Central European journal of public health · 2025
Retrospective evaluation of measures in the field of occupational health services during the COVID-19 epidemic.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fošum Matyáš, Nakládalová Marie, Štěpánek Ladislav
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: In the Czech Republic, employers and employees are bound by legal regulations that ensure occupational health and safety. These regulations are based on international conventions of the International Labour Organization and directives of the European Parliament and Council and have long been incorporated into Czech legislation. During the COVID-19 epidemic, emergency and crisis measures led to a limitation of occupational health examinations (OHEs) in the Czech Republic, which represented a significant disruption of the occupational health and safety system. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of these measures in order to find the right model for providing occupational health services in similar situations in the future.
METHODS: The method used was a survey, with participants including representatives of employers, state organizations, and employees (trade unions).
RESULTS: Participants from all three groups showed differing views on limiting OHEs during emergencies. While representatives of public administration and employers were generally open to postponing or adjusting pre-employment or periodic OHEs for non-hazardous work, the majority consistently opposed any limitation of OHEs for hazardous work. Statistical differences were observed particularly in attitudes toward future regulation of OHEs during epidemics.
CONCLUSIONS: The dominant conclusion of the survey is a strong recommendation against limiting initial occupational health examinations for jobs with occupational risks and in high-risk work categories.
METHODS: The method used was a survey, with participants including representatives of employers, state organizations, and employees (trade unions).
RESULTS: Participants from all three groups showed differing views on limiting OHEs during emergencies. While representatives of public administration and employers were generally open to postponing or adjusting pre-employment or periodic OHEs for non-hazardous work, the majority consistently opposed any limitation of OHEs for hazardous work. Statistical differences were observed particularly in attitudes toward future regulation of OHEs during epidemics.
CONCLUSIONS: The dominant conclusion of the survey is a strong recommendation against limiting initial occupational health examinations for jobs with occupational risks and in high-risk work categories.