The HSE (via H&S Labs in Buxton) have recently published a DSE Research document: RR628 - Evaluation of the success in Great Britain of the Directive on minimum safety and health requirements for work with display screen equipment RR628. EssentialSkillz MD Tony Dervan has summarised the key findings and conclusions below. To access the full report please click here.

4 AWARENESS, KNOWLEDGE AND RELEVANCE OF THE REGULATIONS
4.6 CONCLUSIONS
The results showed that, overall, the awareness levels, knowledge levels, relevance levels and
confidence in complying with the Regulations was relatively high. This was regardless of main
business activity, size of organisation or sector. Further, just over half of the businesses used
the HSE to get information on the Regulations. However, smaller sized businesses and those in
the private sector did note slightly less awareness, extent of knowledge and confidence in the
Regulations.

5 INFORMATION AND TRAINING
5.1 CONCLUSIONS
The results from this section showed that the majority of businesses provided employees with
the relevant information to prevent the health risks associated with display screen equipment.
However, there were differences in the provision of information across business activity, size of
organisation and sector. Similarly, three-quarters of businesses provided employees with the
information at the start of employment, but there were not any significant differences across
business activities, size of organisation or sector.

The results showed also that businesses were less likely to provide training as opposed to
information, sixty-three per cent provided training to all users, but seventy-eight per cent
provided information to all users. Additionally, as with the previous findings, training provision
was contingent upon business activity, size of organisation and sector.

6 USE OF DSE AND ROUTINE OF USERS
6.3 CONCLUSIONS
The results in this section highlighted that just over one-third of businesses had between 67 to
100 per cent of their employees who work always with display screen equipment. The
businesses noted that the main tasks for which the equipment was used were word processing,
data entry, Internet-based work and desktop publishing. Very few businesses noted tasks such
as stock control, research/surveys or programming.

Less than one-quarter of businesses reported intensive display screen jobs, for example work
without any natural breaks. The majority of those employees who worked intensely with
display screen equipment were allowed to take breaks. Moreover, the majority of all users of
display screen equipment were said to take breaks at their discretion, although their supervisors
or managers reminded them to take breaks from screen work.

7 PERCEIVED RISKS
7.1 CONCLUSIONS
Overall, most of the participants were aware of the risks associated with display screen
equipment, and this is reflected in the high ratings attributed to those perceived risks. One
interesting finding was the lack of clarity by some individuals in respect of the association
between display screen equipment with epilepsy and with miscarriages and birth defects. It is
important to note that the more common risks associated with DSE work include upper limb
disorders, backache, fatigue and stress, and temporary eyestrain and headaches. There is a lack
of research to support other occurrences such as epilepsy, miscarriages or birth defects.

The analysis by job type seems to reveal overall that those individuals working in health and
safety related fields, as well as those who refused to disclose their job type, were more likely to
be aware of the risks associated with the use of display screen equipment. Additionally, they
were more likely to be aware of those risks that were not associated with using display screen
equipment. Those who claimed to have more knowledge of the Regulations were more likely to
select higher ratings for the awareness of the risks associated with working with display screen
equipment.

8 EYES AND EYESIGHT
8.2 CONCLUSIONS
Although the majority of businesses provided eyesight tests for users of display screen
equipment, there are still one-quarter of businesses that do not. The number of businesses not
offering this service increases to one-half among small-sized businesses. Further, there were
slightly fewer businesses in the private sector than in the public sector that tended to provide
tests for users. The most frequently reported circumstance in which eyesight tests were
provided was when the user had requested a test.

Just over one-third of businesses did not provide information on whether or not users of display
screen equipment had received tests over the last 12 months. Moreover, the receipt of tests
differed by industry, size of organisation and sector, as did the time period for offering eyesight
tests. As would be expected, in most businesses only a minority of employees were prescribed
special spectacles for their display screen work.

Awareness of the Regulations may influence the receipt of eyesight tests in the smallest-sized
businesses as over one-third of these businesses stated that none of their users had received
eyesight tests. As did close to one-third of businesses in the private sector. While this may be a
conjecture, the findings should be pursued in further research.

The extent of the businesses’ knowledge of the Regulations does not seem to have a strong
influence on the proportion of users who receive eyesight tests.

9 CHANGES TO WORKSTATIONS
9.6 CONCLUSIONS
One of the interesting findings from this section is that three-quarters of the businesses stated
that they conducted risk assessments every 12 months. Further, the undertaking of risk
assessments was not associated with either main business activity or sector, but rather by size of
organisation, with fewer of the smallest-sized organisations (2-24 employees) reporting that
they did risk assessments. However, when the relationship between extent of knowledge of the
Regulations and undertaking risk assessments was done among the different sizes of
organisations, the results showed that a larger percentage of organisations with more knowledge
regardless of size undertook risk assessments. This finding suggests that if information is
provided to a larger proportion of small-sized organisations then the proportion of these
organisations conducting risk assessments should increase.

10 COSTS AND BENEFITS
10.3 CONCLUSIONS
As the findings for the present section show, there was a lack of information on the direct costs
involved in implementing the Regulations. Further, a large proportion of businesses did not
have a separate budget to meet the costs involved in complying with the Regulations. Due to
the lack of a separate budget many businesses may not have been able to provide information on
specific costs, and this may account for the low response rate to this issue.

Interestingly, the positive agreement of the observation of particular benefits was noted by
between 30 per cent and 64 per cent of all the businesses. However, there are positive and
significant relationships between the various benefits observed, the types of budgets and the
total cost to the businesses.

11 CONCLUSIONS
11.1 IMPACT
The present research looked at the impact and success of the Directive in the UK by surveying
employers across the different business sectors. The majority of employers (93%) were aware
of the Regulations, a vast increase from the 1995/96 IES research (55%), and more than half
(60%) felt that they had a great deal of knowledge of the Regulations. This implies that self reported awareness and understanding are relatively high and provides a good basis for examining the impact that the Regulations may have had.

One of the ways in which the impact and success could be assessed is by whether or not the
Directive has had an effect on improving the working conditions and the safety and health of
employees. The findings in support of this measure are for the most part mixed. While there
have been improvements to working conditions, with for example, most employers reporting
that they undertake risk assessments (75%) and have changed some proportion of their
workstations (92%), this needs to be taken in context. As such, there is a need to be cognisant
that some of these changes might still have happened if there had not been a directive.
Although eighty-five per cent of employers mentioned complying with the Regulations as a
reason for making changes, this figure is only slightly behind the numbers that cited other
reasons like following good practice (91%) or protecting employees from risks (89%).

One factor that seemed to influence decisions in the workplace was the degree of knowledge of
the Regulations that was available to the employers. The findings in respect of the assessments
for this factor showed that a larger proportion of those employers with more knowledge
admitted to changing workstations in the last 12 months and undertaking risk assessments. This
implies that acquiring knowledge is a strong influencing factor in how responsive the businesses
are in making changes or responding to the needs of the workforce.

Interestingly, Melrose et al. (2007) investigated symptoms of ill health in DSE workers and did
not find evidence of any decline in symptoms during the period that the Regulations have been
in effect, which suggests that there may be limited positive evidence that the Regulations have
improved safety and health. However, it cannot be concluded that the Regulations have not had
an effect.

Another measure that could be used as a success factor is assessing which of the instruments of
the Directive are ineffective, and which instruments are inefficient. While there is insufficient
evidence to enable a judgement of the overall success of the Directive, there is also little or no
evidence that would single out any one part of the Directive as being ineffective or inefficient.
One important focus for assessing the impact is the reasons for the successes and deficits found
thus far. These can include, for example, the Directive itself, the national transposition and the
national enforcement strategies. There are signs that if deficits exist they are more likely to
reflect incomplete implementation by dutyholders, rather than any defects in the Directive or its
national transposition. There are indications that some employers have not complied fully with
the legislation. For example, the present study and the ill health research mentioned previously
(Melrose et al. 2007) found evidence that in a significant minority of cases safety and health
training was not provided to display screen users. Further, just over one-quarter of employers
had not provided eyesight tests. This may need to be explored further to determine if a more
proactive approach on the part of the employer may realise more success.

There is no evidence from the present study or the reviewed literature that changes to the
legislation are necessary. However, there are indications that more needs to be done to improve
its practical implementation. Melrose et al. (2007) concluded that the issue of taking sufficient
breaks from display screen work needs attention, as does the particular issue of taking breaks
during intensive use of a mouse. Other research (Woods et al., 2002) supports the inconsistency
of the practice of VDU users of taking breaks, with 38 per cent of the interviewees of that study
not taking frequent breaks, and with nine per cent of these not taking a lunch break. The results
from the listed research tend to support the findings of the present study, where there are
indications that employers are relying on the natural breaks in the work or breaks being taken
entirely at the employee’s discretion.

The levels of awareness of the law reported by employers in the present study were generally
good, but other results from this study suggest there is room for improvement in some cases, for
example, where employers are not providing training or eye tests. Moreover, in respect of
whether or not the Directive has led to a uniform level playing field concerning the management
of the occupational safety and health risks associated with DSE use, this is for consideration
when the results of the different national evaluations across the EU are compared.

Finally, it is important to assess if an intervention in the form of a Directive is a suitable way to
improve the working conditions and the safety and health of employees using VDUs in
workplaces in the future. The project has not found any convincing indications that it is
necessary to either remove, adapt or replace the existing legislation. Caution would therefore be
advisable in contemplating any changes.

It is important also to ensure that the focus of legislation remains as goal setting and does not
introduce technical detail that could go out of date quickly. The UK’s experience has been that
the existing Directive, while it does contain detail in its annex, is sufficiently flexible. It has, for
example, provided a framework that has allowed the successful introduction of guidance on
newer aspects of display screen work, such as using portable equipment and working with a
mouse or other pointing devices.

11.2 IMPROVEMENTS TO THE REGULATIONS
The findings from the present study show that it is difficult to highlight one area in which
improvements can be recommended, as no areas have emerged as showing evidence of
disregard or non-implementation of the Regulations. Rather, self-reported awareness of the
Regulations has increased amongst employers, since the IES report in 1997. In the present
research, eighty-five per cent of employers mentioned complying with the Regulations in
respect of the changes they made, while the 1995/96 assessment noted that 71 per cent of
changes were due to office refurbishment and upgrading IT policy, and not as a result of health
and safety legislation. Further, in the present research, most employers (75%) undertake risk
assessments. These are substantial advancements to employers’ responding to the Regulations
and their requirements.

However, there are a few areas that may profit if they were brought to the attention of
employers. Firstly, as with the findings from the previous study assessing the Regulations, the
onus of obtaining eyesight tests remained with the employee. While employees do have to
maintain certain responsibility for their health, employers should be encouraged to pursue a
stronger focus on ensuring that employees are aware of their entitlement to eyesight tests.
As expected, in the present research, smaller businesses were less aware, had less knowledge,
found the Regulations less relevant, were less confident, were less likely to provide training and
were less likely to carry out risk assessments. There may need to be a stronger emphasis on
providing more information to smaller-sized businesses, due to their limited resources, in
ensuring that they comply adequately with all the necessary regulations with which they need to
comply. The DSE Regulations is only one of these. The present research highlighted, for
example, that those small-sized organisations that were in possession of more knowledge of the
Regulations were more likely to conduct risk assessments.

Finally, Cloke (2003) reported a lack of training in the safe use of workstations, especially in
the correct adjustment of the user’s chair. The present research showed that 63 per cent of
businesses stated they provided suitable training in the arrangements of workstations to all DSE
users, with 13 per cent providing training to some users. This implied that although the
majority of employers have stated that they are providing the relevant training, this could be
improved among the remaining one-quarter of businesses. The Regulations are very specific in
noting the duty of employers to provide training to the users whom they employ. The HSE may
wish to consider emphasising this duty with employers.

Overall, the present study has underscored that employers are aware of and acting on the
Regulations. However, there are a few areas that may be improved and the HSE may wish to
pursue these in future research or campaigns.

To access the full report please click here.