Covid-19: statutory means of scrutinizing workers' deaths and disease

COVID-19 in Workplace Settings: Lessons Learned for Occupational Medicine in the UK

This paper addresses lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic from a UK Occupational Medicine perspective to permit comparison with other national accounts. In spite of good prior research and statute, the necessary resources to protect workers' health were seriously lacking when the pandemic struck. Weak public health guidance, which did not recognise dominant airborne transmission, was applied to workplaces, leaving workers and others unprotected, especially in respect to Respiratory Protective Equipment (RPE). The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) as regulator was lacking, for example, in not producing guidance to protect HealthCare Workers (HCW) who were amongst the most at risk. The UK COVID-19 Public Inquiry should address shortcomings such as these, but recommendations must be accompanied by robust means to ensure appropriate implementation. These should range from substantial measures to improve indoor air quality, to a permanent pandemic management organization with adequate resources. The enforcing authority has to be obliged to publish more specific workplace guidance than the public health authorities. Occupational medicine as a discipline needs to be better prepared, and hence to assert its responsibility towards high standards of workers' health protection. Future research has to include investigating the best means of mitigation against airborne infection and the management of post-acute covid sequelae.

Occupational differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection: analysis of the UK ONS COVID-19 infection survey

BACKGROUND

Concern remains about how occupational SARS-CoV-2 risk has evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to ascertain occupations with the greatest risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and explore how relative differences varied over the pandemic.

METHODS

Analysis of cohort data from the UK Office of National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey from April 2020 to November 2021. This survey is designed to be representative of the UK population and uses regular PCR testing. Cox and multilevel logistic regression were used to compare SARS-CoV-2 infection between occupational/sector groups, overall and by four time periods with interactions, adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, region, household size, urban/rural neighbourhood and current health conditions.

RESULTS

Based on 3 910 311 observations (visits) from 312 304 working age adults, elevated risks of infection can be seen overall for social care (HR 1.14; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.24), education (HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.39), bus and coach drivers (1.43; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.97) and police and protective services (HR 1.45; 95% CI 1.29 to 1.62) when compared with non-essential workers. By time period, relative differences were more pronounced early in the pandemic. For healthcare elevated odds in the early waves switched to a reduction in the later stages. Education saw raises after the initial lockdown and this has persisted. Adjustment for covariates made very little difference to effect estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated risks among healthcare workers have diminished over time but education workers have had persistently higher risks. Long-term mitigation measures in certain workplaces may be warranted.

The Development of a Covid-19 Control Measures Risk Matrix for Occupational Hygiene Protective Measures

The British Occupational Hygiene Society (BOHS) Covid-19 Working Group developed a control banding matrix to provide guidance for employers and others to help assess the risks of Covid-19 infection during the pandemic. The matrix was based on occupational hygiene principles and the judgement of the occupational health practitioners involved; since objective data on workers’ exposure were unavailable. Users of the matrix identify one of five exposure categories based on generic job descriptions and example occupations, and these categories are linked to generic guidance on interventions at source, on the exposure pathway and for individual workers. The risk matrix was published on the BOHS website and the guidance has been downloaded more than 2000 times. The matrix has had limited evaluation for reliability, but the data suggest that the highest exposure ranked jobs were associated with higher age-standardized mortality in Britain during the pandemic. However, there was considerable variability in exposure assignments between assessors, which underlines the need for the control guidance to be precautionary. The BOHS calls on academic researchers to undertake further work to validate the reliability of the tool.