Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By AJM
I am after a better feel for health surveillance in the workplace hoping to pool on peoples experiences.
Now I know health surveillance has many different ways of being done from a simple questionaire to a full blown medical and apart from section 6 of the management regulations which states
Every employer shall ensure that his employees are provided with such health surveillance as is appropriate having regard to the risks to their health and safety which are identified by the assessment.
We have specific regulations like the noise and the HAVS is it quite simply any hazard identified that can not be taken away then health surveillance MUST take place?
So basically if you allow manual handling because you do not have the resources or money to mechanise everything then that risk that still exists for instance has to be managed via Health surveillance of some form or another?
Also am I correct in thinking this is a duty not a choice and can the reasonable practicability be taken into account?
Thanks in advance for your input on this.
Alan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andy
Alan,
Two things,
Firstly, if your company can support it, employ a qualified Occupational Health Adviser, or get some temporary qualified advice.
If not, is there any corporate/group support available?
If not, check what hazards you have, obtain the relevant regulations and or ACOPS, and use these to check your compliance.
Most hazards in a workplace require some form of health surveillance, and this may be as wide ranging as you have said, from a paper screen (Although these have serious flaws), to a simple skin check by a trained supervisor, right through to a full pre-employment medical incorporating, Drug and alochol screening, audio, vitalograph, etc etc.
I hope your company can afford and realise that they need some good advice.
If you need more than the above, and he doesnt read this himself (PR)I can put you in touch with somoene with experience in the printing industry.
Regards
Andrew.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By AJM
Thank you for response Andrew,
I myself have completed a short course on the benefits of health surveillance and rehabilitation
I have done all the spade work already its took me 8 months to get it in. Then after a month the company have decided it wants cut backs.
So now they are saying can they cherry pick and i am obviously saying you cant pick and choose when you conform to the Law. This is without the obvious benefits to both company and employee in securing the long term good health of everyone.
So as you can imagine i am suitably unimpressed as us Safety guru's tend to get at times.
I suppose i am looking for guidance as to how people have attacked a problem like this in the past, but thanks anyway
Alan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nigel Button
AJM,
I understand the commercial constraints that befall you!! Often the rule of thumb that something is better than nothing comes to mind...
Look at your risk assessments and identify cohorts that are at most risk in relation to those hazards with confirmed biological/physiological and musculo-skeletal effects. This will enable the company to demonstrate through surveillance that groups with highest exposures are not affected or conversely, that they are affected and to what extent.
The latter would add further weight to your business case to secure further surveillance.
NB
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
Put the question: "What would the company's position be were they to discontinue health surveillance, then experience an occupational ill health problem that could have been avoided had the health surveillance been in place?"
How is the insurance company covering the employer's liability insurance going to feel having to pay out the exemplary compensation awarded by the court? What could this do to the employer's insurance premiums (assuming that the insurance company does not decline to renew, as happened on more than one occasion)?
As the man said: "If you think health and safety is expensive, try having an accident!"
Question: Do your managers believe in preventative maintenance? Do they have their motor vehicles serviced regularly? They accept that this makes sense. What about preventative maintenance for that asset without which nothing works, i.e. the workforce?
Just a few ramblings
Regards
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jane Blunt
There are other criteria that have to be met (see the ACOP) before health surveillance is specified.
a) There is an identifiable disease or adverse health condition related to the work concerned; and
b) valid techniques are available to detect indications of the disease or condition; and
c) there is a reasonable likelihood that the disease or condition may occur under the particular conditions of the work; and
d) surveillance is likely to further the protection of the health and safety of the employees to be covered.
These conditions narrow down the field considerably. In particular, the guidance to the manual Handling reglations states that health surveillance is not required as it fails at item b) in the list above.
Jane
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By AJM
Thanks Jane and Chris for your constructive answers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.