of Australian

trams -‐ Anjum Naweed

Professional ethics -‐ Barbara McPhee, Christine Aickin

& Jenni Miller

12.30-‐13.30 LUNCH

13.30-‐14.00 50 years of HFESA -‐ Dr Andrew Petersen

SAFETY, RISK & ERROR OFFICE WORK WORKSHOP Hickinbotham Hall Vines Room Gallery

14.00-‐14.25 The ‘loss of situation awareness' fallacy: Why it is systems not people that lose situation awareness -‐ Paul Salmon

Developing a prototype for a combined counter/ergonomic workstation for a new design guideline -‐ Catherine Andrew

14.30-‐14.55 Improving sports official ‘systems': Can situation awareness theory be

applied to officials in sport? -‐ Timothy Neville

Visual ergonomics standards for contemporary office

environments -‐ Jennifer Long

Considering humans in

engineering projects -‐ Airdrie Long & Sue Milner

15.00-‐15.30 AFTERNOON TEA PSYCHOSOCIAL HEALTH &

SAFETY HFE PHD SHAPSHOTS WORKSHOP

Hickinbotham Hall Vines Room Gallery

15.30-‐15.55 The relationship between work and psychosocial health and wellbeing of mine workers -‐ Bronwen Otto

16.00-‐16.25 Life Cycle Ergonomics: Selling the benefits of our services to safety,

management, and health representative teams -‐ Sara Pazell

PhD snapshots from:

Alison Bell

Robyn Coman

Lily Hirsch

Daisy Veitch

Louise Whitby

Considering humans in

engineering projects -‐ Airdrie Long & Sue Milner

14.00-‐16.30: SA Health an

d Med

ical Research Institute -‐

Site visit

16.30 HFESA AGM, Hickinbotham Hall 19.00-‐23.00 OPTIONAL WINE DINNER, National Wine Centre


viii

TUESDAY, 18 November

08.30 Day registration

09.15 Welcome, Hickinbotham Hall

09.30-‐10.30 Keynote: The changing world of work, workplaces, work systems and workers -‐ Barbara Silverstein

10.30-‐11.00 MORNING TEA HEALTHCARE ERGONOMICS FIT FOR PURPOSE WORKSHOP Hickinbotham Hall Vines Room Gallery

11.00-‐11.25 Sharing the load: Towards an inter-‐disciplinary model of

patient care -‐ Gitte Lindgaard

The Australian body sizing survey: Engaging ergonomists

as stakeholders -‐ Chris Fitzgerald

11.30-‐11.55 iPad use at the bedside: A tool for sharing information with

patients during ward-‐rounds? -‐ Melissa Baysari

Designing space critical work environments: Control room design optimisation and validation -‐ Lena

Kimenkowski 12.00-‐12.25 The fallacy of believing first

impressions in diagnostic medicine -‐ Gitte Lindgaard

"Conserving the Conservator": A participative ergonomics approach to reduce risk of MSD -‐ Josephine

Bills

Office work: Activity-‐based work

and beyond -‐ David Caple

12.30-‐13.30 LUNCH – Health SIG Meeting in Hickinbotham Hall

13.30-‐14.15 Plenary: CareTrack: Assessing the appropriateness of health care delivery in Australia -‐ Peter

Hibbert

HEALTHCARE ERGONOMICS WORKSHOP WORKSHOP Hickinbotham Hall Vines Room Gallery

14.15-‐14.40 It's not easy being green: Reducing manual tasks risks in uncontrolled environments to keep paramedics safe -‐ Peter

Pollnitz

14.45-‐15.10 Embalming cadavers for use in a teaching environment: A case

study of manual handling implications for adopting best practice techniques -‐ Catherine

Andrew

The research-‐practice relationship in human factors and ergonomics

-‐ Amy Chung

WMSD surveillance exposure assessment methods for practitioners -‐ Barbara

Silverstein

15.10-‐15.40 AFTERNOON TEA – ARA SIG Meeting in Ferguson Room HEALTHCARE ERGONOMICS WORKSHOP WORKSHOP Hickinbotham Hall Vines Room Gallery

15.40-‐16.05 Quality care through quality jobs in aged care -‐ Valerie O'Keeffe

16.15-‐16.35 Creating safety through expertise: Critical case studies in

nursing and train driving -‐ Valerie O'Keeffe

The research-‐practice relationship in human factors and ergonomics -‐

Amy Chung

WMSD surveillance exposure assessment methods for practitioners -‐ Barbara

Silverstein

14.15-‐16

.30: Ju

mbo

Vision -‐ S

ite visit

14.15-‐16

.30: ABS

– Site Visit

18.30-‐23.30 CONFERENCE DINNER, Mortlock Chamber State Library of South Australia


ix

WEDNESDAY, 19 November 08.30 Day registration

09.15 Welcome, Hickinbotham Hall

09.30-‐10.30 Ron Cumming Memorial Lecture: Clinical monitoring, patient care and the design of attention – Penelope Sanderson

10.30-‐11.00 MORNING TEA ERGONOMICS &

SUSTAINABILITY SIMULATION, USEABILITY &

WORK DESIGN WORKSHOP

Hickinbotham Hall Vines Room Ferguson Room 11.00-‐11.25 Trends in journal publication in

HFE: The research-‐practice relationship -‐ Amy Chung

Cognitive and perceptual skills in game-‐like training tools:

Transfer of training from static to dynamic contexts -‐ Lisa Wise

11.30-‐11.55 A narrative and text mining approach to making sense of Ergonomics and WHS data -‐

Wendy Elford

Hearing the voice of young workers in developing the Youth Work Health and Safety Strategy for South Australia -‐ Verna Blewett

12.00-‐12.25 Implementation of interventions

to prevent MSD injury: a behaviour change approach -‐

Paul Rothmore

DOO-‐ing it solo: Investigating single driver operations in the

rail freight industry Anjum Naweed

Activity based work: Evaluation of Physical and Psychosocial

risk factors -‐ Lynn McAtamney

12.30-‐13.30 LUNCH 13.30-‐14.30 Panel discussion: Ergonomics, People and Productivity – Verna Blewett, Hickinbotham

Hall

Defen

ce SIG con

ference -‐ Exhibitio

n Ro

om

14.30-‐15.00 Conference closure and IEA 2015


x

Conference venue


xi

Social program information

Welcome reception The welcome reception will be held on Sunday 16 November at the National Wine Centre in the Vines Room. Time: 6.00 pm to 8.00 pm. The welcome reception is included in full delegate registration. The ticket for this event is included with your registration badge. Please note day registration, student and retired member registrations do not include the welcome reception. However, guest tickets for these events can be purchased as an optional extra.

Optional wine dinner Optional Wine Dinner at the National Wine Centre on Monday 17 November from 7.00pm to 11.00pm pre-‐paid at conference registration.

Conference dinner The conference dinner will be held at the Mortlock Chamber at the State Library of South Australia, on Kintore Ave. Time: 6.30 pm to 11.30 pm. Dress is lounge/business suit. The conference dinner is included in full delegate registration. The ticket for this event is included with your registration badge. Please note day registration, student and retired member registrations do not include the conference dinner. However, guest tickets for these events can be purchased as an optional extra.

Housekeeping

HFESA registration desk The HFESA conference registration desk will be located in the front foyer of the conference centre adjacent to the double fronted doors each day of the conference.

Speaker presentations All speaker presentations can be uploaded in the Broughton Room. Speakers should upload their presentation at least 3 hours prior to their presentation time.


xii

Wireless and internet access Wireless access is provided free at the conference venue. The wireless sign on is case sensitive: User name: HFESA Conference Password: conference If you are using your laptop or smart phone during the conference, please MUTE THE SOUND, so you will not distract the speakers or other conference attendees. Please note wireless access is only valid from 17 to 19 November 2014 during the conference.

Lunch, morning and afternoon tea Morning tea, lunch and afternoon tea are all provided each day. Food will be served in two locations on the concourse and to side of Hickinbotham Hall. If you have a special dietary request please speak to the waiting staff.

Conference satchels The conference satchels include a copy of the conference abstract book, along with information from our sponsors.

No smoking There is no smoking in any of the conference or social venues for this conference.

Conference evaluation We really value your feedback on the conference and will be conducting an on-‐line survey of conference attendees. An email will be sent to you regarding completing the conference evaluation survey in the week following the conference.

HFESA AGM The HFESA AGM will be held on Monday 17 November at 4.30pm in Hickinbotham Hall at the conference centre. Please attend if you are a member of the HFESA.

Transport to the conference venue Walking or cycling The National Wine Centre is adjacent to the Adelaide Botanic Gardens, in the north east corner of the city. Enjoy the scenic walk through the Botanic Gardens and enter either via the pedestrian entrance on Botanic Road, (the continuation of North Terrace) or the main entrance on Hackney Road. The National Wine Centre provides bicycle rails underneath the main entrance ramp.


xiii

Public transport Adelaide Metro buses, including the O-‐Bahn, bring you to the National Wine Centre bus stop either on Botanic Road (Stop 1) or on Hackney Road (Stop 2). More information about itineraries and timetables contact Adelaide Metro toll free: 1300 311 108 Adelaide City Council Free Connector Bus, Stop 5 (Royal Adelaide Hospital) then a short stroll through the Botanic Gardens or along Botanic Road. Car parking Car parking is available after the first parking bay off Hackney Road and on Plane Tree Drive in Botanic Park. Parking is Adelaide City Council Pay and Display metered parking allowing up to 4 hours. For further information on car parking and parking cost, see the National Wine Centre website at: http://www.wineaustralia.com.au/about/directions/visitor/ Accessibility Two Disabled Parking Permit car parks are located at the Western End of the Venue, access is via the driveway on Botanic Road after Bus Stop 1 and entry into the venue is via the Cellar Door courtyard.

Site visit meeting place The meeting place for all site visits will be the Vines courtyard. Site tours will move from this location to buses. Please be on time. Exhibitors at the 2014 HFESA Conference Booth Number Company Contact 1 DAL Seating Caroline Hansen 2 HumanScale Peter Stacey 3 Healthezone Jonathan Hulme 4 University of South Australia Silvia Pignata 5 Linak Australia Mitch Farrell 6 Kockums Bulk Systems Pty Ltd Francois Steyn and Karly Doyle 7 Backcare and Seating Mike Fuller and Rebecca Bennett 8 Thinking Space Lee Evans and Steven Forster


xiv

Conference sponsorship


1

!"!"!"

!"#$%&"'()*+"',""""#$"#%"&&

-"./&),#"+"0%&$,*0,1*23,


2

Inaugural Patron Address, Keynote and Plenary Abstracts


3

HFESA Patron

Winthrop Professor Carmen Lawrence Director of the Centre for the Study of Social Change in the School of Psychology at the University of Western Australia and Chair of the Australian Heritage Council Inaugural HFESA Patron’s Address

Dr Lawrence is a well-‐known and highly distinguished Australian. After training as a research psychologist at the University of Western Australia and lecturing in a number of Australian universities, Dr Lawrence entered politics in 1986, serving at both State and Federal levels for 21 years. She was, at various times, the Western Australian Minister for Education and Aboriginal affairs and was the first woman Premier and Treasurer of a State government. She shifted to Federal politics in 1994 when she was elected as the Member for Fremantle and was appointed Minister for Health and Human Services and Minister assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. She has held various portfolios in Opposition, including Indigenous Affairs, Environment, Industry and Innovation and

was elected national President of the Labor Party in 2004. She retired from politics in 2007. Carmen is now Director of the Centre for the Study of Social Change in the School of Psychology at the University of Western Australia and Chair of the Australian Heritage Council.


4

Keynote and plenary speaker biographies

Professor Drew Dawson Inaugural Engaged Research Chair, Central Queensland University The next safety frontier: Managing when self and/or organisation is the hazard Work, health and safety initiatives have produced significant gains in workplace safety over recent decades. In general, we have developed a more systematic and co-‐ordinated approach to the identification, assessment and mitigation of work-‐place hazards. This approach has been particularly effective for what might be referred to as 'third-‐party' hazards. That is, where the hazard is typically physical in nature and amenable to physical or administrative controls. These have been traditionally referred to as 'slips, trips, cuts and falls'. There is, however, an entirely different class of hazard which has remained relatively refractory to such approaches and, as the relative rate of third-‐party injuries fall, has increasingly become a bottleneck to affecting step-‐changes in work place safety. In this talk, I will introduce the idea of 'self' and 'organisation' as hazard and the distinction between 'reflexive' and 'objective' hazards. Further, the paper will address the organisational challenges presented by reflexive hazards and the different approaches required to manage them. The paper will argue that the approach we have developed to manage third party or objective hazards is fundamentally flawed when applied to a reflexive hazard and that we require new approaches, governance models, risk assessment tools and mitigations if we are to address this new class of hazard as effectively as we have with objective, third party hazards in the past.

Professor Drew Dawson has recently been appointed as the Inaugural Engaged Research Chair at Central Queensland University, based in South Australia. He is nationally recognised for his contributions to the scientific community and to industry in the area of sleep research, organisational psychology and human factors, industrial relations negotiations and the human implications of hours of work. He has been responsible for numerous technological advancements in fatigue management, including the FAID software, the prior sleep-‐wake rules within the Fatigue Calculator and more recent developments in fatigue-‐related error proofing.

Drew has worked extensively with Australian companies and government agencies over the last two decades and has experience in the design, implementation and evaluation of fatigue management systems in a range of industries, including aviation, manufacturing, retail, entertainment, transportation and mining sectors.


5

Affiliate Professor Barbara Silverstein Former Research Director of Washington State Department of Labor and Industries’ Safety and Health Assessment and Research for Prevention (SHARP) program The changing world of work, workplaces, work systems and workers In virtually every industry sector, work is becoming more segmented to improve production and reduce costs. Workplaces are either getting bigger to handle challenges of mass markets, or getting smaller to capture niche markets. Work systems require transparency and consistency. Workers are often facing conflicting demands and changing demographics. How can ergonomists function effectively in these changing environments? What are the responsibilities of ergonomists and to whom are we responsible in negotiating the changing world of work?

Affiliate Professor Barbara Silverstein was research director of Washington State Department of Labor and Industries’ Safety and Health Assessment and Research for Prevention (SHARP) program from 1990-‐2013. She retired September 2013, but continues to work on her favourite research project part-‐time. She received her B.S. and M.S. in community mental health nursing from the University of California San Francisco, her M.P.H. in epidemiology and environmental and industrial health from the University of Michigan, and her Ph.D. in epidemiological science from the University of Michigan. She has worked on ergonomics-‐related issues at OSHA, the University of Michigan Center for Ergonomics, the Finnish Institute

of Occupational Health, and the California Department of Health Services. Her major areas of research have been identification and control of work-‐related musculoskeletal disorders, workplace violence, comparison of surveillance methods and intervention studies to control related hazards. She has conducted field research in a number of industries, including automotive manufacturing, electronics, meat, poultry and fish processing, newspaper publishing, appliance manufacturing, medical equipment manufacturing, office work environment, pulp and paper mills, aluminum mills, automotive manufacturing, hospitals and nursing homes. Dr Silverstein served on the National Academies Committee to Evaluate the NIOSH Health Hazards Evaluation Program from 2007 -‐ 2008 and is currently in her second term at the National Academies of Science Board on Human Systems Integration. She is on the Executive Committee of the International Ergonomics Association where she is also chair of the industrially developing countries committee working on projects in Industrially developing countries in Southeast Asia and Central America. She serves on a number of national and international commissions and editorial boards regarding occupational safety, health and ergonomics.


6

Mr Peter Hibbert Australian Institute of Health Innovation, University of New South Wales

CareTrack: Assessing the appropriateness of health care delivery in Australia The CareTrack Australia study was the first population-‐based study designed to determine the percentage of healthcare encounters at which a representative sample of adult Australians received ‘appropriate care’ (care in line with evidence-‐ or consensus-‐based guidelines). Participants in our sample (n=1,154) received appropriate care in 57% of 35,573 eligible encounters in 225 health care facilities (including 107 general practices). This is comparable to the figure obtained in a similar study conducted in the US in 2003 (55%). We found high compliance for some conditions, such as coronary artery disease (90%) and dyspepsia (78%), poor compliance for the use of recommended risk assessment tools (1-‐21%), and responses to severe or deteriorating conditions (5-‐40%). At health care provider level, compliance ranged from 32-‐84%. In this presentation, I will discuss the implications of the study, consider the structure and usability of guidelines and the barriers to guideline integration into clinical practice, and propose some initial steps for improving delivery of appropriate care. Reference: Runciman W. Hunt T. Hannaford N. Hibbert P. Westbrook J. Coiera E. O’Day R. Hindmarsh D. McGlynn E. Braithwaite J. CareTrack: Assessing the appropriateness of health care delivery in Australia. 2012 Medical Journal of Australia. 197 (2), 100-‐105.

Peter Hibbert is the Program Manager for the Australian Institute of Health Innovations’ NHMRC $10.8 million research grant on research translation to create safe healthcare systems. He is an author of the landmark CareTrack Australia study which showed that Australians receive appropriate care in 57% of encounters.

He has expertise in planning and implementing large scale health system quality interventions. Prior to his current role, he was an Associate Director at the National Patient Safety Agency in London where he managed clinical improvement and safety initiatives across England and Wales and

implementing the World Health Organization’s Safe Surgery Checklist. He project directed one of the largest central line infection programs in the world involving 200 intensive care units. He was also involved in developing the World Health Organization’s International Classification for Patient Safety. Part of his role involves training small and large organisations the skills of improvement including implementing and measuring evidence, and root cause analysis. He originally trained as a physiotherapist and worked for 12 years in the public and private sectors.


7

The Cumming Memorial Lecture This is the HFESA award for highly esteemed human factors and ergonomics-‐related research or application in a relevant area of human factors and ergonomics. It is awarded to an Australian resident, preferably a member of the Society. The Award is based on the assessment of the Honours and Awards Committee and is in the form of a Medal together with the presentation of the Cumming Memorial Lecture at the Society's Annual Conference.

Professor Penelope Sanderson

School of Psychology, The University of Queensland. Clinical monitoring, patient care, and the design of attention In the Ron Cumming Memorial Lecture I will discuss the challenges that hospital clinicians face when monitoring the physiological status of individual and multiple patients, including the challenge of ‘alarm fatigue’. I will present some engineering psychology responses to those challenges. Wearable technologies such as head-‐worn displays, earbuds and tactons represent an increasingly mobile and personal way to deliver information to clinicians. However such technologies pose a new version of the long-‐standing issue of how multimodal information inputs can best be designed to guide a user's attention appropriately, so that information remains in peripheral awareness when all is well, but moves into focal awareness when needed. Most importantly, such technologies must not compromise or detract from the caring given to patients. In this Lecture I will present recent research from the Cognitive Engineering Research Group, alongside the research of other laboratories, on the possibilities and the challenges associated with head-‐worn, auditory, and tactile displays for clinical monitoring.

Professor Penelope Sanderson undertakes research and teaches in the areas of cognitive systems engineering and human factors. Her main focus is healthcare, but she has extensively researched and consulted in the power industry and also in air traffic control and air defence. At The University of Queensland, where she has been employed since 2001, Penny leads the Cognitive Engineering Research Group (CERG). Penny’s research activities at The University of Queensland are focussed on engineering psychology, human factors, cognitive

systems engineering, cognitive work analysis, visual and auditory perception and attention.


8

Don’t sit all day, don’t stand all day...Alternate!!!

Improve your worklife at the touch of a button with LINAK powered electric sit-stand desks

Find out where to buy your LINAK powered sit stand desk at

www.sitstanddesks.com.au

LINAK provide systems for electric sit-stand desks

Sit....You spend more than 85% of your time in the office sitting down. The most common health problems in the workplace are backaches and tensions.

.... or standThe magic formula is prevention. Alternately,

stand and sit relieves your spine and keeps your cardiovascualr system going.

Going Down

Going Up


9

Oral paper abstracts


10

Safety, risk and performance

Can the decision ladder framework help inform industry risk assessment processes?

Maureen Hassall, Penelope Sanderson The University of Queensland

Background: The decision ladder framework is a diagrammatic template developed to help analysts identify the possible reasoning processes and states that people could use when performing a task (Rasmussen, 1974). It is based on Rasmussen's (1983) skills, rules and knowledge framework. The decision ladder framework highlights the different perceptual and cognitive processes and states that could be associated with situation awareness, problem solving and task formulation. Over time various reviews of the decision ladder framework have been conducted (e.g. Hoffman & McCloskey, 2013; Lintern, 2010; Naikar, Moylan, & Pearce, 2006). However, there seem to be no studies reporting how useful and usable analysts find the decision ladder framework. Aim: The aim of this study was to gain insights into people's perceptions of whether the decision ladder framework and a predetermined set of strategies could be used to identify the range of ways work might be performed. This study forms part of a larger research study to assess a novel human factors risk assessment technique (Hassall, Sanderson, & Cameron, 2014). Method: The study involved 10 participants from industry and 14 fourteen participants from a university. Participants, working in pairs, used the decision ladder framework and predetermined set of strategies to identify the range of ways operators might perform a prescribed task. During the study, the performance and conversation of participant pairs was recorded as they worked with the decision ladder framework. After the pairs finished analysing the prescribed task, their perceptions on the decision ladder and other aspects of the study was collected with a survey. The recordings and survey results were then analysed to extract insights on participants' perceptions of the decision ladder. Results: Feedback from participants indicated that the process of completing the decision ladder framework and thinking through the predetermined set of strategies helped them think about novel scenarios. However, the results from the study also suggest that more could be done to clarify the decision ladder framework and its linkages to the predetermined set of strategies. Conclusions: We conclude by outlining further work that might help analysts better understand and use the decision ladder framework and predetermined set of strategies. It is hoped that the insights gained from the further work leads to methods that improve safety and risk management in industrial settings. References Hassall, M. E., Sanderson, P. M., & Cameron, I. T. (2014). The Development and Testing of SAfER: A Resilience-‐Based Human Factors Method. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 8(2), 162-‐186. doi: 10.1177/1555343414527287.


11

Hoffman, R. R., & McCloskey, M. J. (2013). The macrocognitive decision ladder. Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 57(1), 245-‐249. Lintern, G. (2010). A Comparison of the Decision Ladder and the Recognition-‐Primed Decision Model. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 4(4), 304-‐327. Naikar, N., Moylan, A., & Pearce, B. (2006). Analysing activity in complex systems with cognitive work analysis: concepts, guidelines and case study for control task analysis. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 7(4), 371-‐394. Rasmussen, J. (1974). The human as a systems component: Bits and pieces of a model (Report No: Risø-‐M-‐1722). Roskilde, Denmark: Risø National Laboratory. Rasmussen, J. (1983). Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 13(3), 257-‐266.

Bow-‐tie analysis of an underground coal mine fatality

Robin Burgess-‐Limerick1, Tim Horberry1, Lisa Steiner2, Phillipa Dodshon1 1Minerals Industry Safety and Health Centre, The University of Queensland, 2Office of Mine Safety

and Health research, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh, USA

Background: Learning lessons from previous incidents is of key importance in high-‐hazard work domains. One way to do this is analysing previous events to identify the potential control measures which could be implemented to prevent similar incidents occurring in the future. Bow-‐tie analysis combines aspects of fault-‐tree analysis and event-‐tree analysis to identify an initiating event associated with an incident; its causes and consequences, and potential preventative and mitigating control measures or barriers. Aims: The aim of the research is to analyse a fatality which occurred in a Queensland underground coal mine in 2007 to identify potential control measures to illustrate the use of the Bow Tie technique in identifying potential control measures. Method: A case study of the death of a coal miner in April 2007 is presented based on the coronial report and other public documentation, and a bow-‐tie analysis of incident is then derived. Results: The miner was operating a continuous mining machine when he was crushed against the mine wall by a shuttle car. A directional control-‐response incompatibility inherent in the steering design contributed to the fatality. A range of potential control measures are identified including: (i) replacing shuttle cars with a flexible conveyer train; (ii) non-‐line of sight remote control of continuous miners; (iii) proximity detection interlocked with shuttle car controls; (iv) "always-‐compatible" shuttle car steering design. Conclusions: In the short-‐term, proximity detection sensors interlocked with shuttle car control systems is a technically feasible control measure which should be implemented at all underground coal mines. Non-‐line of sight remote control of continuous mining machines or automation of continuous mining machines would remove operators from this hazard, and other serious hazards as well. A bow-‐tie representation provides an effective way of systematically examining the


12

causes, consequences, and potential preventative and mitigating control measures or barriers associated with a previous incident. Work is underway using the technique to examine all fatal incidents occurring in USA mines over a five year period.

Investigating the Efficacy of the Verbal Protocol Method as a Measure of Situation Awareness

Janette Rose

Central Queensland University, Appleton Institute, South Australia University of South Australia, South Australia

Background: Verbal protocol is a method often used to elicit information about the cognitive processes of operators as it provides rich data and can be used in naturalistic settings. Verbal protocol has been used to investigate the cognitive processes involved in the acquisition and maintenance of situation awareness, and to make comparisons between groups or conditions. Verbal protocol has also been used to make comparisons between drivers of old and new cars and inferring levels of situation awareness from the results of content analysis of the data. However, there does not appear to be any research regarding the efficacy of verbal protocol analysis as a measure of situation awareness. Aim: To investigate the efficacy of using verbal protocol analysis to infer levels of situation awareness. Method: Data was collected in a full-‐cab, high-‐fidelity train simulator with novice (n=23) and expert (n=25) participants. Situation awareness was manipulated such that drivers had poor awareness in the first test run and higher awareness in the second test run. Participants were recorded on an audio device while talking aloud throughout both test runs, and their verbalisations were transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were used to develop a coding scheme based on Endsley’s (1988) three-‐level model of situation awareness. This coding scheme was then used to code the verbalisations, and intra-‐ and inter-‐rater reliability tests were conducted. Two measures of situation awareness (SAGAT and LETSSA) were collected during the experimental test runs in order to verify that differences in situation awareness between the two experimental test runs existed. Results: The scores calculated using the verbal protocol analysis suggested that the overall situation awareness of participants was not significantly different in the two experimental test runs. However both SAGAT and LETSSA detected significant differences, thus it appears that verbal protocol analysis was not sensitive to differences in situation awareness in this instance. The verbal protocol analysis did however detect differences in situation awareness errors. Conclusion: Verbal protocol is a valuable tool for eliciting knowledge from operators and understanding their cognitive processes. However the results of the train simulator experiment suggest that caution should be used when making inferences regarding levels of situation awareness.


13

Transport, new technology and safety

Addressing pregnancy in the operational rail environment Katherine Hill

Metro Trains, Melbourne, VIC 2University of New South Wales, Sydney Context: The rail industry is traditionally male dominated; females are often the exception rather than the rule. This has meant that many rail operators have inadequate or non-‐existent policies for managing pregnancy amongst their operational workforce. This imbalance is something that Metro Trains is aiming to address as part of a proactive move to increase the female driver population. Objectives: Throughout 2014 a number of Metro drivers who have had the experience of remaining operational whilst pregnant have participated in interviews and workshops. This paper will discuss what issues were raised and offer practical solutions to allow women to remain driving for as long as possible during their pregnancy. Key Messages: Reflecting wider social and demographic trends Metro Trains recognises the need to diversify its workforce and that includes an increase in female driver numbers. However, this will also mean an increase in staff that are operational whilst pregnant. Pregnancy in the operational rail environment requires ergonomic consideration from an organisational, cognitive and physical perspective. Discussion and conclusions: Interviews with drivers have raised numerous issues including a lack of appropriate maternity uniforms, walking on ballast late at night in poorly lit areas, bullying and harassment, fatigue, physical restrictions and suffering financial penalties due to reducing workload. Through a proactive management policy addressing pregnancy in the operational environment Metro Trains is endeavouring to ensure the welfare of our staff and safety of our operations. The aim is to do this whilst retaining the knowledge and experience of our employees that might otherwise be lost to the industry.

The pattern of use of the Siri iPhone voice control interface by drivers in Australia

Nurul Ikhmar Ibrahim1 ,2, Michael Regan1, Carlo Caponecchia1 1University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2University of Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP), Arau, Perlis,

Malaysia

Background: According to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), as at May 2013, there are 11.19 million Australians who own a smartphone and ownership is expected to rise significantly over the next few years. Smartphone technology has evolved with the introduction of speech interfaces such as Apple's iPhone Siri. This technology converts speech to text and enables users to do basic tasks such as texting, easily, without having to interact manually with it.


14

Many researchers agree that speech interfaces have potential to contribute to safer driving, however the number of drivers using them, specifically smartphone speech interfaces, in real driving is unknown. To date, published data on smartphone speech interfaces usage is extremely limited. Aim: This study is part of a wider project to understand driver interaction with Siri and its possible impact on driver performance. The primary aim of this study is to investigate usage patterns of Siri among drivers in Australia. It covers six aspects: purposes of using Siri, frequency of use, activities using Siri, factors influence usage pattern, context of use and how drivers adapt to Siri. Method: Data will be collected from six focus group discussions, each of which will involve 6-‐10 participants. Participants will be licensed drivers who own/use an iPhone 5S, aged between 18-‐70 years, who are regular Siri users and who have not used Siri. Participants will be recruited in response to advertisements distributed around The University of New South Wales (UNSW) and postings on online media and forums/blogs. A short questionnaire will be administered before each discussion to collect participants' background information and experience with Siri. Each session will be audiotaped and will last approximately 1.5 to 2 hours. After each discussion, participants will be given a $20 Coles Myer voucher as compensation for their participation in the study. Results: The results will be presented during the conference. Conclusion: Research on the use of smartphone speech interfaces while driving, is relatively new. This study aims to understand why and how drivers use, and interact with iPhone's Siri voice control interface while driving. The results may help in understanding driver-‐technology interaction and its impact on road traffic safety.

A streetcar undesired: Eyewitness accounts of design flaws in the driver-‐cab interface of Australian trams

Anjum Naweed1, Helen Moody2

1Central Queensland University, Appleton Institute for Behavioural Science, South Australia 2Corporate Health Group, South Australia

Background: Australia has over 270km of tramway and is home to the biggest tram network in the world. However there is little research to indicate the extent to which informed human factors and ergonomics practice is being incorporated into tram cab design. A lack of standardised features may create transfer conflicts between cabs, as well as operational issues and concerns for occupational health. Aims: The aim of this paper is to share insights and eyewitness accounts into key design issues observed in Australian tram cabs towards informing standards design and improving our understanding of this domain’s complexity. Method: The methodology utilised a variety of methods in the toolkit of the ergonomist and human factors practitioner, including observations, on-‐road testing, objective force assessments, interviews, and focus groups.


15

Results: Investigations revealed a substandard level of consideration of the potential human factors and ergonomics issues in the tram cabs. These were particularly concerned with the usability of the master controller (i.e. throttle lever), and various issues in the design of the tram driver workspace. Findings also revealed a number of subtle yet significant features associated with delivery of service that created safety-‐performance conflicts. Conclusion: Very little human factors input of tram driving, and the ergonomics considerations of the driver’s workplace appear to be going into the design of Australian tram cabs. This may be related to the practice of using non-‐specific standards for developing trams and/or poorly integrating human factors and ergonomics into their specification processes. Some preliminary recommendations for improving tram design are given for communities of research and practice. The HFESA History Project: Celebrating 50 years

Andrew Petersen, Roger Hall, Mike Regan, Rodney Powell, Valerie O’Keeffe

The 50th Anniversary History Project is about the Society between 1964 & 2014, but more importantly, it’s about the members and their achievements. The Project aimed to record and expand a history that characterised the Society and members during the past 50 years. What it really achieved was far greater. Members around Australia shared a wealth of joy and wonder as they recalled distant memories from the Society’s past and uncovered archives some of which haven’t seen the light of day in decades. By capturing these stories, pictures, publications and events about the Society; HFESA members, the international ergonomic community and the public in general will learn that HFESA is both a proactive professional Society and a very vibrant and fun organisation to which to belong. This presentation shares some of HFESA amazing history.


16

Safety, risk and error

The ‘loss of situation awareness' fallacy: Why it is systems not people that lose situation awareness

Paul Salmon1, Guy Walker3, Neville Stanton2

1University of the Sunshine Coast, QL, 2University of Southampton, Southampton, UK, 3Heriot-‐Watt University, Edinburgh, UK

Abstract ‘Loss of situation awareness (SA)' is becoming common as an explanation for the adverse events that occur in sociotechnical systems. Increasingly we are being told that pilots lost awareness of the plane's altitude, or that truck drivers were not aware of the train approaching the rail level crossing. Of course, when a human operator is not aware of something, their ‘loss of SA' has to be the primary cause of the incident in question. Doesn't it? No. In this paper we argue that, not only is it morally and ethically unacceptable to label loss of SA by any individual as the cause of an adverse event, it is also meaningless for system redesign efforts. Instead, we argue that it is the overall sociotechnical system that holds SA and therefore it is the system that loses SA and not the individuals working within it. Our argument is outlined through discussion of the systems level distributed situation awareness (DSA) model (Salmon et al, 2009) in an accident causation context. This model argues that SA is held by the system, is built through interactions between components, both human and non-‐human, and is therefore an emergent property. In most meaningful contexts SA is not something that can be held by one individual alone, and therefore cannot be lost by one individual alone. We demonstrate this by presenting a DSA analysis of the recent Air France 447 crash. The analysis demonstrates how DSA was not supported by the overall aviation system in a way that led to the incident. Critical exchanges of SA, known as transactions, were either incorrect, misunderstood, or were absent. The factors underpinning these failed transactions are discussed. It is concluded that the system failed, not the pilots. In closing we argue that, when SA plays a role in incidents, it is not appropriate for our discipline to begin with the individual and try to expand outwards. Rather, a systems level approach is required, whereby one starts with the system and focuses inwards (if necessary). This will keep the discipline where it needs, and wants, to be: as an advocate for humans in systems and as a solution to the real underlying issues impacting safety. Reference Salmon P. Stanton, N. Walker G. Jenkins D. Ladva D, Rafferty L. Young M. (2009). Measuring situational awareness in complex systems: Comparison of measures study. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39, 490-‐500.


17

Improving sports official ‘systems': Can situation awareness theory be applied to officials in

sport?

Timothy Neville, Paul Salmon University of Sunshine Coast Accident Research, Sunshine Coast, Australia

Background: Officials in sport, whether umpires or referees, are one of the most scrutinised roles in organised sport; from friendly under age competitions through to high stakes professional leagues. Despite the discipline of human factors offering theories and methodologies that seemingly could enhance our understanding of performance in this context, there has been little human factors-‐driven research examining sports official performance and how to optimise it. Aim: This paper questions whether established human factors theories and methods, specifically those in the area of situation awareness, will allow a better understanding of the factors that influence sports official performance and improve the interaction between the officials, players, coaches and spectators. Method: This is achieved through a review of previous case studies on situation awareness applied to individuals, teams and systems in complex systems such as defence, process control, and aviation, and also studies undertaken in the sporting context. Results: Situation awareness deals with how sociotechnical systems develop and maintain an appropriate understanding of ‘what is going on'. Human factors and ergonomics has a rich history of being applied to sport, especially through team sports such as football (soccer), with research attributed to biomechanical, physiological, cognitive, equipment or environmental factors. For the official in sport most scrutiny centres on their cognitive ability; the choice, reason and factors behind the decision(s) made. Core to cognitive factors is the application of situation awareness theory to the way individuals, teams or systems respond to stimuli in the environment. When applied to sport, situation awareness theory has typically focused more on the decision making of individuals or between players in a team rather than that of the team as part of a broader sociotechnical system. For example previous studies have focussed on the different schema utilised by a coach and athlete or the perception of assistant referees in football. An official acts in a sociotechnical system with other officials, players, technology and other system elements. Multiple officials, with different roles are required to adapt knowledge through transactions with these elements in order to achieve the system goals. This suggests officials have distributed situation awareness in a sociotechnical system, similar to teams in control room or road users. Conclusions: This paper argues that sports official performance needs to be viewed through a systems thinking lens, and demonstrates that system level models of situation awareness theory can be applied to officials in sport. ________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________


18

Office work Fit for multi-‐purpose design: Developing a prototype for a combined service-‐counter/ergonomic

workstation to determine key features of a new design guideline at the University of Wollongong

Catherine Andrew, Bianca Iwashkiw, Emily Lord, Alison Bell

University of Wollongong, NSW Background: Fit for purpose design is one injury prevention strategy promoted at the University of Wollongong (UOW). Until 2008, environmental design focused on seated computer workstations, derived from Australian standards, stakeholder consultation, and comparative industry practice. Design guidelines were emerging for customer service-‐counters with disabled access incorporating computer workstations suitable for intermittent staff access. The iterative process of prototype design and evaluation shifted focus recently due to space rationalization, incorporating wheelchair accessible service counters with computer workstations for permanent staff placement. The brief to construct a fit for ‘multi-‐purpose’ counter/workstation that successfully incorporated design principles for all potential users caused debate between architects, end users and ergonomics practitioners. Appraisal of peer reviewed literature and existing practices used in Australian and international settings were required to inform design of a prototype counter/workstation combination. Aims: The purpose of this presentation is to disseminate findings from an iterative investigation of an ergonomic prototype for a ‘combined’ customer service-‐counter and computer workstation, compliant with Australian Disability Access Standards (2006). Method: The following were undertaken: (i) Literature review of studies published in peer-‐reviewed journals regarding design of

counter/workstation combinations; (ii) Critique of existing service-‐counters/workstations at UOW and other settings using Australian

standards and Principles of Universal Design (1997); and (iii) Development and evaluation of a new customer-‐service counter/workstation prototype using

CAD and 3D drawings and stakeholder feedback. Results: Whist design options for counter/workstation combinations are described in Australian and international grey literature, a database search of peer reviewed literature identified a gap in ‘fit for purpose’ design for customer service-‐counter/seated computer workstation combinations, compliant with Australian standards. In the absence of research evidence to inform ergonomic counter/workstation design, grey literature and studies that individually reported design features for customer-‐service counters, computer workstations or disability access were reviewed; and stakeholder consultation was undertaken. A prototype was developed using simulations, 3D and CAD drawings to inform new UOW design guidelines. Conclusion: Competing stakeholder considerations potentially compromise important ergonomic design features addressing WHS obligations and organisational efficiency. Therefore, findings of this investigation bear relevance for organisations seeking to combine accessible customer-‐service environments with permanent workstations for all staff.


19

Visual ergonomics standards for contemporary office environments

Jennifer Long1 ,2, Jeffrey Anshel3, Mark Rosenfield4, Magne Helland5 1Jennifer Long Visual Ergonomics, Katoomba NSW 2School of Optometry and Vision Science,

University of New South Wales, NSW 3Corporate Vision Consulting, California, USA, 4SUNY College of Optometry, New York, USA, 5Department of Optometry and Visual Science, Buskerud and

Vestfold University College, Kongsberg, Norway Background: Computer use within offices has changed dramatically over the past 25 years. When the Australian Standard AS3590.2-‐1990 for screen based workstations was first published, computers were typically positioned on a designated workstation and used by just one individual. Today, office workers often use multiple digital devices (including desktop, laptop, tablet and handheld computers) and the BYOD (bring your own device) trend means that workers may not have a designated workstation, but instead can select and change their working location throughout the day. Office work is no longer constrained to commercial premises but can also include home offices and working whilst in transit. This new working landscape is visually demanding and it appears that the 1990 standard is no longer appropriate for the 2014 office. Aims: This paper reviews the visual demands of computer devices commonly used in contemporary office environments, evaluates the visual ergonomics content of four standards for computerized offices and discusses those elements of a visual ergonomics standard which can be applied to emerging technology. Method: The visual ergonomics recommendations in AS3590.2-‐1990 were compared with ANSI100-‐2007, ISO9241-‐303:2011 and EU 90/270/EEC -‐ 1990. This content was mapped to the visual demands of four types of devices, namely a conventional desktop computer with LCD monitor, laptop computer, tablet computer and a smartphone. Results: AS3590.2-‐1990 incorporates recommendations for viewing distance, monitor (display) height and display width. While some prescriptive elements such as viewing distance may not be relevant for modern devices, other informative elements such recommendations for display width can be applied to contemporary work patterns. ANSI100-‐2007 adopts a similar approach to AS3590.2, while the European standard contains generic advice. ISO9241-‐303 addresses new technology such as handheld devices, and uses a combination of prescriptive and informative recommendations. Conclusions: Visual ergonomics recommendations are important for modern office environments. They should be informative rather than prescriptive so that they can be applied to a range of technology options and multiple working locations. Consideration should also be given to communicating the content of visual ergonomics standards to end users so that they can apply this knowledge to any work location.


20

Psychosocial health, safety and comfort

The relationship between work and psychosocial health and wellbeing of mine workers

Bronwen Otto1, Asad Khan2 1Thiess Australian Mining, Brisbane, QLD, 2The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD

Background: The health and well-‐being of our workforce is our highest priority. While we have traditionally implemented ad hoc programs with the objective of improving the health and well-‐being of our people, in recent times we have recognised the need to obtain baseline information to inform the development of such programs and to enable us to review their effectiveness. The psychosocial health and well-‐being of our mining and maintenance workers is of particular interest due to the recent emergence and increase in mental health-‐related claims and the ongoing psychosocial contribution to the majority of musculoskeletal disorders. Aim: To understand the psychosocial health and well-‐being needs of our mining and maintenance workers so that relevant programs can be developed and implemented. Method: A cross-‐sectional customised survey was distributed to 1,512 employees and full-‐time equivalent contractors employed in mining and maintenance roles at two DIDO, one FIFO and one residential project. Pearson chi-‐square tests were used to determine the relationship between occupational stressors such as hours of work, job control and demand, relationships with peers, supervisor support and recognition and reward and workers' self-‐rated overall health, psychological distress (using the Kessler Six Scale) and whether they have experienced serious stress or conflict at work in the last two years. Results: Data was returned by 982 workers (response rate 64.95%). The results from this study found a significant relationship between working overtime and psychological distress (p=0.013); having enough time to get the job done and psychological distress (p<0.0001); relationships with peers and psychological distress (p<0.0001); consultation and self-‐rated health (p=0.001); supervisor support and serious stress or conflict at work in the last two years (p<0.0001); recognition and reward and self-‐ rated health status (p=0.012); fair treatment and serious stress or conflict at work in the last two years (p<0.0001); and job satisfaction and psychological distress (p<0.0001). Conclusion: The study demonstrates a relationship between work organisation and management and workers' psychosocial health and well-‐being. Ethics approval: Behavioural & Social Sciences Ethical Review Committee and Medical Research Ethics Committee of The University of Queensland -‐ Number 2011000034.


21

Life Cycle Ergonomics: Selling the benefits of our services to safety, management, and health

representative teams

Sara Pazell Viva! Health At Work, Brisbane, QLD

Context: As soon as workers start their career employers have a duty of care. If a worker joins our organisation in their youthful age of 20 to 25 we have another 45+ years to positively affect his or her work interactions and influence lifestyle choices to support their health and well-‐being -‐ what an opportunity! If we translate this into a business model, we may consider that we aim to derive value from each of our workers -‐ our return on investment. As such, our return on investment is far greater if we optimise productivity and subsequently health status for the entire work span. This presentation will use case study to discuss the early stages of integrating participatory ergonomics and health education in the civil and road construction industries. The integration of this type of program is expected to contribute to effective safety management and leadership. It may contribute also in a positive manner to the health status of our workers. Objectives: Participants will:

1. Learn from a case-‐study the steps that have been taken to introduce health education and ergonomics as a start-‐up program in industrial settings (civil and road construction).

2. Define lead and lag indicators to measure the integration of an effective ergonomics program.

3. Define ergonomic program metrics that, if met, may positively contribute to a company's zero harm policy, employer-‐of-‐choice or vendor-‐of-‐choice business model, and plans for productivity optimisation.

4. Learn how to apply ‘life cycle ergonomics’ as phases of intervention throughout the worker and product lifespan.

Key messages:

1. Life cycle ergonomics includes phases of intervention and engagement throughout all stages of worker and product lifespan.

2. As professionals in the field of ergonomics, we can define the metrics of our intervention in a manner that marries well with the strategic intent of sustainable business growth.

Discussions and conclusions: When the merits of participatory ergonomics are translated into language that is meaningful to business practice, demand for these services will remain high and are more likely to become integrated in the lifespan of workers and products. This becomes an important business approach for practitioners. The net benefit is ultimately to workers with whom we come in contact as we help to optimise their health status and include workers in decisions that affect their everyday work performance.


22

HFE PhD Snapshots Alison Bell Open Sesame: Exploring the ‘usability’ of hospital food and beverage packaging for the

over 65s This PhD uses an ergonomics framework to consider the person-‐package interaction

within the system of hospital food service delivery. This sociotechnical system has the input of ill health and the output goal of recovery and improved health for the patient. The research focuses on the physical capacity of the person and how this impacts on the interaction with the food and beverage package. This is done by measuring the time taken for well elderly people (independently community living aged over 65 years) to open hospital food and beverage items; measurement of grip, pinch strength and dexterity; as well as reviewing the environmental effect of being in a semi-‐recumbent hospital bed posture on these physical abilities. Vision is not explicitly explored and cognition will not be measured as part of the human-‐ package interface within this PhD.

Robyn Coman Maximising mobility and minimising injury risk in aged care This project was undertaken to investigate the nature and extent of environment-‐related

Manual Handling of People (MHP) risk control interventions that may influence patient/resident mobility outcomes in residential aged care in Australia. The research focussed on research gaps associated with patient/person MHP intervention outcomes, through the development and application of a patient/person handling assessment tool (Pro-‐Mobility Patient/Person Handling Assessment Tool) to address this aspect of MHP risk management. Development involved extensive evaluation of MHP risk management within residential aged care facilities, evaluation of content validity using a modified Delphi approach, and investigation of suitability and usability in practice. The new Pro-‐Mob tool could be used to assess specific environment related MHP interventions that may impact resident and staff outcomes, and to compare MHP practices within and between RACFs.

Lily Hirsch It’s a jungle in here: A study of crowding on Indian trains Lily is investigating the social psychological issues in rail transport surrounding passenger

rail crowding in India. Primarily, she is looking at the effect of carriage design and colour on passenger behaviour, the flow of crowds within the carriage space and processes surrounding learned tolerance to crowding.

Daisy Veitch The development of a tactile correct (bio-‐fidelic) teaching model for training medical staff in Clinical Breast Examination (CBE) to improve the early diagnosis of breast cancer

This project will capture the wisdom of skilled surgeons/breast clinicians to define normalised CBE parameters that can be built into breast models. It will also create a range of ‘normals’ for women’s breasts in terms of feel which would be mimicked by the models. These would be used to create basic training in CBE. Abnormal pathology or breast cancers can be added to the basic models to simulate likely patient presentations and by using skills gained in basic training, students would progress to more advanced training in the detection of putative cancer. This is especially useful in underdeveloped countries or remote communities.

Louise Whitby Rescuing a falling patient ... exploring the issues For some years health facilities have had falls prevention programs to reduce the risk of

patient falls. However, patients do still fall and as a result of the rescue can be injured, along with those rescuing. Louise's research explores the link between the falling patient and injury from rescue. The aim of the study is to determine what strategies are needed to prevent these injuries.


23

Healthcare and ergonomics

Sharing the load: Towards an inter-‐disciplinary model of patient care

Diana Isaza Shelton1, Gitte Lindgaard1 ,2, Lois Frankel1 1Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2Swinburne University of Technology, Victoria

Background: The number of hip replacements performed in Canada increased from 38,611 in 2007 to 42,713 (+10.6%) in 2011, with people aged 85+ years representing the highest proportion. This increasing pressure on the health system has resulted in the adoption of integrated inter-‐disciplinary approaches to patient care, especially in the area of rehabilitation. Aim: The project had two major aims. First, it aimed to identify some of the major challenges associated with moving from intra-‐disciplinary to inter-‐disciplinary, collaborative patient care in the in-‐hospital rehabilitation care of post-‐surgical hip replacement elderly patients. Second, it aimed to elucidate opportunities for the design, development, and implementation of usable tools to facilitate and support communication and decision making for monitoring, visualising, and analysing patient mobility performance. Method: Semi-‐structured interviews were conducted with rehabilitation nurses (n = 2), occupational therapists (n = 3), physiotherapists (n = 3) and a physician, all employed in a rehabilitation unit in an age-‐care facility in Ottawa. Phase 1 interviews were conducted to acquire information; the researchers gathered documentation, existing tools, forms, and checklists for analysis, supplementing these with archival research. Several workflow and communication models were developed from these materials to inform Phase 2 interviews, the purpose of which was to verify the models with the same professionals. The models were presented as a video storyboard. A password-‐secured blog was created and hosted on a server at the University enabling participants to access content materials and share additional comments. Results: The professionals' tasks, mapped from patient admission to discharge, revealed highly interdependent roles in which shared care plans were developed and executed throughout the nine-‐step patient-‐assessment process. The tools currently used revealed many terminology/information inconsistencies and redundancies between the professions, presenting significant barriers to communication and activity coordination as well as resulting in time-‐consuming documentation of activities and goals attained. Conclusion: Insights gained into the challenges of integrated patient-‐care revealed five main areas presenting opportunities for improvements. These included the development of tools supporting integrated patient assessment, tools to monitor, visualise, and analyse patient mobility performance and change, and evaluation of discharge options.


24

iPad use at the bedside: A tool for sharing information with patients during ward-‐rounds?

Melissa Baysari1 ,2, Kristian Adams1 ,2, Elin Lehnbom1, Johanna Westbrook1, Richard Day2 ,1

1UNSW, Sydney, NS, 2St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, NSW Background: In our previous investigation of computer use on hospital ward-‐rounds, we observed only 17% of computer use taking place at the patient beside. When asked about integration of computers into workflow, doctors reported that integrating a laptop on a trolley into a patient encounter was practically difficult. Several doctors suggested that having a portable tablet on ward-‐rounds would allow them to share information (e.g. medications and test results) with the patient at the bedside. Aims: To assess if and how senior clinicians use an iPad to share information (e.g. on-‐line evidence, patient test results) with patients during ward-‐rounds and to investigate patients' and doctors' experiences of information sharing events. Method: Ten specialty teams working in a 300-‐bed teaching hospital in Sydney were given an iPad and participated in a 30-‐min training session illustrating functionality of the device. Medical teams were then shadowed by an investigator on at least four ward-‐rounds (over 50 interactions with patients), equally distributed throughout the 10-‐week study period. During observations, all use of health information technology, including use of the iPad, was recorded. Seven senior doctors also participated in a semi-‐structured interview about iPad use and 180 patients completed a short survey. Results: Doctors frequently used iPads on ward-‐rounds but did not share information with patients using iPads. In only one case was an iPad screen shown to a patient during ward-‐rounds for the purpose of sharing information (i.e. a test result). Ward-‐rounds were observed to follow set routines and patient interactions were brief. All doctors held the view that information-‐sharing with patients is critical to the delivery of high quality healthcare, but doctors had a clear preference for relaying information verbally to patients. Patients did not feel that the iPad had impacted on engagement in their care processes. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the impact of portable tablets on doctors' interactions with patients on ward-‐rounds. Although the iPad potentially creates new opportunities for information sharing and patient engagement, the ward-‐round may not present the most appropriate context for this to be done.

The fallacy of believing first impressions in diagnostic medicine Gitte Lindgaard1 ,2, Janette Folkens1, Catherine Pyper1, Monique Frize1, Robin Walker1

1Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2Swinburne University of Technology, Victoria Background: Data on the number of adverse events that lead to the death of hospitalised patients in the United States demonstrate a dramatic increase over the past two decades. The medical community is beginning to understand that the same judgmental biases as experienced by other professionals who also make decisions under uncertainty and extreme time pressures apply to diagnostic medicine as well. Research demonstrating the persistence of one specific bias is presented as are some implications for medical training.


25

Aim: The research aimed to demonstrate the robustness of the judgmental bias uncovered in several experiments involving medical personnel. It also showed how that bias could be overcome by providing medical students with better diagnostic decision strategies as well as with some understanding of probabilities. Method: The experimental paradigm involved a Bayesian model in several factorial experiments. Participants represented different health care professionals. Their tasks were to judge the probability of a particular disease in several patient vignettes. The early experiments used fictitious case histories, but cases of actual patients were presented in the last of these. A decision support system was developed on the basis of the earlier findings. It was designed to show the participants the nature of the specific bias, giving them an opportunity also to improve the accuracy of their initial judgments. Results: The bias was shown to be extremely robust throughout the entire set of experiments. This was true even when participants were provided with sufficient statistical information to help them overcome it as well as initial training and an opportunity to correct their misjudgments. It was also true for participants who had already taken one or more courses in statistics. The results point to a lack of understanding of the concept of symptom diagnosticity or, alternatively, a reluctance to apply such understanding to diagnostic decision making. Conclusion: We conclude that medical students could benefit from formal training in inferential statistics, especially in probabilistic decision making tasks such as in medical diagnosis. Improvements to the decision support system provided in the last experiment are identified and reported. It’s not easy being green: Reducing manual tasks risks in uncontrolled environments -‐ How do

you keep paramedics safe?

Peter Pollnitz SA Health, Adelaide, SA

Background: Paramedics perform heavy physical work in uncontrolled environments. The South Australian Ambulance Service (SAAS) engaged an Occupational Health Physiotherapist in May 2011 to review their manual tasks risk management system (including current equipment and work practices) in order to address the high rate of musculoskeletal injuries that paramedics suffer. Aims: The presentation will outline the findings of that review, the system wide solutions being implemented and the results of this comprehensive program to protect emergency health services personnel. The findings translate to other areas and industries. Method: Analysing tasks performed and reviewing musculoskeletal incidents and claims revealed common problem areas and trends that could be targeted, some of which were surprising. The whole approach to manual tasks risk management at SAAS has been reviewed, with changes to ambulance environments and equipment. Removing high risk work practices and providing innovative alternatives to these is showing significant rewards.


26

The use of scenario based training and assessment has improved the dynamic risk assessment and problem solving of paramedics, enabling them to make safer choices. The provision of equipment to reduce or eliminate hazardous tasks is a key part of this. Results: The perception that the hierarchy of control can't be used in emergency services because of the unpredictable environments paramedics work within has been demonstrated to be false. There are many opportunities to influence the vehicles and equipment that paramedics work with and to improve their decision making to eliminate or reduce the hazardous characteristics of common manual tasks. SAAS has seen a marked reduction in the number and cost of lost time musculoskeletal injuries, demonstrated by graphs and data in the presentation. Conclusions: Manual task risks can be controlled in ambulance services. Implementing innovative equipment solutions and different ways of moving patients creates markedly better results than the old manual handling paradigm of teaching them to ‘lift right'.

Embalming cadavers for use in a teaching environment: A case study of manual handling implications for adopting best practice techniques

Catherine Andrew, Nader Norouzian, Bryn Stamford, Bonnie Frankcom, Michael Negandahl, Alison

Bell University of Wollongong, NSW

Background: Risk management regarding handling of hazardous preserving agents used for embalming cadavers in teaching laboratories is well documented. We know that effective tissue perfusion of these chemicals is best achieved via bi-‐monthly supine/prone repositioning over 6 months. Whilst manual repositioning poses significant physical risk, failure to adopt this protocol may compromise specimen integrity and expose technicians to additional biological hazards. Aim: This presentation aims to disseminate investigative findings informing safe work procedures for embalming cadavers, effective in preserving specimen integrity, without compromising health and wellbeing of anatomy technicians. Method: 1. Stakeholder consultation, analysis of injury data and review of industry practices for

laboratory embalming techniques formed part of a manual handling incident investigation. 2. A literature search was conducted to inform best practice protocols and identify existing

engineering controls applied to: (i) embalming cadavers for teaching purposes; and (ii) supine/prone repositioning.

3. Existing and proposed prone/supine cadaver repositioning techniques were assessed using standardised assessment tools (MANTRA; REBA).

Results: Review of ergonomic issues identified: (i) significant risk of injury when turning cadavers; and (ii) risk of exposure to biological hazards if perfusion of the preserving agent was inadequate. The literature review confirmed embalming for teaching purposes is best facilitated by prone/supine repositioning however; there was a gap in the literature regarding safe repositioning procedures. Whilst industry specific mechanical ‘body lifters’ designed to transfer cadavers on the horizontal plane were available, suitable engineering controls for prone/supine repositioning could not been sourced.


27

Since repositioning task could not be eliminated, identification of a manual handling solution was required. Mechanically assisted repositioning alternatives including patient transfer devices were assessed. A measurable reduction in manual handling risks associated with repositioning of cadavers was achieved by adapting straps and ‘fix’ points to existing equipment. Conclusion: Management of manual handling risks for anatomy technicians performing embalming tasks requires stakeholder involvement in risk identification and control processes. Published literature informing best practice for safe handling of hazardous substances used for embalming cadavers is available. However, dissemination of finding from this case study and further research to inform best practice manual handling procedures across this specialised industry is warranted.

Quality care through quality jobs in aged care

Valerie O'Keeffe University of South Australia, Adelaide

Background: Labour is the most significant cost in the delivery of aged care services. Yet, care workers are critical for providing quality care. The aged care system in Australia is increasingly under pressure due to the aging population, higher consumer expectations of care, the increasing frailty of the clients, and workforce shortages. As a result aged care work is highly physically and emotionally demanding with low pay. Working conditions like time, pay, job security, content and control are central to good quality jobs. Greater job quality is associated with higher rates of worker health and well-‐being. We argue that good quality jobs are a pre-‐condition to providing sustainable quality care. Aim: This study aims to make incremental improvements to care workers' job quality by identifying suitable benchmarks by which to evaluate the impact of job quality interventions in terms of the quality of both care worker jobs and client care. Method: Using collaborative interactive action research methods, we partnered with three aged care facilities and the union. Collaboratively, we used interviews supplemented with recent literature and survey data from the 2012 National Aged Care Workforce Census & Survey to identify and develop benchmarks and interventions aimed at making small-‐scale changes to the quality of jobs that would also benefit quality of care. Results: Preliminary analysis suggests that while most care workers were satisfied with their jobs and were able to apply their skills and abilities, time pressure is a significant factor affecting job quality and quality of care. Interventions that optimise the time available for direct care activities that also support worker development are most likely to improve care worker job quality and client quality of care. Opportunities may include changes to rostering, clustering care activities or small changes to job content. Conclusions: Care worker job quality has a direct impact on the quality of care delivered to clients. Participative methods are an effective way of harnessing workplace knowledge to identify, implement and evaluate interventions that make incremental improvements to benefit workers and clients.


28

Creating safety through expertise: Critical case studies in nursing and train driving

Valerie O'Keeffe1, Anjum Naweed2

1University of South Australia, Adelaid, 2Appleton Institute, University of Central Queensland, Adelaide

Background: Nursing and train driving are skilled professions characterised by tacit knowledge. Both roles involve dynamic work and complex decision-‐making in highly regulated environments. While the safety of patients and passengers is paramount, these people are also commodities caught up in service provision and productivity goals. This can lead to conflicts in safety and performance, where time and task pressures often disrupt how future events are anticipated and the efficacy of self-‐regulation. Aims: This paper aims to compare and contrast how nurses and train drivers develop expertise in safety decision-‐making, and balance their own safety with the duty of care owed to their patients and passengers. Method: This study brought together two data sets collected in separate studies by each author. Forty-‐five nurses from three acute care hospitals recounted stories about decisions they made to protect their health and safety at work. Similarly twenty-‐eight train drivers from 8 passenger rail organisations told stories of critical failure situations and decision-‐making scenarios characterised by very high collision risk. Stories were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed to reveal themes describing their decision-‐making strategies. A deductive thematic analysis process was undertaken on five scenarios from each dataset to examine the relationship with self-‐regulation. Results: Nurses made decisions to optimise safety for themselves and their patients, using a flexible boundary of assessment in determining their actions. The flexible boundary was determined by communicating with others and applying task and job-‐based experience to optimise outcomes. Train drivers demonstrated poor capacity for decision-‐making with respect to their immediate safety when task complexity, dynamism and opacity directly vied with future productivity goals. While differences were observed, nurses and train drivers demonstrated the same decision-‐making principles. However, the data also revealed interesting points of comparison in the strategies that nurses and train drivers used to mitigate risk and ameliorate safety. Conclusions: Nurses and train drivers use similar strategies to balance safety and risk with productivity goals in the face of competing task pressures. This study highlights the crucial relationship between safety and productivity and the tensions that arise when the product of work involves the safety of others.


29

Fit for purpose

The Australian Body Sizing Survey: Engaging ergonomists as stakeholders

Chris Fitzgerald1, Daisy Veitch2, Verna Blewett3, Steve Ward4, Chang Shu5, Kathleen Robinette6 1Risk & Injury Management Services Pty Ltd, Melbourne, 2SHARP Dummies Pty Ltd, Adelaide 3Appleton Institute, Central Queensland University, Adelaide 4University of New South Wales, Sydney 5National Research Council Canada, Ottowa, Canada, 6Oklahoma State University,

Oklahoma City, USA Background and Aims: In December 2013, Safe Work Australia published Sizing up Australia: The next step (Veitch, Fitzgerald et al, 2013). This project sought to determine the method and minimum scientific parameters for the Australian Body Sizing Survey and built on a previous report Sizing up Australia: How contemporary is the anthropometric data Australian designers use? (Veitch et al, 2009). Two further stages for the Australian Body Sizing Survey are anticipated but yet to be funded. Firstly, to identify stakeholders and test and finalise the method and scientific parameters. Secondly, to conduct the Survey by collecting raw data according to this method and scientific parameters. The need for a national anthropometric survey is not only increasingly being recognised within Australia, but has a growing international interest with numerous countries commencing preparations for a body size survey of their population. Methods and Results: This report identified that the Australian Body Sizing Survey should be of high quality to ensure that the data gathered is representative and useful. There are assumptions around what defines high quality. Data collection should include fit mapping to evaluate the impact of apparel design or parameters within the built environment on human fit and function. That is, the collection of fit data should provide greater value to stakeholders than the measurement of body size parameters only. This approach is now possible with rapid data capture technologies, extending our understanding and expectations of what a body sizing survey can deliver. Another key finding was that the data should be an infrastructure resource that is readily accessible to the public and those wishing to use the data. While there are precedents and International Standards for large scale data collection on body size, they are not enough to define the parameters of the Australian Body Sizing Survey. There is no ‘off the shelf’ formula that can be adopted and the process to define the survey parameters will be driven by stakeholders. Conclusions: As the Australian Body Sizing Survey enters the stakeholder engagement phase, ergonomists will be presented with opportunities and challenges as to how they fit into the process as one of a number of stakeholders. References: Veitch D. Caple D. and Blewett V (2009). Sizing up Australia: How Contemporary is the Anthropometric Data Australian Designers Use? Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Veitch D. Fitzgerald C. Ward S. Shu C. Robinette K. and Blewett V (2013). Sizing up Australia: The next step. Canberra: Safe Work Australia.


30

Designing space critical work environments -‐ control room design optimisation and validation

Barbara Combes1, Gerhard Kimenkowski2, Lena Kimenkowski2 1Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga 2Jumbo Vision International Pty Ltd, Mawson Lakes,

Australia Context: Control rooms are a vital part of the operations of industries such as mining and oil and gas resources, the military, transport, emergency services and police, and public utilities. In the past, control rooms have been designed with a focus on the integration of multiple technologies required to provide an efficient management solution to the variety of factors being controlled. These environments, whether being newly designed or upgraded, require engagement from many stakeholders such as architects, management and most importantly, the operators. Issues such as operational health and safety, workflow and the future-‐proofing of workspaces for optimum efficiency and longevity are difficult to envision and include in the planning and construction stages of permanent infrastructure which is expensive to build, maintain and upgrade. Getting the design and planning right the first time ensures the long-‐term effectiveness of the control room and ensures a high level of operator satisfaction. Objectives: This session will present two case studies to explain the evolution of a collaborative design/validation process using a life-‐size, 3D simulated environment. The case studies examine the design/validation process for the National Operations Centre upgrade project for South Australian Power Networks and Transpower's New Zealand upgrade of their National Coordination Centres at Hamilton and Wellington. Key Messages: The integration of interactive visualisation technologies during the design/validation phase provides opportunities for all stakeholders to create and validate a range of potential layouts, thus cutting costs when designing spaces that facilitate the complex interaction between people and technology, ergonomics and optimum workflow. While these case studies deal with control room design, the technology can be used for any design project. Discussion and Conclusions: Many people have difficulties understanding scaled down CAD plans and most have poor spatial awareness, which leads to difficulty in the decision making process. Using life-‐size, simulation technologies during the design/validation phase of any project provides opportunities for the core project team to physically experience space optimisation, ergonomics, building codes constraints, and the efficiencies afforded by good workflow. Not only does the use of simulation tools ensure the effectiveness and longevity of the design, but it helps to ensure strong communication and understandings between stakeholders, thus preventing design breakdowns and unnecessary project delays. Designing future work spaces just became much more interactive and exciting as technology moves us away from print drawings and screen images, to a real-‐time, life-‐size experience.


31

“Conserving the conservator”: A participative ergonomics approach to reduce the risk of work-‐

related musculoskeletal disorders from conservation treatment at Artlab Australia

Josephine Bills1, Kristin Phillips2 1PhysioLink Pty Ltd, Adelaide, SA 2Artlab Australia, Adelaide, SA

Background: Conservation treatment of art works typically involves intensive periods of fine detail work. Art conservators risk sustaining musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) from cumulative exposure to high precision tasks in often awkward and prolonged static postures. Aims: For over 10 years, conservators at Artlab Australia have collaborated with an Occupational Health Physiotherapist / Ergonomist, to systematically identify and control MSD risks. Method: Regular ergonomics risk management interventions, including analysis of the workplace, work practices and systems of work have occurred over that time. In addition to a comprehensive range of administrative controls, various innovative and unique engineering solutions have been developed that involve redesigning the standard work surfaces and equipment normally used in conservation work. The first of these was implemented for the conservation treatment of the Eureka Stockade Flag. Subsequently, a variety of electric, height adjustable tables, some with motorised and adjustable, sloped work surfaces, were specifically designed for carrying out textile conservation treatments and frame conservation. Results and Conclusion: In the 2½ years since the first suite of engineering controls was introduced, there have been no new MSDs from performing art conservation work at Artlab. Staff feedback indicates that, compared with 5 years ago, most conservators now feel that their work is less likely to cause them an injury; they have the right equipment and better understand the risks associated with their work; they take more care of their health and safety; they feel strongly that their employer is committed to improving their health and safety; while two thirds feel physically better. ________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________


32

Ergonomics and sustainability

Trends in journal publication in Human Factors and Ergonomics from 1960 to 2010: The research-‐practice relationship as reflected in the academic literature

Amy Z. Q. Chung1, Ann Williamson1 ,2, Steven T. Shorrock1 ,3

1School of Aviation, University of New South Wales, NSW 2Transport and Road Safety (TARS) Research, School of Aviation, University of New South Wales, NSW 3Eurocontrol, Brétigny sur Orge,

France Background: Since the 1960's, there has been commentary regarding the so-‐called ‘research-‐practice gap' in Human Factors and Ergonomics (HF/E). Empirical research has found that HF/E practitioners perceive research published in HF/E peer-‐reviewed journals as largely irrelevant to practitioner problems and tends not to be applied in practice. Indeed, those working in academic/research institutions perceive HF/E journal publications to be significantly more useful to them compared to those working in other organisations, pointing to possible differences in what researchers and practitioners value in research (Chung and Shorrock, 2011). However, a recent international survey of HF/E professionals indicated that researchers and practitioners in HF/E both have a strong interest in practical applications but relatively less interest in the development of theories -‐ suggesting that the research-‐practice gap may be smaller than expected and there may be a lack of focus on theory in the discipline, which should be the basis for practical applications (Chung, Williamson, Shorrock, 2014). Aim: This study aims to determine the trends in HF/E journal publications from 1960 to 2010 in terms of the focus on theory or practice over the decades. Method: Over 400 journal articles from the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2010 published in the top three HF/E journals (Human Factors, Eronomics, and Applied Ergonomics) will be coded for author affiliation and country, topic area, research type and method, rationale and focus of the research, number of citations, and whether there are suggestions for practical applications. Results: To be presented at conference. Conclusion: This research will provide a deeper understanding of the development of HF/E research over the years, and help to establish future research directions for the discipline as a whole. References: Chung, A. Z. Q., & Shorrock, S. T. (2011). The research-‐practice relationship in ergonomics and human factors – Surveying and bridging the gap. Ergonomics, 54(5), 413–429. Chung, A. Z. Q., Williamson, A., & Shorrock, S. (2014). What do Human Factors and Ergonomics Professionals Value in Research Publications? Re-‐examining the Research-‐Practice Gap. Ergonomics, 57(4), 490–502.


33

A narrative and text mining approach to making sense of Ergonomics and WHS data

Wendy Elford

Now to Next, ACT, Australia Background: There is growing interest in the use of qualitative data and specifically free text in exploring complex issues in the practice of human factors and ergonomics. This approach is commonly taken to supplement quantitative research methodologies. Many of the outputs of consultancy work and research is in the form of reports. There is evidence that the interpretation of these reports is difficult due to the changing nature of the work environment and the state of knowledge of risk factors for injury. As a result, the interpretation of this data is often limited to hand coding of issues using software such as NVivo. This is not scalable to large data sets and therefore this data is not able to be used real time to inform strategic decision making, quality assurance and procurement for example. Method: De-‐identified workstation assessment and early intervention/ case management initial needs analysis reports were processed with text analytics software Leximancer. The software was configured to identify occurrences of keywords known to be important as risk factors for workplace injury as well as factors known to lead to positive performance and health outcomes. Results: The meta analysis shows how issues which have previously only been supported by anecdotal evidence can be surfaced using existing documents. One example includes the associations between patterns of ergonomics equipment recommendation and symptoms. A second example includes the association between musculoskeletal and psychosocial risk factors. Conclusions: Data mining provides the opportunity to gain more strategic insight into WHS and ergonomics data. It is an option where redesign of data capture and reporting or the hand coding of data are not feasible. The ability to process and compare large volumes of data in a consistent manner over time has applications in quality assurance and the identification and management of risk in the context of work. Implementation of interventions to prevent musculoskeletal injury at work -‐ a behaviour change

approach

Paul Rothmore, Dino Pisaniello, Paul Aylward, Jonathan Karnon The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA

Background: In professional practice, ergonomics advice commonly proposes changes to the work system, the work environment and individual work practices. An understanding of the behaviour change process, and more specifically its application in workplace interventions, has been suggested as a means for improving the uptake of advice. However, there is little evidence that this approach has been adopted by practitioners. Aims: This study sought to determine whether there was any difference in the implementation of ergonomics advice if it were tailored according to a behaviour-‐change approach and to identify the barriers and facilitators experienced by workplace managers in the introduction of workplace change.


34

Method: Purposive sampling was used to select organisations at increased risk of musculoskeletal injury. Organisations were asked to identify discrete workgroups of 10-‐20 employees performing similar tasks for inclusion in the study. These workgroups were subsequently randomised to either the control or intervention arm. Twenty-‐five workgroups (comprising 405 workers) were recruited. Each of these workgroups was visited and, based on direct observation and discussion, a written report outlining suggested changes was presented to company management for implementation. Those in the control arm of the study received ‘standard’ ergonomics advice while those in the intervention arm received advice tailored according to the behaviour change profile of the workgroup. Results: After 12-‐months semi-‐structured interviews were conducted with each manager. In a multivariate model managers who had received ‘tailored’ advice were found to have implemented significantly more of the recommended changes (IRR = 1.676) and more ‘independent’ changes (IRR = 1.898). Qualitative analysis identified that they key barriers and facilitators to the implementation of changes were largely related to worker resistance to change and the attitudes of senior managers towards health and safety. Conclusions: The findings from this study suggest that the implementation of ergonomics recommendations may be improved by the tailoring of advice according to behaviour-‐change principles. ________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________


35

Simulation, useability & work design

Cognitive and perceptual skills in game-‐like training tools: transfer of training from static to dynamic contexts

Lisa Wise1, Gregor McLean2, Jason Skues1, Lisa Johnston1

1Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Victoria 2Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Fisherman's Bend, Victoria

Background: This paper explores the nature of the cognitive and perceptual skills developed within a game-‐like instrument scanning training task using static, stylised instruments. Previous research has demonstrated that novices can perform at the same level as experienced pilots on such a task after minimal training. This paper examines the robustness of these skills to perceptual manipulations by exploring performance on a similar task utilizing dynamic simulated instruments. If transfer of training occurs, it suggests that the perceptual and cognitive skills developed within the static training task have the potential to be of use in more realistic environments. Conversely, if no transfer of training occurs, there may be implications for the way in which training tasks using digital technologies and virtual environments are developed for real-‐world operational tasks, in aviation, but also in other skilled performance domains. Method: Participants (N=50) completed a static instrument scanning task including a static transfer condition, presented via a laptop under supervised conditions. They then completed a dynamic instrument scanning task to test for transfer of the static training to the more realistic dynamic environment. A small number of experienced pilots (N=3) completed the dynamic task alone to ensure that the task tapped skills that are relevant to the real world flying domain. Results: Participants could perform reasonably accurately (median 80% correct compared with a chance level of 10%) on the static instrument scanning task after minimal training, and response times improved significantly across training trials, including static transfer trials. Performance on the dynamic task was uniformly poor even for the subset of high-‐performing participants (N=19) who were the most accurate on the static task. However, the experienced pilots were able to perform well on the dynamic task suggesting that this task draws on skills required in the aviation context. Conclusion: Despite good performance on a game-‐like static instrument scanning task, there is little evidence of transfer of training to a dynamic training environment with more ecological validity. The gap between game-‐like training environments and real world operational tasks is likely to be substantially greater, and the potential for training transfer is further reduced.


36

Hearing the Voice of Young Workers in the Development of the Youth Work Health and Safety Strategy for South Australia

Verna Blewett, Sophia Rainbird, Larissa Clarkson, Hayley Etherton and Jessica Paterson Central Queensland University, Appleton Institute, Adelaide, SA, Australia Abstract Background

Young workers (aged 12-‐25) represent 40% of Australia’s casual workforce and 92% of young workers are also students. Work and study, combined with multiple other time pressures, contribute to negative health and safety outcomes for young workers. Young workers are more likely to be precariously employed, less likely to report incidents, accidents and injuries and may have poorly developed self-‐advocacy skills. These features make young workers a vulnerable part of the workforce.

Aim This research aimed to include the voice of young workers and other stakeholders in the development of a strategy for action for South Australia.

Methods We used a mixed methods approach that included a combination of quantitative methods (online survey of young workers’ WHS knowledge) and qualitative methods (interviews, focus groups, online survey of young workers’ stories, program analysis, future inquiry workshop). We relied on snowballing and a strong social media presence to reach young workers so that we could include their voice in the research. We also heard from key stakeholders, the social partners, to canvass their opinions and ideas. We used statistics and thematic analysis to determine our findings.

Results We identified eight areas for action: the psychosocial working environment; the physical working environment; precarious work and work/life balance; fatigue; training and education of young workers; training and education of employers; the need to hear the voice of young workers; and the obstacles faced by employers. We organized these into four key strategic actions: health and well-‐being; education, training and skill development; engagement and participation; and better connections.

Conclusion The Strategy for Youth Work Health and Safety for South Australia was adopted by the regulator and State government and launched in November 2013. It provides a road map for collaborative change in South Australia that will potentially lead to significant improvements in youth WHS and will help achieve the goal of healthy, safe, fair and productive lives for young workers in South Australia.

Keywords: young workers; work health and safety (WHS); participation; organisational design and management; future inquiry workshop


37

DOO-‐ing it solo: Investigating the circumstances in which single driver operations are appropriate for the freight rail industry Anjum Naweed1, Janette Rose, Ganesh Balakrishnan

Central Queensland University, 1Appleton Institute, South Australia

Australasian Centre for Rail Innovation, Canberra

Abstract Background: Currently, two-‐driver operations are the most common way to operate freight trains in most parts of Australia. However, there is an increasing trend towards having a single driver in the cab (also called driver-‐only operations [DOO]). This change is likely to increase the workload for the driver and remove the potential safety element of the second driver’s monitoring and checking functions. However, there is also evidence to suggest that these functions are not always carried out effectively and that a second driver in the cab can cause distraction. At the same time, new technologies are changing the task and taking over some of the driver’s current activities. Whilst this is freeing up time for the driver to concentrate on other important activities, in some cases it is creating more or different activities for the driver. It is therefore timely to conduct an investigation into the circumstances under which DOO are appropriate. Following an initial investigation involving focus groups and in-‐cab observations, a train simulator experiment was conducted. Aim: The aim of this experiment was to examine the workload, situation awareness, and performance of DOO compared to two-‐driver operations. Method: 20 participants took part in this study, all experienced freight train drivers. Every driver completed an easy and difficult experimental scenario in DOO mode. In the two-‐driver mode, each participant alternated in the role of the main driver and the second driver. Data were collected for performance, situation awareness, and workload. Drivers also talked aloud during a specific section of track and this data was analysed for further comparison between the two operating modes. A short post-‐drive interview was conducted with each driver following each mode of driving. Results: Statistical analyses revealed no significant differences in performance, situation awareness, or workload between the two modes, suggesting that the inclusion of removal of a second driver had not impact on the scenarios. However, qualitative analysis identified advantages and disadvantages of DOO in relation to situation awareness, performance, and workload. Positives of DOO included a reduction in the potential for distraction and negatives of DOO included reduced safety due to not having the second driver’s monitoring and checking support. Conclusion: This study highlighted many factors that need further investigation regarding their impact to driver performance, workload, and safety. This will help determine the circumstances under which DOO is safe and in context of the type of operations and levels of technology, conditions under which two-‐drivers may be essential.


38

Ergonomics, People and Productivity Panel Contemporary workplaces are confronted with the challenge of balancing safety and health, efficiency and productivity. The relationship between these factors is contested: some see them as being opposing forces, others see them as synergistic. What is the relationship between these factors in the real world? What role can ergonomics play? Join us for a lively and informative end to the conference as we engage a panel of specialists in a Q&A discussion on Ergonomics, People and Productivity where we will explore contemporary challenges and solutions to the productivity versus people dilemma. Moderated by the highly productive HFESA Fellow, Associate Professor Verna Blewett, the panellists will share their workplace and research experiences and then answer your questions. Our panellists are: Mr Philip Ransome An engineer with an extensive background and more than 20 years of private sector practical business experience, Phil has held senior management positions in companies including General Motors, Hendersons Automotive, Futuris (formerly Air International) and was also General Manager of Multi Slide Industries, based in Adelaide. Presently he is a Business Advisor with the Australian Industry Group, and in that role has completed reviews of more than 150 companies, striving to improve their business performance and competitiveness. Professor Drew Dawson Drew is internationally recognised for his contributions to the scientific community and to industry in the area of sleep research, organisational psychology and human factors, industrial relations negotiations and the human implications of hours of work. He has been responsible for numerous technological advancements in fatigue management, including the FAID software, the prior sleep-‐wake rules within the Fatigue Calculator and more recent developments in fatigue-‐related error proofing. He has worked extensively with Australian companies and government agencies over the last two decades including aviation, manufacturing, retail, entertainment, transportation and mining sectors. Ms Belinda Grant Belinda has more than 20 years’ experience at a management level within manufacturing and automotive industries. Her strengths include employment relations, WHS, organisational improvement and development. She is passionate about WHS and believes that HR practices have a direct link to safety outcomes. Belinda is a member of Australian Industry Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Group and was a long-‐standing industry partner on SAfer Industries, an initiative of WorkCoverSA. Her qualifications include a Diploma in OHS, Graduate Diploma in Management and a Masters in Management Dr Jennifer Long Jennifer is an optometrist, CPE and the newly elected President of HFESA. She has been self-‐employed three times in her career, owning and operating her own optometry practice in Sydney. Since 2006 she has been self-‐employed as a visual ergonomics consultant. Jennifer completed a PhD in 2012 on work-‐related discomfort and injuries in optometrists. She is currently working on a project at the School of Optometry and Vision Science, UNSW, incorporating ergonomics education into the undergraduate optometry program to provide optometry students with skills to reduce their risk of work-‐related discomfort.


39

Her role on this panel is to discuss safety and productivity from a small business perspective, using optometry as a case example. ________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________


40

Workshop abstracts

Professional ethics Barbara McPhee1, Christine Aickin2, Jenni Miller3

1 Jim Knowles Group, 2 Workability, 3Ergonomica, WA

Workshop outline

This participative workshop on professional ethics follows on from one held at the Melbourne HFESA Conference in 2009. It aims to continue the debate about the do’s and don’ts of professional behaviour in the 21st century. There are few hard and fast rules and personal morals and judgements may be challenged in a range of work situations. How do we make the best decisions when things are not clear cut? There are few unambiguously ‘right’ ways to do things so there will be no clear cut solutions. However, understanding how different individuals vary in their beliefs, behaviours and approaches enables more well-‐informed decisions to be made. This workshop will be of interest and value to researchers, practitioners and teachers of ergonomics. Some of the issues to be discussed could include:

- New technology has made life easier but has added to its complexity – what are the traps for professionals?

- Communication is instant, easy and cheap but are people getting the right message? How well are we, as ergonomists, conveying our message and can we do it better?

- Privacy -‐ where does the law end and ethics begin? - Our role is changing from an ‘expert’ one to a consultative, facilitative one: how far do our

responsibilities to our stakeholders require us to change what, we believe, might be their ill-‐informed perceptions?

- Responsibilities to multiple parties – how do we balance these while being fair to all? - What constitutes a professional or personal conflict of interest? How do we handle this in

the real world? - How do you know the limits your professional expertise? How do you work within these

and yet still learn and expand your knowledge and skills?

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________


41

Considering humans in engineering projects

Airdrie Long1, Sue Milner2 1 Asset Standards Authority, Transport for NSW, 2 Acmena Group Pty Ltd

Workshop outline

Objectives: Using examples taken from industry: • To demonstrate the benefit of early consideration of human factors and ergonomics (HF/E) in

any project and how to achieve human factors integration (HFI). • To demonstrate that an HF/E approach that is strategic, well planned, rigorous in application,

and focused on areas of highest risk, maximises its benefit in any project or program Target audience: Primarily aimed at anyone with an interest in the topic who wants to expand their knowledge of considering Humans in Engineering Projects. The workshop will provide an insight into the foundations of the topic and their application in large projects in a number of markets, including rail transport, mining and defence. Additionally, for HF/E professionals specialising in different areas of the HF discipline who wish to become more effective in their role by adopting more rigour in their approach. Engineers, program or project managers, and scientists looking to gain an understanding of human factors integration. Key learning points: At the end of the workshop attendees will be able to:

• Understand key terminology. • Appreciate the breadth of what HF/E covers and the multitude of specific disciplines

involved. • Outline a process for human factors integration (HFI) in a project, identifying required

points of interaction with the other project streams or disciplines, such as mechanical and civils.

• State the purpose of key HF/E inputs and outputs to the process stages, and outline their contents.

Context: There are a number of large scale programs in progress in Australia currently, either in planning or in development. These involve a diverse range of engineering disciplines working together to achieve the program objectives and business goals on time and within budget. One of these disciplines is Systems Engineering. In layman’s terms, Systems Engineering is the glue between project management and engineering delivery. It helps deliver projects [on time and budget] by managing changing requirements, tracking technical progress, and managing technical interfaces between delivery streams. Systems Engineering therefore works across the traditional engineering disciplines of civils, structures, electrical, mechanical etc. which are often run as separate project delivery streams. Systems Engineering disciplines include:

• Human Factors Integration/Engineering • Requirements Engineering/Management, • Systems Safety Engineering/Assurance, • Systems Integration/Verification and Validation • Configuration Management • Competence Management • EMC (Electromechanical compatibility)


42

Content: During this workshop, we will set the stage by addressing key terms and concepts within the HF/E discipline, such as human factors, ergonomics, human factors integration, human centred design, usability etc. This will define the scope (from our perspective) of the field and the range and focus of specific disciplines involved, such as psychology, physical ergonomics, biomechanics, etc. Using project examples, we will outline a typical project lifecycle, identifying key activities, what they aim to achieve, who is involved and what the outputs are. We will discuss the organisational structure of projects, and discuss some pros and cons of each approach. For example, projects often consider HF/E to be either part of the design team or part of the safety team. Rarely is there a separate HF team, and only sometimes a Systems Engineering team. We will identify the HF activities that take place in that lifecycle, including the when, why, and how, and discuss the challenges and benefits of meeting the plan, using industry examples. Finally we will outline the HF/E products (or outputs of those activities), such as Human Factors Integration Plan (HFIP), Human Factors Issues/Risk Register (HFIR/HFRR), Concept of Operations (ConOps) etc., giving examples of what information they might contain, and demonstrating with real project examples where practical. There will be ample opportunity for discussion around audience experiences and participants are encouraged to bring material to share with others. ________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________


43

Office work -‐ Activity based work and beyond

David Caple1 ,2

1David Caple @ Associates P/L, Ivanhoe East Victoria 2Latrobe University, Bundoora

Workshop outline

Activity based work (ABW) has now become the basis to office based work design in major new buildings across Australia. Rather than providing every occupant a workstation and defined area for their "entitlement" the design of space is now based around multiple activity areas. What are the implications of this approach to work organization and job design on the cognitive and physical risks for the workers? This workshop will enable participants to share their experiences working with Government and private companies who have introduced ABW. ________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________


44

The Research-‐Practice Relationship in Human Factors and Ergonomics

Amy Z. Q. Chung

School of Aviation, University of New South Wales, Sydney Background: Since the 1960’s, there has been commentary regarding the so-‐called ‘research-‐practice gap’ in Human Factors and Ergonomics (HF/E). Empirical research has found that HF/E practitioners perceive research published in HF/E peer-‐reviewed journals as largely irrelevant to practitioner problems and tends not to be applied in practice. Indeed, those working in academic/research institutions perceive HF/E journal publications to be significantly more useful to them compared to those working in other organisations, pointing to possible differences in what researchers and practitioners value in research (Chung and Shorrock, 2011). However, a recent international survey of HF/E professionals indicated that researchers and practitioners in HF/E both have a strong interest in practical applications but relatively less interest in the development of theories – suggesting that the research-‐practice gap may be smaller than expected and there may be a lack of focus on theory in the discipline, which should be the basis for practical applications (Chung, Williamson, Shorrock, 2014). Workshop outline: This workshop is targeted at researchers and practitioners in human factors and ergonomics. It will consist of a presentation on the topic, followed by a panel discussion, and a general discussion involving audience members. Presenters: Chair: Michael Regan (University of New South Wales) Presentation: Amy Chung (University of New South Wales) Panel: • Researchers

o Ann Williamson (University of New South Wales) o Jodi Oakman (La Trobe University) o Robin Burgess-‐Limerick (The University of Queensland)

• Practitioners

o Barbara McPhee (Jim Knowles Group) o Christine Aickin (Workability Pty Ltd) o David Caple (David Caple @ Associates)

References: Chung, A. Z. Q., & Shorrock, S. T. (2011). The research-‐practice relationship in ergonomics and human factors – Surveying and bridging the gap. Ergonomics, 54(5), 413–429. Chung, A. Z. Q., Williamson, A., & Shorrock, S. (2014). What do Human Factors and Ergonomics Professionals Value in Research Publications? Re-‐examining the Research-‐Practice Gap. Ergonomics, 57(4), 490–502.


45

Simple WMSD Surveillance Exposure Assessment Methods for Practitioners

Barbara Silverstein

Former Research Director of Washington State Department of Labor and Industries’ Safety and Health Assessment and Research for Prevention (SHARP) program

Workshop outline

In this workshop, we will use several different checklists to look at musculoskeletal risk. We will compare the differences between checklists and discuss strengths and limitations. These include Washington State caution zone and hazard zone checklists, Quick Exposure Checklist (QEC), and Strain Index. We will also use Myotrack as a training tool to assess differences in muscle activity with different tasks.

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________


46

Activity Based Work – Evaluation of Physical and Psychosocial Risk Factors

Lynn McAtamney1, Martin Mackey2, Carlo Caponecchia3, David Caple4, Christine Aickin5, Lina Engelen2, Bridget Foley2, Fernanda Yamashita2, Sean Silvey1

1Telstra, Melbourne 2University of Sydney, Sydney 3University of New South Wales, Sydney 4David Caple and Associates, Melbourne 5Workability, Sydney

Background: Activity Based Work (ABW) is an emerging concept in office design where workers are required to share common workspaces made of diverse environments which accommodate the variety of tasks undertaken over the working day. This research project explores the impact of ABW in a realistic workplace laboratory setting and compares it with a conventional workplace setting. It investigates sedentary times, activity levels, psychosocial health, job satisfaction, communication and work environment along with the ergonomic aspects of the furniture and equipment. Method: Activity Levels: Data will be collected from 25 volunteer workers in their standard office environment, and then during a 3-‐week period of occupation in a trial ABW (laboratory) environment, and, with regard to physical measures, after the workers return to their standard office environment. Workers will act as their own controls. The following measures will be used to evaluate the impact of office environment on activity:

1. Validated questionnaires will measure workday sitting, musculoskeletal discomfort and work ability.

2. Standardised activity monitor will measure sedentary time and time spent in light, moderate, vigorous activity at work.

Psychosocial and Cognitive effects: An online questionnaire will be used to measure any effects of the new environment on psychosocial well-‐being, comprising the stress, anxiety and ratings of the impact of the changed work environment on concentration, privacy and motivation. Three groups of around 100 participants will take part in this aspect of the study, including those participating in the activity measurement study arm. Ergonomics: Ergonomic features of furniture used in the laboratory environment will be evaluated against Australian Standards and through input of ten volunteer workers. Results and Conclusions: Data collection and analysis has not yet been completed. Analysis of the activity data will be completed by the University of Sydney and the University of New South Wales will analyse the psychosocial data. Implications: This is the first Australian study to evaluate the impact of an ABW office environment on activity levels of workers together with effects of such novel work environment on important cognitive, psychosocial factors and equipment related ergonomic impacts. Outcomes will have significant implications for office design.


47

Site Visits South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute Monday 17 November, 14.00 to 16.30 The new $200 million SA Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI) opened in Adelaide in 2014 to house leading edge health and medical research. It is ideally located on North Terrace adjacent to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital complex. The facility was designed to be home to 600 independent researchers working to find better ways of caring for, and curing South Australians from a range of diseases.

The iconic SAHMRI building recently topped the list in the Seven Greatest Wonders of South Australia in a competition run by Radio ABC 891 Adelaide. The building is captivating in its design and presence, and is affectionately described as the 'cheese grater’ and the 'pine cone'. The intricate triangular-‐panelled façade of the new building reflects SAHMRI’s identity, representing inter-‐connected cells. A cell symbolises SAHMRI’s foundations in biology and the linkages they require to other cells to provide structural support and carry nutrients and communications to neighbouring cells.

Highlights of this site tour include views of SAHMRI’s state of the art laboratories, open plan floors, atrium café, plaza area and spiral staircase. You will also hear about the design of the facility in meeting the needs of workers as they carry out their cutting-‐edge health research.

The SAHMRI building (Gary Sauer-‐Thompson -‐ Flickr Creative Commons). Jumbo Vision International Tuesday 18 November, 14.15 to 16.30 Jumbo Vision International Pty Ltd (JVI), continue to strengthen their market leadership in consulting, design and realisation of high end technical rooms, with the release of their new virtual reality based workspace design system, termed CADwalk™. Implemented at JVI’s CAVE (Centre for Advanced Virtual Environments) in Adelaide’s Technology Park, and the result of an ingenious fusion of high-‐tech 2D and 3D visualisation and space-‐critical design skills, CADwalk™ allows project stakeholders to quite literally walk their way through a full-‐sized representation of a space and modify the room layout as they proceed, simply by adjusting the placement of passive tracking devices called ‘trees’, each of which has been assigned to an object. Experience this world first technology for yourself at the site visit.


48

Activity Based Work Site Visit – Australian Bureau of Statistics Tuesday 18 November, 14.15 to 16.30

The South Australian office of the ABS has transformed the workplace during 2014 with a new fit out. The office transitioned to reduce the physical footprint in the office, reduce leasing costs and increase collaborative opportunities between staff. This change has presented the opportunity to increase productivity and develop a change management process that facilities flexible working conditions.

The implementation of the Flexible Working Arrangement (FWA) strategy has improved the work environment for the SA staff. The strategy incorporates two components to drive the new arrangements. These are the Activity Based Workplace (ABW) and Teleworking functionalities. The move to a flexible working arrangement has been designed to increase available work options. The FWA are supported by the End User Computer strategy to incorporate laptops and advanced client technology to allow staff mobility within and outside the office environment. This approach aims to align new working arrangements with supervisor skills, job requirements and staff skills.

This site visit will augment two workshops held during the conference on Activity Based Work. Come along and observe the office design and hear about the strategies implemented to support new models of working.


49

Presenter biographies Christine AICKIN Workability Christine has spent twenty-‐seven years in technical, research and management occupational health and safety roles in both the public and private sector. She began her working life as a physiotherapist and then completed a Masters of Public Health specialising in occupational health and ergonomics. She has held occupational health and safety management roles with BOC Gases Australia Limited and Westpac Banking Corporation and a technical/research role with the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. For the last eighteen years she has been in private occupational health and safety consulting specialising in both ergonomics and occupational health and safety management systems. She is a past President of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia and a certified/chartered professional member of both the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia and a the Safety Institute of Australia. She is also on the International Ergonomics Association Council as one of the Australian representatives. Cathy ANDREW University of Wollongong Cathie Andrew is a registered Occupational Therapist and member of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society of Australia. She is currently working as an academic at the University of Wollongong and teaching in the Master of Occupational Health & Safety and Master of Occupational Hygiene programs. Melissa BAYSARI University of New South Wales Melissa Baysari is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Health Systems & Safety Research, UNSW, and is located within the Department of Clinical Pharmacology, St Vincent's Hospital. Melissa's research focuses on evaluating and improving health information technology in hospitals and in particular, on identifying the factors necessary for effective computerised decision support for prescribers. Alison BELL University of Wollongong Alison has worked in the field of Occupational Health and Safety for over 25 years, with roles in injury management, safety management, workers compensation, ergonomics and human factors, and as an academic at the University of Wollongong. She is a Certified Professional Ergonomist and Registered Occupational Therapist. Alison is a PhD candidate at the University of Wollongong where her research is investigating the issues surrounding the provision of food and beverage packaging in NSW hospitals on the nutrition intake of elderly inpatients. Alison’s formal qualifications are: Master of Science (Research); Bachelor of Applied Science (Occupational Therapy); Graduate Diploma of Safety Science; & Graduate Certificate in Health Science (Education).


50

Josephine BILLS PhysioLink Pty Ltd Jo Bills is a registered physiotherapist and director of PhysioLink, which she established in 1989. She has worked in the field of Work Health and Safety for over 30 years, providing on-‐site Physiotherapy services to industry, consultant ergonomics services, WHS consultancy and training, injury prevention and management programs and Workplace Rehabilitation Services. She completed tertiary studies in Occupational Health at Adelaide University in 1994 and was awarded the Safety Institute of Australia’s academic prize for her year. Her special interests include dental ergonomics, office ergonomics and ergonomic design of workplaces, in particular applied to art conservation and courtroom design. A prototype of her courtroom workstation re-‐design is currently in use at the Adelaide Magistrates Court. Verna BLEWETT Associate Professor Head of Work Health and Safety Research Appleton Institute, Central Queensland University Verna is an ergonomist and human factors professional who specialises in organisational design and management. She has an international reputation for her work in the management of work health and safety, organisational change, organisational culture, and human factors and ergonomics. Her research work focuses on the nexus between organisational culture and work health and safety, and participative and collaborative approaches to organisational change, and work health and safety. She is a Fellow and Past President of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia and has represented Australia on the Council of the International Ergonomics Association. Robin BURGESS-‐LIMERICK The University of Queensland Robin Burgess-‐Limerick is a past-‐president and Fellow of the HFESA. He is currently Professor of Human Factors in the Minerals Industry Safety and Health Centre. David CAPLE David Caple @ Associates P/L David has been the independent ergonomics consultant to some of the major office developments in Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra since Activity Based Work was introduced into Australia during the last 5 years. This has involved working with Architects and designers as well as user representatives in designing, piloting and evaluating this concept to replace open plan office designs. Amy CHUNG University of New South Wales Amy is a registered psychologist and has a masters degree in organisational psychology. As a Research Assistant, she is currently working on a project investigating skill acquisition and distraction as a source of error. Amy’s PhD research examines the research-‐practice relationship in human factors and ergonomics.


51

Robyn COMAN University of Wollongong Robyn is a Physiotherapist Ergonomist and has worked across health, aged care and disability sectors, as well as more broadly within industry. She has also been involved in teaching Ergonomics and OHS at the University of NSW, La Trobe University and the University of Wollongong. Currently she is the Acting Head of the OHS Programme at the University of Wollongong. Robyn is a PhD Candidate within the School of Aviation at the University of NSW under the supervision of Dr Carlo Caponecchia. Robyn’s formal qualifications include: Bachelor of Applied Science (Physiotherapy); Masters of Science and Technology (Ergonomics); Graduate Certificate OHS Management. Wendy ELFORD Now to Next Over her career, Wendy has worked in health, business services and tertiary education with the common theme being problem solving in complex situations. Originally a health professional, Wendy's work focus shifted to ergonomics and then to futures studies. Her PhD thesis investigated different narrative methodologies to explore emerging issues in ergonomics. She is currently working in her own consultancy providing services relating to design, procurement and occupational health. Chris FITZGERALD Chris is an independent, Certified Professional Ergonomist, based in Melbourne Australia. Since 1993, within his ergonomics consultancy business Risk and Injury Management Services, he has undertaken numerous projects in the design of workplaces, vehicles, equipment and work methods and systems. Underpinning this work is Chris’s ongoing interest in the measurement of human work load and capability and the interactions of people within their environment. As the Director of Human Factors and Ergonomics for the Emergency Medical Services Safety Foundation, a not for profit ‘think tank’ based in New York, his work in ambulance design is internationally recognised. Chris has been a member of the HFESA ARASIG executive group since 2010. Maureen HASSALL The University of Queensland Maureen Hassall is a Research Fellow and Lecturer with MISHC at The University of Queensland. She received her BEng(Hons) degree from the Swinburne University, BSc(Psych) degree from the University of Southern Queensland, MBA from the University of Phoenix and PhD in Cognitive Systems Engineering from The University of Queensland. Prior to returning to academia, she has worked in mining, processing and manufacturing industries for more than 15 years. Katherine HILL Metro Trains Melbourne A former Air Force officer and air traffic controller with 15 years experience in aviation safety. Working as the human factors advisor for Metro Trains I have found the move to the rail industry to be fascinating. I am currently completing a research paper for the University of New South Wales.


52

Lily HIRSCH Central Queensland University With a background in social sciences and anthropology, Lily commenced her PhD titled ‘It’s a jungle in here: a study of crowding on Indian trains’ with Central Queensland University in April 2012. Her supervisors are Dr Kirrilly Thompson and Dr Danielle Every. She holds a scholarship from the CRC for Rail Innovation. Nurul Ikhmar IBRAHIM University of NSW PhD student at Transport and Road Safety Research (TARS), UNSW. Lena KIMENKOWSKI Jumbo Vision International Pty Ltd Lena is the General Manager of Jumbo Vision International, a wholly Australian owned technical room solutions provider. As part of the second generation family business, Lena oversees the company in all facets of strategy and growth, and is passionate about engaging with customers and making them say ‘wow’. Jumbo Vision specialise in the physical and audio-‐visual aspects of control room design and management, from technical furniture such as control room consoles and industrial desks to audio-‐visual systems including overview screens and video walls. They focus on turnkey solutions, from technical advisory and consulting, to design and integration services for the resources, utility and emergency response industries. Gitte LINDGAARD Carleton University and Swinburne University of Technology Professor Gitte Lindgaard, PhD is a fellow of the HF&ESA. Until recently she was Director of the Human-‐Oriented Technology Lab (HOTLab) at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada where she also held the prestigious National Science & Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Industry Research Chair in User-‐Centred Product Design for over 10 years. She has been editor/deputy editor/associate editor on numerous academic journals since 1988 and has published over 240 peer-‐reviewed papers. Airdrie LONG Transport for NSW Airdrie Long started her professional life as an engineer always with an interest in the interface between people and technology. She completed a Masters of Biomedical Engineering specialising in ergonomics back in the 80s. Airdrie worked at Worksafe Australia involved in the research, consultancy and teaching activities. From ‘96 until recently she successfully ran her own consultancy business. It had a broad practise in Ergonomics and Human Factors with a niche in providing the human aspect to design teams. As a member of design teams Airdrie was often considering the design of operator cab, control areas as well as customer requirements. She taught the undergraduate designers and engineers of the future. At the beginning this year she joined the Asset Standards Authority within Transport for NSW as a Senior Human Factors Specialist where she works with engineers providing guidance to the transport industry particularly rail. Airdrie is a Certified Professional Ergonomist of HFESA.


53

Jennifer LONG Jennifer Long Visual Ergonomics Jennifer Long is a Certified Professional Ergonomist (CPE) and optometrist. For the past nine years she has been self-‐employed as a visual ergonomics consultant and provided visual ergonomics advice to a range of industries including offices, retail, healthcare, manufacturing and transport. She is also a Conjoint Senior Lecturer at the School of Optometry and Vision Science, UNSW, where she teaches Colour Vision, Environmental Optometry and Measurement of Light and Colour to undergraduate optometry students. In 2012 Jennifer was appointed the Chairperson of the International Ergonomics Association Technical Committee for Visual Ergonomics and is currently the President-‐elect of the HFESA. Lynn McATAMNEY Telstra Lynn McAtamney trained originally as a physiotherapist. After a short period in clinical work, she became interested in ergonomics and occupational health. She then went to work at Worksafe Australia where she was awarded a scholarship to undertake a PhD. She completed her PhD at Nottingham University in the UK. She is well known for the development of the tools RULA and REBA at that time. Following her PhD she went on to work as a consultant in the UK before returning to Australia. She is currently employed with Telstra as the Ergonomics, Resilience and Mental Health Lead. Barbara McPHEE Jim Knowles Group

Barbara is a Certified Professional Ergonomist (HFESA) and a Specialist Physiotherapist in Occupational Health (Australian College of Physiotherapists). She is a Past President, a Fellow and a recipient of the Society and Cummings Medals of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia; an Executive Council Member of the Pan Pacific Council on Ergonomics; a former Board Member of the International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH); an Esteemed Member of the APA; and a Fellow of the Australian College of Physiotherapists. In January 2014 Barbara was appointed an AM (Member) in the General Division of the Order of Australia.

Jenni MILLER Ergonomica, WA Jenni has worked as a consultant ergonomist since 1987, providing ergonomics expertise to a wide range of industries in Western Australia. She also has extensive experience as an expert witness. Jenni has an M.Sc. (Ergonomics) and Graduate Diploma in Health Sciences (Ergonomics) from Curtin University, and a B.Sc. (Physiotherapy) from University of Cape Town, South Africa. She is a Certified Professional Ergonomist of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society of Australia, and a Registered Member of the Institute of Ergonomics & Human Factors of UK. Jenni is currently the Chair of the Professional Affairs Board of HFESA.


54

Sue MILNER Acmena Group Pty Ltd With a degree in Computer Science and Cybernetics, Sue Milner started her professional life as a robotics engineer and Artificial Intelligence researcher before becoming a software engineer. She has always specialised in the people aspects of engineering, whether attempting to mimic their capabilities or to provide interfaces with which they interact. She delivering a people-‐focused, requirements engineering course for many years, emphasising the roles of those involved and the end user/human factors requirements, not just the technological functional requirements. In 2004 she started her own consultancy in the UK before moving to Brisbane in 2008. Sue specialises in Human Factors Integration – helping the organisations demonstrate their compliance to Rail Safety regulation, identifying the HF activities to reduce program risk and providing HF requirements, design and assurance services. With two colleagues she founded Acmena in 2013, which provides a range of Systems Engineering services to the Rail and Transport industries. She is a Certified Professional Ergonomist of HFESA, a Chartered Human Systems Engineer of the IET (UK), and in the process of completing a Masters in HF and systems safety. Anjum NAWEED Central Queensland University Anjum is a Senior Research Fellow at the Appleton Institute for Behavioural Science in Central Queensland University. He was also the Deputy Program Leader for Operations & Safety at the CRC for Rail Innovation. His research has focused on rail human factors, collision avoidance, complex decision-‐making, knowledge representation, display design, and participative processes at work. Anjum has an ARC-‐linkage grant to explore new ways of using simulators in driver training in the rail industry. He has experience with a diverse range of research techniques, and is interested in all aspects of human factors, simulation and the relationship between humans and machines. Timothy NEVILLE University of the Sunshine Coast Timothy Neville is a PhD candidate at the University of Sunshine Coast. Prior to commencing his studies this year, Tim spent five years as a Joint Operations Research with the Defence Science and Technology Organisation. Tim graduated with degrees in both Computer Systems Engineering (Honours) and International studies from the University of Adelaide in 2008. Valerie O’KEEFFE University of South Australia Valerie is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Work and Life, University of South Australia and formerly a Research Assistant in the Centre for Applied Psychological Research, University of SA. Her PhD research investigated nurses' health and safety decision making in the context of providing care. Her current research investigates the relationship between job quality and the quality of care in aged care. She is a Certified Professional Ergonomist (HFESA) and a Chartered Safety Professional (SIA).


55

Bronwen OTTO Thiess Australian Mining Bronwen is a Specialist Occupational Health Physiotherapist and Fellow of the Australian College of Physiotherapists (ACP) as awarded by the ACP in 2008. She has a Bachelor of Applied Science (Physiotherapy) from The University of Sydney and Graduate Certificate in OHS Management from The University of New South Wales. Bronwen commenced her career in private practice in the Hunter Valley where the majority of her clients were coal mine workers. With many workers presenting with recurring or chronic injuries, she developed an interest in the prevention of injury and illness. Bronwen’s experience across a diverse range of industries includes ten years’ employment in H&S advisory and managerial roles in the mining industry. Bronwen is a member of the APA’s Professional Practice Standards Committee for Occupational Health Physiotherapists. She is currently employed by Thiess Australian Mining as National Health and Wellbeing Manager. The focus of her role is preventative health management. Sara PAZELL Viva! Health At Work Sara Pazell (MBA, OT, SCC L1) is an energetic, passionate and experienced specialist in best-‐practice industrial and office ergonomics, health, safety, training, and workplace well-‐being. Sara is the Occupational Advisor: Ergonomics for BORAL Asphalt and Aggregates in Queensland and Northern Territory, Australia. The ergonomics advising role is the first of its kind in the organization. Sara has had to carve out a niche practice area, educate key decision makers, and penetrate management and business systems to develop effective ergonomic process. She also operates an external consulting practice overseeing a small team of specialty clinicians in South East Queensland representing diverse industries. Andrew PETERSEN Andrew Petersen, a CPE from the Gold Coast, joined the society as a student many years ago. He actively participates both within the Queensland branch committee and the HFESA Board. Andrew agreed to coordinate the Society’s History Project with the assistance from Roger Hall, Rodney Powell, Valerie O’Keeffe & Mike Regan plus many members who shared their histories of the society. Peter POLLNITZ SA Health Peter Pollnitz is an Occupational Health Physiotherapist and Team Leader in WorkFit Services, SA Health. Peter is an accredited level 4 Manutention trainer. He has a Certificate IV in Training & Assessment, a Certificate IV in Frontline Management and a Postgraduate Certificate in Clinical Rehabilitation. He works with the South Australian Ambulance Service providing interventions and strategies for manual tasks at work in the areas of training, consultancy on equipment and facilities, injury management and fitness for work. The complex and uncontrolled pre-‐hospital operational environment creates unique manual tasks challenges that require innovative solutions.


56

Philip RANSOME An engineer with an extensive background and more than 20 years of private sector practical business experience, Phil has held senior management positions in companies including General Motors, Hendersons Automotive, Futuris (formerly Air International) and was also General Manager of Multi Slide Industries, based in Adelaide. Presently he is a Business Advisor with the Australian Industry Group, and in that role has completed reviews of more than 150 companies, striving to improve their business performance and competitiveness. Janette ROSE University of South Australia/ Central Queensland University Janette Rose has recently submitted her PhD thesis with the University of South Australia, conducting research into the human factors implications of introducing new technology into the train cab. Her particular interests are in the development of improved tools to measure subjective situation awareness, and user resistance to technology. Janette is currently working at CQUniversity in the area of human factors including implications of driver-‐only operations in rail, and the effects of an in-‐cab advisory system. She has published a paper on the use of task analysis to evaluate the effects of information support technology on the situation awareness of train drivers. She has also published three chapters in a book about evaluating rail technology, and is co-‐editor of that book. She has also contributed papers to conferences on a new subjective measure of situation awareness that she developed during the course of her PhD research. Paul ROTHMORE University of Adelaide Paul is a Specialist Physiotherapist in Occupational Health and is a Fellow of the Australian College of Physiotherapists He coordinates the Masters in Occupational Health & Safety Program at the University of Adelaide. His research interests are primarily related to the prevention of work-‐related musculoskeletal disorders. Paul SALMON University of the Sunshine Coast Paul is an Associate Professor in Human Factors and is the director of the USCAR (University of the Sunshine Coast Accident Research) team at the University of the Sunshine Coast. Paul and has over 13 years experience in applied Human Factors research in a number of domains, including the military, aviation, and road and rail transport. He has co-‐authored 10 books, over 90 peer review journal articles, and numerous conference articles and book chapters.


57

Daisy VEITCH SHARP Dummies Pty Ltd Daisy Veitch is a Criterion Anthropometrist and Researcher. She is the owner of a US design patent and has registered designs in Australia, Europe, United States and the European Community. She directed the Australian National Size and Shape Survey in 2002 and is employed at Flinders Medical Centre as an anthropometrist including body scanning (Cyberware WBX). Daisy has a background in technical aspects of garment construction. She was winner of Australian Wool Corporation Young Designer Award and Queen Elizabeth 11 Silver Jubilee Award for Young Australians and has studied in Adelaide and Paris at La Chambre Syndicale de la Couture Parisienne. In 2013 she was International Judge for APDeC 2013 (Asia Pacific Design Challenge) http://apdec.net and the lead author for Sizing Up Australia: The Next Step, a Safe Work Australia project to define the parameters of the Australian Body Sizing Survey. Daisy is currently a PhD candidate at TU Delft. Louise WHITBY Louise Whitby and Associates Pty Ltd Louise is a certified professional ergonomist and registered nurse. She established an ergonomics consultancy in 1994, and has since worked with regulators, industry associations, unions and employers to address musculoskeletal injury prevention. Louise is the Chair of the Healthcare Ergonomics SIG of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia. Louise is a PhD candidate at the University of NSW under the supervision of A/Prof Craig McLachlan, Rural Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine. Lisa WISE Swinburne University of Technology Lisa’s PhD and post-‐doctoral research investigated auditory spatial coding and multisensory integration in cats, bats and owls. Lisa spent many years as an academic in psychology at Monash University, and then spent a number of years working as a web application and elearning specialist at Monash and at the University of Melbourne. Lisa returned to cognitive science research with DSTO colleagues and at Swinburne University, where she teaches psychology and undertakes research into digital technologies and training, and the development of expert skilled performance.


58

Presenter Index

Aickin, Christine ............................................38

Andrew, Catherine..................................16, 24

Baysari, Melissa ............................................22

Bell, Alison ………………………………………………….20

Bills, Josephine..............................................29

Burgess-‐Limerick, Robin..................................9

Blewett, Verna ………………………………………..….34

Caple, David ..................................................42

Chung, Amy Z. Q. ....................................30, 43

Coman, Robyn...............................................20

Dawson, Drew.................................................3

Elford, Wendy ...............................................31

Fitzgerald, Chris ............................................27

Hassall, Maureen ............................................8

Hibbert, Peter .................................................5

Hill, Katherine ...............................................11

Hirsch, Lily.....................................................20

Ibrahim, Nurul Ikhmar ..................................11

Kimenkowski, Lena .......................................28

Lawrence, Carmen ..........................................2

Lindgaard, Gitte ......................................21, 22

Long, Airdrie .................................................40

Long, Jennifer................................................17

McAtamney, Lynn .........................................45

McPhee, Barbara ..........................................38

Miller, Jenni ……………………………………………….38

Milner, Sue....................................................40

Naweed, Anjum ............................................12

Neville, Timothy............................................15

O'Keeffe, Valerie .....................................25, 26

Otto, Bronwen ..............................................18

Pazell, Sara....................................................19

Petersen, Andrew……………….………………….…..13

Pollnitz, Peter................................................23

Ransome, Philip………………………………………… 36

Rose, Janette ………………………………………………10

Rothmore, Paul .............................................31

Salmon, Paul .................................................14

Sanderson, Penelope ......................................6

Silverstein, Barbara...................................4, 44

Veitch, Daisy .................................................20

Whitby, Louise ..............................................20

Wise, Lisa ......................................................33

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

www.ergonomics.org.au

then, now and beyond - ergonomics

Documents