Chapter Five

 

Analysis of Data & Results

5.1 Response analysis

A total of 181 questionnaires were sent during the survey. Responses from 102 local authorities were received. These included three letters declining to assist and a notification that one of the Local Authorities had now merged with its neighbour (from whom a valid response was received). In all 98 valid questionnaires were returned within the reply deadline. This represents a reply rate of 54%. This rate is considered slightly higher than would have been expected from research literature. The following chart shows this response rate graphically.

 

 

Figure 10 Response Rate To Postal Survey

 

Research by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health Officers indicates that response rates to surveys are typically around 45 % - with some statutory returns only being compiled and submitted by 80% of Authorities. The levels of response in this instance would suggest a reasonable degree of confidence in the results.

 

The following section looks at the results of the survey.

wwwuuuwww

It is suggested that this chapter is read in conjunction with: Appendix Two which identifies the Local Authorities which formed the survey sample, and the Authorities which responded; Appendix Three which includes a copy of the questionnaire sent; and Appendix Four which offers a further detailed breakdown of the results based upon analysis by the SPSSPC computer package.

wwwuuuwww

 

5.2 Questionnaire analysis

Because of the differing sizes of Local Authorities within the sample, the questionnaire did not attempt to gather detailed quantitative information - e.g. how many cases of x has Authority y been involved with. Information of this type - such as the number of accident reports received, or the number of complaints investigated would not be comparable between larger urban Authorities and their smaller rural counterparts. Accordingly the scope for quantitative statistical analysis is intentionally restricted.

 

5.3 Notifications & Requests

Literature evidence from the Health & Safety Executive suggested that an increasing number of enquiries were being received from Environmental Health Officers requesting information about supermarket checkout safety issues. This, in isolation, would suggest that a number of Officers perceived that there were safety issues relating to their design and operation. The first portion of the survey attempted to find out what had triggered such concerns. Questions were asked about notifications and requests made to the Authority in respect of checkout safety issues. The time frame being considered was set at three years. It was felt that Officers would be able to readily recollect this period with reasonable clarity. It was also considered that many Officers may not have worked within Health and Safety enforcement for more than three years.

The majority of Authorities (63%) had not received formal notifications of accidents at checkout within the last three years. However, a sizeable proportion (27%) had done so. Only a small number indicated that they did not know this information suggesting a high level of confidence in the results.

Additional information supplied, identified that they had been notified of the following incidents:

Staff Injuries

Customer Injuries

42% of the Authorities had received complaints from checkout workers during the same time period. Comments made by respondents suggested that these typically included the following (number of responses are shown in brackets):

Thermal comfort (13)

Seating provision suitability (10)

No seating provision (4)

Equipment layout (1)

Working hours (1)

Manual handling (1)

Electrical safety (1)

Laser scanner causing eye discomfort (1)

Inadequate working space (1)

Contamination from handling raw meat (1)

30% of Authorities had been approached by workers seeking safety information. A small number of Authorities (6.5%) had been requested to assist with checkout health and safety research, the vast majority, 91% had not.

Over all just under two thirds of the sample had received some notification or report relating to checkouts. There is no clear link between complaints and accident notifications, nor between accident reporting and requests for assistance.

 

 

5.4 Availability of Information to Officers

Whilst there is a vast array of published works relating specifically to checkout safety available to researchers, personal experience suggest that very little is available within Environmental Health Departments. Few will subscribe to Medical or Ergonomics journals, and at the present time there is not specific documentation of this subject from the Health and Safety Executive. There is, however, a wealth of information available about ergonomic issues in general, and about upper limb disorders which are written with a wider range of activities in mind. A question was framed to determine exactly where local Authorities received their information from. Sources were categorised as: Health & Safety Executive, Large Retailers, Equipment Suppliers, Retail Trade Journals, and Professional Safety Bodies. An attempt was also made to identify if they believed they had adequate information from each of the sources.

The responses suggested that the general availability and quality / quantity of information available was low. Only 39% felt that they had sufficient information from the Health and Safety Executive, some 12 % indicating that they knew of none from this source. By comparison a single respondent felt that an excess of information was available from the HSE. The validity of this response is questionable.

Only a single respondent felt that sufficient information was available from all listed sources. 29 respondents indicated that they had either none or insufficient information from all of the sources.

The level of ‘don’t know’ responses to each of the question sections was quite high (in the region of 13%) however, only 3 respondents marked this answer for all the information sources listed.

The following figure graphically illustrates the responses to this question.

 

 

Figure 11 Availability of Information to Environmental Health Departments

on Checkout Safety Issues From a number of sources.

 

 

 

5.5 Information for Employees

Many researchers have suggested that ‘hardware’ alterations to checkouts - redesigns based upon ergonomic principles, may not, in themselves, be sufficient to reduce worker injury rates. It has been suggested that of equal importance is worker training. Observations have indicated that workers are slow to adapt to changes in their workstations. Personal observations made in a store which had changed from flat bed scanning systems to a vertical scanner - which should have enabled the worker to drag items rather than lifting them, and which had a wider scan field, requiring less precise orientation, showed that experienced operators continued to treat the new devices as they would have done the old.

Orientation and lifting of products appeared second nature. Operators questioned stated that they chose not to change their working pattern because they could work faster using the familiar method. Whilst not surprising, this is a matter for concern. Would working practices change if employees fully understood the possible ill effects of poor product handling, and posture ? Trade unions such as USDAW feel that the answer to this question is a resounding ‘yes’ and actively push for more information for checkout workers to enable them to make an informed choice about the manner in which they work at checkouts.

Since health and safety enforcers are encouraged to have an educatory role it could be argued that they should be aware of where their endeavours in this respect should be targeted.

Accordingly, a question was framed to explore whether Officers considered that workers were already provided with sufficient information - a requirement of health & safety law enforced by Environmental Health Officers. An attempt was made to see if there was a difference of view in respect of employees working for different size retailer groups.

The results suggested that the majority of respondents felt that those working for the national supermarket chains would have sufficient information about checkout safety issues, whilst those working for smaller retailers in contrast probably did not. In excess of a fifth of the respondents selected the ‘don’t know’ option, suggesting a degree of uncertainty. The following figure illustrates these responses.

 

 

Figure 12 Availability of Information to Checkout Workers

Covering Health & Safety Issues

Whilst only one respondent felt that both groups of workers would have no information, 20% believed that both groups had insufficient information and only 8% were satisfied that both had the appropriate amount.

The following table is a cross-tabulation of this data showing the number of responses for each of the categories.

 

 

Table 7. Perceived Availability Of Information On Health & Safety

Issues To Workers Of National And Regional Supermarkets

 

NB Sample size =97  

Information Available to Small Retailer Employees

(Regional Retailer Groups)

 
    None Insufficient Sufficient Excessive Don’t Know  

Information available to Large Retail Store Employees

(National Supermarket Chains)

None  

1

     

1.0%

Insufficient

8

20

   

1

29.9%

Sufficient

5

28

8

 

5

47.4%

Excessive  

1

     

1.0%

Don’t Know        

20

20.6%

   

13.3%

52.0%

8.2%

 

26.5%

 

 

 

 

5.6 Predicted Worker Reporting of Discomfort and Injury

Most literature relating to checkout safety issues identifies that certain areas of the body are prone to discomfort and injury through work. Almost all identify that symptoms are common for the lower back, shoulders and neck of workers, whilst less in the knees, hips and ankles of workers - especially if they are seated. These results could be readily predicted by any ergonomist visually inspecting a checkout and observing working techniques. However, perhaps surprisingly whilst the severity of symptoms in the wrists can be high, the frequency with which they are reported is relatively lower.

It is important to understand symptom reporting patterns if ergonomic interventions are proposed - for example the data indicates the importance of chair design.

Environmental Health Officers may not be aware of ergonomics data relating to checkout design, but should have a good working knowledge of the principles through their work enforcing the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992.

A question was formulated to test the hypothesis that Officers would be able to identify the areas of the body where workers were most and least likely to report symptoms. The resulting question identified nine body regions (which were supported by a diagram identifying their anatomical positions) and asked to rank them in order of expected symptom reporting frequency - most (1) through to least (9).

Data collected by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE 1998), from a survey of 1554 checkout workers, was used for comparison with Officers responses.

The area which Officers expected would be the subject of most reported symptoms, was the lower back. This is in line with HSE survey results. It was ranked 1st by 42.5% of the respondents, although a sizeable proportion considered that shoulders (17.2%), wrists (14.9%) and upper back (11.5%) should be ranked number 1.

At the other end of the spectrum, the body area which Officers considered would be the subject of fewest reports was the ankles with 60.9% scoring this 9th. HSE’s research suggested that ankles would be placed 8th and that 9th position would be occupied by elbows.

The following graph indicates the proportion of responses allocating the same rank to symptoms as the Health and Safety Executive (shown green), the proportion considering symptoms would be reported more frequently than HSE found (shown blue) and the proportion who believed that symptoms would be reported less than the HSE survey found (shown red). It shows that in each case there was a range of responses.

 

Figure 13 Percentage Of Respondents Ranking Symptom Reporting

Frequency At The Same Level As HSE Survey.

 

The ranked data provided by the respondents was compared with the data collected by HSE, and a referent population data supplied by HSE (HSE 1998). A correlation coefficient for each questionnaire was generated. The correlation coefficient calculation generated a value between -1 and +1, where -1 would indicate a perfect inverse relationship between the data, 0 no pattern of match whatsoever, and a value of +1 a perfect match.

The distribution of the correlated values was calculated and is graphically shown in the following figure. It illustrates how the majority of the values are close to +1 (a positive correlation).

 

 

Figure 14 Distribution of Calculated Coefficient Values

For Questionnaire Response Data Compared to Symptom

Reporting Data From HSE Survey & HSE Referent Population

 

Whilst none of the ranked sequences returned by the respondents exactly matched either the HSE survey data nor the referent sample data, they followed them very closely. Analysis of the distribution for the questionnaire and HSE Cashier sample data correlation values yielded a mean value of 0.699, a median value of 0.750 and a standard deviation of 0.212.

For the comparison with the referent data the mean was 0.669, the median 0.717 and the standard deviation 0.210.

These values signify that there is a close correlation between the questionnaire responses and both sets of HSE data. This in turn would appear to suggest that Environmental Health Officers have, on the whole, a good working knowledge of ergonomic issues and are either familiar with, or are able to cognitively predict, symptoms.

 

5.7 Risk Assessment of Checkouts

As discussed in the previous chapter, risk assessment is at the heart of legislative safety and welfare controls within the UK. It is used as a means of placing work activities in to a ranking which enables the most deserving to be readily identified and targeted for action ahead of others where interventions may have less impact.

During preparation work for this study, risk assessments from a variety of large retailers were collected and reviewed. Whilst each retailer was assessing essentially the same task, assessment styles and assessment conclusions varied. Information from either in-store documentation, or from discussions with store management, or safety professionals, gave an insight into how severe they felt any injury could be which arose from checkout work and how likely it was to occur. During interviews most were able to recollect some incident which had occurred and base their answer around that episode. Whilst none would give permission to reproduce their risk assessments in this document, their responses can be summarised in the following table:

 

 

Table 8. Risk Rating of Handling Operations at Supermarket

Checkouts Based on Assessments By Retailers

 

 

Effect of Hazard   Likelihood of Harm
Major

10%

  High

0%

Serious

70%

  Medium

60%

Slight

20%

  Low

40%

Sample Size: 10 Retailers.

 

The variance in the responses was in part due to different designs and configurations of equipment used, and upon the range of tasks undertaken at the store.

1

A question was devised to assess how Environmental Health Officers would evaluate the risks presented by manual handling operations at a checkout. The question had two parts, the first requiring them to assess the effect of the hazard and the second to evaluate the likelihood of harm occurring. The results of the replies is tabulated below.

 

Table 9. Risk Rating of Manual Handling Operation At A Supermarket

Checkout By Environmental Health Officers

 

 

NB Sample size =90  

How bad is any injury to a checkout worker likely to be ?

Effect of Hazard

 
    High Medium Low  

What is the likelihood of the injury occurring?

Likelihood of Harm

Major

1

   

1.1%

Serious

6

32

14

57.8%

Slight

2

23

12

41.1%

   

10.0%

61.1%

28.9%

 

 

It is clear that again there is a degree of variance with the replies, however there is a predominance to assess the Effect of Hazard as ‘Medium’ (61.1%) and the Likelihood of Harm as ‘Serious’ (57.8%). The largest proportion, some 35% rated the task as ‘Medium’ and ‘Serious’. These figures are virtually identical to those produced by retailers. This suggests that either Officers are familiar with retailers risk ratings, or that they concur with their evaluation of the task.

The range of results, however, does show that enforcement officers may not be consistent in their approach to checkout safety enforcement. A sizeable percentage (13.3%) felt that checkout safety was of the lowest possible risk.

 

Officers were asked how often they had requested to see the risk assessments compiled by the retailers which related to checkout activities. This was an attempt to investigate if Officers were familiar with the contents of such documentation, and accordingly if they were aware of the importance which retailers placed on checkout health and safety.

The majority 57.3% answered that they asked to see checkout risk assessments rarely, but a large proportion 33.3% would see them often. Only six respondents (6.3%) said that they would ask to see them on each time a retail premises was inspected. Three replies (3.1%) said that they had never asked to see risk assessments when undertaking inspections.

5.8 Inspection of Checkouts

Larger supermarkets tend to be large employers, and have reasonable health and safety standards and good track records for safety compliance. They may, however, be the source of a large number of accident reports, but this is on the whole due to the scale of their operation and because reporting rates are good.

Accordingly, over all, Enforcement Officers may not see them as a priority for Health and Safety inspections. This may differ for some Local Authorities where both food safety and health and safety compliance are assessed during the same visit. Risk assessment of food safety matters may produce an inspection rating triggering shorter inspection intervals and resulting in more inspection within a given time period.

In either event, the range and volume of activities undertaken at supermarkets may mean that the checkout is not always the subject of a detailed inspection by Officers. A question was constructed to identify under which circumstances a checkout may be the subject of a ‘thorough and detailed inspection / audit’.

52.6% suggested that they would only undertake such an inspection rarely when inspection the store as a whole, approximately a third felt that they undertook a thorough inspection often when they visited. Only a small proportion would look in detail at the checkout on every inspection but a similar proportion (7.2%) claimed that they would never undertake a detailed inspection of a checkout when undertaking a routine safety inspection.

Three quarters would inspect a checkout every time in response to a complaint, and a similar proportion after notification of an accident.

1 The following figure graphically illustrates these responses, indicating how checkout safety is considered important ordinarily, but would be the focus of increased attention following either an accident notification or a complaint.

 

 

Figure 15 Frequency With Which Supermarket Checkouts Would

Be Thoroughly Inspected Under Differing Circumstances

 

 

Officers were also asked about their use of checklists when inspecting the checkout area. Most (89.8%) never used a checklist, whilst 8.2% used them rarely.

 

An open question was written asking Officers to identify the criteria they would investigate when undertaking a checkout inspection. They were asked to indicate the factors they would consider, and to indicate those which they felt were most important for the ones they were listing. It is not possible to easily gather such information using a fixed number of options since stating alternatives would both restrict and bias the reply. The question was answered by 89 persons.

The replies were coded into 28 categories, and analysis of these suggests 83% would check operator seating, 62% would evaluate the overall ergonomics and design of the workstation, 42% would evaluate manual handling operations expected of workers, and 36% would consider environmental factors such as heating, lighting and ventilation for operators.

The following tabulates the results found.

 

 

Table 10 Criteria Officers Would Check When Inspecting

A Supermarket Checkout.

 

 

Issue Raised

Number Indicating As Priority

Indicated In Addition

Total Times Identified

Seating Provision Suitability & Maintenance 30 44 74
Workstation Layout / General Ergonomics 18 37 55
Manual Handling (general) 13 24 37
Work Duration / Breaks 8 15 23
Posture 7 9 16
Equipment: General maintenance of 6 23 29
Reach 6 15 21
Space Available for Worker 5 17 22
Environmental Factors: Heating & Lighting 4 28 32
Training 4 15 19
Foot Rest 4 13 17
Violence / Security 4 7 11
Method of Work 4 5 9
Electrical Safety / Cabling 3 20 23
Conveyor Condition / Trapping Hazards 2 16 18
Risk Assessments 2 3 5
Size of Goods Handled 1 8 9
Cleanliness / Tidiness / Housekeeping 1 3 4
Sharp Edges 1 1 2
Stress 1 1 2
Trip Hazards   7 7
Scanner Suitability   4 4
Laser Safety   3 3
Accident Reports / Sickness Records   2 2
Availability of 2nd Staff Member to Assist   1 1
Condition of Floor   1 1
Exposure to Radiation   1 1
Spillage Procedures   1 1

Sample: 89 Responses

 

26% said that they would ask about worker’s hours and break patterns. 5% suggested that would ask to see risk assessments. This compares favourably with a previous question where 6% of respondents said they would wish to see risk assessments each time they made an inspection.

 

 

5.9 Conditions for Checkout Workers

To gain a feeling for how Officers viewed the working conditions for checkout operators, two questions were formulated. The first asked for their views on how conditions had changed over the last ten years, and the second asked for their assessment of present standards. Most (76.1%), believed that the work systems today were an improvement on those in use ten years ago, and virtually all indicated that conditions today were either fair or good (each scoring 47.3%)

9.8% suggested that conditions had deteriorated and 4.4% felt that present working conditions could be considered poor. The largest proportion considered that conditions had improved and were presently good. The following table indicates the responses to these two questions.

 

 

Table 11 Perceived Working Conditions For Checkout Operators

 

NB Sample size =89  

The Working Conditions of Today's Supermarket Checkout Operators

 
    Excellent Good Fair Poor  

How Have Working Conditions Changed For Checkout Workers Over The Last Ten Years

Improved

1

40

25

1

75.3%

Deteriorated  

2

6

1

10.1%

Not Changed  

1

10

2

14.6%

   

1.1%

48.3%

46.1%

4.5%

 

 

It could be assumed from this information that many feel that conditions are likely to continue to improve.

 

 

5.10 Local Authority Enforcement Activities

Discussions with retailers had suggested that few had been issued with formal health and safety notices relating to checkout issues, although many noted that checkouts were frequently the subject of correspondence (informal notices), and some remarked that ‘advice’ given in such correspondence was often contradictory and typically impractical. Requests to the Local Authority Unit of the HSE have been unable to identify specifically the volume of formal proceedings (notices / prosecutions) issued by Local Authorities and accordingly it was considered that this was a suitable subject for a question.

Replies suggested that 1% of local Authorities had issued health and safety Prohibition Notices within the last three years, and 1% had issued Improvement Notices. Comments suggested that notices had been served in respect of condition and suitability of seating (Improvement Notice) and a conveyor guarding fault which resulted in the injury to a child (Prohibition Notice). In addition a ‘minded to’ notice had been served in respect of seating and improvements made which meant formal service of notice was unnecessary.

 

Throughout health and safety literature there is a continuing argument relating to how health and safety should be controlled. In the absence of definitive guidance on such issues Local Authority Officers often find them selves unsure of their roles. Should they be assisting self regulation or policing regulations in a state regulatory role ?

Asked to select between the two, or to identify another approach, 70.7% felt that they should assist self regulation to protect the health, safety and welfare of checkout workers. 26.1% saw a more classic state regulatory role as the appropriate stance to achieve this aim.

These two questions, combined, suggest that Enforcement Officers have a high degree of confidence in the larger supermarkets to address safety issues. It would appear that they believe that an informal approach is usually appropriate.

 

It has been suggested that additional controls should be placed on supermarket checkouts - perhaps by making them the subject of specific regulations or guidance. Others have urged that more worker training should be given and information provided.

Asked about the adequacy of existing controls only 28% felt that present controls, in themselves, were inadequate, however, in the majority of cases Officers saw the need for enforcer, employer and employee guidance on this subject. The following figure shows the result of this question.

 

 

Figure 16 Controls & Guidance Required To Ensure The Health

Safety & Welfare Of Checkout Workers Is Protected.

 

The final question asked about consistency of enforcement, and looked at perceptions about continuity both within their Authority and consistency between their Authorities and other Authorities across the UK. It was assumed that there would be a consistency of approach across the Authority, as Officers rarely work in isolation and are usually counselled by the views of their peers. Likewise, Authorities interact with their neighbouring Local Government counterparts, and meet through liaison groups and events organised by professional bodies.

The vast majority of the responses (75%) indicated that there was a degree of continuity in the approach taken by their authority, but few knew if their approach was similar or different from that of other Authorities. Comments from retailers in this respect would suggest that there is a high degree of variance both in terms of the standards expected and the enforcement stance taken by different Local Authorities.

 

 

Table 12 Consistency Of Approach To Supermarket

Checkout Safety Enforcement

 

 

NB Sample size =96  

Consistency of Supermarket Checkout Safety Enforcement

Across The Local Authority

 
    Yes No Don’t Know  

Consistency of Supermarket Checkout Safety Enforcement

Across The UK.

Yes

3

   

3.1%

No

25

14

 

40.6%

Don’t Know

44

2

8

56.3%

   

75.0%

16.7%

8.3%

 

 

 

5.11 Trends within Data

With a small data sample it can be difficult to identify trends. They can only be interpreted with a low degree of confidence and may not be characteristic of a larger population, however, comparison between responses would suggest that there are three distinct correlations within the collected data.

Firstly there appears to be a general link between the quantities of information respondents identified as being available to them and their opinion that enforcer guidance is required.

There also appears to be a pattern between the receipt of formal accident notifications and the frequencies with which checkouts are the subject of thorough inspection, with notification recipients thoroughly inspecting checkouts more often.

Finally, accident notification recipients have a tendency to allocate checkouts a higher risk rating.

 

It is clear that most of the respondents to the survey felt that health, safety and welfare conditions for checkout workers had improved significantly over the last ten years. This is a fair assumption since many checkout designs have changed over this period - some subtly and some more radically.

Whilst it is clear from these results that on the whole Environmental Health Officers have a reasonable working knowledge of checkout safety issues, and are reasonably active in this area of worker protection, it would be inappropriate to consider that any improvements made were purely as a result of their endeavours.

The role of the checkout today is changing. It is perhaps now appropriate, that we consider the future of the supermarket checkout, and to indeed identify if it has one, before drawing conclusions as to the steps necessary to ensure that conditions for checkout workers continue to improve.

 

The following Chapter now explores if the days are numbered for the supermarket checkout.

BACK: Chapter Four

Home

E-Mail Me

FORWARD: Chapter Six