P-618 Risk Assessment of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Exposures. Are Measurements Better Than Observations? Results From the “Everba-Study”

Abstract Introduction Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are main causes for sick leave. To estimate the probability of work-related musculoskeletal overload, validated risk assessment methods are required. Observational methods and measurement-supported assessment approaches are available. We examined differences performing workplace assessments in nursing. Methods Participants perform simple to complex work tasks. Besides observations and video recordings, they are measured with a body-worn sensor system and three-way force plates absorb the ground reaction forces. The measurement data are converted into effective forces on the lower back, shoulders and knees using biomechanical models. Cumulative loads in Newton seconds (Ns) are determined. Reliability is calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). As an observational method, the Key Indicator Method Whole-Body Forces (KIM-BF) is used. Results Six participants performed six simple and four complex movements, each with eight repetitions. This resulted in a total of 480 data sets of which 468 could be evaluated. The test-retest reliability was calculated with an ICC of 0.6-0.9 for the three body regions. Results correlate with the scores of KIM-BF. Discussion/Conclusion The added value resulting from the measurements compared to observational screening is doubtful. Measurements mean an immense effort in the preparation and post-processing with a moderate reliability. It is true that (supposedly) more precise data could be generated than in the observation, but evaluation models with this level of precision do not exist. Results from measurements depend fundamentally on those who build, set up, perform, and evaluate them, and there can be a lot of subjective and objective influences as well as intentional and unintentional errors.