Posted By Chris Packham PPE is defined in the Regulations as ‘all equipment (including clothing affording protection against the weather) which is intended to be worn or held by a person at work and which protects him against one or more risks to his health or safety’, eg safety helmets, gloves, eye protection, high-visibility clothing, safety footwear and safety harnesses. Given this definition (as provided by HSE) I do not see how medicine provided to treat a specific medical conditon could possibly be considered as personal protective equipment. The medicine is provided to allow the person to control a specific condition not to prevent or adequately control exposure to a particular substance hazardous to health. It is also certainly not designed to be "worn or held", nor has it been provided specifically for use at work. Chris

Posted By Barry Cooper How about it being a control measure Barry

Posted By Taff2 Is medication a chemical barrier that could be deemed to be stopping other chemicals or biological hazards from damaging cells? Is there a comparison with barrier cream - which is administered externally to offer a similar basic control mechanism?

Posted By GT If a dentist was needing three stiff whiskies to stop his hands shaking count as ppe. Merv, an your Bottle is? ah it must be near to friday surely!!! GT Hic!

Posted By Chris Packham Dave The decision as to whether the employee should continue to do the task would, for me, be a medical one and I would consult an medical practitioner (preferably an occupational physician) for a decision on this. Given his OK then I would discuss this with the employee and let him make the final decision. However, at the same time I would have in place appropriate measures to ensure adequate action could be taken in the event of a reaction by the employee. With regard to vaccination, this is an interesting one. Vaccination is a way of increasing the body's ability to prevent infection, in the same way that an emollient assists the skin in maintaining an effective barrier against infection, chemicals, etc. My personal view is that it is not helping to prevent exposure and thus, as such is not personal protective equipment. However, I am not a lawyer and would not wish to argue this one. By the way, "barrier creams" should not be used as primary protection against hazardous chemicals for a whole range of reasons. In fact, at the Weimar conference in May last year two studies were presented where the dermatologists had found increased skin uptake with the barrier cream compared with normal skin. Remember that barrier creams are classified as cosmetics and will be sold to you as such. If you then use them as protection, the onus is on you to be able to demonstrate that they are actually providing the protection your employee needs. How are you going to do this? There are no validated methods for testing the performance of these creams. Furthermore, you are relying upon the worker to apply the cream correctly. Studies have shown that as many as 80% of workers miss critical areas of their skin when applying these creams, akin to donning gloves with holes in them! Finally: "Pre-work creams cannot be relied on for primary protection as there is no information on the rate of penetration of chemicals through creams." (HSG205 Assessing and managing risks at work from skin exposure to chemical agents) Chris

Posted By Adrian Watson Medication is not PPE for the reasons given by Chris above. Vaccination is a palliative measure in that it does not prevent nor control the risk of exposure. However, if exposure occurs causing infection, it reduces the duration or severity of disease. Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By D H Chris - thank you for your reply - I accept your reasoning. i personally would not have let the job progress because we don't know the level of protection afforded by the dose, it is dependant on the person taking the dose etc. I should have maybe headed the thread " How many of you would allow this task to go ahead using medication as a control measure"? would be interested to know how many of you would? Dave

Posted By CRN Baker This is a really interesting question. My understanding is that your colleague who suffers with hayfever has volunteered this information to you, this means you are in a position to make that judgement call. I have yet to be asked in a pre-employment OH check whether I suffer from hayfever!! In many cases hayfever is controlled by means of an OTC preparation which is easily obtained from any high street chemist. Whilst many companies require staff to make them aware of prescribed medicines which may affect their capabilities - thereby giving the company the option to amend their duties - I've never been asked to declare any OTC preparation I might be taking. Personally I use a homeopathic control to keep my hayfever in check so would not come under the declaration for either OTC or prescribed medication. Interesting thread as the phrase "can of worms" springs to mind!

Posted By Mitch DH As it is a surrogate Friday and this is a subjective subject!"Would anyone else allow the task to continue?" No is my answer, as pointed out how can you measure the effectiveness of medicine as a control measure? Mitch

Posted By Raymond Rapp I believe the original example of someone cutting grass who suffers from hay fever could be compared with the distinguishing case of Withers v Perry Chain Co Limited [1961] 1 WLR 1314, where an employee with dermatitis returned to work when it was known both to him and his employer that his continuation to work would give rise to a small risk of dermatitis recurring or being exacerbated. Devlin LJ concluded that there is not a legal duty to prevent an adult employee carrying on work if they are willing to do so, therefore accepting a small risk, nor is there any obligation for the employer to offer alternative safe employment or dismiss an employee in such circumstances. In the grass cutting example, allowing a person to take medication prior to the activity would be a sensible course of action. I know I say it many times, but a little common sense still goes a long way. Regards Ray

Posted By GeoffB4 Ray: 100% agree. Dave: You say: Would you allow the task to go on and would it be violating his rights? Ray has said he would! How can you stop it? And yes of course the persons rights would be violated. Let's go one step further. You see someone taking two aspirin because the person has a headache coming on. We now have an inquest on the IOSH forum to see if this is acceptable...... Come on guys, where does it end.

Posted By Phillip Could we not be violating his human rights by allowing him to cut the grass even with his medication? Does not the one-eye man scenario arise. If (even with medication) the work could, in the long term, make him more sensitive to pollen then he should not cut the grass. Is not a qualified medical opinion required?

Posted By Michael Parks I was under the assumption that PPE had to be provided by the employer free of charge to the employee. If medication can be regarded as PPE then where does that leave the employer in regard to prescription medication. Surely medication is specific to a person not to a particular job requirement.

Posted By Tabs Medication is clearly not "Equipment" in any sense of the word. We should not look to redefine words used in legislation - if the law-makers had intended to consider medication, they would have used that word too. They did not, we should not. In this case, PPE could be provided in the form of RPE, where filtered air is provided via an enclosed visor. Human rights breached? Absolutely. It is not reasonable to exclude someone from employment just because they take common medication. If that was the case, all those on insulin, simsavatins, nitrates (?? angina), etc., would have to be excluded just in case they didn't take their medication and suffered consequences of being at work.

Posted By Colin Reeves "Are you going to stop cutting the lawn at the front of your building because someone inside may have hayfever inside....again I'd guess you are not." Think laterally - up here nobody cuts grass, just let the sheep do it for you ..... Colin (Shetland)

Posted By Mitch Nice one DH 1060 viewings to date and 30, now 31 postings, brilliant and it's not even Friday Mitch

Posted By Christopher Black Chris P, the medication would only control his symptoms, not his exposure. There might be PPE on the market to be looked at that would help such a person, after all, we have pollen filters in cars that make life easier for hay fever and other allergy sufferers. There might be face masks that meet the same level of protection As regards how to handle the individual, we are all under a duty to either control the hazard or remove the person from the risk. We are also not allowed to let people soldier on regardless, if we do we are abusing human rights by default. Sometimes the best policy, which seem a bit extreme in the case of hay fever, is to remove that persom from the hazard even if it means a dismissal for reasons of ill health

Posted By Chris Packham To add to my last posting, this does not mean that I would not also recommend appropriate PPE, e.g. mask, but I would also recommend this for the non-allergenic worker, since repeated exposure to the pollen could increase their potential to become sensitised. Chris

Posted By Chris Packham Mitch I'm on omeprazole to control Barrett's syndrome, ramipril for blood pressure, digoxin for atrial fibrillation, and currently ferrous sulphate for iron deficiency. Perhaps I shouldn't be in a workplace at all! Chris (P.S. I know its not Friday, but I couldn't resist it!)

Posted By Chris Packham The simple answer is "no"! What I wrote was to the effect that I would recommend appropriate PPE, but would do the same for a non-sensitised person. In other words, provided that the medication enabled the person to behave in a similar manner to someone non-allergic, then I would treat them the same. However, this would certainly mean where possible avoiding exposure of any kind to a known sensitiser, since the evidence is that repeated exposure significantly increases the potential for sensitisation and possibly a subsequent allergic reaction. My risk assessment for grass cutting in a workplace would certainly involve appropriate measures to prevent inhalation (and preferably also skin contact)with pollen, irrespective of whether the person was on medication or not. Chris