Your last point rings a bell. We have certainly had angry phone calls from people with an HR function complaining that we cannot have assessef a pre-employment questionnaire properly because someone is (a) off sick, (b) under-performing, (b) depressed ... Kate
>>> [log in to unmask] 12/07/03 17:48:08 >>>
Dear list
What interesting discussion this has generated. I am picking up on the
comment about pre-employment health assessment (PEHA) being used to identify
presumably with the aim of screening out people likely to have repeated
short-term sickness absences. In my opinion this should not be the purpose
of such a health assessment and could lead to a multitude of of problems for
the OH advisor. The aim of PEHAs is to assess the suitability of person and
job match with the OHA being in a position to advise on any issues related
to safety or make recommendations re specific needs of the employee. (Eg a
person with severe visual impairments may require modifications to their
PC.) I prefer to screen people into work rather than out of work.
I have a particular interest in sickness absence (sad but true!). Sickness
absence was the focus of the research I undertook for my MSc dissertation.
Neither my evaluative literature review nor my findings indicated any
evidence that pre-employment screening in itself would predict poor
attenders. The reasons underpinning non-attendance at work can be very
complex and are not always health related. The prospective employee may use
illness as their reason for non-attendance. I would put the onus back on to
management with regard to this one. The most appropriate prediction of
future attendance is to look back at past attendance behaviour. It would
appear to me that management should do this when requesting a reference from
previous employer(s). Details of previous periods of sickness absence both
the number of days absent and the number of absences in the last 12 months
of the applicants previous employment should be requested as part of the
process of collecting references. They can then decide if they wish to
employ them or not.
If management believe that the OHA will screen out people who could present
an attendance problem they could consider that the OHA had "not done their
job properly" when they next encounter an employee with elevated levels of
repeated short term absences.
Anne Harriss
on 12/7/03 2:33 pm, Neil & Paul at [log in to unmask] wrote:
Would be interested to hear exactly what you believe is the right way then
Greta. Perhaps you could give us your opinion rather than sit on the fence.
Don't forget that many employers now are using PEQ to ensure that they are
not going to employ an individual that has a very bad sickness record that
is short term frequent rather than relating to any specific illness or
disability not just to identify those at risk from occupational ill health!
I also believe that where a PEQ is going back to HR many individuals filling
them in will believe that it is only being scrutinised by a healthcare
professional.
We must also remember that the british civil service is steeped in history
and often uses very draconian measures rather like some of the people
working for it. This certainly does not mean that they are correct.
Neil
----- Original Message -----
From: Greta Thornbory <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: Pre-employment questionnaires
I think you are getting confused here about confidentiality. An individual
can tell anyone they like what is wrong with them, their history, medical or
otherwise. Only if they are told that that information would be treated as
'medical in confidence' would it have to be just that - kept in confidence
by a healthcare professional.
Regarding the civil service I was just pointing out that a large UK
institution which includes such things as the Lord Chancellors Department (
the British Courts System) and HSE itself have all been using this system
since time immemorial ( I am not saying whether this is right or wrong -
just that it happens). I am amused that you are trying to change it in the
MOD for a number of reasons, but maybe you will succeed where others have
failed - including HSE because it seems to work. Is this evidence based
practice? What evidence is there that other systems are better? More
research has been carried out on Civil Service staff than almost any other
single group. The Whitehall 11 Study 2000 concluded their research by
saying that 'intervention at the level of work design, organisation and
management may reduce morbidity in working populations' - there is no
mention of pre-employment health assessment (unless for specific situations
where health surveillance is required).
A great deal of expensive OH professional time is spent on Pre employment -
again I ask what research indicates that the end justifies the means? and I
am not talking about areas where health surveillance is either statutory or
mandatory,
Greta Thornbory
Consultant, Occupational health and education
www.gtentreprises-uk.com <http://www.gtentreprises-uk.com>
Phone: 01235 770156
Mobile: 0777 815 027
----- Original Message -----
From: mchardy <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 7:32 AM
Subject: Re: Pre-employment questionnaires
I have just caught up on all the comments/opinions/discussions re: above
subject.
I find it extremely disturbing that the practice of vetting of PEHQ by HR
seems to be acceptable to some OH practitioners even if there is guidance on
it within the British Civil Service as suggested by Greta.
As far as I am aware, under current laws, should someone decide to take the
breach of medical confidentiality to court, the employee would win hands
down & please correct me if I'm wrong.
Greta, for the past 4 nearly 5 yrs I work within the military & I provide a
service for civil servants as well as service personnel (not as
comprehensive for the civilians as it is for the servicemen & women) & I am
appalled at the practice of the civil service HR & their welfare system.
Prospective employees are asked to send their their completed job
applications & CV as well as the completed PEHQ to HR all together. There is
no mention to them that the people looking at their PEHQ are not health
professionals. Not only that, but they are not even sealed & marked "medical
in confidence" although it is claimed that the whole file is classed as
"medical" so the staff are trained not to gossip etc. Having met & tried to
work with some of the staff in HR, some have absolutely no idea about
medical confidentiality or other confidentiality for that matter, discussing
employees' health with managers etc etc. (Some HR staff are however very
discreet).
I have challenged this practice at the highest level within the Ministry of
Defence. As a result & with help from the Chief Civilian Nurse & Chief
Medical Officer within the MOD, an alternative comprehensive policy is being
looked at. There seems to be such resistance at their HR higher level that
the said policy is in its 13th draft !!!!!!
As a result of the local unit OH not being involved in the PEHQ, many
vulnerable people have been placed in jobs where their health is put at risk
for e.g. the asthma sufferer in a carpentry environment or working with
isocyanates.
I have found a way of working around this at my unit level (with some
resistance from the local HR) but it is still far from ideal. At least since
I have been in post, any OH medical notes we create are kept within our OH
Dept under correct security as in the Medical Records Act etc. I am
constantly trying to find better ways of working with HR but some of the
"old school" HR still resist change as they see us as meddling & encroaching
on their empire!
It is all boiling down to informing the employees of their rights and the
current HR practice & should they not be happy about it, they can take it
further. There are very strong grievance etc policies in place. However I am
also aware that as an advocate I may not be totally fulfilling my
responsibility. I continue to challenge practice!
Sorry to have gone on a bit but I do feel very strongly about this! By the
way-I fully support the competency and quality of PEHQ issues as per James
B.
Regards to all
Maudie
OHN Specialist
PS I am aware that other arrangements are allowed within the law for the
SME's etc who cannot afford to employ their own OH advisors
----- Original Message -----
From: Greta Thornbory <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: Pre-employment questionnaires
Paul et all the others who answered this query.
The British Civil Service has been asking for completed PEQs to be returned
to HR since time immemorial (and few civil servants sit in offices) HR have
guidance notes produced by OH professionals geared towards specific job
specifications and if the PEQ falls outside those guidelines it is referred
to an OH professional for further consideration. It seems to work for the
600K civil servants employed at anyone time. Obviously some jobs required
statutory or mandatory consideration and these are dealt with separately by
the appropriate professionals. Just thought you might like to know this
interesting fact.
As so many of you seem to be into cost benefit analysis & exercises I would
be interested to find how many of you have actually carried out cost benefit
exercises on PEQs - does the end justify the means?
Greta Thornbory
Consultant, Occupational health and education
www.gtentreprises-uk.com <http://www.gtentreprises-uk.com>
Phone: 01235 770156
Mobile: 0777 815 027
----- Original Message -----
From: Bradley, Paul <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 3:49 PM
Subject: Pre-employment questionnaires
Hello all,
Regarding pre-employment questionnaires. Can an employer request the
prospective employee to disclose clinical information about themselves on a
PEQ which then goes to HR department in the absence of a occupational health
department? Is this acceptable so long as the employer clearly states on
the PEQ that the information provided and thus held will not be subject to
medical confidentiality but privileged confidentiality in HR.
Any guidance would be gratefully appreciated.
Cheers
Paul Bradley
Occupational Health Adviser.
AMEC Group Ltd, Sandiway House Hartford Northwich CW8 2YA United Kingdom
( 01606 881026 È 07739655392
? [log in to unmask]
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 10/06/03
|
