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

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!

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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 !

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.

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.