Dear Barry and list

Your thoughts, and those of Chris Packham, mirror my own. The lack of access
to OH advice for a very large proportion of the working age population could
have been more effectively considered within this strategy.

The doc quite rightly questions the effectiveness of pre-employment
screening. Stuart Whittaker's research published approx 15 years ago
indicated that a lot of PE assessments were not a good use of resources. I
was intrigued by the reference in the document to the Equality Act resulting
in a reduction of time spent on Pre-employment screening unleashing them to
focus on other issues.  The EA, however, does not abolish PE screening it
just means that it must not be used to discriminate between candidates prior
to a job offer being made. I would hope that no OHN would be screening
candidates prior to a job offer having been made. The focus should be
helping people into work, not an obstacle to gaining employment. The large
proportion of small and medium sized enterprises having no access to
occupational health advice limits the opportunity to assist people with
chronic health problems impacting on their activities of daily living to get
back to work.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

Anne 

Anne Harriss
Course Director
LONDON SOUTH BANK UNIVERSITY

On 02/12/2010 09:25, "Wilkes, Barry" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> All
> 
> At the risk of sound 'Me Too; we also include culture on our course at
> Warwick. The problem all programmes have though is 'how much should we
> include?'. I think your comments Anna are really interesting as they go
> to the heart of the role and future of occupational health and I am
> saying this as a non-OHN (my background is H&S and we are having similar
> dilemmas).
> 
> To me the biggest 'public health' inequality we face is the lack of
> access to OH by the vast majority of the working population;
> particularly those in smaller companies. I suppose to tackle this we
> have at least three options.
> 
> 1. 'Force' companies to get access to OH based on their degree of risk
> rather than their size. The law is already there. This could be achieved
> through a  greater degree of enforcement. After all relatively few firms
> complain about Reg 7 of the Management Regulations requiring H&S
> assistance and this can be stretched to OH assistance (the guidance
> infers this anyway). With this option though you will probably only get
> minimum legal standard. Other option include levy -based provision e.g.
> construction industry and by making it a requirement of public liability
> insurance as it is in some Euro countries.
> 
> 2. A more palatable option might be to put a greater emphasis (both in
> education and practice) in raising the awareness of business and
> non-specialists of the role and benefits of OH. This is both giving
> OHA's the skills to influence business and providing awareness and
> education of OH to non-specialists. Yes we need to be careful how we do
> this but this should not stop us giving managers and employers the
> skills and knowledge they need to manage their employees.
> 
> 3. The biggest of all the inequalities though, to me, is the lack of
> access to OH through primary care. Yes I know there are some excellent
> pilot projects like the 'fit for work programmes' but to be honest these
> 'pilots' have been going on for at least 15 years in different forms in
> places like Sheffield and Lanark to my knowledge. When are they going to
> move out of pilot?
> 
> To me these point also touch on the future role of OHA's anyway. There
> is such a blurring of boundaries between professions; particularly case
> managers; disability advisers; H&S practitioners; Occ. Hygienists;
> ergonomists among many others that the distinct role and benefits of OH
> needs to be defined and communicated.
> 
> This last point then leads onto the overlap between OH and the other
> 'public health' disciplines covered by Part III of the register. The
> review of Part III; I think should prove very interesting; not least
> whether OHA's move closer to those other disciplines or further away. I
> think the transfer of public health generally away from the NHS and into
> the Local Authorities and closer to disciplines such as Environmental
> Health again add a real opportunity for OH.
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> Barry
> 
> Barry Wilkes
> Senior Teaching Fellow in Occupational Health and Safety
> Warwick Medical School (A-026)
> University of Warwick
> Gibbet Hill Campus
> Coventry
> CV4 7AL
> Tel: 02476 150457
> Fax: 0276 574893
> [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Anna
> Sent: 01 December 2010 12:40
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [OCC-HEALTH] Public Health strategy document
> 
> Hi
> 
> Thats great to hear, so what more can be done to make OHA involvement in
> 
> organisational culture a mainstream and accepted part of our role in the
> 
> work place?
> 
> Anna
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Smolen, Mary" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 12:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [OCC-HEALTH] Public Health strategy document
> 
> 
> And so does LSBU!!
> 
> Mary Smolen
> Staff Nurse
> Occupational Health Department
> Royal Bournemouth Hospital
> Castle Lane East
> Bournemouth
> BH7 7DW
> 
> Tel:  01202 704215
> Fax:  01202 704513
> 
> 
> This message may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
> It is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be forwarded or
> copied to any third party without the consent of the sender.  If you
> received this in error please contact the sender and destroy the
> message.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Jim Mills
> Sent: 01 December 2010 10:49
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [OCC-HEALTH] Public Health strategy document
> 
> I can vouch for that!
> Sent from my BlackBerry(r) wireless device
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:         "Rosemary Shaw (fns)" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sender:       [log in to unmask]
> Date:         Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:37:09
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To:     Occupational Health mailing list
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [OCC-HEALTH] Public Health strategy document
> 
> Hi Anna,
> 
> I run the Occupational Health Practice Course at Robert Gordon
> University in Aberdeen and I certainly have content in the curriculum
> regarding organisational culture and the effect that can have on the
> health of the workforce.
> Rosemary
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: [log in to unmask] [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Anna [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 01 December 2010 10:22
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [OCC-HEALTH] Public Health strategy document
> 
> Hi
> 
> This document is very interesting and does mark a new direction for
> Public
> Health in this country. It has businesses and workplaces threaded
> throughout
> the document and in specific paragraphs. It places a commitment towards
> activities that are preventative, focus on wellbeing, self-esteem,
> confidence and resilience. It states that it wants to "unleash"
> employers
> potential as champions of public health, whilst acknowledging that it
> does
> need to bring real  and demonstrable ROI. It states that 70% of the
> burden
> of long-standing ill-health is due to MSD, MH and circulation. I think
> that
> this document supports and directs OH professionals to work with
> businesses
> proactivley to create workpalce cultures that improve the health and
> wellbeing, rather than just prevent and manage ill-health. I think it is
> about working with employers to engage and unleash the potential in the
> workforce by affecting the management behaviour. There is therfore a
> need
> for OH professionals to look at themselves to consider what can my role
> be,
> do I need more support/training/guidance to be able to have an affect?
> How
> many OHAs training included organisational culture and the affects it
> has on
> the workforce, I am assuming not many, is this something that needs to
> be in
> the education of future OHAs?
> 
> Anna
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 9:13 AM
> Subject: [OCC-HEALTH] Public Health strategy document
> 
> 
>> Dear List
>> 
>> The Government Strategy for Public Health was published yesterday.
>> Workplace
>> health management gets a mention, but more could have been included. I
>> suspect the government don't want to be more forceful in relation to
>> workplace heath management due to the financial implications on
>> businesses.
>> 
>> Suggest it is worth looking at this document and then the document I
>> circulated last week from the DWP.
>> 
>> I was at a meeting last week where our Dean highlighted the
> implications
>> of
>> public spending cuts on our, and other, universities. It was obvious
> that
>> more trainee HVs would be required and therefore we needed to factor
> that
>> in
>> to our plans. This document put that discussion into perspective as
> this
>> document indicates that there will be an increased requirement for
> HVs.
>> 
>> Happy reading
>> 
>> Anne Harriss
>> Course Director
>> London South Bank University
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ********************************
>> Please remove this footer before replying.
>> 
>> OCC-HEALTH ARCHIVES:
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/occ-health.html
>> 
>> CONFERENCES AND STUDY DAYS:
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/filearea.cgi?LMGT1=OCC-HEALTH
>> 
> 
> ********************************
> Please remove this footer before replying.
> 
> OCC-HEALTH ARCHIVES:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/occ-health.html
> 
> CONFERENCES AND STUDY DAYS:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/filearea.cgi?LMGT1=OCC-HEALTH
> 
> Robert Gordon University is The Sunday Times Scottish University of the
> Year 2011
> 
> Robert Gordon University, a Scottish charity registered under charity
> number SC 013781.
> 
> This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended
> recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential
> information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be
> copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are
> not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and
> any attachment and all copies and inform the sender.  Please note that
> any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the
> author and do not necessarily represent those of Robert Gordon
> University.  Thank you.
> 
> ********************************
> Please remove this footer before replying.
> 
> OCC-HEALTH ARCHIVES:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/occ-health.html
> 
> CONFERENCES AND STUDY DAYS:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/filearea.cgi?LMGT1=OCC-HEALTH
> 
> ********************************
> Please remove this footer before replying.
> 
> OCC-HEALTH ARCHIVES:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/occ-health.html
> 
> CONFERENCES AND STUDY DAYS:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/filearea.cgi?LMGT1=OCC-HEALTH
> 
> ********************************
> Please remove this footer before replying.
> 
> OCC-HEALTH ARCHIVES:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/occ-health.html
> 
> CONFERENCES AND STUDY DAYS:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/filearea.cgi?LMGT1=OCC-HEALTH
> 
> ********************************
> Please remove this footer before replying.
> 
> OCC-HEALTH ARCHIVES:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/occ-health.html
> 
> CONFERENCES AND STUDY DAYS:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/filearea.cgi?LMGT1=OCC-HEALTH
> 
> ********************************
> Please remove this footer before replying.
> 
> OCC-HEALTH ARCHIVES:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/occ-health.html
> 
> CONFERENCES AND STUDY DAYS:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/filearea.cgi?LMGT1=OCC-HEALTH
> 

********************************
Please remove this footer before replying.

OCC-HEALTH ARCHIVES:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/occ-health.html

CONFERENCES AND STUDY DAYS:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/filearea.cgi?LMGT1=OCC-HEALTH