Measuring Housekeeping in Manufacturing Industries

transportation equipment and machinery manufacturing sector in Quebec\ Canada\ each employ ing between twenty and sixty workers[ The checklist

[PDF] InspectIon checklIst - WSPS

Have workers been trained in general housekeeping practices and safe operating procedures? Are housekeeping inspections using checklists conducted

[PDF] FACILITIES HOUSEKEEPING INSPECTION FORM Department

Are floors clean and clear of waste? Are signs posted to warn of wet floors? Are floors in good condition? Are there holes, worn or loose tile or carpet sticking

[PDF] 5s Industrial cleaning checklist

Clean tools, machines and trolleys Remove rust where necessary While cleaning, look out for maintenance needs like dull blades and loose bolts 3S 4S

[PDF] Warehouse Cleaning Checklist Daily Tasks - HubSpot

Refill the toilet paper, paper towel, and soap dispensers Sanitize grab bars, sinks, counters, toilets, etc 1 2 Sanitize polish stall partitions and doors Clean

[PDF] Good Housekeeping in Industry

Stop accidents through good housekeeping 7 The good housekeeping checklist industrial operations and should apply throughout the

[PDF] Housekeeping Procedure

APPENDIX 1: HOUSEKEEPING CHECKLIST 5 1 General Industrial good housekeeping is a term which is often not fully understood However most be good

[PDF] GMP Checklist - Sanitary Operations - Brewers Association

No Sub Inspection Criteria Yes No 20 Is the facility kept clean and in good physical repair? a Are no roof leaks observable? b Are the floors clean and free

Ann[ occup[ Hyg[\ Vol[ 32\ No[ 1\ pp[ 8086\ 0888

088 British Occupational Hygiene Society

Pergamon

Printed in Great Britain[

99923767:8 ,08[999[99

PII] S9992!3767"87#99968!8

Measuring Housekeeping in Manufacturing Industries

VINCENT M[ DUFORT and CLAIRE INFANTE!RIVARD

Department of Occupational Health\ McGill University\ Montreal\ Quebec\ CanadaThis study involves the development and reliability evaluations of a checklist for measuring the

state of housekeeping in industry[ The instrument was tested in _fty!nine companies in the transportation equipment and machinery manufacturing sector in Quebec\ Canada\ each employ! ing between twenty and sixty workers[ The checklist walk!through procedure usually required under thirty minutes[ For testretest reliability\ a total of 010 comparisons were made based on visits made to the companies by one observer over the course of a year[ Results for visits made closer together in time were more reproducible "Intra!class correlation\ ICC9[62# than for those further apart in time "ICC9[44#[ The study also used alternate observers to test inter!observer reliability[ Inter!observer reliability was high "ICC9[77#[ Ease of use\ time and effectiveness makes the checklist an attractive tool for company health and safety personnel[0888 British Occupational Hygiene Society[ Published by Elsevier Science Ltd[ All rights reserved[

Keywords] housekeeping^ checklistINTRODUCTION

Measurin` housekeepin`

The state of housekeeping in industry is thought

to re~ect\ to some extent\ levels of safety "Bird and

Germain\ 0889^ Saari and Na

sa nen\ 0878#[ One could reasonably expect\ then\ that monitoring the levels of for evaluating the state of housekeeping have been used in the past\ little attention has been paid to the validity or reliability of these measurements[

Some researchers have produced measures that

assessed worker behaviors and workplace conditions "Fellner and Sulzer!Azaro}\ 0873^ Reber and Wallin\

0872^ Rees\ 0856#\ but did not examine housekeeping

as a separate construct[ Aside from being unable to distinguish between behavior and the work environ! ment\ only one of the above studies "Rees\ 0856# con! tained a comprehensive set of questions actually per! taining to housekeeping[

Housekeepingbehaviorhas also been studied as

a component of safety behavior "Reber and Wallin\

0872#\ yet thestateof housekeeping as a workplace

tila et al[ "0883#\ separated housekeeping from worker

behaviors\ but less than half of the items on the eight!Received 13 June 0887^ in _nal form 4 November 0887[

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed[ Dover\ NH 92719!1729 U[S[A[ Tel[] 0!592!638!0530^ Fax]

0!592!638!0084^ E!mail] nhpro[vdufortsdps[org[

80een item checklist evaluated housekeeping conditions[

Other studies separated housekeeping from behavior or company organizational structure but used sum! mary questions "i[e[\ rating housekeeping on a scale of one to _ve# "Chew\ 0877^ Simonds and Shafai!

Sahrai\ 0866^ Smith et al[\ 0876#[

More recently\ in a series of quasi!experimental

studies examining the use of feedback for injury reduction\ housekeeping evaluations have been used to provide a marker for changes in the work environ! ment "ILCI\ 0880^ Saarela\ 0878^ Saari and Na sa nen\

0878#[ Detailed checklists and observation procedures

were designed to evaluate the level of housekeeping in were used to provide feedback to the workers on their progress in improving the work environment[ However\ these measures were workplace!speci_c and could not even be used to evaluate the level of house! keeping in other departments within the same indus! try[ The evaluations were also restricted to a few goals that the intervention team had identi_ed as being eas! ily changeable[

Researchers have classi_ed di}erent properties of

the work environment under the heading of house! keeping[ In most studies\ housekeeping encompassed aesthetic and organizational aspects as well as safety studies also included subjective evaluations of lighting and noise levels[ Most studies\ however\ failed to de_ne housekeeping in any way[

In one textbook written for safety professionals\

housekeeping is stated to include the following items]Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/43/2/91/261490 by guest on 10 July 2023

V[ M[ Dufort and C[ Infante!Rivard81

{{Cluttered and poorly arranged areas[ Untidy and dangerous piling of materials[ Items that are excess\ obsolete or no longer needed[ Blocked aisles[ Material stu}ed in corners\ on overcrowded shelves\ in over! ~owing bins and containers[ Tools and equipment left in work areas instead of being returned to tool rooms\ material[ Materials gathering dirt and rust from disuse[ Excessive quantities of items[ Waste scrap and excess materials that congest work areas[ Spills\ leaks and hazardous materials creating safety and health hazards[||

The evaluation of the state of housekeeping needs

to be improved[ Given its complexity\ proper evalu! ation of housekeeping requires a checklist that does a thorough job of measuring its many aspects in a var! iety of workplaces rather than resorting to a general subjective evaluation[ The model used for workplace! speci_c evaluations "Bird and Germain\ 0889^ Na s! a as a starting point for building an assessment tool for evaluating housekeeping\ but it needs to be modi_ed to be applicable in more than one workplace[

OBJECTIVES

ment for measuring housekeeping that is detailed and applicable across companies and to evaluate the instrument|s testretest and inter!observer reliability[

METHODS

De_nition of housekeepin`

In the present study\ housekeeping was de_ned as

thestateof the workplace with regards to]

0[organization*orderly and structured placement

and storage of tools\ equipment and materials^

1[obstructions*lack of clutter\ clear access to work!

stations\ equipment^ and exits and

2[cleanliness[

Checklist development

Previous examples of single workplace checklists

"Bird and Germain\ 0889^ Saari\ 0876^ Saari and Na s! a nen\ 0878# were used to guide the development of a preliminary checklist for this study[ Sector!based and external experts were then consulted to further for! were relevant to the targeted industrial sector and company size[ Each item on the checklist was studied\ and de_nitions were elaborated when necessary to ensure that the checklist items were clear and easy to evaluate[ The following principles were used]

0[ Checklist items had to be observable in various

types of companies[

1[ Questions requiring technical expertise\ expert

opinions\ or lengthy observation were excluded[

2[ Observations were restricted to workplaceconditions\ not to the measurement of worker

behavior[

3[ Measurements requiring speci_c tools "such as

those for evaluating temperature\ lighting or noise levels# were excluded[

4[ The observation of the workplace had to be carried

out in a way that minimized interference with the work[

5[ The _nal checklist had to minimize observation

time\ allowing for its incorporation into a walk! through survey of the workplace[

6[ Questions had to be well de_ned to limit subjective

evaluations[

Weekly meetings were held with safety experts to

discuss modi_cations and to verify that the questions were clear and that they met the criteria listed above[ Once the questionnaire was ready\ a small!scale test was carried out in four companies with the help of sector!based experts[ Comments and suggestions gathered during the preliminary test were integrated into the checklist[

Final checklist and evaluation

The checklist consisted of 62 distinct questions and encompassed three attributes of housekeeping] organ! ization of tools and materials\ obstructions\ and cleanliness[ Because some questions were repeated in more than one area within the workplace\ they developed into 107 observed items per visit "A#[ In addition to the checklist questions\ a protocol for conducting the observation visit was elaborated[ The main focus of the evaluation was an assessment of the housekeeping levels in the production area of each workplace[ Given the size of the typical work! place\ and the presence of departments in many of the companies\ it was decided to divide the production area for easier observation[ This would also provide a summary of housekeeping for companies where these levels varied between departments[ The divisions cor! responded to departments whenever possible[ If a workplace did not have distinct departments\ the these criteria\ the production area of each workplace was divided into four observation sections of approxi! mately equal size[ Although production areas pro! vided an estimation of general housekeeping\ a sam! pling of individual workstations "e[g[\ work benches\ paint booths\ machines# was carried out to address more detailed characteristics of housekeeping[ This was done by systematically sampling four personal work area that was physically located closest to the center of each observation section was selected[ Finally\ two storage areas "consisting of one chemical and one material storage area# were also included in the housekeeping assessment visits[

Calculatin` housekeepin` levels

If an observed item was endorsed "e[g[\ slings

stored#\ this resulted in a positive score of one for thatDownloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/43/2/91/261490 by guest on 10 July 2023

Measuring housekeeping 82

item[ Incorrect items scored zero\ and items that were not applicable "e[g[\ no slings used in this work area# did not contribute to the score[ From the completed checklists\ a housekeeping score for each visit was calculated as the percentage of positive scores among all scored items[ High scores correspond to better housekeeping[ Scores of individual visits were used to establish checklist reliability[

Study population

This study was conducted among registered com!

manufacturing sector\ in the Montreal\ Sherbrooke\

Granby and Quebec city regions in Quebec\ Canada

between January 0\ 0881 and April 0\ 0882[ Com! panies in the chosen regions\ listed as employing between twenty and sixty workers\ were eligible for the study[ The regions were chosen for their relative concentration of eligible companies in order to min! imize study costs[ The restrictions of size and indus! trial sector were imposed to increase the probability thereby facilitating the identi_cation of common sur! veyitemsforthe checklist[Thissectorwasalsochosen because it was represented by a non!partisan health and safety association[

Selection of the participatin` companies

bi!partisan health and safety association representing the manufacturers of transportation equipment and machinery were asked to make initial contacts with companies\ inviting them to participate in the study[ In all\ eighty!two eligible companies were contacted\ and sixty!six consented to participate[ Among the latter\ four companies were rejected because they had less than _ve workers[ A further three companies were eliminated because of plant closures[ Finally\ data from _fty!nine companies were used in the analyses[

Observation visits to assess housekeepin`

Companies agreeing to participate were contacted

by the main observer to set a date for the _rst visit[ Subsequent visits were usually arranged on site[ Com! panies were visited an average of four times during the study period[ Each company was visited on at least two di}erent occasions and one main observer was used for the study[ Alternate observers were used to test inter!observer reliability[ A company rep! resentative usually led the observer on an initial visit For subsequent visits\ the observer was often allowed to proceed through the observation alone[ The evalu! ation of housekeeping was performed during walk! through surveys of the companies using the checklist to the checklists\ nor were the companies told which speci_c items were being observed[Checklist validity

The process used for checklist construction\ in!

volving both internal and external experts\ ensured that de_nitions were addressed and were relevant for the targeted sector[ The measurement protocol\ which included repeated visits and visits at di}erent times of the week\ month\ and across seasons\ also ensured capture of ~uctuations in housekeeping levels over time[

Checklist reliability

Companies were visited by one observer on more

than one occasion to evaluate testretest reliability[ Repeated visits were spaced at least one week apart to reduce the possibility that the observer would remember the previous scoring[ For testretest reliability\ 66 pairs of closely!spaced visits "no more than three weeks between visits# and 142 pairs of widely!spaced visits "over three weeks between visits# were compared[

To evaluate inter!observer reliability\ the main

observer was accompanied by one of four alternate observers[ Prior to a visit\ company management was asked for permission to allow two observers to inspect the facilities[ In addition to assessing overall house! keeping\ separate scores for obstructions\ organ! ization\ and cleanliness were also computed by each observer[

ANALYSIS

Testretest and inter!observer reliability for the house! keepin` instrument

Once it was clear that between observer variances

were independent of housekeeping scores\ reliability was assessed using one!way random e}ects analysis of variance "ANOVA# to obtain intra!class correlation "ICC# coe.cients "Altman and Bland\ 0872^ Cho\

0870^ Fisher\ 0852^ Muller and Buttner\ 0883^ Shrout

and Fleiss\ 0868# using the ANOVA procedure from

SAS "SAS 5[00\ SAS institute#[ The ICC model con!

trasts the between rater variance for same visits to between company variance[ Unlike the Pearson prod! uct moment correlation or regression coe.cient\ ICC measures the degree of agreement[ ICC scores range from perfect agreement "score of 0[99# to no agree! ment beyond that expected by chance "score of 9[99#[ "McDowell and Newell\ 0876#[

RESULTS

Initial workplaceobservations did notexceed forty! _ve minutes[ Subsequent observations typically required less than thirty minutes[

Overall housekeeping scores across all workplaces

ranged from a low of 22[4) to a high of 83[5)[ Mean

scores for housekeeping components were generallyDownloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/43/2/91/261490 by guest on 10 July 2023

V[ M[ Dufort and C[ Infante!Rivard83

equivalent\ with cleanliness scoring lowest and organ! ization scoring highest "Table 0#[

Company characteristics across categorical house!

keeping scores were similar for workweek duration and number of workers "Table 1#[ However\ a greater proportion of companies with high housekeeping scores had fewer injuries in the study year compared to previous years\ had only one work shift\ and had assembly line production[ These companies were also less likely to have health and safety committees or small production pieces Table 1[

Worker characteristics did not vary much between

companies when grouped by housekeeping scores "Table 2#[

RELIABILITY OF HOUSEKEEPING CHECKLIST

When two observers were present\ the alternate

observers tended to score slightly lower than the main Table 0[ Housekeeping scores for 48 manufacturers of trans! portation equipment and machinery in Quebec\ 088182

Mean "Median# S[D[

Total 63[0 "63[6# 8[4

Obstructions 69[2 "60[0# 09[9

Organization 63[1 "64[4# 09[3

Cleanliness 56[1 "56[7# 01[3

S[D[*Standard Deviation[

Table 1[ Company characteristics by housekeeping levels] Quebec transportation equipment and machinery manufacturers housekeeping study\ 088182

Categorical Housekeeping

Scores

69 69[07979

"N06# "N10# "N10#

Mean workweek duration "hours# 30[3 39[3 39[4

Mean number of workers 18[9 23[6 20[7

Estimated relation of this year|s injuries to

past years

Fewer than usual 13) 24) 32)

More than usual 18) 04) 4)

Only one work shift 30) 39) 41)

Health and Safety Committee 71) 74) 60)

Small production pieces 83) 65) 51)

Assembly line production 13) 13) 22)

Table 2[ Worker characteristics by housekeeping levels] Quebec transportation equipment and machinery manufacturers housekeeping study\ 088182

Total housekeeping

scores

69 69[07979

"N06# "N10# "N10# Mean age of injured workers "years# 26[2 24[4 25[5

Mean age of all workers "years# 26[6 24[3 25[9

Mean experience of injured workers "years# 6[5 5[0 7[2 Mean experience of all workers "years# 8[6 6[7 09[1 observer\ but the variability in scores did not depend on score magnitude[ The results of the testretest reliability are shown in Table 3[ Values of ICCs for the entire checklist showed that\ overall\ results from closely!spaced visits were more alike than those from widely!spaced visits[

When checklist items were grouped into categories

representing cleanliness\ organization\ or obstruc! tions\ correlations between scores for closely!spaced visits "no more than 2 weeks apart# were consistently greater than for widely!spaced visits "at least three weeks apart#[ Values of ICCs for inter!observer reliability tests comparing concurrent visits were higher than test retest reliability scores Table 3[ With an ICC of 9[77 "84) CI 9[709[83#\ inter!observer reliability of over! all housekeeping was highest[ Scores for cleanliness were the least reproducible between observers\ how! "p9[94# as indicated by the overlapping 84) CIs[

DISCUSSION

In the _rst part of this study a comprehensive new checklist for measuring housekeeping across di}erent companies was developed and tested[ Although mini! mal inter!observer testing was performed\ this type

of checklist promises to have strong inter!observerDownloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/43/2/91/261490 by guest on 10 July 2023

Measuring housekeeping 84

keeping checklist designed for manufacturers of trans! portation equipment and machinery in Quebec\ 088182! intraclass correlation coe.cients

Intraclass

correlation coe.cient "84) CI# a

Testretest reliability

Close visits

Total 9[62 "9[579[67#

Organization 9[51 "9[449[58#

Cleanliness 9[54 "9[489[61#

Obstruction 9[64 "9[589[68#

Distant visits

Total 9[44 "9[409[59#

Organization 9[30 "9[259[35#

Cleanliness 9[49 "9[359[44#

Obstruction 9[50 "9[469[54#

Total 9[77 "9[709[83#

Organization 9[75 "9[689[82#

Cleanliness 9[60 "9[459[72#

Obstruction 9[63 "9[509[74#

84) C[I[*84) con_dence interval of intraclass cor!

relation coe.cient[ b

Revisit within three weeks[

Visits over three weeks apart[

reliability because of its clearly de_ned checklist items and measurement protocol[ The alternate observers the workplace visits\ however\ no trial observations were performed[ In spite of this low level of training\ inter!observer agreement was high[ In testing the inter!observer reliability among cat! egories\ {organization| showed better agreement than {cleanliness| and {obstruction|[ This was expected because {organization| dealt with the presence of sys! tems that tend to be consistent throughout the work!quotesdbs_dbs17.pdfusesText_23

[PDF] Measuring Housekeeping in Manufacturing Industries - Oxford

Ann[ occup[ Hyg[\ Vol[ 32\ No[ 1\ pp[ 8086\ 0888

088 British Occupational Hygiene Society

Pergamon

Printed in Great Britain[

99923767:8 ,08[999[99

PII] S9992!3767"87#99968!8

VINCENT M[ DUFORT and CLAIRE INFANTE!RIVARD

Keywords] housekeeping^ checklistINTRODUCTION

Measurin` housekeepin`

The state of housekeeping in industry is thought

Germain\ 0889^ Saari and Na

Some researchers have produced measures that

0872^ Rees\ 0856#\ but did not examine housekeeping

Housekeepingbehaviorhas also been studied as

0872#\ yet thestateof housekeeping as a workplace

0!592!638!0084^ E!mail] nhpro[vdufortsdps[org[

80een item checklist evaluated housekeeping conditions[

Sahrai\ 0866^ Smith et al[\ 0876#[

More recently\ in a series of quasi!experimental

0878#[ Detailed checklists and observation procedures

Researchers have classi_ed di}erent properties of

In one textbook written for safety professionals\

V[ M[ Dufort and C[ Infante!Rivard81

The evaluation of the state of housekeeping needs

OBJECTIVES

METHODS

De_nition of housekeepin`

In the present study\ housekeeping was de_ned as

0[organization*orderly and structured placement

1[obstructions*lack of clutter\ clear access to work!

2[cleanliness[

Checklist development

Previous examples of single workplace checklists

0[ Checklist items had to be observable in various

1[ Questions requiring technical expertise\ expert

2[ Observations were restricted to workplaceconditions\ not to the measurement of worker

3[ Measurements requiring speci_c tools "such as

4[ The observation of the workplace had to be carried

5[ The _nal checklist had to minimize observation

6[ Questions had to be well de_ned to limit subjective

Weekly meetings were held with safety experts to

Final checklist and evaluation

Calculatin` housekeepin` levels

If an observed item was endorsed "e[g[\ slings

Measuring housekeeping 82

Study population

This study was conducted among registered com!

Granby and Quebec city regions in Quebec\ Canada

Selection of the participatin` companies

Observation visits to assess housekeepin`

Companies agreeing to participate were contacted

The process used for checklist construction\ in!

Checklist reliability

Companies were visited by one observer on more

To evaluate inter!observer reliability\ the main

ANALYSIS

Once it was clear that between observer variances

0870^ Fisher\ 0852^ Muller and Buttner\ 0883^ Shrout

SAS "SAS 5[00\ SAS institute#[ The ICC model con!

RESULTS

Overall housekeeping scores across all workplaces

V[ M[ Dufort and C[ Infante!Rivard83

Company characteristics across categorical house!

Worker characteristics did not vary much between

RELIABILITY OF HOUSEKEEPING CHECKLIST

When two observers were present\ the alternate

Mean "Median# S[D[

Total 63[0 "63[6# 8[4

Obstructions 69[2 "60[0# 09[9

Organization 63[1 "64[4# 09[3

Cleanliness 56[1 "56[7# 01[3

S[D[*Standard Deviation[

Categorical Housekeeping

Scores

69 69[07979

Mean workweek duration "hours# 30[3 39[3 39[4

Mean number of workers 18[9 23[6 20[7

Estimated relation of this year|s injuries to

Fewer than usual 13) 24) 32)