Supporting the people who support workplace health: iOH in practice

Samantha Langford, Board Director iOH

At iOH, the Association of Occupational Health and Wellbeing Professionals, our ambition is to support confident practitioners who can contribute to and influence the health of people at work, whether in an internal post, or working for an external partner. We strive to provide people across all aspects of occupational health and workplace wellbeing access to relevant learning, supportive professional connections and opportunities to share their expertise.

Our aims centre on bringing the occupational health community together, championing multidisciplinary working and sharing expertise. Our charitable purpose is the advancement of public health, particularly workplace health, by developing practitioners’ knowledge, skills and experience and promoting good practice. We are working towards occupational health expertise being engaged early, its contributions being valued, and its advice informing organisational decisions. This aligns with the Council for Work and Health’s mission of providing professional leadership and expertise on strategic work and health issues, by actively supporting those delivering this work, sharing their knowledge and informing wider discussions on the future of occupational health.

Developing confidence and expertise

Our community of 1,500 members has considerable knowledge and experience to share. Our role is to facilitate the sharing of that knowledge, whether through our blog, quarterly journal or extensive webinar programme. The latter covers a wide range of topics, recently covering chronic pain, fertility treatments and the use of artificial intelligence, offering free live sessions and on demand recordings. These free sessions ensure that learning is accessible for members and subjects reflect the topics that practitioners are facing, as well as covering emerging themes.

As part of membership, our quarterly journal, OH Today, brings together professional insight from across the sector, as well as members’ practical experience. Covering the broad range of elements that encompass our multi-disciplinary sector matters; whether covering clinical supervision, night work, or trauma informed practice. Occupational health involves understanding the whole person, including their history, as well as their work, and the organisation in which they work. Covering such different perspectives helps practitioners across the various roles to consider things that they may encounter through their work. It’s no surprise that our member survey indicates that these are some of our most valued member benefits.

We build on these insights by providing practical resources that members can utilise when responding to the needs of their clients, such as our toolkits on neurodiversity, menopause, and fertility.

Pulling everything together are our reflective practice sessions, which recognise the complexities of occupational health, and provide a safe space for members to discuss clinical evidence, or ethical decision-making, with their peers. These sessions really complement our career development portal, which supports members through career transition. We know that every stage of a career in occupational health has challenges, so we have endeavoured to consider the support that is most effective for members, from those still in training, to those with many years of practice.

Additionally, our grant scheme helps members, including trainees, access learning and career opportunities. This year, funding has supported 78 members to attend conferences and study days, undertake courses in areas such as clinical supervision and travel health, and work towards larger qualifications, including Master’s-level study and the Diploma in Occupational Health Practice.

A connected professional community

Occupational health is a diverse and dynamic sector, and having peers to learn from and provide support is invaluable. Our aim is to facilitate that community, through networking, and spaces for members to connect as well as develop. We’re proud that our membership is cost effective, and free student members helps provide opportunities to build those connections early on in their career.

We know that collaboration is key across our sector, as well as facilitating the meeting of our aims. Our partners and Friends of iOH bring in connections from education, recruitment, occupational health equipment and workplace wellbeing. These are an important addition to the wider network for both our members and supporting our work.

We value the vast experience and knowledge within our community and recognise the importance that it plays in discussions about occupational health and workplace wellbeing.  Whether speaking at professional development events or responding to developments such as the Keep Britian Working Review, we want to contribute to informed discussions about occupational health and wellbeing and ensure that the people within those roles have a voice in shaping the future.

Conclusion

By supporting the people at the heart of occupational health, sharing expertise, and fostering informed debate, we contribute to the Council for Work and Health’s vision of stronger professional leadership and a healthier future for workers, workplaces, and society.

As a truly privileged OHPRA judge, I wonder whether those submitting for an OHPRA (NHS health at Work Network Recognition Awards), truly appreciate the impact their application has beyond the chance of winning.

As judges, we have the privilege of seeing occupational health (OH) and wellbeing, at its very best.

For most of the year, we focus on our own challenges, priorities and workforce pressures. The awards provide an opportunity to step back and see the incredible work taking place across the NHS. As someone who sits outside the NHS OH department, I am always blown away by the submissions. Reading them shows me just how much innovation, passion and determination exists within our profession and in the NHS. Especially as NHS OH departments have a lot of constraints and difficulties both financially and culturally within the organisations they service. This makes the quality of submissions even more special.

The OHPRAs were created to showcase and celebrate projects that support the ambitions of the NHS Health at Work Network and the wider occupational health and wellbeing agenda. The awards recognise OH departments are not simply delivering a service, but looking at how they can do things differently, improve outcomes and contribute to the growth of the profession and quality service provision. The award categories reflect key strategic priorities for all of us in OH, including developing our people, strengthening the evidence base, raising the profile of occupational health and wellbeing, and working collaboratively across systems.

As a judge, one of the most enjoyable parts of the process is reading the submissions. Every year I am struck by the quality of the entries and the diversity of ideas being developed across the country. They demonstrate that innovation is alive and well in NHS OH. I become fascinated by a service redesign, a workforce development programme, a digital innovation or a wellbeing initiative that has genuinely changed lives. Some projects are large and transformational. Others are relatively simple ideas executed brilliantly, and you wonder why no one else thought of it! What they all have in common is a difference to their teams, the organisation and the workforce they serve. What impressed me this year, was the number of submissions showcasing the multidisciplinary workforce in their teams. This is a step change and such a welcome one. We are stronger together and interdisciplinary learning is key.

Meeting the shortlisted teams is often the highlight of the process. You hear and see the enthusiasm of the individuals involved and the pride they have in what they have achieved. As one candidate said to me, I was expecting 3 questions but only got 2! That was because the submission was so excellently presented.

OH has always been a profession built on collaboration, and the finalists embody that spirit. There is a genuine wish to help colleagues learn from what has worked, avoid pitfalls and take successful ideas back to their own organisations. The awards are therefore about much more than recognition. They are about spreading innovation and accelerating improvement across the NHS.

Each year the winners are announced at the NHS Health at Work Network Annual Conference, held at Chesford Grange Hotel in Kenilworth. It is a lovely setting, surrounded by occupational health professionals from across the country. The atmosphere is always one of excitement and friendship. Everyone celebrates for each other and of course catch up with people that haven’t seen for a while or meet new people. Being an NHS event gives this conference and award dinner a common link and understanding. It is joyous when the runners-up and winners come up to receive their awards, Hilary Winch, as compere, truly does them justice.

For me, that is the real value of the OHPRAs. They remind us that outstanding occupational health and wellbeing practice is happening every day across the NHS. They showcase what is possible when talented people are given the opportunity to innovate. They provide practical examples that others can learn from. Most of all, they celebrate the people behind the projects.

And after reading the submissions, meeting the teams and attending the awards ceremony, I am always left with the same feeling: optimism about the future of occupational health and wellbeing. Because if these are the ideas, people and services shaping the profession, the future is in very good hands indeed. But it is also a time to reflect on all that is good from the past that is going forward into our future.

In that respect, this year was particularly special; our wonderful Professor Diana Kloss (MBE) received a Lifetime Achievement Award.

Diana has shaped occupational health practice in ways few others have. Her deep knowledge of law, ethics and confidentiality, has supported and continues to support countless professionals and helped the field navigate some of its most challenging responsibilities.

But what makes Diana so admired is not just her expertise, it’s her generosity. Her clarity, her ability to make complex issues understandable, and her unwavering commitment to protecting both professional standards and the people we serve makes her a very person in OH. It was a privilege to see her contribution recognised, and a joy to share the evening with her, luckily seated directly next to her.

A richly deserved award for a remarkable woman. Congratulations, Professor Diana Kloss.

Janet O’Neill

Judge, NHS Health at Work Network Occupational Health Practice Recognition Awards (OHPRAs); Deputy Head NSOH; Head of PAM Academy. iOH Trustee, Board member Council for Work and Health.

The Council for Work and Health is proud to support and champion initiatives that highlight excellence in workplace health, and the OHPRAs are a shining example of how recognising success can inspire even greater progress across the sector.

A stronger future for occupational health

The nature of work is changing fast. New technologies, shifting workforce expectations, longer working lives and intractable health inequalities are reshaping the relationship between employment and wellbeing. At the same time, employers are managing new patterns of work, rising health-related absence and demand for inclusive workplaces. Occupational health (OH) must evolve with them.

SOM provides an inclusive professional home and trusted voice for the OH community. Connecting people across disciplines and career stages, providing a wealth of resources for continuing professional development, whilst turning evidence into better outcomes for workers and organisations. This supports the Council’s mission of providing professional leadership and expertise on all strategic work and health issues.

SOM’s first priority is to ensure membership is valuable at every stage of a career. Someone discovering OH for the first time needs a different kind of support from an experienced practitioner, a senior leader or a retired member who still wants to contribute. SOM’s regional groups, events and Special Interest Groups (SIGs), support that. Future plans include an introduction to occupational health e-learning package, a developing Leadership Academy and mini-MBA, and sustainable delivery of the WISE-QM quality mark. SOM is also exploring how to make better use SOM regional groups to align with the current government’s localisation strategy.

OH succeeds when it draws on the full range of medical, nursing, allied health, rehabilitation, employment, and workplace health expertise. Annual careers activity, with partners such as the National School of Occupational Health (NSOH) aims to make the profession more visible and accessible. SOM’s scholarships and awards help people progress with their OH career and continue to improve the quality of practice.

As the Council does, by connecting professional groups rather than keeping them in separate lanes, SOM aims to support a multidisciplinary workforce equipped for future demand.

Good work can protect health, support recovery, and create wider social and economic value. That case must be heard more clearly in government, the NHS, business, and public debate. SOM works with the Council and other professional bodies, trade unions, universities, charities, and employers to achieve this. In particular, there is a key partnership with the Faculty of Occupational Medicine (FOM), running a joint annual conference, providing medical appraisals, and ensuring our policy positions are aligned where possible. SOM strongly believes that the world of OH is better when we work together.

Making the case for OH is key. Sustained public relations, backed up with practical case studies, aims to make occupational health easier to understand. Coming up, SOM wishes to highlight the work of OH to support NEETS; SOM is wholly aligned with the government’s belief that the best thing we can offer young people is a first job, not a benefit payment!

SOM is a destination for credible publications. Take a look at our catalogue at the SOM Publications Catalogue here and our catalogue of webinars here. A key member benefit is access to the Occupational Medicine Journal.

Evidence has greatest value when people can use it. SOM aims to strengthen the research community, supporting the independent Academic Forum for Work and Health. SOM recently hosted a Research Priority Setting Meeting on work and health (report here). The workshop brought together a wide range of stakeholders to identify and prioritise key areas for future research in OH. The workshop was organised by SOM and was jointly produced with the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Faculty of Occupational Medicine; The Colt Foundation sponsored the venue and it was facilitated by an independent adviser from the James Lind Alliance.

At its heart, SOM share’s the Council’s wish for one multidisciplinary community, working towards healthier work, better practice, and outcomes. Our success is measured by more people entering OH as a career, greater employer and public understanding of OH, and use of OH research in practice.

Coming up, we have the SOM Occupational Health Awards – entries for the 2026 awards are now open! Do apply by completing the form here (rules of entry here). Closing date: 5pm Monday 2nd November. Categories are as follows:

• Outstanding Occupational Health Initiative
• Outstanding Occupational Health Practitioner
• Outstanding Contribution by an Employer to Workplace Health and Wellbeing, sponsored by OH Assessment
• Outstanding Occupational Health Team
• Outstanding Contribution to Diversity and Inclusion
• Outstanding Contribution to the Development of OH Globally
• Outstanding Contribution to Occupational Health Research
• SOM Early Career Award
• SOM Lifetime Achievement Award

Winners will be announced at our Christmas Drinks Reception at the Royal College of Physicians London on Tuesday 8th December. Book your place here.

Overall, by supporting SOM members, developing the OH workforce, working with partners such as the Council for Work and Health, influencing systems around work and health, and making evidence useful, SOM will help OH meet future challenges. The opportunity is not simply to respond to a changing world of work, but to shape it, ensuring that more people can enter, remain and thrive in good work.

Nick Pahl, CEO

Professor Neil Greenberg, President

Workplace Mental Health Roundtable Meeting

On behalf of iOH, I was pleased to attend a recent Roundtable event to discuss Workplace Mental Health (MH). Jointly hosted by The Council for Work and Health (CWH) and the British Association of Counsellors and Psychotherapists(BACP), there were representatives from ACAS, SOM, HSE, Able Futures and the Charlie Waller Foundation. Kevin Bampton, Chair of CWH and Nicola Neath of BACP led the group of 13 for small group discussions focussing on:

• How people without specialist MH training, such as work coaches, managers, or frontline advisors should approach MH conversations with employees.
• What wider conditions are needed for better MH support.

What followed was four hours of respectful and informed conversations ranging from making conversations safe via guidance, resources, and referral routes, to what one policy or initiative should the government prioritise. We spoke about what makes workplace support for MH effective, barriers to MH support at work, and what critical questions are being overlooked.

Whilst the day seemed to raise more questions than it answered we concluded that any cultural shift needs a community effort, that Annual Reports should go beyond finances and include wellbeing data and that the very smallest of organisations (who may have very few staff and no HR or Occupational Health function) need specific resources. We touched on the possibility that the group could contribute to a competence framework and script, possibly via ACAS, which seems perfectly placed for such a resource.

The CWH provides a coordinated professional voice to influence and engage with our government. To this end, the takeaway task set by Kevin was to reflect on “what one thing should I bang-on about to MP’s, Ministers, Civil Servants and Government?”.

Reader’s inspirations and ideas are welcome, either by commenting below, or writing to admin@ioh.org.uk

Libby Hassanali

Libby is an Author, Independent Occupational Health Nurse Advisor, Trainer specialising in Workplace Stress and Mental Fitness, Associate Lecturer Robert Gordon University, Board Director of iOH

Why Collaboration Matters:  Working Together to Shape the Future of Vocational Rehabilitation

To read the latest VRA Blog click here

A report for the Council for Work and Health | June 2026

About the Summit

The Work Foundation and Lancaster University convened their annual Work and Health Summit in London on 23 June 2026, bringing together employers, trade unions, policy makers, researchers and health professionals. The half day event, was presented in two chapters, part 1, ‘Sustaining Momentum on Healthier Working Lives’ and part 2 ‘Delivering Healthy, Sustainable Work’, featuring keynote interviews with Sir Charlie Mayfield and Professor Dame Carol Black, panel discussions with voices from the TUC, Federation of Small Businesses, BT, Mind and Jaguar Land Rover, and new research from the Work Foundation and Professor Stavroula Leka.

The Work Foundation’s latest research released on the same day, called Unequal Support: Employer views on Workforce Health in 2026, showed that health related economic inactivity, while stabilising, remains close to record levels. Health-related exits have fallen from one in five in 2024 to 15 per cent in 2025 but economic inactivity due to ill health remains close to record levels. A striking ‘confidence–action gap’ was identified: while 80–85 per cent of employers rate themselves as well-equipped to support employee health, only 39 per cent provide occupational health access, 44 per cent offer line manager training, and just 42 per cent provide paid time off for medical appointments. The gap is widest for smaller employers and those with older, lower-income or ethnic minority-majority workforces.

Sir Charlie Mayfield: The Receiving Environment Must Be Ready

Sir Charlie Mayfield, whose ‘Keeping People Working’ review now underpins the government’s Vanguard programme, argued that getting someone into work is only half the challenge. The workplace they arrive in, its culture, relationships and structures, must be genuinely ready to support them. When it is not, the cost compounds: returning someone to work after a second exit is, he said, “an order of magnitude harder” than the first.

He was direct about the failure of lacking early intervention and employees with no contact from their employer for months. What is needed instead is a structured return-to-work process involving employer, employee and a health professional beginning at day one, not month three. He talked about how line management must be professionalised, not treated as an add-on to a technical role. Managers should not face difficult conversations unsupported and he continues to bring in the theme of rehumanising the employer-employee relationship. He closed with keeping people in and returning them to work is not just a problem to manage, it is one of the biggest untapped economic opportunities available to the UK. Even moving one per cent of the 35 million working population to fuller participation, he argued, would equate to around 230,000 additional workers; the size of a major city, without requiring immigration reform, infrastructure investment or waiting for the next generation.

Professor Dame Carol Black: Honesty About What Has — and Has Not — Changed

Dame Carol Black, whose pioneering review of working-age health was published in 2008, was candid in her interview: “The structural problems I identified are still with us.” Employer engagement with health and wellbeing has grown but largely because it has not depended on political will to sustain it. The system-level changes the country needs have not followed.

Her interview was interesting and to hear her speak so honestly as she reflected on her intentions with the fit note; to replace the sick note with something capturing what people can do, not what they cannot and for it to start the conversation. The gap between intention and reality persists. The system still defaults to defining people by limitation rather than capacity. She contrasted the UK’s “wonderful but disconnected initiatives” with the Scandinavian model, which we can’t forget it took over twenty years to get to its beacon status today, built on shared accountability between employers, government and employees. The UK’s problem, she argued, is not a lack of ideas: it is “a lack of determination to implement” what has already been recommended.

My personal reflections for our members

The overall message from the summit was one of urgency. The evidence base is strong, the policy vehicles are in place, and employer willingness is growing. What is needed now is sustained, coordinated action, with a sharper focus on those currently under-served. It was genuinely reassuring to hear that many small employers are already performing well in this space, often precisely because of their scale, the closeness of their relationships, and the human flexibility that larger organisations can struggle to replicate.

And yet, listening across all the sessions, I found myself noticing two significant gaps in the conversation. I offer them here not as criticism of what was an excellent and substantive summit, but as observations I believe our membership is well placed to speak to.

Where was the employee in all of this?

The conversations throughout focused largely on what employers need to do and what policy makers need to prioritise. All of that is necessary but I noticed something missing: the employee themselves.

We heard a great deal about improving the ‘receiving environment’ and rightly so. But what about preparing the person who is returning? For many people coming back from long-term absence, whether it’s a new diagnosis or challenges managing a chronic illness, something more has happened to them beyond the clinical treatments. There has been an identity shift, the “Who am I now, with this condition? What will returning to work look like, and how will it affect my confidence, my sense of purpose, my place within my team?”

Confidence is a real and often underestimated barrier. The person returning to work may be asking themselves whether they can still do what they did before, whether they are still competent, still capable, still the colleague their team remembers. Then there is connection: the relationships with managers and colleagues that have changed, perhaps frayed, during a period of absence, and that will need to be carefully and actively rebuilt.

Equipping employees with the self-awareness to understand how their needs may have shifted, and how they can adapt and contribute in a new way, is central to preventing what Sir Charlie Mayfield called ‘the second exit.’ A well-supported receiving environment and a well-prepared returning employee are two sides of the same intervention. I would like to see this given far greater prominence in the wider work and health agenda.

What does a supportive workplace actually look like?

The second gap that struck me was this: in all the discussions about good work environments and the professionalisation of line management, I found myself asking, “have we actually defined what we mean? What does a supportive workplace look like in practice? And have we evolved our thinking sufficiently since the foundational work of Waddell and Burton on what constitutes ‘good work’?”

There is no shortage of initiatives, strategies and sector-specific programmes. Many of them are excellent. But there is a risk that the conversation still remains fragmented; a collection of individual efforts, each valuable in isolation, but not yet adding up to a clear, shared picture of what every employer, regardless of size or sector, should be aiming for and be capable of achieving.

I did leave wondering what a baseline standard or a definition of the ‘supportive work environment’ do we have already, one that is ambitious enough to be meaningful but accessible enough that it does not become the preserve of large organisations with dedicated resource and a good story to tell.

My observations here point to the same underlying question: are we being comprehensive enough in how we define the problem and who we include in the solution? The Council for Work and Health is well positioned to support our members and push for both, the employee’s experience of return, and the standard every employer should meet. I hope these reflections prompt thoughts and discussion among our membership.

Mandy Murphy, Deputy Chair for the Council for Work and Health.

Collaboration in Action: Building the Future of Vocational Rehabilitation Together

Conversations help strengthen professional collaboration and promote better work and health outcomes across the UK.

Across the UK, professionals working in vocational rehabilitation share a common ambition: helping people remain in, return to and thrive in work. While each profession brings its own expertise, the most effective outcomes are rarely achieved in isolation.

Recently, representatives from several professional organisations came together for one of our regular multidisciplinary collaboration meetings. These meetings, held every six weeks, provide an opportunity to share experiences, discuss developments across the sector and explore how we can work more effectively together for the benefit of the people and organisations we serve.

Although our professions differ, the conversations consistently return to a common theme: better collaboration leads to better outcomes.

Moving from Reaction to Prevention

One of the strongest themes to emerge from our latest discussion was the changing role of occupational health.

Historically, occupational health services have often been viewed as something to access once problems have already become established. Referrals frequently occur after prolonged sickness absence, when options are more limited and returning to work becomes increasingly complex.

However, there is growing recognition that occupational health has the potential to become something much more valuable: a prevention asset.

Early intervention, timely advice and proactive support can prevent many workplace health issues from escalating. This shift requires not only changes in organisational thinking, but also closer collaboration between employers, occupational health professionals and the wider multidisciplinary team.

Prevention should become the starting point, not the aspiration.

Multidisciplinary Working Must Be Visible

The conversation also highlighted an important distinction.

There is widespread agreement that multidisciplinary working improves outcomes. Yet genuine multidisciplinary practice is not always visible across conferences, professional events and wider sector discussions.

True collaboration is more than ensuring every profession has a seat in the room.

It means creating opportunities where different professions contribute equally, challenge one another constructively and demonstrate how their combined expertise supports individuals throughout their vocational rehabilitation journey.

Whether supporting someone living with cancer, persistent pain, neurological conditions or complex trauma, successful vocational rehabilitation depends upon coordinated expertise rather than parallel working.

Our professions are strongest when they work together.

Evidence Matters

Participants reflected positively on the importance of evidence-based practice across professional education and conferences.

As health and work continue to attract increasing public attention, maintaining scientific credibility has never been more important. High-quality research, robust evaluation and shared learning provide the foundation for effective practice and informed decision-making.

Innovation and collaboration should always be underpinned by evidence.

Influencing the Future Together

The discussion also looked ahead.

Rather than simply reflecting on recent events, attention turned towards how we can collectively influence future conferences, educational programmes and professional development opportunities.

Ideas included:

• showcasing genuinely multidisciplinary case studies;
• increasing visibility of Allied Health Professionals alongside occupational health physicians, nurses and psychologists;
• creating presentations that demonstrate integrated practice rather than individual professional perspectives; and
• continuing to share learning beyond conferences through webinars, blogs and collaborative resources.

These are practical steps that help move multidisciplinary working from theory into everyday practice.

Continuing the Conversation

The strength of these collaboration meetings lies not only in the expertise around the table but in the willingness of organisations to work collectively rather than competitively.

By bringing together different professional bodies, we create opportunities to exchange ideas, challenge assumptions and identify shared priorities across vocational rehabilitation, occupational health and workplace health.

No single profession holds all the answers.

But together we can improve work and health outcomes for the individuals, employers and communities we support.

As our collaboration continues, we look forward to sharing further insights and working alongside colleagues across the sector to strengthen multidisciplinary practice and advance vocational rehabilitation for everyone.

Participating organisations

This collaborative initiative brings together representatives from organisations across vocational rehabilitation, occupational health and case management, including:

• RCOT
• iOH
• ACPOHE
• BABICM
• CMSUK
• Vocational Rehabilitation Association (VRA)

Together, these conversations help strengthen professional collaboration and promote better work and health outcomes across the UK.

A renewed wave of collaboration is taking shape across the work, health, and rehabilitation landscape, as leaders from physiotherapy, occupational therapy, vocational rehabilitation, and case management came together again to share updates and coordinate future efforts. The meeting highlighted a shared determination to strengthen professional visibility, influence national policy, and ensure that the right expertise is represented in conversations about work and health.

One of the most immediate developments comes from ACPOHE, where preparations are underway for a free interdisciplinary webinar on 15 June. The session will bring together physiotherapists, OTs, VR professionals, and an occupational health physician to explore how each profession approaches workplace health challenges. Using simple case studies, the panel aims to highlight the complementary strengths of each discipline and demonstrate how collaborative practice can improve outcomes. ACPOHE also confirmed that a new website will launch within weeks, offering clearer membership pathways, including associate and student membership options that have previously been difficult to navigate.

The Vocational Rehabilitation Association shared updates on its continued commitment to accessibility, including free membership for students and newly qualified professionals. The group discussed the importance of ensuring VR is represented in national conversations, particularly after a recent government-led cancer and work event failed to include VR, OH, or AHP voices. With the Keep Britain Working review now published, the group agreed that the sector is in a stronger position to advocate collectively for meaningful representation in future policy work.

RCOT’s involvement in government policy discussions was also highlighted, with its policy team well connected across Westminster. RCOT is set to play a major role at this year’s OT Show, where case management will feature prominently thanks to CMS UK’s growing involvement. This shift marks a welcome move toward more clinically relevant content at the event, which in previous years had leaned heavily toward equipment and exhibition stands.

Case management organisations, including CMS UK and BABICM, emphasised the importance of ensuring their profession is visible in both conference programming and policy discussions. With case management referenced throughout the Mayfield Review and increasingly recognised as a vital component of return-to-work support, the group agreed that future conferences, particularly the Health & Wellbeing at Work Conference, should reflect this. Encouragingly, ACPOHE and RCOT have already secured agreement to co-chair the MSK stream at the 2026 conference, giving clinicians early influence over programme design. The group intends to build on this momentum by pushing for a dedicated Vocational Rehabilitation stream and exploring how case management can be integrated into the programme.

A recurring theme throughout the meeting was the need for a unified voice in national policy. With occupational health provision becoming increasingly commercialised and concerns raised about algorithmic triage replacing clinical judgement, the group stressed the importance of safeguarding quality and ensuring that human expertise remains central to work and health support. There was strong interest in exploring the formation of an All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) to give the sector a more formal platform in Westminster. Early advice suggests that securing an MP sponsor will be essential, and several potential routes for engagement were identified.

Looking ahead, the organisations agreed to coordinate their efforts around upcoming opportunities, including conference submissions, government consultations, and sector-specific initiatives. A shared statement is being drafted to address the lack of VR, OH, and AHP representation at the recent cancer and work event, and a follow-up meeting will take place in the coming weeks to maintain momentum.

What emerged from the meeting was a clear sense of shared purpose. Across all professions represented, there is a growing recognition that collaboration is not only beneficial but essential. By working together, these organisations aim to strengthen their collective influence, improve the visibility of their professions, and ensure that the future of work and health is shaped by those with the expertise to make a real difference.

• VRA
• iOH
• RCOT
• ACPOHE
• CMSUK
• BABICM

Capacity, Capability and the Future of OH Nursing

Amanda Hinkley; Janet O’Neill; Major Elizabeth Browne

Occupational Health (OH) nursing is becoming more important than ever.  Amanda Hinkley, Head of OH at UKHSA and FOHN chair, is a member of the Chief Nursing Officer (Professor Jamie Waterall) public health nursing group.

Professor Jamie Waterall, leads the Chief Public Health Nurse Office, reporting to both the Chief Nursing Officer (CNO) for England and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID), which forms part of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). Working closely with the CNO for England, he is responsible for leading the public health nursing workforce, whilst also supporting the wider health and care workforce to move towards a prevention first system, through the prevention strategy (NHS England » NHS Prevention Programme). The Chief Public Health Nurse objectives align with areas that we in OH are keen to focus on i.e. prevention, health inequalities and workforce development and with the Future workplace Health and Wellbeing landscape

An opportunity arose to contribute to the CNO Public Health Nursing Group meeting. The aim being to raise awareness of the role of Occupational Health (OH) in Public Health Nursing in accordance with the CNO Nursing strategy. 3 areas Capacity , Capability and Future Delivery.

To read the full blog click BLOG- Capacity, Capability and the Future of OH Nursing

Diana Kloss is always an inspiration and a prompt for reflection. A few years ago we fell to chatting about the paradox of the employer’s duty to protect health, but the worker’s right to keep aspects of their health confidential. It’s a thought I keep returning to. In parallel, I have had ongoing debates about the one size fits all approach to health standards which is at  the heart of our health and safety regulatory systems.

Consideration of the differential impacts of workplace hazards on asthma sufferers and neurological disorders. Looking at a very large health data set  this week, it became apparent that to be effective in managing a healthy workplace there needs to some resolution.

The Department of Business and Trade has signalled probable changes in the determination of cost-benefit analyses in the context of workplace health.  Their direction is likely to directly impact on population groups with specific health conditions.

Should the threshold of workplace health protection be set in order to ensure adequate protection of a minority of the workforce, whether it be gender or ability of health susceptibility? Or should it be proportionate, even if that creates exclusion or higher risks to certain populations.

Of course, this is not an academic question. HSE statistical evidence and employment tribunal reports are consistent with the notion that workplaces turn a blind eye or are oblivious to setting standards to protect those who may be most at risk from workplace hazards. The relationship between workplace health standards and equality legislation is still not a clear or easy one. How much harder is it to then put into consideration undeclared illness and vulnerability?

To a certain extent this conundrum is hangover from a forgotten era. Once upon a time the State was the major employer, but also the provider of health support and of social services. The cost benefit analysis was whether the State put effort into preventing someone being made ill by the workplace or whether it was cheaper to pick up the consequences through the NHS and the social security system. Ultimately, the State was omniscient and omni-benevolent.

However, the world has changed. The employer is invariably not the State, has duties to protect, but still only so far as practicable and to the extent of proportionate cost. This creates a different dynamic from the original proposition. The right to a “healthy” working environment is now the only employment right that depends on how wealthy the employer is.

Theoretically, if more workers become ill, then corporation tax will increase and so there is more resource to cover the costs to benefits and the NHS. However, this mechanism does not exist. In reality, it is likely that the majority of the businesses that create workplace health risks are amongst the businesses who collectively underpay A336bn in corporation tax , equivalent to a potential additional 15% of the total cost of the NHS.

Britain’s postwar consensus started breaking down almost 50 years ago, but we act, as a country as if the State should foot the bill to fix the people that business may not be willing or able to prevent from falling into ill-health. This, even though the fiscal deal with business that was wrapped in to National Insurance or corporation tax has long become a fiction.

So what is the solution and how does this relate to Diana’s dilemma? The answer is, to my mind, going to come down to one of two outcomes. Leave it to market or reform regulation.

Our current trajectory leaves matters increasingly to the market. The Government is likely to continue to roll back statutory duties, rely more upon the benevolence of employers and hope that by being less fussy about work and health we will create more jobs, more profit and more benevolence. This pre-WWII model, reminiscent of early industrialisation, would have the employers setting the standards for their peers on protecting workplace health.

However, this will not happen in a vacuum. If regulatory standards hit an even lower tide, it opens up opportunities for the lawyers. Employers owe a duty of care to prevent employee health being harmed or worsened by the workplace. These are legal standards set through the Common Law. Addressing the Common Law – judge made law, based on longstanding general legal principles, encouraged lawmakers to create our current regulatory standards that we currently have.

If regulatory standards fall, the common law of negligence will still be there. And in the law of negligence, you take the claimant as you find them. If they have a “thin skull” then you should have anticipated and protected them. Just because you are not subject to prosecution, does not mean you can’t be sued successfully. In the context of a negligence claim, the fact that a vulnerable person exercised their right to keep their medical condition confidential may be immaterial. In such a context, Diana’s dilemma disappears.

The return of the common lawyers to the field of workplace health is already happening with gusto. A large law firm runs an exposure database to help potential clients diarise their hazard exposure levels. It’s not a question of if they launch a class action, but when, how much for and how often it is repeated. Another law firm recruits health exposure victims in the way US lawyers started to do in the 90s around “toxic torts” that forced corporations to part with billions. Law firms can turn on press outrage and Parliamentary meetings in a way I have never before seen in my legal career.

The trajectory of workplace health regulation leads us all towards last century’s boom days for Personal Injury Litigation. There will be winners and losers, but the victim – the worker – will always be the loser; as well as the NHS, the taxpayer and Society.

There is, of course, another way. We accept that the world is different from when we came up with this model, and learn the lesson I learnt in Environmental Law Regulation. The polluter pays principle was always hard in hard cases, but it made everything else pretty clear cut.

We can cut out the complications and move to a simple economic proposition. The employer has an absolute duty to prevent his workers from being made ill through work and if they do become ill, the employer (or their insurers) should pay for cost of the consequences.

This is neither a radical, new, or untrusted idea. In varied forms, it is found at the heart of systems in the United States and in also in the Scandinavian countries. It is clear and it is achievable.

The contract of employment exchanges skills, labour, control, loyalty, creativity and opportunity for pay and reward. No part of that can ethically ever also be contracting out longevity, freedom from pain, suffering or limits to human dignity. The sacrifice of those things are features of bondage, servitude and slavery, not of employment.

As health professionals, ethical practitioners or just decent human beings, we need to be clear about what the deal on workplace health really should be. It’s not politics, it’s economics. Either the employer pays or everyone  pays.