Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 20 April 2007 13:15:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Wilf Archer The final phase of the UK wide Smoking Ban will be implemented as of the 1st July 2007. So I expect that by then that everyone will be ready and prepared for it, shelters bought, policies in place, employee care programmes, etc. I also expect that most of the HR and Safety Advisors will be inundated with applications from hypnotherapists and others offering smoking cessation clinics. So I am probably teaching my granny to suck eggs here but please make sure that if your organisation is recommending or supporting a smoking cessation programme that they have carried out the appropriate risk assessments and that they appoint only those therapists who understand the hazards, risks and dangers associated with their chosen profession. But more importantly that anyone that is appointed can assure you they have included the appropriate control measures during their sessions. By way of a scenario: Imagine you have a machine operator and your employee care programme supports them by providing a hypnotherapy session to assist in them stopping smoking. Then following the session they have a serious accident and claim that they lost concentration because of the hypnosis session. Are we aware of the risks associated with hypnotherapy or nicotine patches or any other treatment that we are recommending? Another potential problem we face is that most hypnotherapists are one man/woman businesses and therefore don’t have recorded risk assessments. Hypnotherapists should be treated like any other contractor coming onto our premises, their competencies should be checked and risk assessments should be requested. The same goes for stress counsellors and the likes. Wilf Archer Safety Advisor for the General Hypnotherapy Council
Admin  
#2 Posted : 20 April 2007 17:01:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Merv Newman Hypnotherapy and real life experience. 30 odd years ago my wife and I both smoked, maybe 10 a day. My wife went to two sessions with a hypnotherapist and has not smoked since. I too went to same person for two sessions and have smoked ever since. Wilf, thankyou for your posting and the advice you offered. Merv
Admin  
#3 Posted : 20 April 2007 17:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By William One question about R/A for practitioners of hypnotherapy, do you look at RSI for the hypnotist ? I imagine waving that gold watch about all day in front of peoples eyes would create a possibility of this occurring, sorry had to say it!
Admin  
#4 Posted : 20 April 2007 19:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Chris Packham Whilst on this subject... I was a heavy smoker, but never "gave up". However, I have not smoked since Christmas, 1970. I was considering "giving up", when a friendly psychologist advised me otherwise. He pointed out that if you decide to give up, then you put pressure on yourself not to smoke again. The psychological stress is considerable. What he recommended was that I should see how long I could go without a cigarette. He insisted that I keep a packet and lighter in my pocket, so that at any time I could have one. However, this way the incentive was to last just a little longer. There would be no guilt if I did succumb, but next time I would see if I could go a little longer than before. It worked for me. So I never gave up, but it is now 37 years since I last had a cigarette. Not bad, I think! I have since recommended this approach to others, including some who tried to give up and failed. In most cases it has worked for them too. Chris
Admin  
#5 Posted : 21 April 2007 09:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ian P Is it just a Scotland thing that medical centres have smoking cessation clinics? The simple advice we give our staff is to go to one if they want to stop smoking, I might even try it myself. I am extremely dubious about the consistency of the numerous stop smoking services and the effects they have on individuals.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 21 April 2007 15:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Wilf Archer Certainly in Scotland we have smoking cessation clinics and access is via your GP. However the methods adopted tend to be by giving a separate source of nicotine (patches or gum) or Zyban and a place to chat. Nicotine patches and gum have the danger of overdose if the smoker continues to have the occasional cigarette. Zyban is a remarketed anti-depressant drug that reduces cravings and has many side effects. Hypnosis and meridian therapies can help change behaviour but because they work with the subconscious mind they also can have contraindications. As you know, everything has an element of risk, it is whether that risk is acceptable or not. When it comes to smoking we have two battlefronts to face, One is the addiction and second is the habit. Addiction is really easy to deal with. The habit is a behavioural change and that’s a much harder battle. So, irrespective of which method you choose to stop smoking the real battle is to overcome the habit and success can only be assured if you follow the four golden rules for habit change. Rule 1 – A sincere desire for change. It is no use attempting to change just because your spouse, partner, boss or the government told you so. Rule 2- Contact with workable principles. Everyone is different so what works for one person may not work for another. It doesn’t matter whether you use Drug intervention (Zyban), Nicotine replacement (patches or gum), Behavioural Change Therapies (like hypnosis) or even good old fashioned Will Power, every method has contraindications. Rule 3 – Self honesty. Rule 4 – Persistence. All four must be in existence if you want to change behaviour, any behaviour. If the change isn’t happening then you will normally find that at least one of the above rules isn’t being met. To put it into a health and safety context: If you are having trouble changing unsafe behaviour into safe behaviour then find which one (or more) of the four rules isn’t being met and focus your efforts on that. Wilf
Admin  
#7 Posted : 22 April 2007 08:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ian P "Addiction is really easy to deal with." Sorry but as a smoker who has tried to give up on a number of occassions I have to disagree with that.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 22 April 2007 10:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Murgatroyd And this has to do with Occupational Health and Safety ? How ? If you want to stop your workforce smoking at work, that's simple. Ban it. Maybe HR can hand-out nicotine patches (not forgetting the RA for side effects of same) And what does a RA for hypnotherapy say ?
Admin  
#9 Posted : 22 April 2007 10:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Merv Newman John as a persistent smoker, who wears a patch on non-smoking sites I am quite happy to go along with Wilf, even taking into account my personal 50:50 experience and my non-conviction on the passive smoking issue. I'm sorry, but as the law is now framed (the incoming Tory government may change it but don't hold your breath) this is a H&S issue and we have to deal with it as such. Wilf has proposed four preconditions to changing behaviour : Rule 1 – A sincere desire for change. Rule 2- Contact with workable principles. Rule 3 – Self honesty. Rule 4 – Persistence. As a behaviorist (converted long ago from the "kick 'em again if they still don't get it right") school I might have phrased it differently but I cannot disagree with him. A sincere desire for change is the most important step. Then having access to a methodology which enables that change. After that comes measurement, feedback and long term habituation (to the new habits) I think that Wilf and I are in broad agreement. I'm just not too convinced on "parallel" treatments : hypnosis, acupuncture, iridology and a dozen other methods. (my wife had chronic fatique syndrome and tried all of them. Cost me a fortune. Then she found one simple pill (iodine) which cleared the whole lot up) But I'll walk a mile or two for a deep massage. Merv
Admin  
#10 Posted : 22 April 2007 14:58:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Murgatroyd Yes Merv. And this has what to do with H&S at work ? Smoking is a lifestyle choice, it MAY affect non-smokers at work which is a problem solved by a NO SMOKING sign. Oh, sorry....I forgot another reason for no smoking at work.... Smokers are much more likely to develop a COPD working in dusty atmospheres than no smokers. Still, a NO SMOKING sign solves that too. There are so many health issues at work that making smoking the leading one to solve is so far off the edge of the map.
Admin  
#11 Posted : 22 April 2007 15:29:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Merv Newman John, I agree with you. But smoking is this week's subject. You are absolutely correct in saying that we have so many other, much more important subjects to deal with. Carcinogens, mutagenes and so on. But this week Tony Blair says that we must deal with smoking in the workplace. So, much as I personally regret it, legally we have to make it one of our H&S priorities. Back to the original thread. Wilf is offering us a way out of it all, with some caveats. Listen to him. You may or not believe in Hypnotheray, iridology or acupunture but any of them is better than lung cancer. Starting from tuesday I have two weeks on a "no-smoking" site. including saturday and sunday. I'm going to use up a lot of patches but just know I'm going to light up as soon as I get in the car. Yeeh Hah ! Merv And "No smoking" signs do not solve the problem. Have I ever told you the story of a sovesso site where there was a great rotting heap of fag ends outside of the mess room window ? Get real
Admin  
#12 Posted : 22 April 2007 16:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By William 14 months since i smoked, i used the Allan Carr book called easyway and it worked for me. It is a health and safety issue as if you stop smoking on a site then you will reduce the risk of fire in my opinion, when someone stops smoking it is also a safety issue as they are dealing with withdrawal symptoms from a very addictive drug which could make them absent minded or irritable. As for hypnotherapy being used to stop smoking, if it works for someone then it is OK but as Wilf has said the persons competency must be checked. Stopping smoking and not having a smoke is difficult many people who do not deal with the addiction side do not stay off them for very long, what you need to do is realise that you don't need to smoke and that it is a complete con as you are paying money to smell and kill yourself.
Admin  
#13 Posted : 23 April 2007 07:36:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Merv Newman WOS, Right. But I have this habit. I can do without it for maybe 12 hours with the aid of a patch. But as soon as I get off site I light up. Hypno hasn't worked. Acu and iridology I laugh at. Do I need to have my feet read ? Or do I need, as Wilf says, to really want to change ? Merv
Admin  
#14 Posted : 23 April 2007 08:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Kieran J Duignan A coherent thread runs between the OSH policy issues (questioned by John) and options for implementation (with particular attention to the oblique, indirect style of cognitive hypnosis). What Wilf and Merv are referring to is simply the direct forms of hypnosis, largely cognitive in nature. Probably the most authoritative guide to the policy and practical issues is 'Trancework. An Introduction to the Practice of Clinical Hypnosis', M. Yapko, 3rd edition, Brunner-Routledge, 2003. It is fully compatible with the approach to behavioural safety advocated by Scott Geller. Both Yapko and Geller emphasise very, very strongly that social reinforcement is a necessary component of behavioural change, a factor commonly overlooked by other authorities on hypnosis (including the leading scientifically-based professional society in the UK, the British Society for Experimental and Clinical Hypnosis).
Admin  
#15 Posted : 23 April 2007 12:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Wilf Archer What has this to do with health and safety? A lot. On one hand there is the issue of contractors (hypnotherapists) coming onto your sites (what hazards do they face and what hazards do they bring as a result of their service) and secondly we can learn a lot from trying to change the behaviour of our workforce when the new legislation takes place. From a H&S point of view I would rather try and change unwanted behaviour than just demand that it changes and expect others to bear that responsibility alone. Ian regards addiction, I am not belittling the nature of the addiction, far from it. Breaking the addiction needs to be supported but it is a concrete issue and can be helped with a practical intervention such as patches, gum or Zyban. Habits are a learned behaviour and as such can be very difficult to change (hence the four rules I use) and when coupled with an addiction then they are even harder to change. I also felt that I wanted to keep the discussion around the behavioural issues and possible effects on health and safety rather than on the effects of the chemical dependency. So forgive me if I minimised the addictive element of smoking. John, every decision has an element of risk and it is our job to advise on the level or extent of that risk. That way managers can decide on the acceptability or otherwise of their decision. If HR want to provide patches or a therapist to assist their workforce give up smoking, or even stress reduction or massage, or whatever, then there are risks involved. Do they justify a full risk assessment – only you can tell when you carry out your assessment. Certainly from my point of view I would expect the therapist to inform me of any risks involved in the performance of their service and also how they intend to control them. HR are renowned for coming up with wellness programmes and not making any judgements here but safety professionals are the ones who have to consider the implications on the occupational health and safety. You can bet your last penny that if an accident occurred following a company intervention then the workforce and the managers would look to see what advice health and safety provided. I have lost count the number of times a senior manager has spouted the immortal words “I don’t remember H&S telling me that!” Hence the reason for accurate records, things were so bad in one place I even filed post-it notes (how paranoid is that). With regards the efficacy of hypnotherapy as a treatment, that is one for the individual. I am a great believer that if what you choose to do works, great if it doesn’t then try something else and I am certainly not trying to say that hypnotherapy is the answer. However, we cannot escape the change in public perception towards the acceptance of Complementary Health interventions. Whether we believe in it or not HR, many of whom have a bent towards this type of approach, will be inundated with therapists of all descriptions promising a panacea of treatments to assist in stopping smoking, stress reduction, anger management, conflict resolution, etc., all of which are about behavioural change. My concern is that many of them and that includes hypnotherapists, do not understand simple risk assessments and therefore may pose a risk to either the individual or their colleagues or both. Forgive me for going off subject for a second. Merv, the success of hypnotherapy for stopping smoking is not about the therapy but more about the individual. There are a lot of therapists who use the same script to stop people smoking and don’t make it specific enough. The therapy only works when the therapist has found and addressed your psychological triggers. The most common triggers are cost, health and protection of your children. If you examine the majority of scripts then they address these three items. However, people smoke and continue to smoke for a number of reasons and a good therapist should determine what those reasons are before they even attempt to help you stop. All behavioural change requires you to address the triggers of that behaviour and the four rules I use are just areas that help me to find where those triggers are located. Alan Carr's method works for some because it uses the 'disgust' trigger and creates a disgust association with the habit. Getting back on target: The drink drving campaign used Maslow's Social Aceptance Need as a method for trigering behavioural change and the seat belt campaign uses Safety and Security Needs to change behaviour. These all worked on the majority but there is still a minority who don't comply and the reason is because we haven't addressed their behavioural triggers. Kieran, I agree - Scott Geller’s work is excellent. If anyone wants to read some of his articles then his webste is www.safetyperformance.com Wilf
Admin  
#16 Posted : 23 April 2007 20:38:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Murgatroyd Maybe the minority don't respond because they have a dislike of being force-fed behavioural indoctrination ? Which is probably the reason I fail to go to company "socials", I have to work with the guys, I don't have to live with them. In any case, those using nicotine patches/gum are not stopping smoking, they are only stopping the obtaining of nicorine from smoking tobacco. Smoking was never the problem, the drug was the problem. The drug is the reason many continue. Anyway, it doen't worry me, I don't smoke. Come July 1st, you won't smoke at work. The fun starts then, as thousands of non-smoking workers stop working every time a smoker heads for the "essentially non-enclosed smoking shelter". Hypnotherapy is just another career, although a bit on the mumbo-jumbo side of life !
Admin  
#17 Posted : 24 April 2007 11:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Lulu Is it just me or is anyone else astounded by the furore surrounding this issue? Most workplaces (apart from hospitality industry obviously) banned smoking in the workplace ages ago. So what is going to be the big difference? I expect that the biggest negative impact will be on customers in pubs/clubs etc.
Admin  
#18 Posted : 24 April 2007 19:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Murgatroyd No, I'm not surprised. All the smokers at my workplace are going to ignore the law, and that includes staff. Oh, and the offices are not "public places", so the law doesn't apply. The workshop doesn't have to obey it because "the doors are open" I'm quite sure that the law is going to be disobeyed quite blatently, and that it will have to be repealed eventually. Mind you, in the H&S field you should be used to law disobedience.
Admin  
#19 Posted : 24 April 2007 19:40:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Peter Leese I'm amazing myself by supporting John on his stance. Why on earth would an employer get involved in helping his employees to stop smoking? If anything goes wrong it will be the employers fault - so why go along that path. On July 1st all employees know they will not be able to smoke in premises or vehicles at work - let them take responsibility from thereon for their own addiction. I can understand the orgininators interest in this but that is one commercial path only - and if a nicotine addict is to stop smoking the impetus must come from the smoker, not the employer. There are a lot more important safety issues to address in the workplace than this. And most importantly there is already substantial and free assistance already available to stop smoking outside the employers area of responsibility.
Admin  
#20 Posted : 24 April 2007 20:08:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Wilf Archer This posting had one purpose and one purpose only. It is not about smoking or stopping smoking although some feel that it is. It is about carrying out risk assessments if you have a contractor (i.e a therapist) coming onto your premises to perform a service. This is not a commercial bias but an honest attempt to highlight a potential risk where some may not have perceived one. It is not whether an employer should or shouldn’t encourage or otherwise an employee to stop smoking or anything else. I am also a member of the CIPD and as such I am hearing murmurings from amongst the ranks about how best HR can support their employees in compliance of the new regulations. I am also a member of the General Hypnotherapy Council and as such I am aware that many therapists see the new legislation as a reason to approach employers. These are the same people who will approach you to deliver Stress Management, Anger Management, Employee Support and others in the same genre. Do not be blinkered and assume that there won’t be a problem just because you don’t agree with the ban. So to summarise: Because of the coming smoking ban - There WILL be therapists who WILL approach employers to assist in their employee health programmes. There WILL be some employers who consider it a good idea and there will be some who consider it a waste of time. However, it doesn’t matter as the outcome will be that some of you WILL have therapists coming onto some of your sites, like it or not. Therefore what Health, Safety or Risk Assessment advice do you give? Or are we as guilty as the ‘It will never happen to me’ brigade? Wilf
Admin  
#21 Posted : 24 April 2007 20:48:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Murgatroyd "Therefore what Health, Safety or Risk Assessment advice do you give" Simple. You let the employee arrange their own therapy off-premises. No risk assessment needed, since no risk. The existing arrangements for visitors should suffice. The existing laws regarding assault on the person are all that are needed, in the event of the therapee assaulting the therapist. On the other hand, should you decide that the use of hypnosis on works premises is a good idea, you should also research the availability of legal cover in the eventuality the person so hynotised goes berserk. Then or in the future. Yet another excuse for litigation.
Admin  
#22 Posted : 24 April 2007 22:00:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Peter Leese And I'll reinforce that John (second time of agreement, mmmmm). Addicts requiring help for nicotine addiction have numerous sources of help outside the employer framework. Let them use those tried and tested facilities that are already available (and in their own time). Then you don't have to worry about any of what has been mooted in this thread. And save a lot of money which can be better spent on real rather than fabricated/topical health and safety issues.
Admin  
#23 Posted : 24 April 2007 23:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Wilf Archer Advising against it still doesn't answer the question. In Scotland we already have had employer programmes. So please read the last posting again. Claiming that the employee goes beserk or that the therapist has the appropriate insurance shows a lack of understanding of the risks involved. Just so that I make my point clearer - The same risks exist when you have those relaxation and stress management programmes. Imagine it is a NEBOSH question if that helps. What are the risks associated with an employer supported Stop Smoking campaign? Wilf
Admin  
#24 Posted : 25 April 2007 00:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Murgatroyd There are none. It's really VERY simple. The employee works for the employer. At work, the employee doesn't smoke. Outside, he/she can do what they like. Let the employee arrange their own therapy outside of work time. Or arrange the therapy away from work premises. If the therapist doesn't have his/her own premises, chose another. WHY make things complex ? Isn't life already complicated without inventing more problems ? Why the obsession with the employer having to do everything ? It's no wonder some consider H&S an expensive item.....next thing it'll be perfumed toilet paper and silk hankys.
Admin  
#25 Posted : 25 April 2007 10:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Wilf Archer John I cannot disagree with your comment that if the employer doesn't have an employee intervention programme then there is no problem. But you have missed the point. Check today's newspapers. The NHS are recommending that employers support their employees. You may not agree with it but it is happening but again the NHS say that there is a financial argument in support of providing assistance (£5 billion a year). My point is that if it DOES happen. i.e. if an employer does bring a contractor onto the premises to perform hypnosis, stress counselling or any other vagal therapy can you be assured that you have provided the necessary and appropriate advice. Not just said don't do it. The discussion is now getting cyclic. Wilf
Admin  
#26 Posted : 25 April 2007 18:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Peter Leese Cyclic in the sense we can never reach agreement but not in your comparison. The NHS isfunded by Government - the whole philosophy is different, and shouldn't be compared with private enterprise.
Admin  
#27 Posted : 25 April 2007 19:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Murgatroyd No company with a sane HR department would/should allow hypnosis on the premises. Who cares what the gov says ? They want dosh they put up taxes, the company wants it, it puts up prices. Yes, truly cyclic. Agreement possible ? No. You, it seems to me, are pushing hypnosis/hypnotherapy into peoples awareness. I am stating that the employer should support his/her/their workers in giving up but NOT at the companies expense (other, maybe, than by time)and NOT on the company premises.
Admin  
#28 Posted : 25 April 2007 19:35:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Wilf Archer Not once have I said that we should or that we shouldn't use hypnosis. Not once have I promoted the case for or against any CAM therapy. Not once have I said or recommended that an employer would be wise to implement such a programme. Read the post again please. The context is and always has been that IF an employer DOES decide to provide any stop smoking support system THEN - WHAT ADVICE WOULD YOU GIVE. Simple. Hypnosis was only used as an example as I already know that some employers are already using them. Slagging off all and sundry is not answering the question. Arguing the merits and demerits of therapy is not answering the question. I really wanted to know if anyone knew what were the risks of conducting Stop Smoking therapies on site. You have answered it with a resounding No. You don't know. Thanks Wilf
Admin  
#29 Posted : 25 April 2007 19:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Murgatroyd The RISKS are the SAME as allowing ANY OTHER person onto the site. The SAME as a company NURSE (although the nurse possesses better qualifications than many hypnotherapists) EVERY company should have a policy towards the risks posed by non-employees on site, and towards non-employees on site. Put simply, keep them away from production areas and lock them in an office ! Better still, enrol the smoking staff/employees into an NHS stop-smoking course. Although, of course, if the company allows hypnosis to be dispensed on the premises they should also consider having a word with their insurer....just to make sure they are covered.....in case !
Admin  
#30 Posted : 25 April 2007 20:20:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Murgatroyd Here you are, no need for therapists on site at all: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/...alinformation/DH_4002192
Admin  
#31 Posted : 26 April 2007 08:28:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Peter Leese In my unbiased opinion Wilf, and I am unbiased, you have made a clear case for ensuring the employer doesn't get involved in any non-smoking therapies to the extent of not even making recommendations. And which I think is quite right. I thank you for that. There are sufficient resources for smokers, should they chose to, to assess the situation for themselves and to avail themselves of them if they wish. The idea of allowing people time off work (for either in-house or outside counselling)is, again in my opinion, simply ludicrous. I suspect any advocate of this approach does not fully understand the business economics that controls the majority of medium to small businesses.
Admin  
#32 Posted : 26 April 2007 14:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Wilf Archer Thanks Peter for your unbiased response and I can fully understand where you are coming from. I agree that there is an argument for recommending that employers do not get involved in stop smoking campaigns. However, I know that some employers, mainly large organisations, are already supporting a smoking cessation service whether that’s by providing time, gum or counselling etc. I also know that many therapists will be approaching employers offering a panacea of treatments to solve this over hyped problem. My issue is not about whether it is right or wrong, personally I don’t care either way, but I do know that we have some employers with a perceived problem and some therapists with a perceived solution and they are coming together. Unfortunately neither seems to be aware of the risks. Fact: the problem of employers and therapists coming together does exist. However, unlike John, I don’t believe that abdication of responsibility to provide appropriate advice is a risk control method. Yes, elimination is the first step in the control hierarchy but we can only implement an appropriate control when we understand the severity of the problem. If the severity is such that it is unacceptable then by all means advise against it but be in a position to base that advice on a professional analysis of the risk involved and not on biased opinion on whether we think it is right or wrong for the employer to provide the service. It is our duty to give unbiased professional advice based on informed judgement and not tainted by personal opinion. To quote IOSH: “…By encouraging, facilitating and leading communication of good practices and expertise, we aim to promote awareness of health and safety matters in the workplace and ensure that high standards are achieved, and maintained…” The Institute of Occupational Health, Who are we and what do we do?, Available from http://www.iosh.co.uk/index.cfm?go=about.who [accessed 26th April 2007]. Whether we like it or not there is an ever increasing exposure to Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) therapies within our workplaces. The CAM professions are moving towards self-regulation and as such their acceptance amongst the general public and the professional institutions is increasing. I am not debating the efficacy of the therapies on offer but as Occupational Health and Safety professionals we will be faced with the need to provide unbiased advice on the risks associated. Which was the basis of my initial request. In Scotland we have an employer intervention and support programme called the SHAW Award which will soon be changing to Healthy Working Lives and their purpose is to recognise the efforts of employers, and if we take smoking only as an example, for developing a policy that treats all employees in a consistent manner, protects staff from passive smoking, ensures all employees understand the policy, and promotes cessation support. It is the ‘promotes cessation support’ aspect that prompted my initial posting. There are (or will soon be) similar programmes in England, Ireland and Wales but probably go under a different name. They include recognition for introducing all sorts of initiatives into the workplace both traditional and alternative and many employers have already taken advantage of services offered by hypnotherapists, aromatherapists, massage therapists, Reiki practitioners, stress reduction meditation practitioners, etc. These therapists are already coming into our workplaces. If you don’t believe me then search Google for ‘Corporate Hypnosis’ or ‘Corporate Stress’. My concern is that we ignore them at our peril. Treat them like any other competent contractor and make sure that we understand the risks involved. If we then advice our employers against any such intervention then at least it will be from a position of competency rather than blind ignorance. Wilf
Admin  
#33 Posted : 26 April 2007 16:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Peter Leese Mmmmmm Wilf. You deny having an interest but seemingly you keep promoting it. I can see I have no chance of the last word in this particular discussion. However, I have been able to use some of the information/comments on this thread in our client newsletter with the aim of warning them of possible difficulties in this field/topic. It is true that of all the sources you quote (including IOSH) non of them are truly commercial and don't have the pressure on them that so many firms experience. The way ahead, from my point of view, is as already suggested, to look at the existing facilities outside the workplace. This way the risk to the employer is minimised - surely an essential tenet of of any health and safety management system, ie eliminate the risk at source.
Admin  
#34 Posted : 26 April 2007 20:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Murgatroyd "However, unlike John, I don’t believe that abdication of responsibility to provide appropriate advice is a risk control method" Appropriate advice of what sort ? Advice on the risks of smoking ? Done to death and known by heart. Advice on the risks of having counsellors and therapists traipsing around the workplace ? The same for anyone else who is not "work" being on the premises. They don't know the risks, so you either educate them on those (time, money, time, money and time)(again) or you separate them from the major risks and allocate resource to protect them from minor risk. Better still, allocate space TO them AWAY from any risk (other than housekeeping) and then route their "source" material (workers) to their safe location. Better still, let the workers arrange their own smoking cessation course/s. Big companies may well (even in these increasingly tough trading markets) be able to absorb the costs of on-premise therapists but small companies will not. The costs saved by staff ceasing to smoke (if any, since many recently-stopped smokers develop other habits, like drinking) will not cover the costs of the therapy and time. And in any case, it severely impinges upon an employees personal space.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
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.