Can I come back to Dennis' original comments please. Dennis you
appear to be suggesting that as an inspector you are seeking to extend your
role as a HSE Inspector to include examining the "quality, scope, validity
and effectiveness of OH provision at the workplace".

        Is this not a significant step for the HSE to take ? If the HSE is
intending to examine the quality scope, validity and effectiveness of OH
provision, would it not be more beneficial for the HSE to employ specialists
in the OH area ? I will not get into the discussion about what is to be seen
as a valid, effective or quality provision.

        Having worked in OH for a number of years, I have to confess that
the HSE have never asked to see any part of the OH department, despite them
being on site on numerous occasions. Records of health surveillance are kept
within OH departments, seperate to clinical records, to demonstrate to the
HSE that statutory health surveillance is taking place. I am sure that you
would be able to determine if there are systems in place to ensure that the
OH provision is meeting statutory requirement simply by following the
processes through.

        As for "quacks and charlatans", I confess that I do not know the
full in's and out's of this profession. I am prepared to say when I am
outside my realms of knowledge and experience and equally prepared to go and
find out. Regular audit and review of systems, and a good neb at what others
are doing never hurts anyone.

        Amanda Dowson
        Health Services Manager
        Bradford College
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Guest [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 25 July 2001 23:17
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: clinical governance and occupational health provision
>
> Unfortunately, the lack of evidence based knowledge and skills is exactly
> what makes a "quack or charlatan" for that is the definition in the
> OED...."Ignorant pretender to a skill, especially in medicine or
> surgery"...
> Thus a qualified doctor, who practises surgery, having not been trained in
> surgery, is a "quack" surgeon. GMC guidelines specifically warn doctors
> against practising in areas where they have not acquired the necessary
> skills. Whilst doctors are required to make a professional decision
> whether
> or not they are competent to do the work, the GMC guidelines must be
> followed. Regrettably, also in 20 years of OH practice, I have seen
> several
> "quack" Occupational Physicians i.e those that have not undergone a period
> of specialist training and obtained the necessary qualifications in the
> speciality. At least one of these has recieved an official warning to stop
> using the term "specialist".
>
> Dr Bob Guest FFOM
> Specialist ( with the official certificate to prove it!) in Occupational
> Medicine
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Greta Thornbory" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 10:30 PM
> Subject: Re: clinical governance and occupational health provision
>
>
> > I am surprised at your comment about 'quacks and charlatans. Whilst I
> > appreciate that evidence based knowledge and skills are vitally
> important
> > for any health care practitioner the absence of a specific OH
> qualification
> > does not make the practitioner a 'quack or charlatan's. As in all
> > professions and walks of life there are good and bad. The nursing and
> > medical profession require practitioners to make professional decisions
> as
> > to whether or not they are competent to undertake the work. Under the
> HASAW
> > Act it is up to the employer to ensure that all his/her employees have
> > adequate training to undertake the work they employ them to do. There
> are
> > many good, safe OH professionals who do not possess OH qualifications,
> there
> > knowledge and experience has come from other spheres of practice
> depending
> > on the type of OH work they are doing. They are still qualified nurses
> and
> > doctors.
> >
> > I am a qualified OH professional with 20 years experience and have
> educated
> > and trained many of my professional colleagues. However, I still feel
> that
> > you are insulting many practitioners. I have come across people who are
> > misguided and naive who need help and guidance but never quacks and
> > charlatans!!!!!!
> >
> > Greta Thornbory
> > Education & Health Care Consultant
> > 01235 770156 phone
> > 01235 765797 fax
> > 07778 518 027 mobile
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Dennis Macwilliam <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 7:11 PM
> > Subject: Re: clinical governance and occupational health provision
> >
> >
> > > A small number of members have expressed an interest in this topic
> [thank
> > > you], and I have replied directly to all of them.
> > >
> > > My thoughts underlying linking the twin concepts of OH provision and
> > > clinical governance include:
> > >
> > > [a] trying to develop a methodology for HSE inspectors to understand
> what
> > > to expect of OH providers at the workplace;
> > >
> > > [b] develop a common question set to enable Insepectors to establish
> the
> > > quality, scope, validity and effectiveness of OH provision at the
> > workplace.
> > >
> > > My ideas are still in the process of evolving at the moment - very
> little
> > > help from senior management within HSE [told not to meddle in things I
> > > don't understand, and "leave it to the medics"]. I know Linda S is a
> > > subscriber to this discussion page, and I hope she will understand the
> > > frustration felt by myself and many of my colleagus - I certainly do
> not
> > > wish to include Linda in this criticism.
> > >
> > > However, I am sure that many of you will realise that the OH circuit
> is
> > > riddled wih quacks and charlatans in what is, after all, an
> unregulated
> > > activity [the back pages of the Nurses Journals is sufficient evidence
> of
> > > this - "no experience required"!].
> > >
> > >
> > > Dennis M