When supervisors get involved, they prevent injuries and minimize the seriousness of injuries that do occur. The problem is getting supervisors involved. Why? The new Liberty Mutual study offers some insight.

The Liberty Mutual Study

The Liberty Mutual Research Institute study concentrates on the prevention of ergonomics injuries, such as strained backs, rotator cuff injuries and carpal tunnel syndrome. Supervisor intervention can be especially effective in this area because many of these injuries develop gradually over time and are preceded by signs or symptoms that a supervisor is ideally positioned to detect. And once they detect the signs, there are many things supervisors can do to intervene and ensure that the endangered worker doesn't actually suffer an injury (or suffers only a minor one). Moreover, the signs or symptoms of ergonomics injuries are often the kinds of concerns that workers bring to supervisors' attention.

William Shaw, PhD, lead investigative researcher for the Liberty Mutual study, explains how the study was conducted. The researchers recruited 23 supervisors from a food processing plant and divided them into two groups: the intervention group and the control group. In phase one of the study, which lasted seven months, the supervisors in the intervention group received special training on matters such as:

Detection and early response to workers' health concerns. Supervisors learned how to be proactive and address workers' minor health concerns before they become major problems.

Example: Suppose a worker working on a particular machine all day complains of shoulder fatigue. Many supervisors would either send the worker to the nurse or dismiss the problem and wait for the worker to develop a more serious injury. Supervisors in the intervention group were taught to take measures to address the problem right away, such as giving the worker extra breaks or rotating him to a different machine.

Better communication with workers. Supervisors in the intervention group were taught to be "active listeners," says Shaw. Workers may be reluctant to tell their supervisor about a health problem, especially if they don't think the message will be properly received and understood. By improving communication between supervisors and workers, workers will be more likely to report health concerns when they were still minor. Then those concerns can be addressed before they became major, he explains.

Better accommodation skills. Supervisors in the intervention group were taught how to more effectively accommodate workers who express concerns. For early intervention to work, supervisors need to not only listen to workers' concerns, but also react to them. In many cases, the supervisor has to make efforts to accommodate the worker, say, by getting a worker complaining of back pain special tools, lowering the shelf on which his tools are kept or simply assigning him to a different job.

Supervisors in the control group didn't receive any of this training during phase one of the study. Their training didn't begin until the start of phase two, seven months later. As part of phase one, ergonomics-based design changes were made throughout the plant to the work space of workers in both the intervention and control groups. So the design changes affected the injury claim patterns of both groups.

The Study's Results

The researchers looked at workers' compensation data - including the number of new and existing claims, injury types and total indemnity costs - to evaluate the effectiveness of the supervisor training in reducing worker injuries. They made separate evaluations at the end of each phase.

Phase One: At the end of phase one, there was a 47% reduction in the number of new workers' compensation claims filed by workers supervised by the supervisors in the intervention group, and an 18% reduction in active lost-time claims. There was also a reduction in claims filed by workers supervised by supervisors in the control group, but it wasn't as dramatic. Among control group supervised workers, there was a 19% reduction in new claims and a 7% reduction in active lost-time claims during the same time. These improvements might have been attributable to the ergonomic design changes the plant made.

Phase Two: Like phase one, phase two lasted seven months. During that time, the supervisors in the control group received the same early intervention training provided to the intervention group supervisors during phase one. Results: There was a further 19% reduction in new claims filed by workers supervised by the control group supervisors - for a total reduction of 38% over phases one and two.

Equally significant, there were continued reductions in the number of claims for the intervention group supervisors in phase two, demonstrating that the positive effects of early supervisor intervention are sustainable. And these results weren't temporary, notes Shaw. Both groups showed continued reductions in the number of workers' compensation claims for the seven months following the end of phase two.

What it Means

What do the results of this study mean for you? Training supervisors to be more responsive to workers' health concerns made a "sizable improvement" in the workplace, says Shaw. The study suggests that improving communication between supervisors and workers about ergonomic injuries and other work-related health concerns can reduce a company's workers' compensation costs and lost time, which translates into increased productivity. After supervisors get training on responding to workers' health concerns, supervisors' new willingness to address reports of minor discomfort may prevent symptoms from escalating to disability levels requiring medical treatment, says Shaw. Also, workers may feel more comfortable bringing such concerns to their supervisors. So initially, you may see a spike in the number of reported health concerns, he warns. But ultimately, you'll have fewer reports of serious health concerns, he notes.

Conclusion

Supervisors also play an important role in your return to work program. Next week, we'll discuss another study that looked at those aspects of supervisor involvement most valued by workers for post-injury recovery and return to work.

THIS DATE IN HISTORY

Nero: Didn't fiddle when Rome burned

July 18, 64 A.D.

By Glenn Demby

His real name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, but he was known as Nero. And history "remembers" him for one indelible image: fiddling while Rome burned. But it never happened.

Rome did, in fact, burn. The Great Fire of Rome took place on this date in the year 64 A.D. It started in one of the shops of the Circus Maximus, the city's chariot stadium, and spread to the wooden houses nearby. By the time it ended, the conflagration had flared for five or six days, depending on which historical account you believe. It destroyed two-thirds of the city. Nobody knows how many perished in the flames.

But the part about Nero fiddling is untrue. First of all, Nero couldn't have been playing the fiddle. That instrument hadn't been invented yet. Nero wasn't even in the City during the fire. He was miles away, hanging out at his home in Rome's equivalent of the Hamptons - the coastal resort of Antium.

The Roman historian Tacitus, no friend of Nero's, was 9 years old when the fire occurred. He'd later write that when Nero heard the news that Rome was burning, he donned stage costume and sang the "Sack of Ilium" while strumming his lyre. The account, of course, is impossible to verify.

But one thing is certain. Nero wasn't too unhappy that Rome had been devastated. In fact, Tacitus suggests and many believe that Nero deliberately started the fire because it allowed him to: a. rebuild the City to his liking without the support of the Senate; and b. blame the fire on his political and religious enemies.

Sadly, the Great Fire of Rome was just a prelude of things to come. The City would burn down again just five years later, in 69 A.D., and once after that in 80 A.D. And if Rome wasn't built in a day, it's equally true that it wasn't rebuilt for centuries.

Story Tools:  Email This Post  Print This Post Top