A shock to the system

Noise is probably the most widespread and underestimated of industrial hazards. As many as three million workers are at some risk of suffering permanent, noise induced hearing loss but this is not limited to heavy industry. In 2001 the Guardian wrote that 'Call centres, one of the fastest growing industries in Britain, are triggering a new industrial injury '“ acoustic shock'.

The growth of call centre work in the UK means that an estimated two per cent of the working population are now employed in call centres. The hazards of acoustic shock and other forms of noise interference have brought suffering to some of these employees. Many employers are 'unaware' of the acoustic shock hazard despite up to 300,000 potential victims and £10m out-of-court settlements paid worldwide to date.

Call centre hearing damage

In 1998 the first Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and Royal National Institute for the Deaf research indicated that 30 per cent of call centre operatives investigated showed symptoms linked with acoustic shock, and that 39 per cent believed their hearing had been damaged during employment in a call centre. On 7 November 2005 some of Britain's biggest employers attended a conference aimed at increasing awareness of acoustic shock. Scottish Power, BT, T-Mobile and Norwich Union were among the companies with large numbers of call centre staff who took part in the acoustic safety programme event. They were informed that acoustic shocks can lead to problems such as tinnitus, deafness, nausea and depression.

On 4 December 2005 it was reported that the Irish government was facing a compensation claim to rival the 300m euros paid out to army deafness victims. More than 30 former switchboard operators at Eircom, who had been tested by a consultant audiologist, had been found to be suffering hearing loss.

The Trades Union Congress set up a helpline to take calls from call centre workers and the fear of 'acoustic shock' from the telephone system was mentioned by many of the callers. The Communication Workers Union's (CWU) health and safety department worked to find solutions. At the acoustic safety conference 2006, entitled: 'The union view '“ hearing and health protection for employees' the CWU called for 'more to be done by the industry to control the problem and for employers to do what we think is necessary to discharge their health and safety duty of care towards call handlers and maintain a healthy and safe workplace'.

What is acoustic shock?

Put simply, it is a sudden, unexpected, noise event which is perceived as loud, transmitted through a telephone or headset '“ acoustic shock is an adverse response to an acoustic incident resulting in alteration of auditory function. These sounds may be characterised as having a specific tone (frequency) or a very fast rise in the 'peak energy' of the sound, so resembling a bang or clang. The resulting symptoms include pain and tinnitus. It can also cause hypersensitivity to sounds (hyperacusis) among other problems. Additionally, the symptoms can escalate into anxiety, poor performance and, finally, depression. Worryingly for employers, once this stage has been reached, it becomes very difficult to build a defence.

Since the HSE carried out its research, new medical evidence from Australia and Denmark has emerged. This was presented at the first ever international seminar on acoustic shock in Fremantle, Australia in September 2001. It found that in cases of call centre workers claiming to suffer from acoustic shock the symptoms ranged from numbness and tenderness around the ear, to hypersensitivity to sound in extreme cases. The research concluded that noise of high intensity and high frequency may cause symptoms at exposure levels which are lower than was previously thought to be the case. In addition to loudness and the duration of exposure, the research identified a range of previously unconsidered variables, which may affect whether exposure to high intensity noise might cause symptoms. This includes factors such as: the sudden onset of the noise, stress, and an individual's personal susceptibility.

Many headsets now contain safety limiters which are thought to prevent such high noise events and could not therefore cause damage. It is possible that in Australia there was not an initial association between the acoustic incident (a high short burst of noise caused by an electronic fault) and the various reported symptoms. Clearly, further research is needed.

What is the legal position?

Employers have a legal duty under the Noise at Work Regulations 2005 and under the Noise Directive (2003/10/EC) to reduce the risk of damage to an employee's hearing. Employers could also be caught by the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations and the Health and Safety at Work Act.

While the Noise at Work Regulations do not include specific reference to acoustic shock, there is a maximum noise level that no one should be exposed to '“ that is, 118 decibels (dBA). This also happens to be the maximum limit to which headset manufacturers refer when they talk about 'being compliant'. However, acoustic shock events can happen at noise levels significantly below those determined by legislation.

Therefore employers must take reasonable steps to recognise the phenomenon and to coach supervisory staff on how to handle reported events so problems do not escalate while taking steps to minimise potential exposure.

It should also be noted that such cases will fall within the multi-track if brought and therefore carry a high cost risk. In (1) Linda Woodings (2) Pauline Abdalla (3) Lesley Noakes (4) Ranjit Kaur Singh (5) Kathleen Riley v British Telecommunications plc (2003) (Unreported), claimants whose personal injury claims for acoustic shock had been settled for less than £1,000 were entitled to have their costs assessed on the standard basis where the claims would have been allocated to the multi-track because of the extent of technical and medical evidence required, and where the defendants had acted unreasonably in dealing with the claims.

Each of the five claimants had been required to wear a headset or an ear piece in the course of their work. Each alleged that they had suffered acoustic shock from the equipment provided by the defendant, in the form of sudden aural exposure to loud and shrill electronic noise through the apparatus being worn. In consequence each suffered symptoms including earache, auditory interference and vertigo. All five cases were settled by the defendants shortly after the service of a defence for sums ranging between £500 and £750.

Protecting employees

Acoustic shock is no different to other health and safety related issues. The policy and reporting plan needs to be clear. Conduct a thorough risk assessment and fully appreciate what needs to be done to avoid acoustic shock affecting employees.

There are various solutions available to protect employees which flow from the Regulations. Technology can also be used to remove the sources of acoustic shock from headsets without eliminating essential voice components. And there are ways to measure worker noise exposure before and after the device has been attached, and store the data for up to six weeks thereby providing a continuous noise risk assessment for a group of workers. It is vital for employers to introduce policy, training and education, thus enabling staff to protect and care for their own health at work. After all, the reporting of acoustic shock incidents can only happen if employees understand how to recognise acoustic shock and are aware of the risks it entails. Businesses are then protecting themselves against potentially crippling legal cases and their staff from noise induced hearing loss.

Evidence of health controls

Given that industrial deafness cases are now being looked at by claims management companies, acoustic shock and stress cases are representing a concern for the future. Insurers are therefore requiring evidence of strict health and safety arrangements and controls in respect of work practices and for procedures to rehabilitate employees back to work even if in a different role, to control long term absence costs. There is clear evidence that the Association of British Insurers has been taking the issue seriously and will be looking closely at how call centres organise safety controls to protect individuals from acoustic risks more and more.

The HSE is liaising with various bodies and several countries are conducting studies into acoustic shock in order to form an opinion on the emerging evidence. Guidance may be issued if the HSE gains further substantive evidence. Whilst many call handlers wear headsets with built-in protection against high noise levels, other 'acoustic shock protection' devices are being brought to market. The HSE has also recently funded research to develop an in-line noise exposure monitor for headsets, and a device to capture 'acoustic shock' signals. Nevertheless, employers should follow the regulations and implement a traceable reporting system for headset users who may have been exposed to acoustic shock incidents.

There is also an initiative developed as a partnership between the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (formerly the Department of Trade and Industry), key unions, solution providers and some larger employers, called Acoustic Shock Programme. It is designed to share information and develop common practices and standards on recognition, evaluation and control of acoustic shock, the programme is becoming increasingly well known among call centre operators.

This is clearly an area where further research and protection is needed before hearing is affected and claims are initiated.