Blood Pressure /Health and fitness

TCC GROUP 'ONSITE SAFE'Blood pressure rises along with work hours

People working more than 51 hours at the office each week were 29 per cent more likely to have high blood pressure than those who worked 39 hours or less, a new US study has found. The study also found lower grade jobs were also linked to raised blood pressure.

To investigate whether more time on the job could drive up hypertension risk, researchers looked at a representative sample of 24,305 California adults who worked 11 hours or more each week. They found the likelihood of having high blood pressure rose steadily with the number of hours worked, and persisted even after adjusting for factors such as socioeconomic status and body weight.

Compared to those working 39 hours or less, the increased risk of high blood pressure was: 14 per cent greater at 40 hours per week, 17 per cent greater for 41 to 50 hours weekly it, and 29 per cent greater for 51 hours or more. The researchers also found that hypertension was more common among clerical and unskilled workers than among professionals. Dr Haiou Yang of the University of California said the study 'suggests that occupations requiring more challenging and mentally active work may have a protective effect against hypertension.' Almost all of the developed world has legislation limiting work hours, except for the United States, the researchers noted. Although in Australia, federal laws providing ‘flexibility’ may lead to longer and poorly paid hours.
In June, Canadian researchers confirmed that chronic job stress can raise blood pressure, and that high job demands, tight deadlines and low support in the workplace appeared to be triggers, particularly in men (SafetyNet 94).
Reuters Health. Haiou Yang, Peter L Schnall and others. Work hours and self-reported hypertension among working people in California, Hypertension, published online 28 August 2006, doi:10.1161/01.HYP.0000238327.41911.52 [abstract]. Center for Social Epidemiology.
Source: Risks 272
also see;OHS Reps @ Work website & The SafetyNet JOURNAL

TCC GROUP 'ONSITE SAFE'

TCC GROUP 'ONSITE SAFE'
Equipment checking and maintenance

Recently an issue arose where the work crew were complaining that onsite equipment maintenence was not being done and the relevant person who did general maintenance was not doing their job and endangering other workers potentially!?
Lets unpack this a bit.Sure designated roles for maintenance make certain staff responsible for maintenance activities,but actual onsite/in situ safety precautions and prestarts/JHAS should be in use helping to identify potential hazards/as well as slack maintenance.In reality we rely on both our own preventative measures and responsibility to make equipment and environments safe.It is not just one persons job.So blaming someone who is remote from the job will not prevent an accident /hazard occuring.Its a shared responsibility.If we can fix an issue at its origin and feedback improvements taht can be made and participating...being part of the maintenance team, things will improve.Its the obligation of every worker and employer to take full responsibility for circumstances that could arise.This doesnt mean that serious feedback is not given back to the maintence section with suggestions of how it could be improved...both procedure and equipment selection.Each link in the chain requires good communication to increase safe working.If at any stage there is an abdication of responsibility the system doesn't work.Maintenance and safety go hand in hand...with one being the preventative and the other the last line of precaution.Innovations that increase safety and efficiency can only take place if communication is maintained and feedback captured and acted upon continuously and not in a reactive manner.All are links in the chain.The hardest part is accepting responsibility for our own actions and participating to make the appropriate changes in a system of work.In the situation sited...I believe the role was vaguely described and understood by the worker...but in addition the job was too burdensome...with not enough time available to do a thorough job.In addition some workers wanted not just improved controls...but were not willing to do basic prestart preventative maintenance onsite to make a situation safe.It wasnt all bad though.These issues were addressed at a toolbox and cited there as well as suggestions being made for equipment changes/replacements.Still Prestarts and the jha are the failsafes.Now we need to just trial legal equipment and increase levels of communication and maintenace amongst the crew.Changes have to be made as the reflection and feedback is given.Perhaps an overall maintenance strategy needs to be put in place and a database/scheduling maintained...something to think about anyway.!