Ergonomic Assessment

2007 Assessment Statistics

During 2007 Healthywork Ltd conducted in excess of 350 Ergonomic Assessments. An audit has been conducted to establish what the most common recommendations have been.

An Audit of 50 random cases was conducted during 2008 by reviewing the assessment reports.

42% were found to be sitting too low to the desk and the work tasks they were performing. The chairs were raised to the correct height, depending on the gas stem height adjustability of the chairs.

20% had no arm rests on their office chair. For 22% the arm rests were too far apart for their build and another 20% were not using their arm rests, as they were incorrectly positioned.

Therefore 62% were not gaining necessary forearm support from chair arm rests.

For 18% the lumbar support was not at the correct height. Another 8% did not have lumbar support available on their chair.

90% of the individuals required an alternative model chair and of those 32% required a more specialist chair than their own chair supplier could provide.

26% needed their monitor screen raising to the correct height, once they were sitting at the correct sitting height to the desk.

44% needed to move their keyboard and mouse closer so that they were sitting and working in a better posture.

76% required a sliding writing and reading work surface which could be moved over the keyboard so that all of the work tasks were at the correct height and directly in front of them.

20% of the cases were a follow up assessment, after having had an initial assessment. Therefore equipment had been provided and the follow up was to ensure they were set up correctly and review progress. 

Case Study: Functional Capacity Assessment in London

The Need: The employer requested an assessment of an employee who was experiencing low back pain. They wanted to know if she could perform her work tasks. The role she performed was a physically demanding one, as a Care Worker.  


The Objective: The objective was to assess the employee's current medical situation and for her to perform tasks that the role encompassed to see if they were going to be suitable for her.


The Solution: Firstly, medical information was gathered from the employer and from the GP (with employee consent). The demands of the job were gained from the employer in as great a detail as possible. This was via a detailed questionnaire. The specific questions that the employer wanted answering were also provided to the assessor.


An assessment was then conducted at the workplace in Brentford. The background and medical situation was discussed. The employee's opinion on her ability to perform everyday activities and to perform work activities was discussed.


The assessment then led onto the performance of specific tests and tasks in order to objectively assess her ability to perform specific postures, movements and tasks. Also  motivation to return to work and the accuracy of her reported abilities compared to her demonstrated abilities was gained. Conducting the assessment at the workplace was also useful in this case as it meant that the specific work tasks could be seen and used during the assessment.


The assessment was approx 3-4 hours in duration. In addition, the manner in which the employee could pace her tasks and vary her activities was also discussed during the assessment.


The Result: The employer was provided with a detailed report analysing the functional abilities of the employee. A table layout in the report was able to clearly record the work tasks, the demonstrated ability and the result - whether the employee was able to perform the task.


The report included recommendations and conclusions regarding her ability to return to the work role.