Abstract
OBJECTIVES—To propose a strategy for progressively controlling the exposure to noise in industry as much as possible. To propose a method that could, in the first stage, be used by the workers and management themselves to control exposures to noise as much as possible, and then, in later stages, when necessary, progressively call in the assistance of specialists and experts to identify more complex solutions and organise personal protection and medical surveillance. METHODS—The strategy includes three stages. Stage 1 is observation, simple and easy to use by the workers to recognise the problems, identify straightforward solutions, and call for assistance when needed. Stage 2 is analysis, more complex but more costly, performed with the assistance of occupational health specialists to identify more technical control measures and set up a programme to conserve hearing. Stage 3 is expertise, performed with the assistance of acoustic experts for special measurements and control measures. CONCLUSIONS—The proposed strategy enriches the assessment procedure that is usually recommended, by providing for one preliminary stage used by the people directly concerned. It explicitly recognises (a) the competence of the workers and management about their working conditions and (b) that knowledge and measurements of acoustics are not an absolute prerequisite for solving—at least partly—noise problems. It attempts to organise in sequence and optimise the cooperation between the workers, the occupational health specialists, and the experts in acoustics. Keywords: risk assessment; small and medium sized enterprises; hearing; hearing conservation programmes
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (166.9 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Hager W. L., Hoyle E. R., Hermann E. R. Efficacy of enforcement in an industrial hearing conservation program. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1982 Jun;43(6):455–465. doi: 10.1080/15298668291410035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Harrison R. K. Hearing conservation: implementing and evaluating a program. AAOHN J. 1989 Apr;37(4):107–111. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Leinster P., Baum J., Tong D., Whitehead C. Management and motivational factors in the control of noise induced hearing loss (NIHL). Ann Occup Hyg. 1994 Oct;38(5):649–662. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/38.5.649. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Malchaire J., Gebhardt H. J., Piette A. Strategy for evaluation and prevention of risk due to work in thermal environments. Ann Occup Hyg. 1999 Jul;43(5):367–376. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/43.5.367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Malchaire J., Piette A. A comprehensive strategy for the assessment of noise exposure and risk of hearing impairment. Ann Occup Hyg. 1997 Aug;41(4):467–484. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4878(97)00007-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Melnick W. Evaluation of industrial hearing conservation programs: a review and analysis. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1984 Jul;45(7):459–467. doi: 10.1080/15298668491400106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pell S. An evaluation of a hearing conservation program. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1972 Feb;33(2):60–70. doi: 10.1080/0002889728506610. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Reynolds J. L., Royster L. H., Pearson R. G. Hearing conservation programs (HCPs): the effectiveness of one company's HCP in a 12-hr work shift environment. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1990 Aug;51(8):437–446. doi: 10.1080/15298669091369907. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]