Friends, is there anything as simple as a straighforward 'Here's the risk phrase, here's the health surveillance for it'? I'm having real trouble coming up with policy that gets further than 'health surveillance might be appropriate'. Which just seems a bit wishy-washy to me.

The latest edition of the ACoP for COSHH has revised conditions for when health surveillance is needed. It is more specific about the way in which the requirement, as contained within the regulations, should be interpreted. Paragraph 237, in particular, indicates where 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." Paragraph 237 in particular indicates that the operation of a system of health surveillance applies to a much wider range of occupational environments than might have been apparent from earlier versions. In particular it suggests that the employer (or his representative) should inform themselves of the potential for health problems to arise in their particular workplace based on what has happened in other similar workplaces. The fact that the employer has had no cases of occupational disease does not indicate that health surveillance is not required. Note also that wherever gloves are worn for protection against chemicals (presumably also including water) (skin) health surveillance is required. Simply being below the WEL does not negate the need for health surveillance. For example, someone with the potential for an allergic skin reaction may develop this on the face due to airborne exposure at well below the WEL. Wet work, i.e. frequent and/or extended exposure to water or extensive wearing of occlusive gloves would also dictate skin health surveillance. If you need more then PM me with your e-mail address. Chris

The HSE website has lots of information on this matter, from basic info to specific industries and technical guidance documents that can be downloaded: http://www.hse.gov.uk/he...rveillance/resources.htm

I cannot speak about other aspects of health surveillance, but for my particular area (skin) the HSE guidance does not reflect some of the new techniques that are now available and that can help us to be more pro-active and effective. Chris

Think Chis is right if you go down that route you will get conflicting standards or none atall..go for job role and there is some guidnace available from the construction better health to give you a guide. :)