skip to main content
10.1145/3400934.3400965acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesapcoriseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Identifying Hazards and Risk Assessment in Hazardous Process of Making Prosthesis and Orthosis

Authors Info & Claims
Published:25 August 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Prosthetics is a science that study, design, and make prosthesis/artificial limbs for individual with physical disabilities. Orthotics is a science that study, design, and makes supported body's devices (orthosis) to correct human's deformities. Making prosthesis/orthosis in prosthetics and orthotics industry needs long process. The process started with assessment, casting, modification, and other steps that are need repetitive action involving several hazardous materials. These hazards include biological hazard, physical hazard, chemical hazard, ergonomical hazards, etc. This condition made prosthetist/orthotist who works in the industry facing several health and occupational problems. A risk management needs to apply to control and minimize hazard exposure to the professional, thus will increase safety in the working place. Hazard identification and risk assessments are the very first step in risk management to control the impact of working condition in the manufacturing of prosthesis and orthosis. It can find the general causes, risks, and determining control to increase occupational health and safety in the industry. Experts from prosthetics orthotics industry asked to give weight in the hazardous process. Pareto method used to determine the most risks in the process.

References

  1. Anderson S, Stuckey R, Oakman J,2016. Prosthetists' and Orthotists' experience of their work and workspace - characterising the physical and organisational environment: Focus group findings. Prosthetics Orthotics International 40,6 (Dec,2016), 703--12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364615592702Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Anderson S, Stuckey R, Poole J, Oakman J, 2017. Physical and environmental hazards in the prosthetics and orthotics workshop: a pilot study. Industrial Health 55, 3 (June, 2017), 285--292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.2016-0089Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Australia Standard/New Zealand Standard. 2005. Occupational Noise Management - Measurement and Assessment of Noise Emission and Exposure.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Australia Standard/New Zealand Standard. 2004. Risk Management Guidelines Companion to AS/NZS 4360:2004. Standards Australia International, Sydney. Standards Australia, Sydney.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett. 1995. Manajemen Keselamatan dan Kesehatan Kerja. PT Pustaka Binaman Pressindo, Jakarta.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Chao P, Juang Y, Chen C, Dai Y, Yeh C, Hu C, 2013. Combined effects of noise, vibration, and low temperature on the physiological parameters of labor employees. The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences 29, 10 (Oct, 2013), 560--567. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2013.03.004Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Chelan M. Keeter.2009. Working in O&P: Protecting yourself from Environmental Hazards. (April 2009). Retrieved March, 5, 2020 from https://opedge.com/Articles/ViewArticle/2009-04-01/2009-04_02Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Leka S, Jain A. 2010. Health Impact of Psychosocial Hazards at Work: An Overview. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Macdonald W., Oakman J., 2015. Requirements for more effective prevention of work-related musculoskeletal disorders.BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 16, 293 (Oct, 2015). DOI: 10.1186/s12891-015-0750-8Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Market Research Report.2020.Prosthetics And Orthotics Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Type Orthotics (Upper Limb, Lower Limb, Spinal), Prosthetics (Upper Extremity, Lower Extremity), And Segment Forecasts, 2020-2027. (February 2020). Retrieved March, 5, 2020 from https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/prosthetics-orthotics-marketGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Neumannr W. P., Kihlberg S., Medbo P., Mathiassen S.E., and Winkel J., 2002. A Case Study Evaluating the Ergonomic and Productivity Impacts of Partial Automation Strategies in the Electronics Industry. International Journal of Production Research. 40, 16 (Nov, 2010), 4059--4075. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540210148862Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Oakman J, Macdonald W, Wells Y.2014. Developing a comprehensive approach to risk management of musculoskeletal disorders in non-nursing health care sector employees. Applied Ergonomics. 45, 6 (Nov, 2014), 1634--1640. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2014.05.016Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Pawita Sriariyawong. 2013. Prevalence of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders Among Prosthetics and Orthotics Professional at Siriraj Hospital. (May 2014).Retrieved February, 7, 2020 from https://www.ot-world.com/images/nfm/biv/Abstract_eng_1606.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Qomariyatus Sholihah, W.Kuncoro. 2014. Keselamatan kesehatan kerja, konsep, perkembangan, & implementasi budaya keselamatan. EGC, Jakarta.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Republik Indonesia.2012. Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 50 Tahun 2012 Tentang Penerapan Sistem Manajemen Keselamatan dan Kesehatan Kerja. Republik Indonesia, JakartaGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Safe Work Australia. 2015. The Cost of Work-related Injury and Illness for Australian Employers, Workers and the Community: 2008-09. Safe Work Australia, Canberra.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Salmani H, Koohi S, Daneshmandhi H, Choobineh AR,2015.Ergonomic workplace assessment in orthotic and prosthetic workshops. Work. 55, 2 (Oct, 2017), 463--470. DOI: 10.3233/WOR-162401Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Soehatman Ramli.2010. Sistem Manajemen Keselamatan & Kesehatan Kerja OHSAS 18001. Dian Rakyat, Jakarta.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. The Australian Orthotic Prosthetic Association. 2010. Towards a safe and sustainable orthotic and prosthetic workforce. The Australian Orthotic Prosthetic Association Incorporated, Victoria.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. World Health Organisation.2005. Guidelines For Training Personnel in Developing Countries For Prosthetics And Orthotics. World Health Organisation, Geneva.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. World Health Organisation. 2017. Standards For Prosthetics and Orthotics. World Health Organization, Geneva.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Identifying Hazards and Risk Assessment in Hazardous Process of Making Prosthesis and Orthosis

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      APCORISE '20: Proceedings of the 3rd Asia Pacific Conference on Research in Industrial and Systems Engineering
      June 2020
      410 pages
      ISBN:9781450376006
      DOI:10.1145/3400934

      Copyright © 2020 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 25 August 2020

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      APCORISE '20 Paper Acceptance Rate68of110submissions,62%Overall Acceptance Rate68of110submissions,62%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)26
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader