A bit late, but some of our staff have badgered me to give a response :

I know that HSE does not see Health Surveillance for HAVS as "best
practice", it is a legal requirement - there have been several enforcement
notices and prosecutions for not carrying it out.
There will be absolutely no doubt from the 2005 Vibration Regulations.
HSE (and by subcontract HSL) are heavily involved in scoping a new
surveillance protocol to be ready for the new regulations.  It is likely to
be progressive in using in escalating stages; questionnaire, nurse exam,
physician exam and "objective" testing.
The Faculty of Occupational Medicine has a working party that will report in
2004, and will publish a similar report to 1993 (on which HSE's HS(G)88 was
based, and nothing to do with the Mineworkers compensation issue) - one of
the outcomes will be approved training courses for Occupational Health
Nurses/Physicians, that may then be referenced by the HSE legislation as
evidence of competence to do this surveillance and advise
employers/employees.
I was at an internal conference with HSE on 28th January at which actions on
the outcome of surveillance were discussed - the proceedings are to be
published by HSE, I will post the link when they are released.
The attendees at the HSE conference included the majority of members of the
Faculty working party, and the two forums are working together - for example
the knowledge base on HAVS is being written by HSL for the Faculty.

Refusing Health Surveillance for HAVS is no different than for any other
statutory requirement - the employer cannot force surveillance (Human
Rights), but could dismiss if it were a contractual requirement, and could
remove from exposure if they had reasonable suspicion that the individual
was being damaged by continued exposure e.g civil claim or DWP IIB enquiry
received (this also could result in dismissal due to frustration of
contract/SOSR/capability if no other work available).  My experience of
privately explaining the possible repercussions of refusing surveillance is
that individuals consult their Trade Union, and then do attend and comply
with surveillance.

I do agree that the challenge of dealing with HAVS surveillance is to move
it from the Compensation arena.

If you are interested in accessing training on this topic, visit our
website - we have trained over 400 Nurses/Physicians so far.

Dr Geoff Helliwell
MB ChB CIH FFOM MIOSH
Accredited Specialist in Occupational Medicine
www.wellwork.co.uk

This e-mail is confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of WellWork
Ltd.

If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received
this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing
or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
e-mail in error please notify WellWork Ltd. by telephone on +44 (0)1434
608444 or by fax on +44 (0) 1434 608555

-----Original Message-----
From: Occupational Health mailing list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Dennis Macwilliam
Sent: 28 January 2003 19:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome


On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:25:15 -0000, jbilmes <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>I would appreciate your thoughts on the legal requirement for assessment
of employee's symptoms relating to exposure to vibrating tools. Whilst I
appreciate that this may still be considered as 'best practice', I am
trying to determine what to do with individuals who decline an assessment
and how best to advise the employer.
>With increasing changes to the relevant legislation, I'm keen to ensure
that I provide the most appropriate advice.
>
>Jenny Bilmes
>OHN
>

I can't help but reflect upon the irony that some of the screening tests
for VWF probably evolved from attempts by successive government
adminstrations to avoid payment of Disablement Benefits - hence the long
legal fight by coal miners to win their disablement claims for VWF!

I'm unaware of "increasing changes to the relevant legislation" regarding
VWF or HAVS, but the forthcoming implementation of the Physical Agents
Directive in the EU may not be the vehicle which introduces the long
awaited reliable and/or consistent VWF/HAVS screening tests.

Perhaps subscribers to this List should lobby HSE to put forward a research
contract on this topic?   I seem to be aware that researchers at
Southampton University [the NVRC under Prof. Griffin] have been active in
ths area in the recent past.


Dennis M