Anca Bejan

A qualitative evaluation of owner and worker health and safety beliefs in small auto collision repair shops

BACKGROUND About 223,000 people are employed in approximately 34,500 auto collision repair businesses. In general, employees and owners in these establishments lack knowledge of health and safety practices and do not have the technical expertise to make their place of work safer. METHODS Three employee and three owner focus groups were conducted. The goal of these focus groups was to characterize health and safety beliefs of owners and employees and to determine the best methods for motivating safety improvements in collision repair shops. RESULTS A total of 11 owners and 19 workers participated in these focus groups. Employees and owners were aware of a wide range of hazards. Both groups noted difficulty in staying informed. Employers were hesitant to set and enforce safety and health rules. Employees perceive owners to be unwilling to dedicate the resources to make the workplace safer and provide personal protective equipment. Both groups felt insurance reimbursement practices placed undue pressure on employees. CONCLUSIONS Focus groups provide important insights into intervention development in very small enterprises in general and auto collision shops in specific. Employers were conflicted about allowing employees a certain level of independence while also maintaining a safe workplace. From the employee perspective, owners frequently fail to provide adequate personal protective equipment and make improvements needed to ensure safe work. The unique managerial needs of very small enterprises must be accounted for if health and safety programs are to be implemented in these establishments.

Workplace Safety and Health Programs, Practices, and Conditions in Auto Collision Repair Businesses

This article describes the results of a pre-intervention safety assessment conducted in 49 auto collision repair businesses and owners’ commitments to specific improvements. A 92-item standardized audit tool employed interviews, record reviews, and observations to assess safety and health programs, training, and workplace conditions. Owners were asked to improve at least one-third of incorrect, deficient, or missing (not in compliance with regulations or not meeting best practice) items, of which a majority were critical or highly important for ensuring workplace safety. Two-thirds of all items were present, with the highest fraction related to electrical safety, machine safety, and lockout/tagout. One-half of shops did not have written safety programs and had not conducted recent training. Many had deficiencies in respiratory protection programs and practices. Thirteen businesses with a current or past relationship with a safety consultant had a significantly higher fraction of correct items, in particular related to safety programs, up-to-date training, paint booth and mixing room conditions, electrical safety, and respiratory protection. Owners selected an average of 58% of recommended improvements; they were most likely to select items related to employee Right-to-Know training, emergency exits, fire extinguishers, and respiratory protection. They were least likely to say they would improve written safety programs, stop routine spraying outside the booth, or provide adequate fire protection for spray areas outside the booth. These baseline results suggest that it may be possible to bring about workplace improvements using targeted assistance from occupational health and safety professionals.

A comparison of owner and expert evaluation of health and safety in small collision repair shops: A pilot study

Abstract Background: Workplace evaluation is one of the first steps in reducing the risk of injuries and illnesses, and is part of several programs that promote a participatory approach to occupational health among small business owners. The usefulness of written safety evaluations is contingent upon non-safety professionals obtaining accurate and reliable results. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to better understand auto body shop owners’ ability to correctly identify occupational health and safety issues within their businesses. Methods: In this study, 11 auto body shop owners used a 25-question checklist, developed specifically for this industry, to identify key safety and health problems. Owner results were compared with those of an industrial hygienist (IH) experienced in using the assessment form. Results: The average number of safety problems identified by the IH was twice as large as the number identified by business owners (P = 0·02). The average percentage agreement of answers between owners and the IH was 81% (SD = 21%). Shop owners were more accurate in assessing the presence of written safety programs and records than the presence of unsafe work conditions. Overall, owners’ sensitivity (ability to correctly identify a safety-deficient item) was low (0·22). Conclusions: Collision shop owners had some difficulty correctly identifying many unsafe/non-compliant items or situations in their facility. Naïve users’ ability to correctly identify potentially hazardous situations – sensitivity – should be the metric of concern for the validity of safety assessments, and efforts should be directed at bringing this number as close to one as feasible.

Health and Safety Education in Auto Body Collision and Machine Tool Technology Programs in Vocational Colleges: Challenges and Opportunities

Collision repair, machining, and metal manufacturing are industries with a large percentage of small businesses whose owners face unique challenges implementing health and safety regulatory requirements. Previous research found that 72% of collision repair technicians and 47% of machinists attended some classes or graduated from vocational colleges. Although health and safety is a mandatory part of the curricula for post-secondary vocational education, little is known about what, how, and when health and safety is taught and if teaching is effective. Surveys and discussion groups were used to evaluate health and safety education in two vocational colleges in Minnesota. Six instructors and 76 students in collision repair, and 6 instructors and 130 students in machine tool technology programs participated. Instructors had no formal training in health and safety, few teaching materials, and lacked opportunities to learn about safety in their trade. Teaching was unscripted and heavily influenced by each instructors™ industry experience, knowledge, perceptions and attitude towards safety, with little or no guidance from school administration, or safety professionals. Student survey results show that graduates have significant gaps in safety and health knowledge. Standardized trade-specific curricula and instructor training are needed to ensure students receive adequate health and safety education.

Two-Year Follow-up of the Collision Auto Repair Safety Study (CARSS)

This paper presents an evaluation of the sustainability of health and safety improvements in small auto collision shops 1 year after the implementation of a year-long targeted intervention. During the first year (active phase), owners received quarterly phone calls, written reminders, safety newsletters, and access to online services and in-person assistance with creating safety programs and respirator fit testing. During the second year (passive phase), owners received up to three postcard reminders regarding the availability of free health and safety resources. Forty-five shops received an evaluation at baseline and at the end of the first year (Y1). Of these, 33 were evaluated at the end of the second year (Y2), using the same 92-item assessment tool. At Y1, investigators found that between 70 and 81% of the evaluated items were adequate in each business (mean = 73% items, SD = 11%). At Y2, between 63 and 89% of items were deemed adequate (mean = 73% items, SD = 9.5%). Three safety areas demonstrated statistically significant (P < 0.05) changes: compressed gasses (8% improvement), personal protective equipment (7% improvement), and respiratory protection (6% decline). The number of postcard reminders sent to each business did not affect the degree to which shops maintained safety improvements made during the first year of the intervention. However, businesses that received more postcards were more likely to request assistance services than those receiving fewer.

0030 Health and Safety in Collision Repair Shops after 2 years of participation in Collision Auto Repair Safety Study (CARSS)

Objectives This study evaluated the sustainability of health and safety improvements in small collision shops 1 year after completion of targeted intervention activities. Method Workplace health and safety evaluations were conducted at baseline, after 1 year, and after 2 years. During Year 1, owners received quarterly phone calls, written reminders, safety newsletters, and had access to online services and in-person assistance with creating safety programs and respirator fit testing. During Year 2, owners received up to 3 postcard reminders regarding the services and resources available from study staff and website. Results Forty-nine shops received baseline assessments, 45 were visited for 1-year follow-up and 33 were visited for 2-year follow-up. At baseline, the 33 shops had 19-60% deficient items (mean = 45% items, SD = 10%). At the end of Year 1, there were 19-30% deficient items (mean = 27% items, SD = 11%). At the end of Year 2, there were 11–37% deficient items (mean = 27% items, SD = 9.5%). Statistically significant changes (p < 0.05) from Year 1 to Year 2 were identified in three of the eight survey sections: compressed gasses (–8% deficient items), personal protective equipment (–7%), and respiratory protection (+6%). There was no difference in the magnitude of change in shops that received 0–2 reminder cards vs. shops that received 3 cards. Conclusions Results indicate that most business owners were able to maintain the health and safety improvements implemented during Year 1 of the CARSS intervention. The number of reminder cards sent to each business did not make a difference in the degree to which safety improvements were maintained.