Stonelee November 2009

John Miller conducted a series of Global Back Care Clinics for The Organisation in February 2009.

176 participants, completed several profiles profiles

■ Health, Fitness and Wellbeing

■ Musculo-skeletal risk

The results are presented in graphic format, with commentary.

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 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. Fair 51-60. Poor - over 60.

This profile is described as poor. The average score was 75. Anyone scoring more than 80 is putting up with a lot of 'background noise'.

HEALTH CLIMATE SURVEY

Based on scores received in the Health, Fitness and 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.

We registered those scores of 5 and over as being a symptom, issue or concern, the most pressing of which have been highlighted.

MUSCULO-SKELETAL RISK FACTOR

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 7 objective and 3 subjective assessments.

•      Current musculo-skeletal condition

•      Abdominal strength test

•      Upper body strength test

•      Flexibility

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

•      Shoulder function

•      Dominant hand grip

•      Non-dominant hand grip

•      Flexibility training behaviour

•      Strength training behaviour.

On this profile a good score is a high score.

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 wer

e not keeping themselves strong enough or flexible enough to do their job without succumbing to musculo-skeletal dysfunction, wouldn't it?)

A patchy result. Too many people scored less than 7/10. They are experiencing some pain and discomfort, a couple of people a lot. Those scoring less the 6 need to be required attend a prehab/rehab program, for their own benefit and that of the organisation.		3 people were 20Kg over weight. Being overweight greatly compromises mobility.
A good result.		This is a mediocre result. 6 people failed the test. 3 people couldn't do one sit up. This means that the strength of the muscles on the front of their body is not sufficient to keep their pelvis and spinal column in good alignment.
This is a fair result. 4 people failed the test. They are leaving themselves open to upper back, shoulder and arm dysfunction.		This is a mediocre result. 3 people couldn't touch their toes at all. 5 people could only just touch their toes. Too many people have tight muscles along the back side of their body - calves, hamstrings, buttock and back. It's caused by two things - sitting down and not having a flexibility program. There is a high risk of lower back, neck and shoulder dysfunction.
A good result.		Patchy. 50% had dysfunctional shoulders. The good news is that's it's redeemable.
Too few people have a good strength and flexibility training program. It behooves all organisations 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.   2.  daily 10 minute strength and flexibility sessions for all staff.
Average score: 58. As a group this is a poor result. The risk of musculo-skeletal dysfunction is high for those scoring less than 60 due to low levels of strength and flexibility. There is a strong case for the organisation to implement an obligatory strength and flexibility program for those who scored less than 60 in this profile.

Lack of strength and flexibility is something that the Organisation needs to take seriously and monitor carefully and put in place an organisation-wide strategy to improve musculo-skeletal function. 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 the 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: -

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 60 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.