Health, Fitness and Wellbeing Profile

The Health, Fitness and Wellbeing profile provides people with a very good idea of how well the various systems of the body are functioning, particularly the

•      the mind

•      autonomic nervous system

•      immune system

•      digestive system

•      circulatory system

•      elimination system

•      musculo-skeletal system.

On this profile a good score is a low score.

The score of a normal, fit and healthy human being is less than 20. Higher scores are symptomatic of dysfunction of one or more body systems. People with low levels of fitness and high levels of stress usually score well over 100.

For people with a score of more than 80, the ‘background noise’ of their life is becoming louder and louder. It is hard to concentrate on your work when body systems are dysfunctional. We know a fit and healthy group when we see the majority of scores below 40. This was not the case with this group.

By and large higher scores are usually a reflection of

• low levels of fitness

• an inability to deal with what life and work are serving up to people.

Remember, it is not what happens, but how we deal with what happens that determines our level of stress. 

Classification of average scores: Excellent - less than 40. Good - 41 - 50. Reasonable 51-60. Poor - over 60.

This profile is described as poor. The average score was 64. However, if you exclude the 6 people who scored more than 100, the results are much more respectable 52, which means that as a group it wasn't in bad shape. Anyone scoring more than 80 is putting up with a lot of 'background noise'.

Health Climate Survey

Based on scores received in the Wellbeing profile we've compiled a Health Climate Survey. Scores on each item have ranked - the higher the score the worse the problem. We added the scores for each item. The results appear in the table below.

4 people were on blood pressure medication.

0 people on anti-depressant medication.

Our recommendation is that the organisation focus on improving scores on the items highlighted.

Musculo-skeletal Risk factor Profile

Our musculo-skeletal risk factor profile looked at a range of parameters including mobility, strength and flexibility and whether people are training to keep themselves strong and flexible. The musculo-skeletal risk factor profile is comprised of a mix of 9 objective and 3 subjective assessments.

• Current musculo-skeletal condition

• Closeness to ideal weight

• leg strength

• Abdominal strength test

• Upper body strength test

• Flexibility

• Functional mobility – the ability to sit down and stand up with ease

• Shoulder function

• Strength training behaviour

• Flexibility training behaviour.

A score of 70% is attainable by those who have a regular and systematic training program. Those scoring less than 70 are not doing sufficient in the way of strength and flexibility exercises. They are therefore exposing themselves to a high risk of musculo-skeletal dysfunction. (It would be bizarre for a workplace to offer to pay the rehabilitation costs of people who were not keeping themselves strong enough or flexible enough to do their job without succumbing to musculo-skeletal dysfunction, wouldn't it?)

	Not a particularly good result. Over 40% of people are experiencing some pain and discomfort. In a corporate setting we'd recommend that those scoring less the 6 to be required attend a prehab/rehab program, for their own benefit and that of the organisation.		20% of people were 15Kg or more overweight. This is a big risk to joint and muscle pain.
	Leg strength was, generally speaking good. Only 1 person couldn't squat down and up once in 30 seconds.		A poor result overall. 30% of people couldn't do one situp.
	Patchy, 20% of people failing the arm and upper body strength test. The best predictor of risk of lower back pain is the inability to do pressups.		25% of people couldn't touch their toes. Lower back pain goes with poor hamstring flexibility.
	4 people couldn't get down onto the floor and back up once in 30 seconds. Generally speaking not a bad result.		Shoulder function was poor.
Its always the case, few people have a regular strength and flexibility program. In this group, more people than usual had a strength training program. The group needs to put in train a regular and systematic training program, on site, that includes   1.  specialist prehab and rehab sessions for those at serious risk and those already dysfunctional and on compo   2.  daily strength and flexibility sessions in the workplace for everyone.
Average score: 61. Not particularly good. This graph show why people are experiencing pain. 65% of people are not in doing the things they need to do to keep their musculo-skeletal system in good shape. There is a strong case of the group to implement an obligatory strength and flexibility program for those who scored less than 60 in this profile.

 

We recommend the Organisation take seriously and monitor carefully the incidence of musculo-skeletal dysfunction and put in place an organisation-wide strategy to improve strength, flexibility and mobility. By far and away a high proportion of people do not have a strength and flexibility program. As a result they are getting weaker and tighter by the week, thereby exposing themselves and the organisation to risk.

 

When push comes to shove and people become dysfunctional, it will be the Organisation that ends up paying the high cost of an avoidable musculo-skeletal complaint. In our opinion musculo-skeletal dysfunction caused by lack of a regular and systematic strength and flexibility program cannot be classified as an injury.

 

Responsibility for musculo-skeletal dysfunction needs to be sheeted home to individual employees, though it’s unlikely to happen without the establishment of a culture within the Organisation that supports, values and understands strength and flexibility. We recommend a range of strength and flexibility classes that are readily available Australia-wide: -

 

•	Posture and Flexibility
•	Yoga
•	Crookback Clinic
•	Tai Chi
•	Pontius Pilates

 

The Organisation would place itself in the forefront of OH&S practice if it took the musculo-skeletal risk seriously and moved heaven and earth to educate all staff about this risk and encourage them to take part in a regular strength and flexibility program.

 

Maybe The Organisation and its worker's compensation insurer could invest in a pilot program to increase staff strength and flexibility! The lack of strength and flexibility training coupled with poor abdominal strength, upper body strength, flexibility and shoulder function is a cause for concern and needs the attention of individual staff and managers.

 

Recommendation

 

We strongly recommend that the people who are in current poor musculo-skeletal condition, and who lack abdominal strength, upper body strength, flexibility, shoulder function and functional mobility, in particular those who scored less than 50 on the profile, be obligated to attend regular, in-house strength and flexibility classes. The pressure on the organisation's workers' compensation costs is such that to do otherwise would, in our opinion be to abrogate a responsibility for the prudent management of the organisation's finances.