Totika isn't a pre-qualification scheme. It's an alignment and recognition of existing schemes so that multiple prequals are no longer needed.

The Ministry of Health is better suited for Covid-19 response and information, and they've already pumped out a whole heap of information earlier this year on processes and protections.

Other industry bodies, such as CHASNZ, have put out information as well. I would say most businesses already have robust Covid-19 plans and procedures in place, and if they don't I'd wonder what they've been doing since March.

That would all depend on the role they are doing and the risks they are exposed to.

This is a really interesting article, and this has always been the issue I have had with drug testing. A failed urine test doesn't necessarily show impairment it just shows the presence of the drug metabolites, so the person has used in the past. Saliva testing is a better proxy, though not the best, but probably the best option we have.

I think a lot of organisations will closely follow the police road side testing and see what approach they take and go from there.

It's important that organisations realise they're not their to moralise what their staff do outside of work as long as it isn't affecting their work. An impairment approach is an important way of doing this, it also captures other sources of impairment (fatigue, mental health etc)

Did you end up finding hard hats?

At my previous employer we were given Hep A +B, Tetanus, and Diphtheria as we worked with biological materials.

Given the current shortcomings or oral fluid testing to meet the cut off levels in the new standard, could an organisation use an oral-fluid test as an initial test for impairment, then follow this up with an evidential urine test in the oral test is non-negative/ shows recent use?

Hi Amanda,

Do you think with the introduction of the AS/NZS 4760:2019 oral fluid testing standard this would have to become the default testing method for post incident/ random testing?

It seems fairly consistent with the general population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_New_Zealand_cannabis_referendum#Opinion_polls_and_surveys

I'm using hours actually worked. It wa easy to work out for our waged staff, but for salary staff I just had to estimate.

I would use a pre-qualification company, like Site Wise or Impac Prequal. They're relatively inexpensive and will take a look at your systems in place and identify any gaps you might have.

The higher authority for a New Zealand workplace would be the Ministry of Health (The Director-General of Health, Ashley Bloomfield, has legal authority in New Zealand, while Tedros Adhanom does not) . They're experts on the particular New Zealand situation so they are the organisation that health and safety professionals should be referring to.

As health and safety professionals it important not to overreach in our scope and ability.

I think this thread is a clear example of where we need to be aware of our knowledge and training limitations. There are instances when all health and safety professionals need to defer to those with a greater understanding and knowledge, in this case the Ministry of Health and following the advice they have given.

This seems like a very risky approach as you're essentially playing doctor. Additionally if you are the ones sending the worker off work, and to their doctor your workplace must be covering the costs of this (i.e. it can't be coming out of an employee's sick leave entitlements).

This is an extremely poor response. First aiders are not health professionals, to put them in this position is not a good idea.

If workers are unwell they should not be at work. It is not up to any employer to second guess this information.

My question is what is achieved by sharing that graph with your business?

A pandemic plan should be looking at all possibilities from a few minor cases to a widespread pandemic. Sharing a graph of the current UK situation isn't helpful as the situation could change and the situation in New Zealand may be vastly different (we could have a lot more cases, or a lot less).

I am guessing the H&S Board aren't infectious disease experts, so they shouldn't be trying to interpret complicated data to inform their plan. Data interpretation should be left to the experts and our responses should be shaped on their advice for the specific New Zealand situation.

Showing graphs like that is absolutely scaremongering. There are only five confirmed cases in New Zealand, and two suspected cases. We're nothing like the UK at this stage, and while we might get there there's no point in harmful speculation like that.

I agree businesses should be planning for an outbreak (a good business will have a pandemic plan prepared already) but a lot of that will be going on behind the scenes by the senior management. The only thing that should be shared with employees is official advice (Ministry of Health updates) and the aspects of the pandemic plan that affect the workers directly.

Knowledge is power, but incorrectly applied knowledge is scaremongering.

Air Crash Investigations (sometimes called Mayday) is really good. Most full episodes are available on YouTube. Sometimes I'll watch it before a long flight. :lol:

Another good resource is the United States Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board YouTube Channel. It's primarily focused on hazardous substance incidents, but it's a really good resources and they take an indepth look at how incidents occur.

There's no way to answer this question without a greater understanding of the role. Is it desk based? Field based? What industry? etc

How would this work with features like hands free/ Bluetooth/ Android Auto? How would it detect a driver's phone vs. a passenger's phone?

One of the biggest issues is the lack of deterrent, there isn't enough enforcement and the fine for use is minuscule.