Medical examination HRM

Medical Examination
Background Investigation
Pre-Employment Background Check
Human Resources Management Systems
Salah Skaik - Marketing & Business Development Consultant

1. Prepared By: Salah A. Skaik

2. A pre-placement or pre-employment
examination is a medical assessment
provided by a company.
The examination serves two functions:
to determine an applicant's ability to
perform a specific job.
and to provide a baseline medical status
against which to evaluate any
occupational illnesses or injuries that
might arise during employment.

3. It may include a physical examination,
vision test, hearing test, pulmonary function
test, electrocardiogram, chest X-ray, blood
tests, urinalysis, and drug testing.

4. Job applicants may be required to be
screened for drug and alcohol use prior to
being hired.
 Employees may be tested for drugs or
alcohol in the workplace, where permitted
by state law.
The physician must determine if the
applicant can perform necessary job
functions despite any medical condition he
or she may have.

5. A company cannot, however, legally deny
an applicant a job solely on the grounds of
a diagnosis such as cancer or AIDS.
In addition, federal, state, and local laws
prevent discrimination against people with
disabilities.
The company can only deny the applicant
employment if, in the opinion of the
physician, the applicant is unable to
perform the essential functions of the job

6. The existing research suggests that pre
employment examinations are not even
cost-effective in reducing a company’s
potential financial liability

There also appears to be no added value for
the pre-employment process regarding
indirect costs.

7. Collings found no difference in future rates
of absenteeism or productivity as a result of
pre-employment examination findings

In a study performed for the International
Labour Organization, it was noted that
approximately 80% of drug testing
worldwide occurred as part of a pre-
employment process

8. pre-employment drug testing was performed by
98% of companies in the USA, while only 3% of
companies did this in 1986.
One such analysis concluded that it cost a company
US$ 77 000 to find one substance user during the
pre-employment process

9. Globally 1.8 million people’s deaths every
year are directly attributable to alcohol
consumption

The National Institute of Health estimates
that each drug abuser costs an employer
approximately $ 7000 annually.

10. Therefore, a company like Steelcase would
save $ 105,000 per year for every 100
employees hired by pre-screening
applicants with hair analysis test.
In the United States, 77% of all illicit drug
users are EMPLOYED! . That is more than 10
million workers
Substance abusers are 33% to 50% less
productive than individuals who are not
substance abusers.

11. Dollars spent on injury, fraud, indemnity, cost
management, lost time, and rehabilitation.
◦Average cost of back injury requiring surgery is
$78,000.
◦Average cost of same back injury under Jones Act
is $750,000.
◦ Cumulative Trauma for one upper extremity can
cost $55,000

12. What Are Ways of Reducing This
Cost:
◦Drug Screen
◦Post-Offer Pre-Placement
Physical Exam

13. There is very low quality evidence that pre-
employment examinations that are specific
to certain jobs or health problems could
reduce occupational disease, injury, or
sickness absence.
This supports the current policy to restrict
pre-employment examinations to job
specific examinations.

14. A study was undertaken at a large,
multinational, industrial employer to
determine if Pre-Employment Medical
Screeningreduced the number of
injuries and the resulting costs post
hire

15. The data for the study were
gathered throughout the hiring
process and tracked for 4 years.




CASE STUDY (Cont.)

16. The objective of the study was to determine
whether or not the implementation of post
offer screens would be a cost effective
initiative to implement company wide,
and
to determine whether Pre-Employment Medical
Screeningcould reduce the number of injuries
and resultant suffering

The objective of the study

17. A group of 220 new hires participated
in the study,

110 participated in Pre-Employment
Medical Screening

and 110 did not


CASE STUDY (Cont.)

18. 92 (83%) Of the screened group, passed the
post offer screen and 18 (16%) did not. Only
those passing the screen were placed in the
jobs offered.
Individuals who did not meet the physical
requirements of the job could retest for
alternate jobs and potentially become
employed in a position consistent with their
functional capabilities.


CASE STUDY (Cont.)

19. The group that had post offer screens and,
therefore, were known to have the physical
capabilities to perform the jobs had only a
1% injury rate during the 4 years.
The group that did not have post offer
screens experienced a 23% injury rate
during the 4 years-a substantial difference
in injury rates between the two groups.


CASE STUDY (Cont.)

20. Additionally,

the cost of injuries for the screened
group was substantially less than
those in the no screened group.

CASE STUDY (Cont.)

21. In this case, Pre-Employment Medical
Screeningclearly positively impacted
the number of occupational injuries
and their resultant costs.


CASE STUDY (Cont.)

22. The findings of this case study are
important to employers, employees,
and occupational health professionals
alike.


CASE STUDY (Cont.)

23. Employers must ensure the Health and Safety
of their employees and the wider public
who come into contact with their business.

the context of positions which could expose
employees to injury , a pre-employment
medical assessment plays a crucial part in
the employer discharging its obligations
under legislation and at common law to
provide a safe workplace.

Conclusion