The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a 30-page report on occupational wearable technologies, focusing on exoskeletons and wearable sensors. The compiled information is non-technical and accessible. The primary audience for the report is the Ranking Member of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions in the U.S. Senate. Copies of this report have also been sent to the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Defense.
The GAO report on wearable technologies is primarily introductory. It correctly points out the goals of occupational exoskeletons to directly offset the strain on American workers and reduce injury rates. The authors emphasize that this is not just an imaginary need, as Liberty Mutual Insurance calculates that musculoskeletal injuries cost U.S. employers $17.7 billion in 2021. The authors estimate that the highest incident rates are in warehouses, followed by manufacturing. Other reports list nursing and patient handling as high-risk occupations, but the fact remains that work-related physical injuries are a real problem that could potentially be solved with modern technology.
The GAO study emphasizes that exoskeletons are not one solution fits all. The hierarchy of controls should be followed regardless of what new technology is on the horizon. The logic is quite simple. First, explore if the risk to the workers can be eliminated. If that is not possible, for financial or practical reasons, could the risky component be substituted with something less dangerous to employees? Then, explore possibilities to isolate that hazard or change how it is performed, and only as a last resort, use personal protective equipment. The study does not explore where exactly exoskeleton technology falls on this list, either personal protective equipment or engineering controls. However, it correctly states that a company shouldn’t blindly adopt a new ergonomic solution without conducting this logical evaluation first.
A Lot of Responsibility Falls On the Implementor
The report correctly captures an unfortunate phenomenon when implementing occupational exoskeletons: the brunt of the work falls on the buyer. First, the company that wants to implement a wearable aid must discover and learn about its existence. Then, perform the already mentioned hierarchy of controls for each task and workstation. Even identifying the appropriate jobs can be a challenge. Selecting which wearable to pilot can also be tricky, as Table 1 of the report lists the variety of industrial exoskeletons on the market. The pilot and deployment also need to be done with care. Procedures, goals, education, feedback, and responsibility must be defined. (These are detailed in Table 2 of the report).
This may be why, in Western Europe, there are exoskeleton implementors who help with selection and implementation, going far beyond what a distributor would be expected to do. Last week, Fraunhofer IPA, a renowned organization that tests exoskeletons for work via its ExoWorkAthlon, announced that it will hold the first-ever one-day crash course for company health officers on matching and evaluating exoskeletons.
The most crucial element of this report is that it exists. It signals to the U.S. Federal government that occupational exoskeletons and wearable sensors are here, their use is increasing, and that multiple levels of government need to start taking note. The report does not include any recommendations for policy changes at this time. The entire report is on the GAO website.
This post was originally published on here
