Rank: Forum user 
|
When is health surveillance necessary. Recently at H&S North a company were insistant on the idea of EVERYONE being under health surveillance by the company with the rise of insurance claims as a mitigation measure. for example the engineering apprentice who 'is of the ipod generation' is more likely to suffer noise induced hearing loss and claim against the company, although not exposed to excessive noise with their sopecific job role. My experience of insurance claims is that they get paid because it is cheaper than to fight them. Whats a sensible approach here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
My initial thought is that it's a shame the driver for this initiative is not for holistic reasons. I have a distinct dislike for insurance companies, who often make absurd demands which are outside of what is reasonably required. That said, you do not mention what industry you work in or the potential health risks workers might suffer from. So, it is difficult to give an opinion what is reasonable in the circumstances.
However, the example you provide of a young worker who may be exposed to excessive noise from an Ipod is I suggest not a good example for health surveillance. Hearing like eyesight naturally deteriotes with age, as do many other physical functions - are we now expected to put in measures to mitigate against all these potential health problems? Not in my book.
|
 2 users thanked RayRapp for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I 'inherited' a health surveillance programme that gave everyone skin tests, certain groups got hearing tests but the people exposed to isocyanates or radiation didn't get those tests. I went back to the beginning - a simpe Excel spreadsheet with name, job title & asked them all what they came into contact with - noise, chemicals, body fluids etc. The response was mainly positive as I explained why in the covering e-mail and spoke to several. Those who need more tests seem happy that they are being 'looked after' and those based in offices (but got hearing tests because they just happened to be in the Dept that did) are just glad that they don't get asked to do tests that they saw as irrelevant & a waste of their time. Edited by user 01 November 2017 09:46:41(UTC)
| Reason: I type faster than I can spell!
|
1 user thanked lorna for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Have you read the sixth edition of the ACoP for COSHH? This includes the following:-
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.
In my view this significantly moves the goal posts.
Chris
|
1 user thanked chris.packham for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Any Health Surveillance has to be appropriate otherwise: - It is waste of money
- Probably a breach of data protection legislation as you will be collecting personal date for no good reason
- Antagonise staff as they will be very suspicious of why the data is being collected.
To be appropriate it has to: - Give the employer useful information, that enables them to fulfil their statutory duties and benefit the employees in terms of their H&S. if it only is seen as benefitting the company then it is not appropriate.
- It is not intrusive: so any questions are relevant to work, not just about general life style
- It does not pose any risk to the employee undertaking eg blood sampling should only be undertaking if this is the only way to get that information.
If you do the monitor everybody route then you must be ready for a flood of information that you will need to act upon. There might be some hard decisions to be made as a result.
The HSE website is clear: Health surveillance is not an alternative to adequate risk assessment or a H&S management system. It is part of such a system and should only be done based on the results of a risk assessment.
|
1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: MelissaFW  When is health surveillance necessary.Recently at H&S North a company were insistant on the idea of EVERYONE being under health surveillance by the company with the rise of insurance claims as a mitigation measure. for example the engineering apprentice who 'is of the ipod generation' is more likely to suffer noise induced hearing loss and claim against the company, although not exposed to excessive noise with their sopecific job role. My experience of insurance claims is that they get paid because it is cheaper than to fight them.Whats a sensible approach here?
https://www.iosh.co.uk/~...f?sc_trk=OHguidedownload
And you may well find that you can not wander through an employees medical data...that's what you employ OccH professionals for.
You HAVE to keep the data secure and only designated persons have access.
AND the employee has a right to see any OccH report on him/her.
Looks like a:
Fishing.
Expedition.
|
1 user thanked johnmurray for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
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.