Rank: Forum user 
|
Recently started work for a construction company. I believe the company should have all operatives tested for noise, vibration, lung function & skin surveillance. Not only does this give the company 'fit to work' certification but it ensures compliance etc. At present, this isn't in place and I want to advise my directors accordingly about the potential repercussions in the long term (claims etc).
I've been checking on HSE website for clarification but any advice would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Hi, What you need to undertake and to what degree depends on job roles and exposure. This can vary from an annual questionnaire to a more formal health check. For this you will need to hire a specialist. As stated on HSE website Risk assessment and controls form the first part of the health surveillance This should help: http://www.hse.gov.uk/co.../health-surveillance.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Many thanks WatsonD!
Yes, this is the HSE page I've been researching and according to the flowchart, 3rd box down which mentions exposure levels to noise, vibration etc - it recommends health surveillance should be undertaken.
I'm currently waiting for quotes for these from a couple of relevant companies.
Thanks again
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
the construction better health gives some good guidelines. Just bear in mind that the standard can be adopted so that you have a matrix for your specific employees/trades..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Consider the guidance in the sixth edition of COSHH.
Paragraph 237, in particular, indicates where skin health surveillance is required.
Examples where health surveillance is appropriate under the criteria in regulation 11(2)(b) are:
- where there have been previous cases of work-related ill health in the workforce/place;
- where there is reliance on PPE, eg gloves or respirators, as an exposure control measure; eg printers wearing gloves to protect against solvents used during press cleaning, or paint sprayers using two-pack paints wearing respirators to prevent asthma. Even with the closest supervision there is no guarantee that PPE will be effective at all times;
- where there is evidence of ill health in jobs within the industry; eg frequent or prolonged contact with water (termed ‘wet-working’) causing dermatitis in hairdressers and healthcare workers, or breathing in mists from chrome plating baths causing chrome ulcers in platers.
Paragraph 238 amplifies this:
This is not a definitive or exhaustive list and there will be many other instances where health surveillance is required. Employers will need to seek information or advice on the specific health risks identified in the risk assessment, or through any topic-specific HSE guidance, trade associations or other professional sources.
Note the last part of paragraph 237 which implies that even though you have never had any cases oc occupational ill health if others in the same industrial sector have you need ot have health surveillance in place.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks for all the really helpful advise everyone.
Really appreciated
Paul B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
On a similar note, operatives working in a timber manufacturing environment (noise, dust). Health surveillance has been identified as a requirement. However my Boss would like to know if annual testing (lung function and audiometry) is required or can this be pushed out to a test every 3 years?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You are right that health surveillance in the environment mentioned is needed for COSHH compliance. As regards frequency, how will you know without some form of record. My suggestion is that you carry out a baseline health surveillance for lung function, noise and skin. Based on the results you can decide if action for individuals or groups is required.
I would then carry out a further surveillance at, say, 3 months. If there has been no change, then make the next one 6 months, then 9 months and finally, assuming all is stable, your could argue that annual surveillance is OK. Of course, if you risk assessments, when updated, indicate changes that could affect exposure and health effects, then you might have to increase the frequency again until you are happy that everything is stable.
You should also ensure that workers are encouraged to report any issues that they feel require investigation, otherwise you might find that with the extended interval there is time for a significant adverse effect to occur which would not be detected until too late.
With regard to skin health surveillance I have a document covering this. If you PM me your e-mail address I will happily e-mail it to you.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
All the foregoing is heavily reliant on the employer having an established permanent workforce. Unfortunately the construction industry tends more and more not to operate that way.
Much talk in the industry about trades and operatives being 'safe' via transferable VQ and card schemes, etc.
Not so much on them being fit and healthy though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.