Rank: Forum user 
|
An interesting one.....
We're currently undertaking root cause analysis into a potential exposure scenario. As part of this we have undertaken to send a group of employees for skin patch testing with a specialist. However, one of the group refuses to attend - no reason given.
Other than COSHH Reg 11(8) is there anything else that states that attendance at health surveillance is mandatory?
(PS Naturally, our RCA investigation has reviewed all of the 'normal' things - engineering controls, hygiene, health surveillance generally, air monitoring, working practices and training, PPE etc etc)
Thanks for any help
Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Rees...I believe it is as per MHSWR reg6. However, the circumstances would dictate whether it is a 'legal requirement', but it would be considered good practice in most circumstances.
6. Every employer shall ensure that his employees are provided with such health surveillance as is appropriate having regard to the risks to their health and safety which are identified by the assessment.
You might like to consider HSWA s7 for a persuasive argument.
7. General duties of employees at work. It shall be the duty of every employee while at work—
(a)to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work; and.
(b)as regards any duty or requirement imposed on his employer or any other person by or under any of the relevant statutory provisions, to co-operate with him so far as is necessary to enable that duty or requirement to be performed or complied with.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Are we to presume that you suspect some people may have become sensitised to a substance in the air? A patch test seems to be a rather strange method unless you are saying that you know precisely what the substance is and it has known long term effects on health. Your air monitopring records could presumably demonstrate such an exposure. In such a circumstance a health review would be advisable but surveillance is periodic and long term so should not be about random exposure but rather recognised ongoing potential exposure. I was monitored for benzene over many years because benzene was used in large quantities - a single test was not of any use.
On the other hand if this is simply an exercise to establish whether people have been exposed then I suspect even COSHH would not be useful to you. General duties can be helpful but I think you need to state your case for patch testing much more precisely than you have.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Have any employees any skin problems that may be caused by exposure to sensitisers at work ?
Your initial post would infer a fishing expedition to find out if any WILL have problems, which leads to the supposition of a less-than-useful occupational health scenario: find out if any will have problems to an existing poorly-controlled substance.
If they do not already have problems then I fail to see the need.
This site will always dredge-up a rake of reasons why the employee HAS to defer to authority, instead of asking: Why ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Ray - thanks for the references that you provide, and just about reinforces what I already suspected and answers my query.
Bob/John.... thanks for taking the time to respond and I appreciate (and apologise) that I have purposefully kept details to a minimum which may have misled you.... however, the patch testing is the correct investigation method for this situation (as recommended by health professionals and specialist HSE Occ Health Inspectors). Of course its not a "fishing" exercise, which is why I was very specific in my original query. Thanks again. Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Of course, you are aware of the risks attached to skin patch tests ?
In some cases they may even cause a problem where none existed before.
False "positives" abound, and the test may be influenced by drugs taken...or even by suntan.
Then there is the risk of severe allergic reactions and anaphylactic shock.
My last test was carried-out where resus gear was available.
You, or the provider, will ensure that the candidates are made aware of the risks ?
You are legally obliged to do that anyway.....at least doctors are....I understand there is a difference between "health professionals" and doctors/nurses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.