The interaction between responsible employees and a successful and efficient Fatigue Risk Management System is vital for the effective control of risk, write Dr Angela Baker and Madeline Sprajcer.
Introduction
Fatigue is a known contributor to a myriad of both workplace and personal incidents and accidents and is generally addressed by the particular organisation’s Safety Department, through the use of a Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) which can be tailor-made to suit their needs and is ideally embedded within the sites’ Safety Management System or equivalent.
The goal of contemporary Safety Management Systems (SMS) is to manage and minimise workplace hazards and risk, while optimising safe persons, practices and processes. By combining SMS and fatigue research, organisations can be better equipped to effectively examine the role of fatigue and drowsiness in the workplace. Once identified, action can be taken to develop and successfully implement an appropriate FRMS that manages and aims to ultimately reduce fatigue risk within a given workplace. Recent reports detailing the effects of fatigue on performance and the likelihood of incidents and accidents in the workplace have described shift workers injuring themselves or others on their way home after finishing night work, truck operators rolling their vehicles or driving off the haul road, pilots being asleep at their controls, operators in control rooms found sleeping, alarm systems being mismanaged, truck accidents being attributed to micro sleeps, and significant industrial catastrophes with fatigue as a contributing factor. However, for many of us as individuals, the negative outcomes of fatigue may not be as extreme, and may be as simple as being irritated with your partner or colleague, a miscalculation on a spreadsheet, over revving an engine, forgetting to put a fuel cap on, making typing errors or falling asleep during a meeting or in the crib room during a scheduled break. The underlying problem is human physiology, which has not caught up with our current 24- hour working lifestyles, and cannot function effectively without appropriate rest.
One of the more common ways of identifying and effectively managing fatigue is through the use of Fitness for Work (FFW) policies or programs. However, having such a policy as this in place does not necessarily mean that fatigue is being managed and minimised efficiently, only that a system exists. For any policy to be implemented and function as intended, short, medium and long-term goals must be developed. In order for these goals to be met, FFW, or indeed any type of safety policy must be provided with sufficient resources and audited, with accountability attributed to a specific department or preferably a named individual.
Given the importance of mining to the Australian economy, including the employment of thousands of individuals, it would seem reasonable for leaders in the mining sector to implement known and recognised fatigue-control measures while continuing to push for further information and development relative to sleep and fatigue science. This dedication to safety would mean that mining personnel and their families would be protected, productivity would be maintained, and workplaces would continue to become safer while enabling the development of more robust and meaningful fatigue reduction practices in the future.
The mining sector in Australia has been pivotal in much of the more recent work conducted within fatigue research and subsequent FRMS program development. It is because of this that the mining sector is one of the major Australian leaders in fatigue management understanding and application.
Defining Fatigue
There are a number of definitions of fatigue that can be found in the literature and within state and industry policies. In establishing a FRMS it is paramount that a definition of fatigue is provided such that all persons covered by the system know what it is that is being addressed and what this may mean for them on a more personal level. Regardless of the definition used it should be remembered that fatigue does not discriminate and is generally considered to be a consequence of a number of factors including:
- the time of day that work takes place (shift design)
- the length of time spent at work and in work related duties (working hours)
- the type and duration of a work task and the environment in which it is performed (work design)
- the quantity and quality of rest/sleep obtained prior to and after a work period
- activities outside of work, such as second jobs and family/social/community commitments
- individual factors such as sleeping disorders
To assist organisations manage fatigue and justify resourcing a workplace FRMS many draw on the state OHS legislation under the Duty of Care component and or a range of state based documents that pertain specifically to fatigue and fatigue management. Many of these documents provide information that includes: fatigue causes, signs and symptoms, consequences and fatigue countermeasures.
Less immediately available to industry are the validation studies or information pertaining to workplace outcomes when objective fatigue assessment devices are utilised or being trialled. Nevertheless there are a range of devices that incorporate different techniques and measures including: hand eye coordination, eye blinks, pupil reactions, head nodding, temperature changes, lane deviation, vigilance alarms and blue light to name a few. Not all assessment devices are appropriate for all
workplaces. To determine which device may or may not be appropriate it is important to know what your goal is in selecting and using the device. A goal may be to identify tired individuals, prevent sleep during work time, measure performance, ensure fitness for work or maintain alertness. Whatever the goal, it is vital to have a process and plan for its implementation and evaluation. In keeping with the mining industry’s leadership within the fatigue and risk areas of study, if a fatigue assessment device is utilised within a particular workplace, sharing the related outcomes and findings would assist with future development, application, improvements and fatigue reduction strategies. However, not all FRMSs include objective fatigue assessment devices but may instead implement a subjective pencil and paper assessment tool that is completed by both the individual and their immediate supervisor/leader.
Components a FRMS
Fatigue Risk Management Systems (FRMS) are currently being incorporated into some organisational Safety Management Systems (SMS). An FRMS may be instigated for a range of reasons such as (but not limited to); state legislative compliance, in response to a workplace incident/near miss, following a workplace risk assessment and hazard identification, as a result of proactive planning by safety personnel, supervisors and/or unions or as a means to address corporate internal drivers and key performance indicators (KPIs). The reasons behind the process being embarked upon are somewhat irrelevant; instead it is the progression and implementation of a system which is important. Generally, FRMSs have a number of different components: (1) a Fatigue Management Policy/Procedure, (2) risk assessment methodology, (3) controls and counter measures, (4) training and (5) a review / evaluation process.
The sophistication of a FRMS will depend to a large degree on the development and implementation of these components. The simplest FRMS generally has a policy document and an awareness training program that targets only shift workers. The more sophisticated and complex FRMS cover all workplace personnel and tend towards a ‘policy document’ that is implemented and audited, a ‘training program’ that is targeted towards the different personnel levels (e.g. operators, supervisors, managers), a risk assessment and hazard control process that is relatively complex in that it may include self assessments and reporting, peer review and reporting, observations, detection devices, medical assessments, sleep disorder screening, time of day task allocation, ‘fatigue reduction’ and ‘proofing mechanisms’ and actions, ‘employee screening’ for shiftwork capability, etc. It may also contain a review process such as compliance to policy, regulations and legislation, incident/accident investigations.
Integrating a FRMS
The key to a successful FRMS once developed is to ensure that it is embedded into the organisations’ existing SMS or equivalent. To do this effectively, individuals involved must be prepared to spend the time, resources and expertise in order to better understand the area and how best to match solutions to their individual workplace. Thus, how an organisation tackles the issue of integration is of importance both from a cost-effective position and a functional longevity perspective. The individual components of a FRMS may differ across companies and also within companies with multiple work sites, but there will be a basic level of commonality within each program devised. As can be seen here there is a range of systems to which fatigue can be linked within an existing site.
- Periodic health assessments
- Pre employment screening
- Crisis management
- Monthly safety reports
- Site safety incident reports
- Camp rules
- Legislation
- Company policy directive and KPIs
- HR disciplinary process
- Risk assessment methodology and process
- Roster review
- Staffing levels
- Travel arrangements
- Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
- Medical centre etc.
If an FRMS is not integrated within a larger system it is likely to ‘disappear’ after the initial energy and motivation has passed and another issue becomes more pressing. Many companies and safety personnel do extraordinary work only to find that within six months their efforts have been reduced to a single remembered and utilised component, and find they have to begin the process again when it again becomes a topic of concern. To avoid the frustration of reinventing the wheel, integration is vital. Not only does it enable the FRMS to gain momentum and strength but it means that the system can be constantly evaluated and improved. This does not mean that fatigue and drowsiness are fixed but rather that there is a methodology and means in place by which to track, measure and mitigate the influence of fatigue on workers and productivity.
As humans we are vulnerable to our environments, whether that is a workplace, a driver’s seat or our aluminium tinny when on holiday. It is this vulnerability that makes it imperative that the mining industry, or indeed any industry where employees’ safety may be at risk, and has systems in place to manage identified risks. However, the ways we interact and manage ourselves is as important as how an organisation puts systems in place. The interaction between responsible employees and a successful and efficient FMRS is vital for the effective control of risk, and the protection of both individual and organisational interests.
There are a number of different FMRSs in place throughout Australian mining companies, and indeed throughout other industries who require a focus on the risks of fatigue and safety. While these may differ in structure and implementation methods, there is the constant theme of keeping employees safe, while protecting the interests of the organisation. This is not to say that all FRMSs are equal. The degree of importance placed on safety management, and the quality of this work certainly plays a role in the potential effectiveness of any particular FRMS. It is because of this that constant monitoring and auditing of safety management systems is important, to ensure that employees are receiving the highest quality of care, and employers can minimise any potential risks. Additionally, for industry stakeholders, the need to invest in fatigue and safety research is a pressing one. To keep up with industry standards and maintain their position as the forerunner in Australia for safety initiatives, the industry must be constantly moving forward, and be in touch with any developments that may happen within the field.
Dr Angela Baker
Dr Baker has worked overseas and within Australia in the areas of fatigue risk management and safety for many years. She has extensive experience and knowledge in establishing, reviewing and implementing FRMS programmes and strategies.
Dr Baker co-authored the development of a publication commissioned by the Minerals Council of Australia for the minerals industry addressing the science and research behind FRMS and the manner in which organisations could develop and implement their own FRMS which includes policy development and an implementation process.
Madeline Sprajcer
Madeline currently works part-time at the University of South Australia, and is involved in research into the effects of shift work, fatigue, heat and other factors on human physical and cognitive function.
Add Comment