We
know
that
hazard
identification
and
risk
assessment
is
an
important
first
step
for
workplaces.
But
we
wonder:
How
effective
and
informative
are
current
workplace
risk
assessment
approaches,
especially
for
small
and
medium
sized
enterprises
that
employ
the
majority
of
workers?
There
is
a
wide
variety
of
hazard
identification
and
risk
assessment
approaches
that
include
interviews,
questionnaires,
observational
approaches
and
pencil
and
paper
tools
with
scoring
systems
to
estimate
risk
or
intervention
priorities.
But
little
has
been
done
to
document
their
measurement
characteristics
such
as
their
reliability
between
people
or
over
time
or
their
responsiveness
to
workplace
change.
More
technically
demanding
methods
are
available
and
are
used
in
research
and
some
epidemiological
studies,
however
we
have
found
that
these
are
infrequently
used,
except
by
some
experts.
Two
other
important
issues
relate
to
the
effectiveness
of
risk
assessment
approaches.
The
first
problem
results
from
the
typical
dominance
of
physical
risk
factor
assessments
and
the
resulting
blindness
to
psychosocial
factors
and
their
connected
workplace
organizational
factors.
Interventions
on
potentially
critical
work
organizational
factors
may
not
be
vigorously
pursued
or
may
be
seen
as
outside
the
realm
of
MSD
prevention.
The
other
is
that
high
levels
of
risk
factors
are
relatively
easy
to
document,
even
with
moderate
training
and
simple
tools,
but,
because
the
risk
factors
for
MSDs
are
ubiquitous,
some
judgment
of
the
level
of
risk
is
needed
for
prioritization.
The
utility
of
developing
thresholds
and
limit
values
enters
the
discussion
at
this
point.
As
the
worst
exposures
are
eliminated
-
the
low
hanging
fruit
-
identifying
further
risks
becomes
increasingly
difficult
without
more
training
and
better
tools.
Yet
little
attention
has
been
paid
to
the
training
required
to
use
even
simple
tools
effectively.
For more information, read the editorial Why have we not solved the MSD problem?, by Dr. Richard Wells.