Physical risks and productivity: assessing the person, not only the task

Most physical risks are "visible" to the employer and hence the employer should be able to assess the occupational risk and who can be harmed and how. However, many employers assess the tasks within a role but do not assess the person.

The employer should be able to assess the likelihood and severity of harm based on aspects such as:

However, do they always consider the person especially when some of these risks may be "invisible"?

The key physical risks in the workplace across most employers and job roles are those associated with musculoskeletal disorders. These include low back pain (with and without sciatica); upper back pain; neck and shoulder issues; hand and arm problems; and hips, legs and feet injuries. All of these risks can be impacted by both the visible and invisible risks associated with the person and independent of the role and tasks they perform.

If an organisation is not considering the work and the person then the potential to cause harm to an individual unintentionally, increases significantly. Many organisations report that circa 80% of the reason for absence and presenteeism (if measured) is not associated with work. Yet because most of the research does not consider the broader risks and employers often state that they cannot assess fitness for purpose due to the Equality Act, our risk assessment processes are often limited.

The intention of the Equality Act was to prevent discrimination against people with protected characteristics and to promote equality. This has been interpreted by many that the former practice of undertaking a pre-employment health assessment is no longer legal.

Historically, it is true that some employers would use this assessment to "reject" potential employees unfairly without a robust reason. The Equality Act does not, in our view, expect an employer to offer a person a job, if in doing so that job is likely to cause them harm.

It is difficult for an employee to know exactly what a job entails, until they perform it. An employer, in their Duty of Care to the employee, should be transparent in what the job involves and how long it can take to become "conditioned" for the role. The process need not be discriminatory, instead it can be a process where:

• The employer outlines "honestly" the level of fitness required to perform the job safely
• The time it normally takes for a person to become conditioned to the work (dependent on a range of "visible" risks
• The person can then decide whether they would still like to progress for the role
• The employer can consider whether the person is suitable in every other aspect
• The employer can then discuss with the potential employee a training programme to help them become fit for the role
• OR identify what modifications would need to be made to ensure that the employee can work safely
• Identify whether those modifications can be made

A simple process could apply to employers who decide not to do pre-employment but choose instead to do on employment.

Either way this ensures that the employer is protecting the person from harm in the role (or in alternative duties if that is a potential outcome) from the outset. The employee then also has a Duty of Care to the employer, to co-operate with management.

In addition, to this proactive approach to onboarding, employers should also have a programme to ensure that a person remains fit for their role for their tenure with the company. As employees age, they are likely to find certain tasks more difficult. What happens in many cases is that this reaches a point when an employee needs to take an absence. This absence may be long term, may be reoccurring and may ultimately result in modified duties, alternative duties or dismissal on capability.

Rather than wait until this occurs and employer can encourage the employee to engage in a "longevity" programme, where the employer and the employee work together to help the employee stay not only fit for their role as long as is possible but also in doing so, they improve their quality of life.

Whilst the NHS is starting on this journey as part of the developing Longevity science (now evidence based) it will be necessary for employers, especially the larger employers, to invest in such programmes, for the benefit of their business, their people and Public Health.

Lifestyle and Longevity Medicine are the future of healthcare as we evolve from the traditional medical model, but this will only be successful if individuals engage in taking care of their own health as part of this.