1. Interventions for Overhead Drilling Demetra Dalamagas, MS, IH (Portland, OR) Billy Gibbons, MBA (Portland, OR) Ira Janowitz, PT, CPE Alan Barr, MS David Rempel, MD University of California, San Francisco University of California, Berkeley Center for Occupational and Environmental Health Ergonomics Program

2. Overhead Drilling into Concrete Sheet metal work inserts/anchors/racks/straps for ducts/pipes/conduits Building trades: sheet metal, plumbing, electrical

3. Risks from Overhead Drilling Falls Dust Exposure Noise Shoulder and Arm Disorders

4. Shoulder/arm loads

5. Interventions

6. 5 year project Phase I (YR1) – Develop Interventions Phase II (YR2-4) – Evaluate Interventions Phase III (YR 5) – Disseminate Findings Funding –Center to Protect Workers Rights –NIOSH

7. Phase I - Development 20 construction workers Use 3 devices on one day – 1 hour each Outcomes –Device Questionnaire –Comparison Questionnaire Modify devices Repeat

8. Phase II - Evaluation 120 Construction workers Use ‘best’ 2 interventions, each for 1 day Outcomes –Arm, shoulder and neck pain –Shoulder and neck posture (inclinometer) Peter Johnson (UW) Steve Robinovitch (SFU) –Shoulder and forearm EMG –Handle vibration (Bernard Martin (UM)) –Productivity

9. Phase III - Dissemination Trades Contractors Purchasers Tool Manufacturers H&S Construction Professionals

10. Phase I - Development

11. Gen 1Gen 2 Inverted Drill Press

12. Gen 1Gen 2 Inverted Drill Press Close Up of Gears

13. Gen 1Gen 2 Foot Lever Drill Press

14. Drills and Saddles

15. Successful Outreach Contractors Rosendin ElectricCherry City Electric JH KellyAdvanced Technology Group Temp Control MechanicalInterstate Mechanical Industries Streimer SheetmetalLH Sowles Electric Construction CoOregon Electric Group Construction SkanskaTurner LaytonAnderson Owner IntelSea-Tac Unions IBEW Local 48 UA Local 290 SMWIA Local 16

16. GOSH Conference Booth

18. Cross Industry Partnerships Toyota Logistics- Portland, Oregon Toyota safety committee member (Teamster) saw our display at a conference ODP /Toyota team consultation to incorporate modified version of our inverted drill press into their operation

19. Presentations UBC/UW Annual Safety and Health Conference, 2005 TNO, Amsterdam, 2005 International Ergonomics Association, Maastricht, 2006

20. Phase I - Development 20 workers Usual Overhead drilling –Demographic Questionnaire Each device for 1 hr –Observer notes –Device Questionnaire End of day –Comparison Questionnaire

21. Phase I - Development

23. Device Questionnaire Ease of Device On a Scale of 0-5 where 0 is difficult and 5 is easy, how would you rate this device for the following characteristics: Difficult Easy Setting-Up012345 Moving012345 Fine Positioning012345 Activating Drill012345 Drilling012345 Knowing when drilling012345 is complete

24. Device Questionnaire Appeal On a scale of 0-5, where 0 is poor and 5 is excellent, please rate the following: Poor Excellent Accuracy 012345 Control 012345 Stability 012345 Looks (aesthetics) 012345 Durability 012345 Feel 012345

25. Device Questionnaire How would you describe this device compared to your usual method of drilling? (circle one) Slower SameFaster What would you change to improve the ease of using this device?

26. Device Questionnaire Fatigue (Tiredness) On a scale of 0-5, where 0 is no fatigued and 5 is very fatigued, please rate the following after using the device: No Fatigue Very Fatigued Neck012345 Shoulders 012345 Hands & Forearms012345 Low Back 012345 Legs012345 How would you change this device to reduce pain or fatigue to the operator?

27. Device Questionnaire What three things do you like about this device? What three things do you dislike about this device? If available, would you use this device again next time? Yes No Why or why not?

28. Comparison Questionnaire Rank the drilling method for each characteristic, where 1 is the best, 2 is the second best, 3 is the worst. Photo Photo Usual Device 1Device 2Method Set-Up_____________________ Moving_____________________ Ease of Use_____________________ Accuracy_____________________ Productivity_____________________ Comfort_____________________ Overall _____________________

29. Phase I - Development 14 workers –14% female –7% hispanic Outcomes –Subject preferred usual method for ease and speed –Video analysis: device drilling faster –Less fatigue with devices –Preference: inverted drill press over foot lever –Improve Mobility, balance Decrease weight Handle design Ease of set-up – leveling, hitting hole mark Cord handling

30. Phase Ib - Development Phase 1b designs (3 rd generation) –Modular (3 bases) –Rebuild gearing system –Change handles –Use aluminum for saddles and bases –Add locking castors –Channel power cords –Add depth stop

31. Phase Ib - Development Adjustable Castor Base

32. Phase Ib - Development Collar Base

33. Phase Ib - Development

41. Feedback Very positive Collar and spring - top ratings 3 wheel base not 4 wheel Improve depth stop (add light) Add dust control Scissor lift device too tall – hinge drill base too large – attach to railing Not tall enough add extension Move switch closer to handle

42. Problems Construction site access Each setting learn something new Redesigning and building devices takes time Budget Involving tool companies (e.g., Hilti, Milwaukee) patent

43. Plans Complete Phase I testing by May 31 Begin Phase II testing August 1 Inclinometers purchased and being field tested Vibration measurement system purchased Dissemination planning underway

44. Comments?