A carregar...
Publicação
Estudo comparativo do método de avaliação ergonómico V3 Renault com outros métodos de avaliação do risco de LMERT
| Nome: | Descrição: | Tamanho: | Formato: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.62 MB | Adobe PDF |
Autores
Orientador(es)
Resumo(s)
fábrica Renault Cacia pertence ao Grupo RENAULT, que sempre teve preocupações em fazer a adequação dos postos de trabalho aos trabalhadores, para prevenir o aparecimento de Lesões Musculosqueléticas Relacionadas com o Trabalho (LMERT), reconhecidas como uma importante causa para incapacidade ocupacional e responsável por elevada taxa de absentismo afetando milhões de trabalhadores na
Europa e custando aos empregadores biliões de euros. Preocupado com essa problemática, o Grupo Renault desenvolveu, há mais de 15 anos, metodologias para avaliar os riscos associados aos postos de trabalho que integram tarefas repetitivas.
Para tal, em todas as fábricas desta multinacional, utiliza-se o Método de Análise Ergonómica V3, do Grupo RENAULT. Este método aplica-se a postos com tarefas repetitivas , com tempos de ciclo inferiores a 10 minutos, e permite avaliar o risco de LMERT de acordo com os seguintes critérios: Postura, Esforço (ou Força), Repetibilidade ou Duração, entre outros. Conscientes que os resultados obtidos em determinados postos de trabalho, quando avaliados pelo Método de Análise Ergonómica V3, não parecem refletir na íntegra as preocupações e algumas queixas dos operadores que os realizam e/ou não parecem adequar-se às especificidades das tarefas realizadas decidiu-se, no âmbito do presente estudo, que era oportuno avaliar estes postos por outros métodos de avaliação ergonómicos disponíveis e que até incidissem, especificamente, em fatores particulares desses postos e em partes do corpo mais solicitadas. Assim, para tentar clarificar estas situações, foram selecionados cinco postos de trabalho, que cumpriam estes requisitos, e dois métodos de avaliação: o OCRA (Occupational Repetitive Actions) INDEX e o SI (Strain Index). Após avaliação dos referidos postos concluiu-se, pela análise dos resultados obtidos, que em 60% dos postos avaliados, o Método de Análise Ergonómica V3 mostrou-se robusto o suficiente para refletir as preocupações dos respetivos trabalhadores, pois os resultados obtidos foram, no mínimo, semelhantes ou mesmo superiores aos obtidos pelos métodos OCRA INDEX e SI. Em 40% dos postos, o Método de Análise Ergonómica V3 revelou-se menos protetor, ao resultar em níveis de risco inferiores, comparativamente com os obtidos
pelos outros métodos aplicados.
The Renault Cacia plant belongs to the RENAULT Group, which has always been concerned with making workplaces suitable for their workers to prevent the onset of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Injuries (WRMSD), which represent an important cause of occupational disability in developed countries and are responsible for high absenteeism rates. They affect millions of workers in Europe and cost employers billions of Euros.. Concerned about this problematic, the Renault Group has developed, more than fifteen years ago, methodologies to assess the risks associated with jobs that integrate repetitive tasks such as the Ergonomic Assessment Method V3 (EAM-v3). EAM-v3 applies to repetitive tasks, with cycle times less than 10 minutes, and allows to assess the risk of WRMSD in these jobs, according to the following criteria: Posture, Effort (or Strength), Repeatability or Duration, among others. Bearing in mind that there are certain workstations evaluated by the EAM-v3 that does not seem to fully reflect the concerns and the complaints reported by the operators performing them, or even the EAM-v3 does not seem to suit some types of tasks performed, it seemed appropriate to evaluate these jobs with other methods available in the literature. To try to clarify these situations, five workplaces were selected that met these requirements and two assessment methods were selected: the OCRA (Occupational Repetitive Actions) INDEX and the SI (Strain Index). After evaluation of these workstations, it was concluded from the analysis of the results that in 60% of the evaluated cases, the EAM-v3 was robust enough to reflect the concerns of the respective workers, since the results obtained were, in the minimum, similar or even higher than those obtained by the OCRA INDEX and SI methods. In 40% of the cases, the EAM-v3 was less protective as it resulted in lower risk levels compared to those obtained by the other methods applied.
The Renault Cacia plant belongs to the RENAULT Group, which has always been concerned with making workplaces suitable for their workers to prevent the onset of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Injuries (WRMSD), which represent an important cause of occupational disability in developed countries and are responsible for high absenteeism rates. They affect millions of workers in Europe and cost employers billions of Euros.. Concerned about this problematic, the Renault Group has developed, more than fifteen years ago, methodologies to assess the risks associated with jobs that integrate repetitive tasks such as the Ergonomic Assessment Method V3 (EAM-v3). EAM-v3 applies to repetitive tasks, with cycle times less than 10 minutes, and allows to assess the risk of WRMSD in these jobs, according to the following criteria: Posture, Effort (or Strength), Repeatability or Duration, among others. Bearing in mind that there are certain workstations evaluated by the EAM-v3 that does not seem to fully reflect the concerns and the complaints reported by the operators performing them, or even the EAM-v3 does not seem to suit some types of tasks performed, it seemed appropriate to evaluate these jobs with other methods available in the literature. To try to clarify these situations, five workplaces were selected that met these requirements and two assessment methods were selected: the OCRA (Occupational Repetitive Actions) INDEX and the SI (Strain Index). After evaluation of these workstations, it was concluded from the analysis of the results that in 60% of the evaluated cases, the EAM-v3 was robust enough to reflect the concerns of the respective workers, since the results obtained were, in the minimum, similar or even higher than those obtained by the OCRA INDEX and SI methods. In 40% of the cases, the EAM-v3 was less protective as it resulted in lower risk levels compared to those obtained by the other methods applied.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Adequação Postos Prevenir LMERT Avaliar Fatores Biomecânicos Método de Análise Ergonómica V3 OCRA CHECKLIST Index (OCRA) STRAIN Index (SI) Adequacy Workstation WRMSD Prevent Assess Biomechanical factors Ergonomic Assessment Method V3 (EAM-v3) OCRA CHECKLIST Index (OCRA) STRAIN Index (SI)