I would do as you do, Martin, and refer them to the OH nurse. If the nurse felt this was beyond her competence to advise on they would be referred on to the OH doctor.

Assuming that you do not have a company D&A policy, it might be more practical to ask FLT operators to identify themseleves if they are on any prescribes medication which might impair their performance. Many prescribed drugs have side effects and these are often down to the individual person. Those drugs which are known to cause drowsiness and so on, should be avoided if possible, otherwise FLT operators should not be allowed to operate machines. At the end of the day you are dictated by employees identifying whether they are on any prescribed medication. No need to make more work than is necessary. Provided the employer can show due dilligence I think you have done all that is reasonably practical.

Your employees are under no obligation to discuss their medical history with you (no offence intended) and there are confidentiality laws governing your employees' medical histories. Should my employer be able to discuss my medical history with whomsoever he/she pleases, without my having to be present or without an informed medical opinion? I think not.

Mick Would you like to specify which 'confidentiality laws' you are referring to?

One way of doing this is to do what physios do, treat what you see. It doesn't matter what the condition is, it doesn't matter what the medication is, what matters is the effect on their performance as an FLT operative. So, if it makes them drowsy, when, and for how long, and how drowsy? If it affects vision, how does it, in what way, and for how long and at what times of the day? You don't need to pry into their medical history at all, just put in simple control measures to deal with the effect on performance, John

The standard for lift-truck drivers is the same as for road driving. Hardly rocket science, unless there is a specific person you are concerned about. As for OccH ..... they may be used to ascertain the state of play of a person, but they can still be refused permission to divulge the information to the employer. Never forgetting that the records may be asked for by the employee. "What information should not be kept in health records? Clinical data that is used to make decisions on fitness to work is not held on this record. The occupational health service provider should keep the clinical data in confidence. This clinical data can only be accessed either by the employee approaching your occupational health service provider under the Access to Health Records Act 1990, or by an employee giving written consent for their details to be released" And a LOT of industrial ill-health would be prevented or mitigated if EMPLOYERS actually paid attention to various regulations and laws.... Pigs should fly ?

thanks everybody for the interesting and stimulating discussion on this point. I should stress that all matters are managed through our occ health dept so records of privacy are correctly managed. Our duty of care as an employer however means that we must respond to the advice from Occ Health based on knowledge of individuals health situation. Some posts suggest that the standard should be the same as a car driver - if you are still allowed to operate a car you should be OK to operate plant - I don't fully hold with this - driving a car isn't the same as operating 2 -3 tonne of mobile plant in a warehouse - what do others think. Does anybody operate a formal step by step policy for handling these kind of situations to ensure (so far as reasonably practicable) that medication use doesn't cause unsafe plant operation. Some posts are pointing out that the employee has a duty of care to declare medication use and to report side effects - nice idea in theory but is it robust enough to rely on alone - we carry out annual medicals and identify medication use through that process more than we do self referral Martin

Since HSE consider that the driving standard is enough, I fail to see the need for stringent medicals and an obsessive need to have the medical information "at hand". Especially since the majority of companies have poor data confidentiality. I remind you that operating a road vehicle with health problems means that, in many cases, you have a legal requirement to inform DVLA of that condition. Currently, unless changed recently, your GP will inform DVLA directly if you continue to drive when advised not to: "5. If you do not manage to persuade patients to stop driving, or you are given or find evidence that a patient is continuing to drive contrary to advice, you should disclose relevant medical information immediately, in confidence, to the medical adviser at DVLA" So, have a read of the DVLA information about fitness to drive: http://www.dft.gov.uk/dv...medical/at_a_glance.ashx 2.5 tonnes ? The standard driving licence covers a person for up to 3.5 tonnes at speeds up to 60mph.

Especially as factual data show that non-existent or poor training is the usual cause of incidents involving lift trucks.....ill-health, or effects of medication, comes way down the list.....W A Y down..

Why do you need to do a specific risk assesment in the first place? The OH Nurse or Doctor are professionally trained personell so have a knowledge of the effects of the types of drugs prescribed to individuals and if they are unsure they will seek other professional opinion. It is enough, In my view, to have a system which ensures the expertise of those qualified to do so provide thier opinion to you and that you follow any findings they provide. That is both practicable and reasonable and does not involve data protection. If they consider the medication being used does affect someone ability to operate would you mistrust that view????

Ray the question was I think about having a process through which anyone who is taking prescribed medication is subject to a risk assessment to check if there is any significant additional risk to the process and people involved. The proces for D&A testing is largely limited to alchohol but specific testing covers drugs. I also worked in the rail industry and remember when D&A testing first rose its head, whata problematic thing that was but, the Unions accepted the need and so it developed into an industry wide practice for all safety critical staff. I still feel there is no need to undertake a specific risk assessment where other professional opinion is available to indicate if there are any side effects that could increase the risk. As I said you must trust the professional integrity of these people as they accept your integrity and knowledge as a safey practioner.

It does not seem to have been raised, but how do you know that an employee is taking prescribed drugs? I appreciate in some industries (rail mentioned already, marine is another) that contracturally any such usage has to be advised to the employer. But in most jobs, the employer will not know, so how does OH get involved?

Crikey, the twists and turns! Briefly, to my mind, if an employer becomes aware of a specific concern then they have a duty to deal with it in an appropriate manner, this MAY mean taking OH advice or an OH referall. Mick, perhaps 'confrontational' was not the most cunning word to use but I still find your approach to cofidentiality 'curious'. I fully accept that there are issues of confidentiality but OH referalls are subject to consent. I am not sure what confidentiality laws the nurse would have broken (I suggest none) if the person has signed the necessary consent form! Your approach seems to suggest that ANY OH referall would be in breach of some confidentiality laws, I suggest they aren't! I am not sure/convinced that GPs do report direct to the DVLA. When I was disgnosed with a reportable condition, the GP told ne to advise DVLA; as far as I am aware he didn't. I have been dealing with a recent case and there appears to be some confusion in some cases as to who is doing what between the DVLA and the GP. Having been informed by an LGV driver that he had a specific reportable medical condition, I wrote to the GP (with consent) enquiring about the drivers fitness to drive LGV. The GP replied, 'ok to drive IF the DVLA are happy'. The DVLA response was that while they were assessing the case it was the GPs responsibility to assess fitness to drive. The GP was less than helpful and it did cause the driver some anxiety. Reported to DVLA in February, fitness to drive confirmed in July!!!!!!!

Well said Phil, i agree entirely!

Phil, my last post was not responding to yours, but rather more aligned to Colin's post. Get in the cue, ha. :)

Phil, where you see “curious” the intent is actually one of caution, nothing more. I contribute to this forum in the knowledge that it’s public and as such people at all levels come here for (or to give) advice. On this particular topic I felt that it was important to emphasise the need for caution when dealing with employees, especially where their medical health was in question. Such information is sensitive and one wrong/misplaced question could get someone into trouble, even with the best of intentions. There’s no ulterior motive here beyond good advice. In my experience I’ve seen plenty of safety “professionals” who take their position to be one of power over responsibility. Too often they abuse, or are ignorant of, their status and mostly it’s to the detriment of some individual who’ll never exercise his/her right to complain/sue for fear of losing his/her job. I, therefore, believe that there are procedures to be followed to protect those rights and that those procedures are there because, through bitter experience, they will otherwise be abused (intentionally or otherwise). Sorry for jumping on my soapbox at this hour of a Tuesday morning (this is more of a Wednesday rant) but this thread opened a box. Phil, the above is not directed at you, I should point out, and I hope you don’t take it as such. I respect your opinions and enjoy debating the issues. Hopefully this explains where my posts on this thread are coming from.

Colin, thanks for the article link, very salient. I am not surprised with the findings of the article. Many employees are suspicious of providing health related information for fear of losing their jobs. By way of an analogy, I remember reading an article about tolerating risk in high risk industries, which is more risky - getting injured or killed at work, or losing your job, your house and all the other things which money can buy?

Sean, whatever happened to the luck of the Irish?