An Effective Program Includes a Core Set of Elements

Experts, available literature, and officials at our case study facilities generally agreed that, to be effective, an ergonomics program should include a core set of elements or provisions to ensure management commitment, employee involvement, identification of problem jobs, development of controls for problem jobs, training and education for employees, and appropriate medical management. Facilities Have Implemented Core Elements in a Variety of Ways

Each of the facilities we visited displayed all of the core elements of an effective ergonomics program, but the facilities implemented them in a variety of ways that reflected their unique characteristics, such as their different industries and product lines, corporate cultures, and experiences during program evolution. Finally, facilities typically implemented what they called “low-tech” controls, those solutions that did not require significant investment or resources, as opposed to more complex controls that drastically changed jobs or operations. Ergonomic Programs Bring Benefits, Although Measurement Problems Exist

Officials at all the facilities we visited believed their ergonomics programs brought benefits, including reductions in workers’ compensation costs associated with MSDs. These facilities could also show reductions in facilitywide overall injury and illness incidence rates, and in the number of days injured employees were away from work, although some facilities reported an increase in the number of days employees were on restricted job assignments. Facility officials also reported improved worker morale, productivity, and quality, although evidence of this was sometimes anecdotal. However, measuring program performance—assessing these outcomes in light of program efforts—was complicated by uncertainties associated with determining which injuries should be included as MSDs and with tracking changes in those injuries in light of complicating factors. 1). 3.) 4). Case Study Experiences Highlight Employers’ Success in Reducing MSDs

These private sector experiences highlight that employers can achieve positive results through simple, informal, site-specific efforts, with a lower level of effort to identify and analyze problem jobs than that generally reflected in the safety and health literature or in OSHA’s draft ergonomics standard. Federal and state-operated OSHA programs’ current efforts to reduce MSDs in the absence of a standard provide employers this kind of flexibility; however, questions exist about whether current efforts alone are sufficient to address MSDs. To identify how these elements were operationalized at the local level and determine whether these programs have proven beneficial, we interviewed and obtained data from experts known for their research on the costs and benefits of these programs to obtain information on how employers can measure effectiveness of programs, interviewed Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) officials about their efforts to track injuries and costs of those injuries, and obtained information on workers’ compensation costs; selected facilities of five employers that experts believed to have fully implemented programs and that had achieved reductions in workers’ compensation costs resulting from MSDs and conducted case studies between January and February 1997 to obtain information about their experiences implementing these programs; administered a results survey to the selected facilities to collect data used by these facilities to measure their success, such as data used to track program progress and information pertinent to the evaluation of these data, such as workforce size (we did not independently validate these data); and, following a detailed protocol that obtained information on how core elements were implemented and that identified results achieved, difficulties in implementing the programs, barriers faced, lessons learned by the employers from their experiences, and employers’ views of OSHA and others’ roles to reduce MSDs, visited each of these facilities and interviewed facility management, other officials responsible for or involved with the ergonomics program, and staff-level employees; obtained additional results information in order to corroborate information gained during interviews, as well as documentation of the program, training provided, and information provided to employees about the program; and interviewed pertinent officials from the corporate headquarters about the selected facilities’ experiences compared with those of the employers’ other facilities. AEFA officials also said there is some question about what types of injuries should be considered MSDs. 3). 2). In some cases, the ergonomic hazard cannot be totally eliminated. 2).
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on ergonomics programs to reduce work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), focusing on: (1) the core elements of effective ergonomics programs and how these elements are operationalized at the facility level; (2) whether these programs have proven beneficial to the employers and employees that have implemented them; and (3) the implications of these employers' experiences for other employers and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) experts, research literature, and officials at GAO's case study facilities generally agreed that effective ergonomics programs must have the following core set of elements to ensure that ergonomic hazards are identified and controlled to protect workers: (a) management commitment; (b) employee involvement; (c) identification of problem jobs; (d) development of solutions (that is, controls) for problem jobs; (e) training and education for employees; and (f) appropriate medical management; (2) although the ergonomics programs at all of the case study facilities displayed each of these elements, there was often significant variety in how they were implemented; (3) this variety typically resulted from factors such as differences in the facilities' industries and product line, corporate culture, and experiences during the programs' evolution; (4) the processes used by the case study facilities to identify and control problem jobs were typically informal and simple and generally involved a lower level of effort than was reflected in the literature; (5) controls did not typically require significant investment or resources and did not drastically change the job or operation; (6) officials at all the facilities GAO visited believed their ergonomics programs yielded benefits, including reductions in workers' compensation costs associated with MSDs; (7) these facilities could also show reductions in overall injuries and illnesses as well as in the number of days injured employees were out of work; in some cases, however, the number of restricted workdays increased as a result of an increased emphasis on bringing employees back to work; (8) facility officials also reported improved worker morale, productivity, and product quality, although evidence of this was often anecdotal; (9) demonstrating overall program performance was complicated by uncertainties associated with determining what types of injuries should be considered MSDs and analyzing the program's effect on injuries in light of other complicating factors, such as limited information collected by employers on the costs to implement the programs; (10) GAO's work revealed that positive results can be achieved through an approach incorporating certain core elements that are implemented in a simple, informal, site-specific manner; and (11) federal and state-operated OSHA programs have undertaken a number of initiatives that can provide employers flexibility, consistent with these case study experiences; however, questions remain as to whether these efforts alone are sufficient to protect employees from ergonomic hazards.