Nothing exciting here but I wonder what the team thinks: While completing our DSE Assessments our Users sometimes claim a medical condition for example, a prolapsed T6 Vertebra ten years ago. I am not competent to say whether this is relevant or not so I refer to our Occupational Health Partner Currently I would want our Occupational Health Partner to weed out the irrelevant conditions which allows us to focus on those whom will benefit from specialist equipment. However our Occupational Health just recommends an assessment. This second assessment is carried out by a commercial organisation that always makes recommendations that cost. Does anyone have experience of Occupational Health contradicting the User or a commercial organisation that does not recommend you buy stuff that they conveniently supply? I am trying to avoid buying everyone a new chair while still supporting those that really need one.

Dealing with the same issues that you describe regularly (one this morning in fact). My team are trained to "a level" in DSE assessments and do 1 to 1 assessments where someone indicates a particular problem when completing our on-line assessment. What has worked for us was to start working with a provider of specialist equipment, chairs, desks, keyboards, the full monty! But, they are all competent ergonomists first and foremost and when our internal team cannot help set up a current workstation we ask them to do a detailed assessment. However, this is after we already know some new set up or equipment will be necessary. They wave the fee for the assessment if we buy from them. We have to some extend created a partnership that works for both parties.

Monitor envy is worse :) Trouble is the assessments where they sell you stuff are also cheap right.... Tis a balance Even when I am carrying out independent assessments - medical stuff still requires referral to a occ health specialist, but I try and play the politics very very carefully and avoid comments like - oh you'd be much happier with 30" touch screen monitors... I spent £lots on a chair for someone is a previous role - and they hated it!!!

Would it not be cheaper and simpler to offer to reimburse the employee who can produce a Doctor's letter to substantiate the issue? IMHO the Occ. Health referral route is simply a waste of time in such instances (and I mean no disrespect to the Occ. Health Provider) as they are in no position to make or confirm diagnosis and will charge you handsomely for making GP enquiry (provided your employee will sign a release form). We do rather invite these issues through our (over?) zealous application of DSE Regs. As I've ranted often on this Forum, what of the Occupational Driver? What of the machine operator or assembly line worker? Few out there seem to apply similar levels of diligence to other areas of the workforce.

Mention of the fate of drivers who do not have the luxury of a specially purchased and expensive chair reminds me that many drivers rely on one or more cushions. As a long term back pain sufferer resulting from arthritis affecting my spine, I don't differ. Indeed, I prefer the flexibility of a cushion that can change the angle of my hips, pelvis and spine sufficient to make a long day at my desk perfectly acceptable. Why therefore is there a rush to purchase a special chair for office workers when others can and do find success in a lowly cushion? Is the cheap and simple not acceptable just because it is cheap and simple? That certainly seems likely, an over-engineered solution for a problem that often doesn't really exist. A cushion is extremely flexible - to sit on with varying angles or as a lumbar support. If the vehicle-bound workforce, and me, manage successfully in this way, why get so precious about office staff?

Hi Mark You seem like a person who can give me the valuable information. I will to clarify my issue. We carry out our WSA electronically. Any issues that are raised are responded too with a one to one. Occasionally a DSE User may say they have a historic medical condition often related to their backs. This seems to be used as a reason to acquire a specialist chair. When they are coached on posture and set up guidelines they counter your guidance with their medical condition. Obviously I don't have the knowledge to instruct further. Therefore I would like our Occupational Health Provider to be able to investigate and use their medical knowledge to determine if the DSE User's injury does affect their ability to be comfortable on the standard issue chair or whether they truly do need specialist equipment. My limited experience is that our Occupational Health Partner will just take our employees word and recommend a further WSA by someone with medical knowledge. We then employ another company. At this stage we know that this company will make recommendations for new equipment. They may also send a quote for suitable equipment. No obligation to buy from them but you can imagine how it goes. So, I think that the only opportunity to ensure that specialist equipment goes to those that need it rather than those that know which words to use, is with our Occupational Health Partner. You may noticed above and I have recent experience with our HR who say that the Occupational Health are unlikely to contradict the employee or carry out any in depth investigation What do you think?

Dbs The simple one-word answer to the question you asked is YES Check out http://www.work-screen.co.uk/screening-tools I have no commercial association of any kind with the company involved but have read several of the research papers and am impressed with their claims about their screening tools. In parallel, as a safety ergonomist, I very strongly recommend that you use an online one-page DSE and/or MHO checklist monthly with every employee exposed to risks of musculoskeletal injuries. As a well-designed online form takes between 90 and 120 seconds for a person with GCSE Grade D standard of literacy to complete - about twice that time if the worker is unable to read and someone has to read it for him/her - you can generate invaluable evidence of surveillance that is very robust in the event of a claim for personal injury damages.

Thank you all for your positive input. Very much appreciated. David