A summary of the health surveillance results should come to you or there is little point in doing it. As an employer it is your job to monitor the health of employees who may be at risk of occupational illness and as long as the confidential assurances are adhered to then there is no reason why you cannot see the results of hearing, eyesight, respiratory examinations etc. Employees can decide to withhold some information, but you would normally be told that they are and that any medical referral was taking place. How can you expect to reduce the risk of occupational illness if you don't know the results? How can you ensure an employee who has the early stages of NIHL for example, be monitored to ensure he wears his hearing protection, and be able to monitor it year on year, if you don't know the results? How can you put a hold on a individual using a vibrating tool if he is exhibiting the early signs of HAV's for example, if you don't know the results? Generally speaking, employees that pass the surveillance are classified as fit for work, but the details of their testing would still be released to you. I would suggest changing your Occ Health Monitoring provider.....

"The health surveillance is for the employer in order to maintain its statutory obligation, and your duty is to inform the employee of the results, not the other way round" Which doesn't exactly comply with below: "The occupational health (OH) professional may obtain data as the result of an immunisation programme (for example, blood titres or 'non responder' information). This information will be provided to the employee and should not be given to the employer. It will be kept in confidence by the OH professional and should only made known to the employer with the employee's consent" "The doctor or nurse should only provide employers with information on fitness to work and any restrictions that may apply in that respect. Employees can have access to their own medical record through a written request under the Data Protection Act link to external website. These details can only be released to third parties, such as the employer, on receipt of the informed written consent of the employee, or by a court order" (http://www.hse.gov.uk/health-surveillance/record-keeping/index.htm#not-contain)

John, The paras you have quoted are about 'medical records' not health records there is a distinct difference. Immunisations are invasive and so would in my understanding be considered as 'medical' rather than 'health', but stand to be corrected on this. The first line of that page does say "A health record must be kept for all employees under health surveillance" and then goes onto list what it should include. The duty is the employers, not anyone elses. Either way Tony's company should still receive the results of the health surveillance in order to manage the risks and to protect the worker. I don't think any of us dispute this do we. Regards Lisa

I agree, there seems to be some confusion over health records with regard to screening for a work related issue and medical records that pertain to other issues. So if we are screening to detect if a work related exposure to a chemical is being metabolised in (or otherwise affecting) one of our employees, it is our right to receive the info directly and to act upon the information received. If however the report for some reason also contains information about a condition unrelated to work (i.e. a skin condition completely unrelated to work) then we would not be entitled to receive it without permission - but then I would not expect a screening report to contain such stuff. Are we getting confused with a fit to work report (Fit-Note)? Health screening is not meant to determine if someone is fit for work or not - it's to detect if someone is being affected by the work they are doing - two entirely different things.

I take it all back 8-{ We are only entitled to Fit or Fit but with restrictions or Unfit, unless we have the employees consent. HSE's own web pages say it. Naturally, I would expect the medical profession should be advising individuals if they are being affected by their work and told they really ought to disclose this to their employer - but if they choose not to - then I suspect "volenti" kicks in?

Take a look at Regulation 11 (9) of COSHH. "Where, as a result of health surveillance, an employee is found to have an identifiable disease or adverse health effect which is considered by a relevant doctor or other occupational health professional to be the result of exposure to a substance hazardous to health the employer of that employee shall (a) ensure that a suitably qualified person informs the employee accordingly and provides the employee with information and advice regarding further health surveillance (b) review the risk assessment etc., etc." This requirements placed on the employer to respond are further amplified in the ACoP. How is the employer going to comply with COSHH if he is not informed about the specific situation? Chris

It would appear there is nothing in that regulation to compel an employee to inform his employer of such a condition or, gives the employer the right to access such information about one of his employees. Only that the employer should act upon such information if notified. I agree - it's impossible to comply without the consent of the employee. From the HSE website with specific regard to Health Records: "The doctor or nurse should only provide employers with information on fitness to work and any restrictions that may apply in that respect. Employees can have access to their own medical record through a written request under the Data Protection Act . These details can only be released to third parties, such as the employer, on receipt of the informed written consent of the employee, or by a court order." This guidance is specifically related to "Health Records" as separate from "Medical Records". But even medical records are subject to restrictions and can only be released with consent: "Medical records are compiled by a doctor or nurse and may contain information obtained from the individual during the course of health surveillance. This information may include clinical notes, biological results and other information related to health issues not associated with work. This information is confidential and should not be disclosed without the consent of the individual." Maybe a classic case of one set of regulations (Data Protection) in conflict with another? Source info: http://www.hse.gov.uk/he...ndex.htm#medical-records