![]() |
Block 3: Occupational Health Management - Section 3: Medical Surveillance Programme - Procedure Guidelines |
OHM3.2: Types of Medical Examinations |
Jonny, please rephrase the note above - is this a question to me, or is it part of the heading?
Medical Surveillance comprises the following types of Medical Examinations:
|
![]() |
At the end of each ???WHICH ONE - ALL OR EACH examination, the medical team will provide a certificate
for the worker that will make clear whether the worker is:
THIS SHOULD BE A NEW PAGE
Design of the Medical Surveillance Programme
The Worker-Allocated Surveillance Programme (WASP) is the formal documentation of the Medical Surveillance Strategy, accounting for the information made available from the Risk Assessment, and an understanding of appropriate test selection. The method for design of the WASPs for each exposure group is described in the Medical Surveillance Policy, Guidelines and Procedures.
Note: The technique used to design of the Medical Surveillance Programmes is described in detail in the SOP for the construction of the "Worker Allocated Surveillance Programmes (WASPs)". (This is where a hyperlink to the actual document should be placed.)
TOO MANY ORPHAN REFERENCES - WASP IS A TOTAL ORPHAN AT THIS STAGE . IT IS CRUCIAL TO WHAT FOLLOWS WHICH CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD WITHOUT SEEING IT OR KNOWING WHAT IT IS
NEED TO INSERT ALL OF THESE IN SOME WAY OR ANOTHER PREFERABLY AS WORKED EXAMPLES
WHAT FOLLOWS BELOW COULD BE A TOP PAGE LEADING TO DEEPER PAGES WITH OREPS ETC. THE WHOLE THING COULD BE BILLED A WASP??
This is a complex process but can be summarised as follows:
The key determinants of who should be required to undergo medical surveillance are the findings of the Health Risk Assessment, which are recorded in the Occupational Risk Exposure Profiles (OREPs). Hence in the first step in the design of the medical surveillance programme, the OREPs are consulted, and the data therein is transferred to the WASPs. This is done as follows:
Using the WASPs sheets, and the reference tables in the WASP construction SOP, this step is made relatively painless. The tests comprise combinations of questionnaires, clinical examination and special investigations (x-rays, laboratory tests, audiograms, etc.). It is important that the selected tests are valid. This is determined by their sensitivity and specificity, and the availability of reliable testing facilities (laboratories, testing equipment, trained occupational health programme staff (including CXR’s, audiograms, PFT’s, etc.). For further information on Sensitivity and Specificity, refer to Appendix 1. WHAT IS THIS? WE NEED TO LINK POSSIBLY TO BLOCK 1 EPI 1.9. Oops!! I remember the document, and writing it, but I can't find this reference. Where have you taken these notes from Jonny? Once I am there, I will find the appendix and the stuff on sensitivity & specificity. It would be a good idea to make the link with block 1 (kind of closes a loop).
Two types of standard are considered:
The extensive reference tables in the WASP SOP assist the examining health team in this task. It is not possible to establish every permutation that would constitute a reason for excluding an employee in a policy document. Instead, lists of relevant cautions are flagged in the reference tables, to assist the medical professionals in their adjudication. Usually it is a combination of factors that would result in the exclusion of an employee from a particular occupation.
WE WILL NEED TO DECIDE WHAT TO INCLUDE IN DEEPER PAGES HERE OR ELSE DROP REFERENCE TO THE WASP SOP. I think we should rather place a hyperlink to the SOP, and I will take people through the steps by using a worked example. Again, we could even use the factory visit to do this...
This is determined by the degree of risk to which the employees are faced, and the outcomes of the medicals themselves. The higher the risk, the more frequent the tests. The more adverse the outcomes, the more frequent the tests. Test frequencies usually vary from quarterly to every 5 years, but the most common is annual. SOME OF THIS IS ALSO LAID DOWN IN LAW? Yes, well noted! Mining industry, audiometry, lead, asbestos, driver medicals, amongst others.
This is particularly sensitive when test outcomes are computerised, which increases
the risk that these results may get into the wrong hands. However, even paper
records go astray. It is a temptation to flag records by means of the use of
markers on the outside of the medical folders - a practice that should be implemented
with caution, as this may constitute a breach of confidentiality (when the "coded"
flags are interpreted (correctly, or, worse, incorrectly) by the employees or
management.
(i.e: the diabetics could be flagged by means of a pink coloured sticker, the hypertensives by means of a blue one, etc. The employees may interpret a certain sticker as marking those with HIV (correctly or incorrectly), which could spark an industrial relations crisis.
This is regarded as an important part of the medical surveillance programme,
as it not only provides employees with the results of their tests, as is their
constitutional right, but also allays fears that the company is hiding information
deliberately. The feedback may be verbal or written, but the written route is
favoured.
The Synergee System provides re-written letters that ease the burden
of communicating in writing to every employee. EITHER INCLUDE A SINGLE
EXAMPLE OR DROP THIS SENTENCE. Agreed, it does
not belong. HAVE YOU MENTIONED THE ETHICAL AND OTHER
PROBLEMS OF RISK COMMUNICATION. Nope! Good point -
but this can be tackled again in the Hazardous Chemical Substances /
toxicology block. (Are you refering to Anthea (correct?) Rother's work?)
Should we include it here?
Whilst employee education is not a direct responsibility of the medical team, the annual medical provides an ideal opportunity to provide the employees with a further reminder of the issues which they need to be aware in their occupations, with particular reference to the effective use of their PPE, as well as safe work practices, and also the important relevant risk factors outside of the work-place. WHAT ABOUT OTHER RISK FACTORS OUTSIDE OF WORK? Good point.