The ULAM established proactive procedures that have since become standard practice. The University’s case study is relevant to all such facilities, especially older ones that lack modern technological and safety advances, notes Wayne DeSantis, vice president of animal care supply company Tecniplast USA Inc.

“These issues are common to all vivaria,” he says.

The University of Michigan’s ULAM oversees 17 vivaria used in biomedical research throughout the University. The decentralized vivarium space accounts for approximately 142,000 sf. The unit employs more than 100 people, with an average daily census of 168,136 mice (98 percent of the population is rodents).

“Limited space and the daily tasks at hand, combined with the use of older equipment and/or technology adds to the  ergonomic concerns,” explains Daphne Molnar, staff training supervisor for the unit. “Ergonomics simply is matching the workplace and the work tasks with the worker.”

During a 2005 site visit, the Association for Assessment and Accreditation for Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) recommended that ULAM increase its involvement with the University’s Occupational Safety and Environmental (OSEH) division as a result of the high incidence of injuries.

“We were trying to address issues but our efforts weren’t working, so we decided to take a more aggressive approach after the AAALAC visit,” says Molnar. “We were doing one-time training sessions and having the therapist come out more in a reactive stance. Now, we are trying to take a proactive approach by providing both training and routine work-site visits, called walk-abouts.”

MSDs Result in Injuries and Lost Time

The majority of injuries experienced by ULAM workers were musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). These disorders affect nerves, tendons and blood vessels and are related to repeated exertions or movements from which the body often can’t recover (since many of the movements—reaching, lifting, pushing, pulling—are repeated outside the workplace). In the University’s case, the main causes of injury were repetitive motion, awkward or sustained postures, prolonged standing, excessive force, and contact stress.

In 2005, 71 percent of ULAM’s injuries were MSDs; in 2006 they accounted for 52 percent; in 2007 they accounted for 63 percent. Though the University did not analyze the financial impact, injuries affect the bottom line. Injured workers average seven days of missed work or restricted capacity, and during that time receive compensation. Plus, the University cannot hire someone else to replace them, Molnar explains.

The University’s initial employee training sessions outline the importance of behaviors such as bending at the knees and keeping nose and toes pointed in the same direction. Early on, the University responded to workplace issues by purchasing adjustable laminar flow hoods. The equipment adjusts to different heights, so people can work at their own comfort level.

Committee Aggressively Tackles Safety Issues

After the AAALAC visit, in the fall of 2005, the University teamed with an occupational therapist on a regular basis to provide mandatory training to the entire staff.

“We had a lot of feedback and encouraged all of our staff to participate and tell us their concerns,” says Molnar.

Using photographs of ULAM employees at work, the therapist meets with all new hires within their first 30 to 60 days of employment. The presentation discusses both the safety issues and how they can be addressed. This meeting also provides examples of bending, lifting, and stretching exercises.

The ULAM department also formed a Safety Committee (SC) to address the major concerns presented by staff.  The SC is comprised of a diverse group of people, including technicians, cagewash staff, purchasing support specialist, a member of the school’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, and a UM OSEH representative. The SC is led by both the UM occupational therapist (OTR) and Molnar.

“The diversity brings a lot of different ideas and work experiences together, and we are able to brainstorm alternatives,” she adds.

The Safety Committee listened to staff concerns and compiled a summary of the University’s concerns. The institution’s concerns included lifting/carrying heavy items; pushing/pulling tall, heavy equipment; worn wheels on carts and flatbeds; a lack of acceptance of wearing required personal protection equipment (PPE); reaching into tunnel washers; and stacking items too high.

The committee now meets every other month to review injury reports, re-evaluate what’s being done, and review new concerns. Safety Committee members also disperse the latest information on ergonomics. The University has an Enhanced Ergonomic Awareness Program that provides updated health and safety news.

The University also created a Workplace Safety Survey and applied for ergonomics grants to help pay for the initiative. The survey allowed employees to anonymously submit concerns. The surveys aren’t used much anymore, since workers have become comfortable approaching Molnar, who frequently visits the work sites with both the OSEH representative and OTR during routine walk-abouts.

“More people just come directly to me, or I get emails,” she says. “We are re-evaluating the survey and looking at some other alternatives. For institutions that don’t have a trainer, surveys may be a good initial approach.”

Quick Fixes Tackled First

The Safety Committee tackled “quick fix” projects first—items that seemed easiest to correct. The immediate action also showed staff that the University was serious about addressing safety, says Molnar.

Simple adjustments included buying different styles of forceps, adding foam handles to cage scrapers, and purchasing door stops and low-profile water bottle baskets and dollies.

On a larger scale, new hires’ schedules were adjusted. Instead of expecting new hires to handle a full load of 800 to 1,200 cages per week after 30 days of training, the University changed it to 60 days.

“People felt that they were being rushed, it was too stressful and the injuries were numerous,” says Molnar. “We’ve taken the approach that if you were a marathon runner, we wouldn’t expect you to train in a week.”

Additionally, all new hires now receive the 90-minute workplace safety training up front.

ULAM changed its ordering process so equipment is repaired or replaced in a more timely manner. Some employees were working with faulty equipment, fearing the repair process would take too long and they’d be caught short. The University purchased additional carts and flatbeds to address equipment shortages as well.

“There were a lot of problems, administratively and process-wise, with broken equipment that we never really looked at. We examined it and created a new process. Now, any time equipment is broken, it comes back to the right place in a timely manner.”

Outlining the Hazards Up Front and Other Solutions

Because numerous employees complained they weren’t aware of the ULAM’s physical hazards when hired, the University created a “written disclosure” outlining job duties and potential hazards up front. The disclosure notes the potential for repetitive motion injuries, back strains/body aches, lifting/transporting food and bedding weighing up to 50 pounds, knee strain due to squatting and kneeling, and allergies.

Depending on the candidate, tours of the facility may be provided, with a demonstration of the essential job duties. Afterward, candidates are asked if they feel able to perform the essential job duties.

Another major change was the establishment of walk-abouts—unannounced, random worksite evaluations generally done on a quarterly basis, or by request. The idea is to watch employees in action, and offer on-site coaching or praise for doing things correctly. Molnar and the occupational therapist took a laid-back approach, and as a result some initially non-receptive employees have become more eager to share concerns, she says.

Molnar takes notes during the walk-abouts, and safety concerns are documented. Workers are pulled aside for training on the issue, and the management and supervisors are sent a report. The University keeps a spreadsheet outlining the visits, recommendations, and corrective action taken or the reason action couldn’t be taken.

“That’s going to be really helpful for AAALAC, too, to see that we made an effort to take its recommendation,” Molnar notes.

Changing Behaviors vs. Changing Physical Workplace

One of the more difficult aspects when it comes to workplace safety is changing employees’ attitudes, notes Molnar. Before the ULAM safety initiative began, attitudes tended toward the negative.

By showing they care and are willing to listen and make changes, the University administration has at least changed perceptions, if not every negative behavior. Spending the extra time with employees up front has helped change attitudes as well.

“Initially, we didn’t have a lot of buy-in,” says Molnar. “Now I have trust and attitude is improving. People know they can come to me; they are more willing to say, ‘Look at what’s going on, I’m hurting.’

“You’re not going to change every behavior, but you also don’t want to punish the behavior either. When they see people doing something right, we encourage the supervisor to say, ‘Great job, I’m glad to see you’re taking your health and safety in your own hands.’”

What the Future Holds

Molnar believes the University of Michigan has addressed workplace safety issues as best it can without taking the next step--upgrading technology. Automation is the wave of the future, and can help save vivaria time as well as decrease injuries, emphasizes Tecniplast’s DeSantis. Automated bedding handling reduces allergen exposure, for example, while other machines can reduce contact time of soft tissues with hard surfaces and lessen repetitive stresses.

“Automation is not meant to replace people with robots. The point is to make a better working environment,” he says.

Semi-automation can include a staging area where the technician wheels a rack over to a robot, which takes the cages off, dumps them, and puts the racks back. The technician then puts the racks into a washer. With automation, facilities can lighten loads and shape the equipment to the worker as often as possible, he says.

Automation can be costly, but in many cases the savings in health claims, salaries, and benefit costs paid to injured workers will compensate, says DeSantis. The tipping point where facilities opt for automation is generally when caring for 15,000 to 20,000 cages per week. In Europe, where automation has long been embraced by most animal research facilities, automated equipment often is used with as few as 6,000 cages.

“Automation makes sense for any size facility. American lab animal facilities are starting to look at it more on the same level as the Europeans,” he adds.

By Taitia Shelow