You must answer question 1 and question 2, and you have a choice of 2 out of the other 3 questions. you can choose question1, 2, 4, 5 to make some answer.1,000 word limit (not including references, diagrams or the original questions).
Occupational Hygiene and Ergonomics Occupational Hygiene Tutorial Questions Instructions: You must answer question 1 and question 2, and you have a choice of 2 out of the other 3 questions. Then you should make some comments on the responses of the other students in the period 10 - 17 October (student allocations will be advised soon) A total of at least 3 comments is expected. You should provide comments as follows: For example, you can cite a relevant journal article, refer to what happens in your industry or country, relate the issue to your own personal experience, amplify a certain point etc. The purposes of the Tutorial are to consider challenging questions that relate to occupational health, learn from each other and to stimulate discussion. Twenty marks will be allocated to your initial response, and five marks for the number and quality of your subsequent comments on other students work. *Please create a new thread for your initial response on the Discussion Board. 1,000 word limit (not including references, diagrams or the original questions). Each question is worth 5 marks. Question 1: (compulsory) Healthcare workers dealing with COVID-19 patients are at increased risk of SARS CoV-2 viral infection. One of the key hazard control options is the use of tight fitting P2/N95 respirators, rather than surgical masks. (1) Watch the following You Tube video on N95 respirators, to find out how they work. https://youtu.be/eAdanPfQdCA (2) Read the article by Ahmad et al., Organizational Issues in Implementation of a Large-Scale, Quantitative Respirator Fit–Testing Program. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. 2010, vol. 31, 971-2. And also (3) https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2020/fit-testing-n95p2-masks-protect-health-care-workers What issues have been identified in setting up a respirator fit testing program for healthcare workers? Which healthcare workers do you think should have priority supply and fit testing? (e.g. should GPs be wearing respirators?) Question 2 (compulsory): You have been asked to provide some commentary on the following video produced for “Safe Work Month” https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/media-centre/working-safely-chemicals or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ0e39NCxy4&gl=AU What forms of chemical hazard control have been portrayed in 1. The hair and beauty Industry 2. Firefighting 3. The hazardous waste industry Are there any issues with the control measures portrayed? Are they likely to be effective and how would you know? Is there anything else that could (or should be) done to reduce exposure and minimise risk? Question 3: (optional) The following situation represents an interesting opportunity to apply what we have learned in this course. Please read the story below, about a mysterious illness affecting US consulate workers in China. Imagine that you are a health and safety adviser to the American Consulate. You have been asked to provide a preliminary report to the US State Department. How will you investigate the illnesses and the factors that might be associated with the illnesses? You should apply an occupational health framework for investigating this issue, and propose possible risk factors to be followed up by relevant occupational health professionals. Think about possible health hazards that might be present in offices or apartments, which sorts of health and safety professionals might be involved in the investigation and their roles, how you might identify the hazard by interviews, observations, measurements etc. What questions would you ask and of whom? What observations should be made? What measurements might be needed and where? Think also about risk management and communication options for those who are still working in the Consulate. A Medical Mystery Grows as U.S. Consulate Workers in China Fall Ill https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/06/world/asia/china-guangzhou-consulate-sonic-attack.html GUANGZHOU, China — A crisis over a mysterious ailment sickening American diplomats and their families — which began in Cuba and recently appeared in China — has widened as the State Department evacuated at least two more Americans from China on Wednesday. The Americans who were evacuated worked at the American Consulate in the southern city of Guangzhou, and their colleagues and family members are being tested by a State Department medical team, officials said. It is unclear how many of them are exhibiting symptoms, but a State Department spokeswoman said Wednesday evening that “a number of individuals” had been sent to the United States for further testing. For months, American officials have been worried that their diplomats have been subjected to targeted attacks involving odd sounds, leading to symptoms similar to those “following concussion or minor traumatic brain injury,” the State Department says. The cases in China have broadened a medical mystery that started in 2016, when American Embassy employees and their family members began falling ill in Havana. In all, 24 of them were stricken with headaches, nausea, hearing loss, cognitive issues and other symptoms after saying they heard odd sounds. The issue has roiled relations with Cuba, which immediately fell under suspicion, and led the United States to expel Cuban diplomats. But with Americans now exhibiting similar symptoms in Guangzhou, American officials have raised suspicions about whether other countries, perhaps China or Russia, might be to blame. The new illnesses in China come just weeks after American officials reported finding their first case here in Guangzhou, where a consulate employee got sick. Some American officials in this city live in apartment complexes filled with other foreigners and wealthy Chinese; that is where the ailing employees were subjected to unusual noises. But it remains unclear whether the illnesses are the result of attacks at all. Other theories have included toxins, listening devices that accidentally emitted harmful sounds or even mass hysteria. The mystery spread to China this spring, when the first employee fell ill, and fears escalated last month when the government warned other employees to seek medical attention if they experienced unusual ailments. So far this week, another employee, his wife and their two children were evacuated after the parents exhibited neurological symptoms. Officials said they expected that at least some others would be flown out of the country as well. The illnesses appear more widespread than the State Department initially reported last month, when it said that one person had “reported subtle and vague, but abnormal, sensations of sound and pressure.” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said last month at a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that the symptoms of the first American employee in Guangzhou to report being ill “are very similar and entirely consistent with the medical indications that have taken place to Americans working in Cuba. There are roughly 170 American diplomats or employees in Guangzhou, as well as their family members, and a senior American official said a sizable number had undergone or would soon undergo testing by the State Department doctors who arrived on May 31. The officials cautioned that no final determination had been made about what caused the illnesses. The latest American employee evacuated from Guangzhou is Mark A. Lenzi, a security engineering officer at the consulate. He left Wednesday evening with his wife and two children after having suffered in recent months from what he described in an interview as neurological symptoms. On Tuesday, Mr. Pompeo said in a statement that the symptoms in the first case discovered in Guangzhou were similar to the ones experienced by the 24 Americans who became ill in Havana. He said that the cause had not yet been established. SOURCE: OCC-ENV-MED-L Digest for Thursday, June 07, 2018. Question 4: (optional) You have been appointed health and safety adviser to a medium sized company manufacturing souvenirs for the upcoming visit of Pope Francis. There are a number of processes – ·metal cutting, grinding and buffing, ·spray painting with solvent based paint, ·assembly work with various tools including hammers and compressed air driven tools. The large workroom is noisy with an obvious solvent odour. Due to tight deadlines, the 20 skilled workers are working 12 hours a day, and there are also 10 new unskilled casual workers. Discuss the steps you would take to evaluate occupational health risks from noise. Outline the elements of an occupational noise management program for the company. Question 5: (Optional) What do you understand by the term "biological monitoring" (for chemical exposure)? Describe the benefits and drawbacks of biological monitoring compared with personal air sampling. Imagine that there is a group of workers where both biological monitoring and air monitoring data are available. The health and safety representative is concerned that the two sets of data do not correlate very well. For some workers, biological monitoring data are high, yet the air concentrations are low for all workers. What are some potential problems in trying to correlate the results of personal air monitoring with those of biological monitoring for the same workers? How would you explain the possible discrepancy to the health and safety representative? It may be helpful to use a hypothetical example to illustrate your answer. (e.g. lead exposure in battery making) infection control and hospital epidemiology september 2010, vol. 31, no. 9 r e s e a r c h b r i e f s Organizational Issues in Implementation of a Large-Scale, Quantitative Respirator Fit–Testing Program Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at risk of developing res- piratory infection when they treat contagious patients, as oc- curs during influenza pandemics. The literature supports the need for practical training in the use of personal protective equipment, and theoretical knowledge is insufficient.1-4 Ac- cordingly, one of the mandatory elements of the US Occu- pational Safety and Health Administration’s Respiratory Pro- tection Standard (29 CFR 1910.134) is to fit test and train workers in proper donning and doffing of respirators and to check the facial seal.5 However, to our knowledge, the issues involved in imple- menting a respirator fit–testing (RFT) program for a large and distributed healthcare workforce have not been reported, especially from the perspective of those implementing the program. We wanted to identify barriers and facilitating fac- tors related to RFT programs, and we based our study on a large-scale, quantitative RFT program implemented by the South Australian Department of Health during the period October 2006 through July 2007 as part of their pandemic influenza response planning. In this statewide program, ap- proximately 6,000 frontline HCWs were fit tested, including HCWs from public and private hospitals, community health services, and private medical practices (see the article by Wil- kinson et al6 in this issue of the journal for a description of the quantitative aspects of the program). RFT was performed using TSI PortaCount Plus instruments and with different brands of disposable P2 or N95 respirators. In a centrally coordinated arrangement, 36 fit-testers with nursing back- grounds—and typically no prior RFT experience—were re- cruited and trained. They were located in various healthcare facilities across the state and conducted one-on-one fit testing of the HCW. Several months after completion of the program, 8 fit- testers participated in 2 focus groups, and 2 were interviewed. Although participation was voluntary, these 10 testers were representative of the total group, as judged according to sex distribution (9 female and