Occupational Safety And Health Administration Standards Research Articles

Safety Audit Considerations for a Healthy Workplace that Puts «People Before Profit» and OSHA Compliance

Every organization should provide a safe and healthy workplace for all stakeholders by putting “people before profit”. Such a workplace must be consciously created, assessed, and internally examined through regular audits before the government conducts their inspections. Business owners, managers, and employees should know that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspections do not always come with a warning, as inspectors can enter a business at any day or time without scheduling their arrival. As such, all employees must work safely and be prepared for an unannounced inspection. Every business should have a formal checklist for audits and daily usage on a periodic basis to ensure the safety of their workers in a healthy work environment. The benefits of implementing an effective safety and health program can be many, including higher optimism of the workforce, improved company reputation, and lower Workers’ Compensation Insurance rates. This paper provides an overview of common safety measures in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements. Data, statistics, examples, checklist recommendations, and audit suggestions are provided for managers and human resource professionals to internally assess the organization on a periodic basis to proactively prevent accidents, injuries, and possible citations by the federal government or state health inspectors. Managers must pay even closer attention and provide additional training for underage school children that work part-time as they are more vulnerable and not allowed to use certain machines and heavy equipment in the workplace. Leaders and managers must develop and emphasize a “people before profit” mindset to create an organizational culture that is focused on safe work practices. It is important that all managers and human resources professionals understand that all USA companies must provide their employees with a safe and healthy work environment. Furthermore, these professionals must know the OSHA regulations and state laws which are applicable to their firms and industries so that the organization can be in full compliance with the requirements. Of course, we recommend that managers and firms go above and beyond the law to put “people before profit” in the organization’s culture. The Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970, which is enforced by OSHA, has done an excellent job of getting managers and human resource professionals to make sure their places of work are as safe as possible. They have produced many great informational content and training materials that are freely available for all workers, managers, owners, and corporate executives to use in their pursuit of a safe and wholesome workplace. Consequently, OSHA standards and rules have become a part of corporate America, which has been a positive approach. A practical example that most American workers are familiar with is the “Fire Safety” procedures as all employers have a Fire Prevention Plan. Consequently, most firms and institutions in the United States regularly practice for fire safety drills; as such, it has become a part of their organization’s culture. And so should be the mindset of putting “people before profit”.

Development of a qualitative respirator fit testing program for BSN students

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the nursing student clinical experience. At the time of this project, hospitals hosting students for clinical experiences had a high population of COVID-19 positive patients. University and hospital policies at the time prohibited students from caring for COVID-19 patients due to the inability to safely ensure that students could access the proper protective equipment (PPE) necessary when caring for patients in airborne precautions. Infection control guidelines for patients in airborne precautions require a N95 respirator to be always worn by healthcare providers. These respirators require yearly fit test following OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards. Hospitals do have the resources to complete N95 fit tests for nursing students. The solution was to provide qualitative N95 mask fit testing, performed by university faculty, staff, and students using OSHA guidelines and standards. Within 3 months, over 50% of the student population had been fit tested, which increased the clinical opportunities for the students.

Changing attitudes about workplace violence: Improving safety in an acute care environment.

The United States Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) defines workplace violence (WPV) as any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the work site. OSHA recognizes that WPV ranges from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults and even homicide. There are no OSHA standards specifically related to WPV however the General Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1) of the OSHA Act of 1970, requires employers to provide a workplace that is free of conditions that could cause death or serious harm to employees. The Joint Commission published standards in 2022 related to WPV. The standards require a proactive analysis of the organization relative to WPV. Monitoring of events and training of staff are also required. This article will explore one hospital's journey to understand the frequency and types of violence experienced by nurses in the facility; implement evidence-based strategies to mitigate violence in the hospital; maintain compliance with regulatory and accrediting bodies; and most importantly, to protect our staff from harm.

Novel 3D printable powered air purifying respirator for emergency use during PPE shortage of the COVID-19 pandemic: a study protocol and device safety analysis

ObjectivesTo design a low-cost 3D printable powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) that meets National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) standard for flow rate and Occupational Safety and Health Administration...

Quantitative Fit Tested N95 Respirator-Alternatives Generated With CT Imaging and 3D Printing: A Response to Potential Shortages During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Rationale and ObjectiveThree-dimensional (3D) printing allows innovative solutions for personal protective equipment, particularly in times of crisis. Our goal was to generate an N95-alternative 3D-printed respirator that passed Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-certified quantitative fit testing during the COVID-19 pandemic.Materials and Methods3D printed prototypes for N95 solutions were created based on the design of commercial N95 respirators. Computed tomography imaging was performed on an anthropomorphic head phantom wearing a commercially available N95 respirator and these facial contour data was used in mask prototyping. Prototypes were generated using rigid and flexible polymers. According to OSHA standards, prototypes underwent subsequent quantitative respirator fit testing on volunteers who passed fit tests on commercial N95 respirators.ResultsA total of 10 prototypes were 3D printed using both rigid (n = 5 designs) and flexible materials (n = 5 designs), Prototypes generated with rigid printing materials (n = 5 designs) did not pass quantitative respirator fit testing. Three of the five prototypes with flexible materials failed quantitative fit testing. The final two prototypes designs passed OSHA-certified quantitative fit tests with an overall mean fit factor of 138 (passing is over 100).ConclusionThrough rapid prototyping, 3D printed N95 alternative masks were designed with topographical facial computed tomography data to create mask facial contour and passed OSHA-certified quantitative respiratory testing when flexible polymer was used. This mask design may provide an alternative to disposable N95 respirators in case of pandemic-related shortages. Furthermore, this approach may allow customization for those that would otherwise fail fit testing on standard commercial respirators.

Safety of Drilling 3-Dimensional–Printed Temporal Bones

Three-dimensional (3-D) printing of temporal bones is becoming more prevalent. However, there has been no measure of the safety of drilling these models to date. It is unknown whether the heat and sheer from the drill may create harmful volatile organic compounds (VOCs). To determine the level of exposure to airborne contaminants when conducting high-speed drilling on 3-D-printed models and to explore whether there is a need for exposure control measures. In this occupational safety assessment carried out in a temporal bone laboratory, 3 individual 3-D-printed temporal bones were made using 3 different materials commonly cited in the literature: polylactic acid (PLA), photoreactive acrylic resin (PAR), and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS). Each model was drilled for 40 minutes while the surgeon wore a sampling badge. Sampling was conducted for airborne concentrations of VOCs and total particulate (TP). Monitoring for VOCs was conducted using Assay Technology 521-25 organic vapor badge worn at the surgeon's neckline. Monitoring for TP was conducted using a polyvinyl chloride filter housed inside a cassette and coupled with an SKC AirChek 52 personal air-sampling pump. Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with NIOSH Method 500. Presence of VOCs and TP count exposures at Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) actionable levels. Results of the VOC sample were less than detection limits except for isopropyl alcohol at 0.24 ppm for PAR. The TP samples were less than the detection limit of 1.4 mg/m3. The results are below all applicable OSHA Action Levels and Permissible Exposure Limits for all contaminants sampled for. Drilling 3-D-printed models made from PLA, ABS, and PAR was safe by OSHA standards. Continued monitoring and safety testing are needed as 3-D-printed technologies are introduced to our specialty.

Evaluation of noise hazard during the holmium laser enucleation of prostate

BackgroundTo evaluate noise hazard during holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), we designed a study to detect such a risk in this procedure.MethodsThis study was conducted over a 12-month period on 223 patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), 121 of whom underwent HoLEP while those remaining underwent transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). A sound level meter was used to detect the exposure of surgeons to noise. The recordings used were in accordance with the standards set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Moreover, each of the 43 surgeons participating in a BPH discussion conference answered the questionnaire on the influence of noise, and 33 surgeons in our department volunteered for blood pressure monitoring post-surgically.ResultsThe sound level produced by a high-powered holmium laser emitter during HoLEP was 67.37 ± 0.13 dB, which was significantly higher than the sound heard during TURP (46.41 ± 0.29 dB, P < 0.01). The 65–70 dB noise during HoLEP was proved to be a safe level in accordance with the OSHA standards. However, this level was considerably greater than the stated 55 dB. Moreover, it exceeded the normal communication protective level of 60 dB. In the analysis of responses from the surgeons, the HoLEP group obtained an average score that reflected disturbance caused by the laser emitter and an increase in average systolic pressure relative to that in the TURP group.ConclusionsThe noise level during HoLEP is within hearing conservation levels. However, the noise disturbs intrateam communication and concentration during surgery. Some surgeons may experience discomfort post-surgically, but no significant difference among the groups is indicated. The findings suggest that measures should be taken to address the noise caused by the laser emitter during HoLEP.

Carbon Dioxide Exposure Resulting From Hood Protective Equipment Used in Joint Arthroplasty Surgery

BackgroundTo protect both the surgeon and patient during procedures, hooded protection shields are used during joint arthroplasty procedures. Headache, malaise, and dizziness, consistent with increased carbon dioxide (CO2) exposure, have been anecdotally reported by surgeons using hoods. We hypothesized that increased CO2 concentrations were causing reported symptoms. MethodsSix healthy subjects (4 men) donned hooded protection, fan at the highest setting. Arm cycle ergometry at workloads of 12 and 25 watts (W) simulated workloads encountered during arthroplasty. Inspired O2 and CO2 concentrations at the nares were continuously measured at rest, 12 W, and 25 W. At each activity level, the fan was deactivated and the times for CO2 to reach 0.5% and 1.0% were measured. ResultsAt rest, inspired CO2 was 0.14% ± 0.04%. Exercise had significant effect on CO2 compared with rest (0.26% ± 0.08% at 12 W, P = .04; 0.31% ± 0.05% at 25 W, P = .003). Inspired CO2 concentration increased rapidly with fan deactivation, with the time for CO2 to increase to 0.5% and 1.0% after fan deactivation being rapid but variable (0.5%, 12 ± 9 seconds; 1%, 26 ± 15 seconds). Time for CO2 to return below 0.5% after fan reactivation was 20 ± 37 seconds. ConclusionDuring simulated joint arthroplasty, CO2 remained within Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards with the fan at the highest setting. With fan deactivation, CO2 concentration rapidly exceeds OSHA standards.

A Measure of Acoustic Noise Generated From Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Coils

The intensity of sound emanating from the discharge of magnetic coils used in repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can potentially cause acoustic trauma. Per Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards for safety of noise exposure, hearing protection is recommended beyond restricted levels of noise and time limits. We measured the sound pressure levels (SPLs) from four rTMS coils with the goal of assessing if the acoustic artifact levels are of sufficient amplitude to warrant protection from acoustic trauma per OSHA standards. We studied the SPLs at two frequencies (5and 10 Hz), three machine outputs (MO) (60, 80 and 100%), and two distances from the coil (5 and 10cm). We found that the SPLs were louder at closer proximity from the coil and directly dependent on the MO. We also found that in all studied conditions, SPLs were lower than the OSHA permissible thresholds for short (<15 min) acoustic exposure, but at extremes of use, may generate sufficient noise to warrant ear protection with prolonged (>8 h) exposure.

Audiometers—A Closer Look

Audiometers—A Closer Look

Children's Environmenal Health: The School Environment

Children's Environmenal Health: The School Environment

Guidance for Occupational Health Services in Medical Centers

Guidance for Occupational Health Services in Medical Centers

Certifying That Existing Suspended Scaffold Structural Support Elements and Lifeline Anchorages Comply with Federal OSHA Requirements

The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) maintains standards (Standards) that define structural requirements for elements that support suspended scaffolds and fall arrest lanyards when this equipment is used to access facades and other elevated portions of buildings. The Standards are available online at www.osha.gov. Ensuring that applicable requirements are met is the responsibility of a qualified person—typically a professional engineer. However, navigating and applying the OSHA structural provisions can be difficult primarily because relevant requirements are not located in a single document, structural requirements vary for different uses, and structural requirements are not always written in a manner consistent with typical structural engineering practice. The rational application of key OSHA structural provisions when designing suspended scaffold support elements and lifeline anchorages is the subject of a companion paper, “Designing Suspended Scaffold Structural Support Elements and Lifeline Anchorages in Conformance with Federal OSHA Requirements,” which is included in this publication. The objective of this paper is to promote the rational application of sound engineering principles when certifying the adequacy of existing elements and their compliance with OSHA Standards. Unfortunately, certain trends and recent developments in the facade access equipment industry have made proper certification more difficult than it needs to be; irrational approaches and conclusions are, at times, actually encouraged by industry groups.

Determination of size fractions and concentrations of airborne particulate matter generated from construction and demolition waste processing facilities

Construction and Demolition (C&D) processing and recycling facilities accept waste materials that are generated during construction and demolition activities. The processing facility sorts, processes, and transfers the material to another operation. Active stationary particulate sampling devices were employed to quantify the particle sizes of interest. Results were compared to United States Environmental Protection Agency National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards. Airborne particulate levels were found to be higher inside of buildings even when minimal activity is taking place. Interior road type seems to impact airborne particulate levels, and misting activities can significantly reduce the amount of airborne particulate matter exiting a building. The data indicate that C&D processing facilities may exceed current NAAQS at certain locations but do not exceed OSHA standards.

Improving Compliance With Occupational Safety and Health Administration Standards

Health care facilities can be dangerous places. The mission of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is to improve the safety of the American workplace by developing and implementing standards that prevent occupational injury, illness, and death. Perioperative services are performed in environments where exposure to bloodborne pathogens is a daily occurrence, making implementation and compliance with OSHA standards very important. Employees and employers must remain current with workplace safety requirements, including use of personal protective equipment. This article presents implications of the OSHA standards for employers, educators, and employees.

A Contemporary Evaluation of the Auditory Hazard of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy

Previous publications have suggested that prolonged exposure to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) may lead to hearing damage and that hearing protection should be used. We sought to determine the auditory risk associated with ESWL in regard to patients and operating room personnel in a contemporary setting. A single day study was performed during which 5 patients were treated with ESWL via a Dornier Compact Delta lithotripter (Dornier MedTech America Inc, Kennesaw, Georgia). A sound level meter was used to evaluate the noise exposure to the patient, ESWL technician, anesthesia personnel, and the treating urologist. Multiple readings were taken at each station and during each treatment session while the patient was treated at maximum intensity level. These recordings were then averaged and referenced to published Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards. The greatest level of noise exposure was found to be at the head of the patient, with an average reading of 89 decibels (dB). The readings at the lithotripter technician's station averaged 84 dB. The anesthetist and urologist were exposed to average sound levels of 81 and 79 dB, respectively. All readings at each evaluated station evidenced a level of exposure considered safe by OSHA standards, which permit 8 hours of exposure to 90 dB per day. Contemporary ESWL does not pose a significant auditory hazard to either the patient or operating room personnel by OSHA standards. Thus, in reference to these standards, hearing protection for the parties involved is not considered mandatory.

Long-term ethylene oxide exposure trends in US hospitals: relationship with OSHA regulatory and enforcement actions.

We assessed long-term trends in ethylene oxide (EtO) worker exposures for the purposes of exposure surveillance and evaluation of the impacts of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 1984 and 1988 EtO standards. We obtained exposure data from a large commercial vendor and processor of EtO passive dosimeters. Personal samples (87,582 workshift [8-hr] and 46,097 short-term [15-min] samples) from 2265 US hospitals were analyzed for time trends from 1984 through 2001 and compared with OSHA enforcement data. Exposures declined steadily for the first several years after the OSHA standards were set. Workshift exposures continued to taper off and have remained low and constant through 2001. However, since 1996, the probability of exceeding the short-term excursion limit has increased. This trend coincides with a decline in enforcement of the EtO standard. Results indicate the need for renewed intervention efforts to preserve gains made following the passage and implementation of the 1984 and 1988 EtO standards.

Medical removal protection benefits: The special challenges of Beryllium

AbstractDuring the 1990s, the Department of Energy (DOE) established a Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program and revised regulations for beryllium exposure to DOE and contractor employees. DOE beryllium regulations include “medical surveillance” of potentially exposed workers, along with “medical removal protection benefits” for beryllium‐sensitized workers. Medical removal benefits were first introduced into individual standards of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), beginning with a standard for asbestos in 1972. DOE modeled its medical removal protection benefits for beryllium in part on OSHA standards for lead and cadmium. But DOE also recognized significant differences in the toxicology of beryllium compared to these other metals. We survey OSHA standards for medical removal protection, provide a comparison with beryllium, and identify potential limits in beryllium protection benefits. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Assessing the accuracy of OSHA's projections of the benefits of new safety standards

In the preambles to the safety and health standards that it has issued since 1987, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) projected that new safety standards would prevent over 2,600 death each year. For six safety standards issued since 1990, we compare OSHA's projections of the impact of full compliance on fatalities with actual fatality changes and examine the reasons for the differences. We reviewed the preambles to OSHA standards and the Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs) prepared for them to identify the baseline and the prevention factor that the agency used to project the number of deaths that would be prevented. We used three data sources to track the relevant categories of fatalities: the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), the National Traumatic Occupational Fatality program, and OSHAs Fatality/Catastrophe investigations. For all six standards, OSHA appeared to overestimate the number of deaths prevented. The availability of CFOI led to better estimates of the fatality baseline, but the prevention factor was always overestimated, especially for standards which emphasized training. OSHA needs to develop better methods for projecting injury impacts. Research is needed to help OSHA predict the effects of behavioral requirements (e.g., training) on actual work practices and injury outcomes. For non-fatal injuries, new methods of data collection will be required.

Effectiveness of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Citations

Construction safety is gaining recognition as a keystone of the construction process. The increase in both insurance costs and workers’ compensation makes it necessary to eliminate worksite accidents. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 was established to provide guidelines for safe worksite practices and to ensure the safety of the workers. Often, the citations that are issued to the employers by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) compliance officers are disputed and brought before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) to decide if the citations were representative of actual violations. This process results in lengthy court cases and increased cost due to the cumulative costs of legal and other services. Two hundred fifty-five OSHA citations were decided by the OSHRC during the years 1991–1993. These 255 cases included 884 violations of OSHA Standards 29 CRF 1926. Out of these 884 violations, 56% were affirmed, 18% were modified, and 26% were vacated by the OSHRC. The most frequently contested violations belonged to Subpart D—Occupational Health and Environmental Controls (118 violations), Subpart P—Excavations (103 violations), and Subpart K—Electrical (90 violations). In the majority of cases, the arguments centered around the vagueness in the interpretation of OSHA standards. Several standards, for example, simply read that the employer must provide safety equipment. While the employer interpreted this to mean “make available,” OSHA interpreted it to mean “require use of.” Also, the large size of each of the standards makes it very difficult for middle managers who supervise safety at worksites to study and comply with each and every standard. In spite of the best worksite safety program provided by the employers, it is highly unlikely that an OSHRC compliance officer would depart any given worksite without citing a minimum of three violations. This statistic makes employers wary of the visiting OSHRC compliance officer. The research conducted at the Construction Safety and Health Institute, State University of New York at Buffalo, has analyzed three consecutive years of OSHRC decisions, with the following objectives: (1) guiding the employers in interpreting OSHA standards as OSHA and OSHRC see them; (2) providing a convincing discussion on the fact that OSHA should revisit its standards with an aim toward clarity; and (3) establishing a decision model that can be used by the contesting parties to avoid OSHA citations.