Obesity in the Workplace: Impact, Outcomes, and Recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a comprehensive literature review to develop recommendations for managing obesity among workers to improve health outcomes and to explore the impact of obesity on health costs to determine whether a case can be made for surgical interventions and insurance coverage. METHODS: We searched PubMed from 2011 to 2016, and CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane Registry of Clinical Trials for interventions addressing obesity in the workplace. RESULTS: A total of 1419 articles were screened, resulting in 275 articles being included. Several areas were identified that require more research and investigation. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the use of both lifestyle modification and bariatric surgery to assist appropriate patients in losing weight.

Using Electronic Health Records and Clinical Decision Support to Provide Return-to-Work Guidance for Primary Care Practitioners for Patients With Low Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the process by which a group of subject matter experts in the area of return to work developed a resource tool to provide clinical decision support (CDS) for primary care clinicians. METHODS: A common musculoskeletal disorder, low back pain (LBP), was selected, pertinent literature reviewed, and specific recommendations for action in the clinical setting developed. RESULTS: Primary care practitioners (PCPs) are routinely expected to create work activity prescriptions. The knowledge base for a CDS tool that could be embedded in electronic health records has been developed. CONCLUSION: Improved clinical support should help prevent and manage work limitations associated with LBP not caused by work. The proposed decision support should reduce administrative burden and stimulate PCPs to explore the role of occupation and its demands on patients.

Marijuana in the Workplace: Guidance for Occupational Health Professionals and Employers: Joint Guidance Statement of the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses and the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

Employers are often put in a difficult position trying to accommodate state laws that allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes while enforcing federal rules or company drug-use policies based on federal law. To ensure workplace safety as well as compliance with state and federal legislation, employers should review state laws on discrimination against marijuana users and ensure that policies enacted are consistent with the state's antidiscrimination statutes. Although it appears that in most states that allow medical marijuana use, employers can continue enforcing policies banning or restricting the use of marijuana, this approach may change on the basis of future court decisions. The Joint Task Force recommends that marijuana use be closely monitored for all employees in safety-sensitive positions, whether or not covered by federal drug-testing regulations. Best practice would support employers prohibiting marijuana use at work. Employers, in compliance with applicable state laws, may choose to simply prohibit their employees from working while using or impaired by marijuana. In some states, employers may choose to prohibit marijuana use by all members of their workforce whether on or off duty. Nevertheless, in all cases, a clear policy to guide decisions on when marijuana use is allowed and how to evaluate for impairment must be widely distributed and carefully explained to all workers. Legal consultation during policy development and continual review is imperative to ensure compliance with federal, state, and case law. Drug-use and drug-testing policies should clearly delineate expectations regarding on-the-job impairment and marijuana use outside of work hours. Specific criteria for use by supervisors and HR personnel when referring employees suspected of impairment for an evaluation by a qualified occupational health professional are critical. Detailed actions based on the medical evaluation results must also be clearly delineated for HRs, supervisors, and workers. The Joint Task Force recommends that employers review the following points when developing workplace policies that address marijuana use in the workplace: 1. For employees covered by federal drug testing regulations (eg, DOT and other workers under federal contract), marijuana use, both on or off the job, is prohibited. Thus, employers may use urine drug screening in this population. 2. Employees in safety-sensitive positions must not be impaired at work by any substance, whether it be illicit, legally prescribed, or available over-the-counter. Employers may consider prohibiting on the job marijuana use for all employees in safety-sensitive positions, even when not covered by federal drug testing regulations. Nevertheless, legal review of the employer's policy in the context of state statutes is strongly encouraged. When employers allow medical marijuana use by employees, consultation with a qualified occupational health professional is recommended. 3. Employers residing in or near states that allow the use of recreational marijuana must establish a policy regarding off-work use of marijuana. In many states, the employer may choose to prohibit employees from simply working while using or under the influence of marijuana or may choose to prohibit marijuana use both on and off the job. Urine drug testing above traditional cutoff levels, or serum testing at any level, would be reasonable criteria for the employer wishing to ban both on- and off-the-job use. To detect impairment, a limit of 5 ng/mL of THC measured in serum or plasma as THC (or possibly the sum of THC plus THC-OH for employers who choose to evaluate both psychoactive components) would meet the goal of identifying individuals most likely to be impaired. Nevertheless, employers using the 5 ng/ml level need to understand the limitations of using a single number to fit all cases; therefore, a medical examination focused on identifying impairment is always recommended. Legal consultation is strongly recommended. 4. Although it appears that in most states that allow the use of medical marijuana, employers may be able to continue policies banning or restricting the use of marijuana as previously discussed, this practice may change on the basis of future case law. Currently the ADA does not apply in these situations because marijuana is illegal under federal law. Legal consultation is again strongly recommended. 5. Most workers' compensation statutes allow reduced benefits when a worker is under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs. Two samples should usually be obtained as a second confirmatory test may be needed. Proof of use and/or impairment is usually required for these cases, and a positive urine drug test (for the inactive metabolite) does not prove acute impairment. The serum level of less than 5 ng/mL could be used for presumptive evidence of impairment in these situations. An MRO is most helpful in helping determine these types of cases because legal testimony may be required. 6. All employers should have clear policies and procedures for supervisors to follow regarding the criteria for identifying potential impairment and the process for referring an employee suspected of impairment for an occupational medical evaluation. Policies should include action required by HR personnel based on the results of the examination. 7. Employee education is vital to ensure compliance with company expectations. Education is needed at hire and again at regular intervals. Workers must know the company's chemical substance policy and management's expectations for adherence. The employer's commitment to a drug-free workplace and existing company policy will influence the education program's content. At a minimum, employees should learn how chemical substances affect their health, safety, personal behavior, and job performance. Supervisors and employees should also be educated about how to recognize behaviors indicative of impairment, whether the source is medical marijuana, prescription medications, illegal drugs, alcohol, over-the-counter medications, fatigue, or any combination thereof. 8. In states where marijuana use is permitted, employers should provide educational resources regarding the detrimental effects of marijuana use, including caution regarding dose and delayed effects of edible products. This information may be obtained from SAMHSA and state governmental agencies. The safety of workers and the public must be central to all workplace policies and employers must clearly articulate that legalization of marijuana for recreational or medical use does not negate workplace policies for safe job performance. The evolving legal situation on medical and recreational marijuana requires employers to consult with legal experts to craft company policy and clarify implications of impaired on-duty workers. This changing environment surrounding marijuana use requires close collaboration between employers, occupational health professionals, and legal experts to ensure that workplace safety is not compromised.

Medical evacuations from oil rigs off the Gulf Coast of the United States from 2008 to 2012: reasons and cost implications.

OBJECTIVE: To identify reasons for air medical evacuations from oil rigs/platforms. METHODS: Retrospective review of data of medical calls from 102 rigs/platforms in the US Gulf Coast from 2008 through 2012 with specific analysis of medevacs. RESULTS: On average, 1609 total calls per year relating to illness or injury on the 102 oil rigs/platforms with 4% to 7% requiring medical air evacuation. On average, 77% of medevacs were for nonoccupational medical injury or illness. CONCLUSIONS: Illness, not occupational injuries, is identified as the major reason for medical evacuations from oil rigs. Heart disease is the leading cause of chronic health conditions resulting in a medevac.

The link between workforce health and safety and the health of the bottom line: tracking market performance of companies that nurture a "culture of health".

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that comprehensive efforts to reduce a workforce's health and safety risks can be associated with a company's stock market performance. METHODS: Stock market performance of Corporate Health Achievement Award winners was tracked under four different scenarios using simulation and past market performance. RESULTS: A portfolio of companies recognized as award winning for their approach to the health and safety of their workforce outperformed the market. Evidence seems to support that building cultures of health and safety provides a competitive advantage in the marketplace. This research may have also identified an association between companies that focus on health and safety and companies that manage other aspects of their business equally well. CONCLUSIONS: Companies that build a culture of health by focusing on the well-being and safety of their workforce yield greater value for their investors.