Posted By Zoe Barnett The Local Authority I work for has been told the HSE will be visiting us to carry out a "stress audit". We have very little information on what the inspectors will be looking for so if any colleagues have been through a similar audit I would be very glad of any advice or help. On a cynical note - as we all know, something intangible like stress is very very difficult to measure and address, especially in a service environment like local government. Could this audit initiative be part of a drive on the part of the HSE to meet their performance targets by focussing on what is for them at least an "easy target"? Just a little controversy to wake us all up on a Monday morning!

Posted By Brian Peirce Zoe I have emailed you direct with a reply. Brian

Posted By Peter Lee Zoe, just a couple of bullet points from HSE commissioned research. HSE commissioned research has indicated that: about half a million people in the UK experience work-related stress at a level they believe is making them ill; up to 5 million people in the UK feel “very” or “extremely” stressed by their work; and work-related stress costs society about £3.7 billion every year (at 1995/6 prices). "easy targets" I think not.

Posted By Sean Fraser Last week Step Change organised a 2-day workshop on Occupational Health and this subject was covered in an excellent presentation - the presentation can be accessed online at: http://step.steel-sci.or...main_publications_fs.htm Look under "Publications Index" for "Occupational Health Workshop Jan 2004 - Presentation Dr Graham Furnace " Two very interesting points were raised during the presentation - 1] There is widespread misconception surrounding the term "stress" due to the constant and endemic misuse of the word. There is always someone who will trot out the old favourite "a little bit of stress is good for you" and this can be difficult to counter. However, if one takes the definition on board correctly, we should be concentrating on the negative aspect of stress as stated in INDG281 - the "adverse reaction people have to excessive pressure". So the proposition was made to refer to it instead as DISTRESS, which now indicates the harmful aspect very well - and it would hard for anyone to now claim that "a little bit of DISTRESS is good for you"! 2] The control standards suggested by the HSE are unsatisfactory. These involve the acceptable percentages of employee's perceptions covering a range of aspects such as work demands, control, support, relationships and roles. All laudible considerations when assessing the general position but the problem is that where there are satisfactory employee perceptions, the flip side is where there are disatisfied employees. If we take Realtionships for example, this requires that at least 65% of employees indicate that they are not subject to unacceptable behaviours at work. So if 34% or less of your employees ARE subject to unacceptable behaviours, that's all right then? Surely not! This is a controversial issue and made all the more so by point [1] - the misunderstanding and misuse of the term Stress. We should be seeking to limit and positively tackle employee distress at work - lets forget the other term - and perhaps more people will join us in this objective without quibbling over the terminology! However, let me say that I agree that the HSE are trying to tackle this difficult issue as best they can and that any steps taken to raise awareness and promote action needs to be supported. You may also find the HEBS publication pack "Work Positive - prioritising occupational stress" enlightening and helpful. It has numerous practical examples with a number being taken from the public sector. HEBS (Health Education Board for Scotland - now called NHS Health Scotland) can be accessed online at: http://www.hebs.com/safe..._topics.cfm?pageID=6.019 Two statistics were quoted at the start of the above mentioned presentation - - (dis-)stress-related ill-health has overtaken musculoskeletal disorders as the most common cause of work-related illhealth according to OPRA (occupational physicians report activity) and has been in the top two listing for several years, and - the same ill-health is the 2nd most common cause of ill-health retirement in the NHS, costing the country around £60m a year. Earleier in the day it was stated that mental ill-health contributed to 50% (yes - fifty percent!) of new reports of occupational ill-health. Sobering thoughts!

Posted By Shane Johnston Sean, The HSE standards set out what a reasonable employer should do. It does not state that no single employee will suffer "distress". Much in the same that if you are below the noise action levels, or below the MEL for gluteraldehyde no one individual will suffer loss. Society aknowledges that a certain level of risk (and consequently harm) is acceptable. I am not advocating that causing anyone "distress" is acceptable, simply that you can only do what is reasonable to prevent that individual suffering. And that is what the HSE standards aim to do. Shane.