Developing a global occupational health and safety management system model for Japanese companies.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a global occupational health and safety management system (OHSMS) model for Japanese companies. METHODS: In cooperation with a Japanese company, we established a research team and gathered information on occupational health and safety (OHS) practices in nine countries where the target company operated manufacturing sites. We then developed a model hypothesis via research team meeting. The model hypothesis was introduced to local factories in Indonesia and Thailand as trial sites. We evaluated the roles of the company headquarters, the implementation process, and any improvements in OHS practices at the sites. Based on the results, a global OHSMS model was formalized for global introduction. RESULTS: The model consisted of both headquarters and site roles. These roles were well-functioning, and OHS at the sites improved. Two issues concerning the functioning of the headquarters were identified: the need to establish a reporting system to the headquarters and the need to support the improvement of specialized human resources. By improving the model hypothesis to address these issues, the model was formalized for global introduction. CONCLUSIONS: The global OHSMS model was based on the use of methods and specialized human resources relevant to each region and their common objectives, as well as evaluation indicators based on the minimum requirements of the company headquarters. To verify the effectiveness of this model, the experiment should be extended to other countries.

Developing a checklist for collecting information from overseas hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: Expatriate workers and their families may encounter difficulties and uncertainties when visiting local hospitals. These problems include differences in the medical system, higher healthcare costs, and language problems. Occupational health staff in companies need to know about the healthcare system, including emergency transportation arrangements, to reduce anxiety in workers and families attending hospitals. This study was designed to create a checklist to allow occupational health staff to collect information from overseas hospitals efficiently and effectively. METHODS: We used documentary searches and the knowledge and experience of researchers to identify the support requirements of expatriate workers and drafted a checklist for information collection from overseas hospitals. The validity of the checklist was assessed in two stages. First, we interviewed health specialists caring for expatriate workers and their families and then tested the draft in international hospitals. We revised the draft based on our findings and again tested the new version in different overseas hospitals, enabling us to create a final version of the checklist. RESULTS: Our checklist contains 12 major categories: reception, administration, inpatient wards, available tests, outpatient clinics, emergency services, pediatrics, gynecology, dentistry, general health check-ups, vaccination services, and precautions against infection. These categories cover a total of 51 subcategories, each of which is further divided into a total of 131 smaller categories. DISCUSSIONS: Occupational health staff can use this checklist to gather information in order to provide comprehensive and effective support for expatriate workers attending hospitals. We recommend that the staff gather all possible information from hospital websites before visiting and use the visiting time to gather information available only on site. In order to gather as much information as accurately as possible, the staff are recommended to visit the facilities related to the checklist categories, that is, Japanese language reception, outpatient services, inpatient wards, emergency services, pediatrics, gynecology, general health check-up centers, and cardiac catheterization labs, and obtain information directly from doctors, nurses, and specialists working at the hospitals.

Survey of Information Sharing Related to the Occupational Considerations of Working Cancer Patients Between Occupational Physicians and Treating Physicians.

OBJECTIVE: Although a vital element in providing career support to workers with medical ailments is coordination between the worker, the treating physician, and the company (the occupational health staff), little is known about factors that promote or impede coordination between these parties. This study aims to demonstrate what kinds of actions by treating physicians promote or impede the occupational considerations made by occupational physicians. METHODS: A total of 43 occupational physicians who had completed the postgraduate training course (4 years) at the University of Occupational and Environmental Health Japan and were current or former instructors at the Occupational Health Training Center were surveyed using a self-reported questionnaire form. The questionnaire asked about individual attributes (age, years of experience as an occupational physician, etc.) and actions taken by treating physicians that were useful in making occupational considerations in the workplace (good practice cases) or that impeded such considerations (trouble cases). Responses about cases were obtained as freely written descriptions. Case content was analyzed qualitatively according to the KJ method. RESULTS: During the survey period from December 17, 2013 to January 18, 2014, responses were received from 33 occupational physicians (valid response rate, 76.7%; mean age, 37.4±6.1 years). Of these, 60.6% exclusively specialized in occupational medicine. Respondents provided 32 good practice cases and 16 trouble cases. The timing of coordination was the period of rehabilitation in 35 of the 48 cases (72.9%). Actions by the treating physicians that influenced occupational considerations were divided into seven major categories: "providing treatment information," "providing physical information," "appropriateness of rehabilitation or occupational considerations," "consistency of information provided," "issuing documentation," "communication that was cognizant of the occupational physician's presence," and "providing information unknown to the worker." CONCLUSIONS: This study clarified the kind of actions by the treating physicians that were relevant to occupational support provided by occupational physicians. Additionally, this study clarified the need for information sharing with occupational physician and treating physician. The good practice cases and trouble cases presented by the respondents were inextricably linked, and actions by the treating physicians that are based on good practices are highly likely to lead to smooth information sharing and occupational considerations.