SHP Online is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.
Employers need to consider employee use of smartphones in their Display Screen Equipment (DSE) policies, new research has claimed.
The study, conducted by Specsavers Corporate Eyecare, reveals the extent to which staff now use smartphones everyday in working roles.
It showed:
23% of employers said all workers now use smartphones as part of their role
60% said at least half used phones as part of their role
Only 7% said none of employees use smartphones for their job
Working pattern change
The figures showed how prevalent the use of handheld devices has become in the workplace, often for a wide range of purposes across different sectors.
As a result, it has now been suggested that employers should ensure eyecare-at-work policies reflect the change, as the nature of classification as a ‘screen user’ has shifted.
Not in use
Director of strategic alliances for Specsavers Corporate Eyecare, Jim Lythgow, said the only reason smartphones aren’t in the DSE regulations is they weren’t in use when last amended in 2002.
He said: “The regulations do, however, only exclude portable DSE that is not in prolonged use (reg 1.4.d.). So, it is the length of time employees are using screens that is more relevant than the type or size of screens they use.”
Although smart phone technology is not specifically covered by the DSE Regulations, HSE guidance states that “portable DSE and handheld devices are subject to the Regulations if in prolonged use for work purposes.”
Prolonged use
While there are no “hard-and-fast rules” on ‘prolonged’ use, the study said, it is reasonable to conclude portable equipment used by an employee for a significant part of their normal work could be regarded as covered by the DSE Regulations.
This may relate to frequency of use, employees needing to apply high levels of attention and concentration to the DSE task, being highly dependent on DSE, or have little choice about using it.
[vc_row][vc_column width="2/3"][vc_column_text]
What makes us susceptible to burnout?
In this episode of the Safety & Health Podcast, ‘Burnout, stress and being human’, Heather Beach is joined by Stacy Thomson to discuss burnout, perfectionism and how to deal with burnout as an individual, as management and as an organisation.We provide an insight on how to tackle burnout and why mental health is such a taboo subject, particularly in the workplace.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width="1/3"][vc_single_image image="70883" img_size="medium" onclick="custom_link" link="https://www.shponline.co.uk/working-at-height-3/barbour-download-guide-to-working-at-height/"][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_btn title="Listen now!" color="success" link="url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.shponline.co.uk%2Fpodcasts%2Fwhat-makes-us-susceptible-to-burnout%2F|target:_blank"][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Research: smartphones ‘should be considered DSE’Employers need to consider use of smartphones in their DSE policies, new research has claimed.
James Evison
SHP - Health and Safety News, Legislation, PPE, CPD and Resources
Related Topics
Researchers to explore OSH service delivery around the world
Over 90% of stalking victims experience psychological impacts
ESG consultants key spend for sector, survey reveals
Not sure what the purpose of this article is because there is no real conclusion, but:
The DSE Regs 1992, (Reg 1.4.d) actually say that “(4) Nothing in these Regulations shall apply to or in relation to. – (d) portable systems not in prolonged use;
Further, under what is or is not prolonged use, the Guidance Note suggests that even a “Community care worker. Using a portable computer to make notes during and/or following interviews or visits in the field” is only a “possibly display screen user”
So, unless we are talking about rewriting the Regulations and Guidance, to change the definitions of what is prolonged use and include smart phones, tablets and other hand-held machines, the bottom line is no one is likely to be a user under current requirements and as such not be entitled to free eye tests and corrective appliances, under Reg 5
Nothing to do with PPE or screen glasses other than for those with a defined refractive / visual impairment issues however, it is absolutely and directly linked to “Work Exposure Limits” associated with continued use of sub-optimally calibrated, customised, optimised or adapted DSE interface ergonomics.
As, whether a fluent reader or on the spectrum of functionally and digitally illiterate, with a reading rate below 180 word per minute, Screen Fatigue, or Computer Vision Syndrome as known elsewhere, will have a cumulative affect over the day when use operation exceeds an hour.
Screen Fatigue or CVS, which ever you prefer, is now regarded as a Global Pandemic exacerbating the degree of presenteeism (working whilst under the weather or feeling ill) and contributing to the average 20% loss (1 day in 5) in productivity estimated, in the UK alone, to cost employers £30bn, with double that in social and health costs, something the UK Gov has been trying to ignore since the HSE Better Display Screen RR561 study published in 2007, to the extent of failing to support the new EU 2012 MSD Directive that spectacularly “failed to launch”.
Nevertheless, the HSE continues to issue ineffective “Safety Alerts” witness the latest, last year, on the Silver Jubilee of the UK’s discredited DSE Regulations it acknowledged to be of “little or no benefit” to user operators against a background of global research concluding that the debilitating harm / injuries are far from a “temporary” occupational health hazard and a “major common everyday work-stressor” contributing to the longer latency of work related “non-communicable diseases” (NCD’s) like stroke, heart attack and cancers foreshortening the productive working life-cycle of many at a time when life expectancy itself is longer.
So, not entirely sure one can dismiss “it” that easily as many employers are already migrating to the new BSI Management Standard founded on establishing “Work Exposure Limits” as a primary tool to foster and support Wellbeing in the drive to improve poor performance when everyone aught to be working toward optimising sustainability or productivity by reducing the barriers to wellbeing & performance.
Not sure what the purpose of this article is because there is no real conclusion, but:
The DSE Regs 1992, (Reg 1.4.d) actually say that “(4) Nothing in these Regulations shall apply to or in relation to. – (d) portable systems not in prolonged use;
Further, under what is or is not prolonged use, the Guidance Note suggests that even a “Community care worker. Using a portable computer to make notes during and/or following interviews or visits in the field” is only a “possibly display screen user”
So, unless we are talking about rewriting the Regulations and Guidance, to change the definitions of what is prolonged use and include smart phones, tablets and other hand-held machines, the bottom line is no one is likely to be a user under current requirements and as such not be entitled to free eye tests and corrective appliances, under Reg 5
Nothing to do with the potential for increased revenues from eye tests and employer funded spectacles then….
Nothing to do with PPE or screen glasses other than for those with a defined refractive / visual impairment issues however, it is absolutely and directly linked to “Work Exposure Limits” associated with continued use of sub-optimally calibrated, customised, optimised or adapted DSE interface ergonomics.
As, whether a fluent reader or on the spectrum of functionally and digitally illiterate, with a reading rate below 180 word per minute, Screen Fatigue, or Computer Vision Syndrome as known elsewhere, will have a cumulative affect over the day when use operation exceeds an hour.
Screen Fatigue or CVS, which ever you prefer, is now regarded as a Global Pandemic exacerbating the degree of presenteeism (working whilst under the weather or feeling ill) and contributing to the average 20% loss (1 day in 5) in productivity estimated, in the UK alone, to cost employers £30bn, with double that in social and health costs, something the UK Gov has been trying to ignore since the HSE Better Display Screen RR561 study published in 2007, to the extent of failing to support the new EU 2012 MSD Directive that spectacularly “failed to launch”.
Nevertheless, the HSE continues to issue ineffective “Safety Alerts” witness the latest, last year, on the Silver Jubilee of the UK’s discredited DSE Regulations it acknowledged to be of “little or no benefit” to user operators against a background of global research concluding that the debilitating harm / injuries are far from a “temporary” occupational health hazard and a “major common everyday work-stressor” contributing to the longer latency of work related “non-communicable diseases” (NCD’s) like stroke, heart attack and cancers foreshortening the productive working life-cycle of many at a time when life expectancy itself is longer.
So, not entirely sure one can dismiss “it” that easily as many employers are already migrating to the new BSI Management Standard founded on establishing “Work Exposure Limits” as a primary tool to foster and support Wellbeing in the drive to improve poor performance when everyone aught to be working toward optimising sustainability or productivity by reducing the barriers to wellbeing & performance.