Sensing risk

EXPOSURE TO vibration through the hand and arm system can cause serious vascular, neurological and musculoskeletal damage, which is collectively diagnosed as the industrial disease hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS).

It prevents sufferers from carrying out simple tasks like holding a cup of tea, getting dressed or reading a newspaper. Many HAVS sufferers are forced to change career or stop work entirely.

The disease became prevalent with the increased use of power tools, so much so that the EU in 2002 and the UK in 2005 released regulations to control the potential risk of developing the disease in the workplace.

The regulations require employers to carry out suitable and sufficient assessments of risk, implement occupational health screening when the risk is of a certain level and most importantly reduce the risk to as low as reasonably practicable.

We are now 20 years on from the regulations being released and yet in the past two years the HSE (Health and Safety Executive) has issued significant fines to companies for failing to protect employees from HAVS. These fines have reached as high as two hundred thousand pounds for just two employees being diagnosed with HAVS¹. Not to mention the additional costs for legal fees compensation claims and reputational damage.

But perhaps it should not be surprising that cases of HAVS continue to be reported, as the research which led to the regulations predicted that there is a 10% probability of a worker developing the symptoms if operating at the Exposure Action value for a period of 12 years². Do you know how closely your workers work to the Exposure Action Value. Perhaps you have a risk assessment that says their process does not result in that level of risk. Or perhaps you thought the Exposure Action Value was safe.

How is the risk from exposure to hand-arm vibration assessed and why are some methods not doing enough to keep people from developing the disease? The likelihood of developing the disease is linked to a person’s daily exposure to HAV, which involves determining the duration of exposure and the probable vibration magnitude during exposure.

The term ‘monitoring of HAV’ generally refers to the collecting of the daily HAV exposure data through the course of a working day while using multiple tools as per an individual’s normal working day.

After the release of regulations, many organisations set about monitoring HAV exposure in order to meet their obligations to carry out suitable and sufficient risk assessments. Many approaches to monitoring were adopted from rudimentary logbooks to digital tool timers, but they did not necessarily support the need to reduce the risk to their employees from HAV exposure.

In fact, the approach of simply collecting data can lead to a false sense of security, either because the monitored data is not used to take action against the risk, or because the logged data does not reflect the real-world use of the tool by workers.

As a consequence of the poor practice of monitoring for no real purpose, there is a view from those who govern the regulations that monitoring with no action is worse than no monitoring. So why do people monitor and what is the danger of not monitoring? Many organisations will monitor not to be in compliance with the regulations but to provide evidence of their employee’s HAV exposure for the purpose of defending civil litigation claims.

In an increasingly punitive culture, employers who can evidence what they have exposed their employees to are more likely to fare better when defending claims taken against all previous employers of an individual who can as readily be exposed to HAV in their personal life.

On a more poignant note, there is a direct relationship between the level of exposure to HAV and the likelihood of developing what is a debilitating and irreversible disease. Therefore, from an individual’s perspective, the most certain way of ensuring they are not excessively exposed is to monitor their exposure in the same way that you would use gas detectors to monitor dangerous gases or a dive computer to manage your future dive plans.

In a very detailed work study with a leading utilities company, it was reported that individuals who were deployed to do a very specific task with the same tool type, while deployed in multi-person teams, could face very different levels of HAV exposure.

While nine out of 14 were able to stay under the task-based rick assessment of 140 points, which used ISO standard compliant tool measurements, five were above and one particular individual almost reached the exposure limit value (ELV) and was five times as exposed as some of his colleagues. Only monitoring of the activity could reveal this variability from the task assessment³.

If you have decided on a level of monitoring to manage your employees’ HAV exposure risk, how do you make the most out of that monitoring?

Firstly, ensure that there is a clear intent, supported by allocated responsibilities, to act on the information gained from the monitoring. Choose monitoring technologies that will readily allow the most at-risk workers and greatest risk generators (tool use) to be prioritised in your risk reduction activities.

Secondly ensure that there is a competence within the organisation to choose equipment that will most realistically assess the risk that is being monitored. Key is to appreciate that the vibration level of a tool is not fixed. It depends on the condition of the tool, the accessory used, what the tool is used for and the tool user.

Unfortunately, the standards for measuring a tool’s vibration are not suited to monitoring everyday use. However, emerging wearable technologies are available. Some devices even include an ability to provide data in accordance with the perceived demands of regulations and latest HSE guidance while also providing a practical means of monitoring real use data, which is more likely to reflect the actual exposure of the tool user.

Again, with the right intent, real tool use and exposure data will go further in ensuring the right priorities for operator training, tool maintenance and tool elimination. With the onset of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, where sensors and data-driven decisions can drive effective change, why not use them to drive down this preventable industrial disease?

An effective approach

Making the decision to adopt a more modern and effective approach to risk management is a huge step towards creating a safer and healthier workplace. But when it comes to deciding which platforms, tools, and technologies to use, it can be difficult to sift through what’s available on the market to determine what’s best for your team.

With an abundance of on-body sensors and wearable technology available - each with its own reporting software, datasets, training requirements, and costs - it’s important to find ways to streamline your approach. By opting for a solution that offers a single source of truth for your risk management efforts, you can eliminate confusion, save time, and avoid siloed systems and processes, all while ensuring faster adoption and ease of use.

Your health and safety data isn’t valuable just because it exists. 

To be an asset – and to make an impact – your data must be accessible, understandable, and actionable. If you’re unable to harness the potential of your data, you’re missing out on opportunities to drive better health and safety outcomes for workers, and to increase efficiency and productivity across your organisation. 

For your data to be valuable, you have to be able to understand it, and you have to know how to use it. The right analytics platform for your organisation is one that makes data clear and accessible, and which makes data-driven decision making easier and faster. 

Getting the most from your investment in health and safety solutions requires a deeper understanding of your risk environment. Without a single source of truth for this important data, the information you need is challenging to access, and difficult to leverage. But with a platform that’s designed with your wider organisational and risk landscapes in mind, you can take real control, and make data-backed decisions that protect the health and safety of your workers.

An integrated approach to analytics is the foundation for a workplace that’s built on data and intention, not guesswork or out-of-date methodologies for calculating or managing exposure to risk. With analytics, your data collection and analysis can finally keep up with the pace of your business.

Reactec is a pioneer in modern risk management solutions. R-Link is third-generation workplace wearable technology that’s designed to give teams a 360-degree view of their total risk environment, so that they can improve productivity and efficiency, and drive better health and safety outcomes for workers. Plus, Reactec’s world-class support team offers organisations the help and information they need to get the most from their investment into risk management technology. 

References

1 https://press.hse.gov.uk/2025/05/08/car-dealership-fined-after-employees-exposed-to-risks-from-vibrating-tools/ 
2 ISO 5349-1:2001(en) Mechanical vibration — Measurement and evaluation of human exposure to hand-transmitted vibration.  Annex C
3 https://www.reactec.com/workplace-risks/evidence/utility-company-case-study/

Jacqui McLaughlin is CEO of Reactec. For more information, visit www.reactec.com