Training and Education
Hearing Conservation Program Checklist

Failures or deficiencies in hearing conservation programs (hearing loss pre­vention programs) can often be traced to inadequacies in the training and education of noise-exposed employees and those who conduct elements of the program.

The following is a checklist to evaluate a hearing conservation program from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health:

1. Has training been conducted at least once a year?

2. Was the training provided by a qualified instructor?

3. Was the success of each training program evaluated?

4. Is the content revised periodically?

5. Are managers and supervisors directly involved?

6. Are posters, regulations, handouts and employee newsletters used as sup­plements?

7. Are personal counseling sessions con-ducted for employees having prob­lems with hearing protection devices or showing hearing threshold shifts?

Supervisor Involvement

Data indicate that employees who refuse to wear hearing protectors or who fail to show up for hearing tests frequently work for supervisors who are not totally committed to the hearing loss prevention programs.

1. Have supervisors been provided with the knowledge required to supervise the use and care of hearing protectors by subordinates?

2. Do supervisors wear hearing protectors in appropriate areas?

3. Have supervisors been counseled when employees resist wearing pro­tectors or fail to show up for hearing tests?

4. Are disciplinary

actions enforced when employees repeatedly refuse to wear hearing  protectors?        

Noise Measurement       

For noise measurements to be useful, they need to be related to noise exposure              

risks or the prioritization of noise control efforts, rather than merely filed              

away. In addition, the results need to be, especially when follow-up actions    are required.      

1. Were the essential/critical noise studies performed?    

2. Was the purpose of each noise study clearly stated? Have noise-exposed employees been notified of their exposures and appraised of auditory risks?       

3. Are the results routinely transmitted to supervisors and other key individuals?              

Are results entered into health/medical records of noise exposed employees?      

Are results entered into shop folders?     

If noise maps exist, are they used by the proper staff?     

Are noise measurement results considered when contemplating procurement

of new equipment? Modifying the facility? Relocating employees?           

Have there been changes in areas, equipment, or processes that have altered noise exposure? Have follow-up  noise measurements been conducted?    

. Are appropriate steps taken to include (or exclude) employees in the hearing loss          

prevention programs whose exposures have changed significantly?          

Controlling noise by engineering and -  

. Have noise control needs been prioritized?       

Has the cost-effectiveness of various options been addressed?            

Are employees and supervisors appraised of plans for noise control measures? Are they consulted on various approaches?              

Will in-house resources or outside consultants perform the work?           

Have employees and supervisors been counseled on the operation and maintenance of noise control devices?      

Are noise control projects monitored  to ensure timely completion?      

Has the full potential for administrative controls been evaluated? Are noisy processes conducted during shifts with fewer employees? Do employees have sound-treated lunch or break areas?     

Are referral procedures clearly specified?           

company and consulting physicians or audiologists been executed?

3. Have mechanisms been established to ensure that employees needing evalua­tion or treatment actually receive the service (i.e., transportation, scheduling, reminders)?

4. Are records properly transmitted to the physician or audiologist, and back to the company?

5. If medical treatment is recommended, does the employee understand the condition requiring treatment, the recommendation, and methods of obtaining such treatment?

6. Are employees being referred unnecessarily?

 Hearing Protection Devices

When noise control measures are in­feasible, or until such time as they are in­stalled, hearing protection devices are the only way to prevent hazardous levels of noise from damaging the inner ear. Mak­ing sure that these devices are worn ef­fectively requires continuous attention on the part of supervisors and program implementors as well as noise-exposed em­ployees.

1. Have hearing protectors been made available to all employees whose daily average noise exposures are 85 dBA or above? (NIOSH recommends re­quiring HPD use if noises equal or ex­ceed 85 dBA regardless of exposure time.)

2. Are employees given the opportunity to select from a variety of appropriate protectors?

3. Are employees fitted carefully with special attention to comfort?

4. Are employees thoroughly trained, not only initially but at least once a year?

5. Are the protectors checked regularly for wear or defects, and replaced immediately if necessary?

6. If employees use disposable hearing protectors, are replacements readily available?

7. Do employees understand the appropriate hygiene requirements?

8. Have any employees developed ear infections or irritations associated with the use of

hearing protectors? Are there any em­ployees who are unable to wear these devices because of medical condi­tions? Have these conditions been treated promptly and successfully?

9. Have alternative types of hearing protectors been considered when prob­lems with current devices are experienced?

10. Do employees who incur noise-induced hearing loss receive intensive counseling?

11. Are those who fit and supervise the wearing of hearing protectors com­petent to deal with the many prob­lems that can occur?

12. Do workers complain that protec­tors interfere with their ability to do their jobs? Do they interfere with spoken instructions or warn­ing signals? Are these complaints followed promptly with counsel­ing, noise control or other measures?

13. Are employees encouraged to take their hearing protectors home if they engage in noisy non-occupational activities?

14. Are new types of or potentially more effective protectors considered as they become available?

15. Is the effectiveness of the hearing protector program evaluated regularly?

16. Have at-the-ear protection levels been evaluated to ensure that ei­ther over or under protection has been adequately balanced accord­ing to the anticipated ambient noise levels?

17. Is each hearing protector user re­quired to demonstrate that he or she understands how to use and care for the protector? The results documented?  

Administrative

Keeping organized and current on ad­ministrative matters will help the program run smoothly.

1. Have there been any changes in federal or state regulations? Have hearing loss prevention program’s policies been modified to reflect these changes?  2. Are copies of company policies and guidelines regarding the hearing loss prevention program available in the offices that support the vari­ous program elements? Are those who implement the program ele­ments aware of these policies? Do they comply?

3. Are necessary materials and supplies being ordered with a minimum of delay?

4. Are procurement officers overrid­ing the hearing loss prevention pro­gram implementor’s requests for specific hearing protectors or other hearing loss prevention equipment? If so, have corrective steps been taken?

5. Is the performance of key personnel evaluated periodically? If such perfor­mance is found to be less than accept­able, are steps taken to correct the situation?

6. Safety: Has the failure to hear warning shouts or alarms been tied to any acci­dents or injuries? If so, have remedial steps been taken? FSM