|20th Annual Meeting of the Baltic Sea Network on
Occupational Health and Safety
Time 15-16 September 2014
Venue Hotel Artis, Vilnius, Lithuania
Participants List of participants attached
SUMMARY REPORT, FINAL
12. November 2014
MONDAY, 15 September 2014
Dr. Remigijus Jankauskas of the Institute of Hygiene, Lithuania, welcomed the participants of the meeting. Director of Health Promotion Department, Mr. Audrius Sceponavicius, Ministry of Health, Lithuania, wished every success to the Meeting and expressed a wish that new ideas and initiatives will rise from this Meeting. Mr. Sture Bye of STAMI, Norway, congratulated the BSN on behalf of Dr. Pål Molander, Director of STAMI, Norway. Dr, Monica Seem, Director of the Norwegian Labour Inspectorate brought greetings from the Labour Inspection. She stated that new risks need to be in focus, in addition to occupational accidents and diseases. Ms. Suvi Lehtinen of the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health thanked Lithuania and Norway for organizing the event together. She brought up a new possibility of cooperation, as Southeast European Network on Workers’ Health (SEENWH), represented by Prof. Jovanka Bislimovska, was invited for the first time to actively participate in the BSN-meeting.
Session I: Current OSH programmes in International Organizations
Current activities in the WHO on occupational health and safety
Dr. Aliya Kosbayeva via Skype from Bonn, Germany
Dr. Aliya Kosbayeva presented the WHO-perspective to occupational health and safety. She reminded the audience of many WHO frameworks which aim at workers’ health. For example, Alma Ata Declaration aims at bringing health care as close as possible to where people live and work. In her speech she showed the major risks for diseases. It appears that both in Western Europe and Central and Eastern Europe the highest health risk seems to be caused by dietary behaviour. High blood pressure, smoking, alcohol use and high body-mass appear in top 5 index of risk factors for both regions.
Dr. Axel Wannag asked about the figure of burden of disease approach which can easily be read as expressing a mono-causality of the health problems. Concerning for example obesity – are we not underestimating what occupation contributes to life habits – like overeating – among the workers? Thinking this way occupational factors would be much more important to the «global burden» of health than the figure seems to show. Dr. Kosbayeva replied that the dietary numbers depend on how they are worked on. We have to think about the two slides (“Burden of diseases due to major risk factors in Western Europe, DALYs, 2013”, and “Burden of diseases due to major risk factors in Central Europe, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia, DALYs 2013”) and point out what is work-related and what´s not.
Mr. Wiking Husberg pointed out that the list shown by Dr. Kosbayeva does not fully do right to the risks that arise out of work. “What indicators can we use to measure well-being at work?”, he asked. Dr. Kosbayeva agreed that this needs to be discussed.
Current activities in the ILO on occupational safety and health
Mr. Claude Loiselle
ILO is currently in the process of establishing a global Flagship Programme on occupational safety and health that will possibly shape the work of the organization in this area for the next 20 years. This programme is being developed in the wake of the ILO policy portfolio and administrative reform that has led to the merger of the Labour Administration, Labour Inspection and Occupational Safety and Health units (including CIS). He presented the key elements of the programme built around four policy areas that are complementary, interrelated and mutually supportive: Normative framework, Knowledge & information, Dialogue for prevention, and Finance & Economics. With this new approach, the ILO aims at building capacity at the country level through regional partnerships. He mentioned an international advisory committee (IAC) has been set-up to guide the development of the programme, of which FIOH is an active member, and that similar regional advisory committees (RACs) will be established to guide the development and implementation of regional projects within this framework. To conclude, he asked the participants whether there could be a “Baltic Sea” component of the Flagship Programme, and whether a RAC based on the BSN could be established to work with the ILO on the development of a sub-regional technical cooperation programme.
Ms. Suvi Lehtinen from FIOH said that the BSN will be eager to discuss more about possible future cooperation with the ILO.
Dr. Timo Leino asked about funding support for countries. Mr. Claude Loiselle stated that ILO has got ideas, but currently no funds. ILO, however, is keen to meet with donors for possible future programme funding.
Mr. Timothy Tregenza, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work
Mr. Timothy Tregenza reported that the 2015 programme of the Agency is to be finalized in October 2014.
EU OSHA key projects in 2015 will be as follows:
Healthy workplaces campaign on Stress – second year of the campaign in 2015
Ageing workers project for the European Parliament – ongoing work with the topic becoming the Agency’s European campaign theme in 2016/17
ESENER European Survey – fieldwork ongoing in 2014, Results of 1st analysis in 2015, then secondary analysis
Micro-enterprises – major project launched with fieldwork in 2014
OSHWiki – a “Wikipedia” for OSH professionals now live, and searching for authors. http://oshwiki.eu/wiki/Main_Page
OiRA and E-Tools. EU-OSHA looking to set up a network of tool developers
For further information: email@example.com
Prof. Piia Tint asked about the process of choosing the representatives from the member states to EU-OSHA-projects. Mr. Tim Tregenza told that each member state has its national focal point, and they help EU-OSHA find the right specialist to the programmes.
Prof. Jorma Rantanen expressed his worry, as many of the strategies call for exemption of small enterprises from complying with the legislation and regulations. He continued that we should not exempt, but tell all workplaces that we want to help them to comply with the regulations.
Mr. Tim Tregenza replied that definitely the legal framework is important. The problem is the lack of knowledge. The smaller the business, the less they seem to have problems according to the surveys, although there are exposures and problems in the small enterprises. Microenterprises is a challenging target.
Mr. Claude Loiselle told that the issue will be looked into June in 2015. ILO brings in complementary areas, a knowledge-based approach. The challenge is that the ILO works with the Ministries of Labour, Employers’ and Workers’ representatives, not directly with the local actors.
Session II Ongoing projects
Realiable Occupational Accident Registration -project
Dr. Ivars Vanadzins presented the situation of the joint project: Reliable occupational accident registration. Seed money has been granted for the planning period of the project.
The project describes severe underreporting of occupational accidents in some of the BSN countries.
Occupational injuries in Norway
Dr. Yogindra Samant presented an overview of the occupational injury system in Norway. Social security, Labour Inspection and private insurance companies collect data on occupational injuries in Norway. The problem is that not all occupational injuries get reported, and the lists and numbers of various actors are different.
Mr. Claude Loiselle asked whether there are aims in different institutes in Norway to look at the issue together. Dr. Yogindra Samant replied that there is a common understanding of the problem, but as each institute has its own interest, cooperation is difficult.
Dr. Jos Verbeek noted that the number of amputations per year in Norway is very high. Dr. Samant told the trend of amputations is going downwards, but it is not radically different from the Finnish numbers.
Prof. Eda Merisalu asked whether occupational diseases and sickness absenteeism will be included in the statistics. Dr. Samant assumed it will take time.
Accident reporting in Latvia
Dr. Ivars Vanadzins reported that there is a new strategy for public health from the beginning of the next year 2015, but accidents are not included in it. Non-fatal accidents are severely underreported. According to an estimation, only 10–20% of all accidents are being reported. The Latvian work culture does not seem to support reporting work-related accidents, as there are still misunderstanding: companies are afraid of getting fined in the occurrence of accidents.
Prof. Piia Tint asked whether there are insurance for accidents at work. Dr. Vanadzins replied that there are insurances, but people are not aware of it. In many cases they think they would not get any compensation. Prof. Jovanka Bislimovska commented that the Republic of Macedonia has similar problems. Dr. Vanadzins reported that social networks have been activated in the accident notifying system and it reveals 2–3 accidents/day.
Dilemma of underreporting occupational accidents as a study on Comparative work accident statistics in ten countries of the BSN
Dr. Kari Kurppa briefly described the analysis that have been so far carried out concerning the notification and reporting of occupational accidents and injuries in the BSN countries. The rate of fatal accidents seems to be much higher in Estonia than in EU15. On the other hand, the numbers of non-fatal accidents are just the opposite. Only 20% of occupational non-fatal accidents seem to get reported in Estonia, according to a comparison with Finland and the EU15. The same reporting level seems to be at 6% in Latvia, and 11% in Lithuania. This information is the key issue in trying to influence the policies of reporting non-fatal work-related accidents in the BSN countries.
Mr. Wiking Husberg reminded the meeting of the decision of Ministerial level (NDPHS) Programme Advisory Committee in November 2013 where it agreed that there is underreporting. They have asked the BSN and NDPHS to look into how big is the underreporting, why is it there and what can be done. Dr. Timo Leino commented that the issue is not reporting as such but the way how things are handled. He asked if the study group has some kind of proof of economical consequences caused by work-related accidents. Dr. Kurppa stressed that evidence on the economical perspective, of occupational accidents would be effective in influencing the decision-makers.
Healthy Lifestyles in Healthy Workplaces -project
Prof. Peter Westerholm, Sweden, reported on the project. Originally, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Sweden were interested to participate in the project “Healthy Lifestyles in Healthy Workplaces”. The current situation is that the Swedish Institute will not fund the project (message received on 8 Sep 2014). Other funding sources need to be found for the project.
Mr. Wiking Husberg suggested that as the original initiative for the project came from the WHO, it would be best to report the funding situation back to the WHO and wait for their response. In response Prof. Westerholm informed that the WHO/European Regional Office had already been informed of current situation in the project planning.
Finnish research design based on Healthy Lifestyles –project
Dr. Timo Leino reported on behalf of Dr. Maria Rautio, FIOH. Even if the funding is missing from the Healthy Lifestyles –project, Maria Rautio from the FIOH has supervised a student Saija Rauhamaa, in proceedings with the Finnish part of the project. Dr. Leino explained the key research questions for the study. A final report should be ready at the end of June 2015.
Results of a Workplace Health Promotion -project funded by Nordplus
Ms. Sigita Vicaite, Lithuania, described the project and its activities and results. The project was participated by Lithuania, Latvia and Finland. A total of 363 employees took part in the project, which consisted of two surveys. A questionnaire was made comparable in the three countries. Recommendations, when available, will be sent to the companies who want to promote health at work. As one of the outcomes of the project, a Fact Sheet of 10 recommendations for workplaces was published.
The remaining challenge is that the definition of Workplace Health Promotion (WHP) has not been approved by the three countries. On top of that, employers find often WHP too expensive.
Plans for the future cooperation are taking place already. The project is looking for partners for future projects.
Mr. Sture Bye asked when the final report or articles will be ready. Ms. Vicaite informed that one article is already being prepared.
South East European Network on Workers Health (SEENWH)
Prof. Jovanka Bislimovska, Chair of the SEENWH Network, briefly described the role, activities and functions of the SEENWH. SEENWH is a sub-regional expert’s network of WHO collaborating centres for occupational health, occupational health institutes and WHO national focal points in South East Europe (SEE) collaborating with the WHO Regional Office for Europe. The Network was founded in 2006 with the support of WHO EURO. Prof. Bislimovska expressed her wish to find themes and ways how to cooperate with the BSN.
Mr. Claude Loiselle told that after visiting Skopje he was very impressed on the work accomplished. He stated that a great deal of ILO international work is to find the right people in the countries and to support them. Prof. Bislimovska told that SEENWH is very interested in cooperating with the ILO. SEENWH is presented on the WHO-EURO website as an active partner, and WHO supports it financially in some activities.
Mr. Sture Bye asked what would be the ways of cooperation between BSN and SEENWH. Prof. Bislimovska told that the matter needs to be discussed also with other SEENWH-participants. Possible themes could be occupational health and safety in high-risk sectors, preparation of National programme for elimination of asbestos-related diseases, pilot study about the situation of asbestos in the countries, upgrading knowledge of occupational health professionals, occupational diseases, and climate change. Prof. Bislimovska wished that the BSN-countries would think about the suggestions, and one could be selected for further development.
Session III Evidence for action
Cochrane Systematic Reviews
Dr. Jos Verbeek
Cochrane systematic reviews provide evidence for how well are we doing in OSH. With systematic reviews we can, for example, define what caused the lowering numbers of occupational diseases or occupational accidents. Cochrane provides up-to-date evidence on the effects of health care. Cochrane collaboration provides a systematic review and evaluation of interventions, it does not identify causes of diseases.
Prof. Eda Merisalu, Estonia, and Prof. Jorma Rantanen, Finland, commented on the presentation on Cochrane Collaboration.
Prof. Eda Merisalu raised some critical points of systematic reviews, such as modern research not being comparable with research 30 years ago.
Prof. Jorma Rantanen very much agreed on Dr. Verbeek´s presentation. Evidence is based on what we know. Rantanen aroused four pertinent questions:
Evidence as a part of the total reality?
How much evidence is enough for action?
How to act in case of uncertainty?
How to get the evidence having an impact in practice?
Prof. Peter Westerholm asked Dr. Jos Verbeek to comment the challenge of classifying the evidence available.
Prof. Eda Merisalu reported that in Estonia they have had slow recognition on diseases. The attitude seems to be: “Why bother, why should I start to report?”
Dr. Verbeek informed that there is a great deal of evidence around and we should use the evidence what is available. For example, even if hearing loss evidence was low, OSHA in the United States took strong actions to make noise reduction better.
Prof. Merisalu pointed out the low numbers on occupational diseases in Estonia. “What to do in a situation where the officials say there is not enough evidence, and the research standards of the institutes are not high enough?”, she asked. Dr. Axel Wannag asked how we can influence the decision-makers with the evidence. Prof. Rantanen replied: “We cannot wait for evidence; public health people need to make their own judgements and take action. ICOH Code of Ethics expects that occupational health experts take action without anyone asking them to. We even have to risk it being wrong.”
Dr. Verbeek agreed with Prof. Rantanen’s statement: We have to come to action. “Then, please help me with the evidence of blunt needles and hearing loss matter, to take the evidence and information to the workplaces.”
Dr. Axel Wannag told about one example in Norway concerning an IT-issue at health care institutions. A group of IT-specialists went to health care institutions to help out. They found out that the nurses were worried about whether the new system would be good enough for patients. Earlier, others were skeptical whether the nurses would understand the new system at all! After a while, nurses were in full harmony and understanding. A big issue was solved.
Prof. Jorma Rantanen summarized the discussion on Cochrane Systematic Reviews:
We should use evidence when it is available.
We need to learn to act even in uncertainty.
If we want to achieve something, we need an infrastructure which provides the facts.
Through occupational health services we can influence.
At the Jubilee Dinner of the 20th Annual Meeting, a short historical slideshow made by Suvi Lehtinen was presented by Jorma Rantanen. Service Awards were granted to the founders of the BSN: Prof. Jorma Rantanen/Finland, Dr. Remigijus Jankauskas/Lithuania, Prof. Maija Eglite/Latvia, Mr. Bo Dahlner/Sweden, Dr. Axel Wannag/Norway and Ms. Suvi Lehtinen/Finland. The Awards were also sent to those founders who were not able to participate the 20th Annual Meeting: Prof. Boguslaw Baranski/Poland, Prof. Hubert Kahn/Estonia and Mr. Kaj Elgstrand/Finland.
TUESDAY, 16 September 2014_____________________________________________________
Session IV: Collaboration between OSH and OH&S
The Norwegian model for approval of OHS-providers operating in the market
Dr. Axel Wannag
In Norway, the approved occupational health service (OHS) providers were followed up by the Unit of Approval at the Labour Inspection. They found that the approved OHS providers by now have more multi professional staff than earlier. Many of the providers have good cooperation with the enterprises they advise. A problem is the lack of occupational hygienists and occupational health physicians and difficulties to recruit them. There is also a lack of education capacity for the personnel in the OHS field. The demand in the approval process for continuous professional improvement plans for the personnel is the crucial success factor in our approval system according to Dr. Wannag.
Dr. Axel Wannag told about one example in Norway concerning the crucial importance of process evaluation of programs. “We are trying to implement IT-technology to assist in the care in our health care institutions. IT specialists on the technology and the nurses in some nursing homes worked together to implement the technology. The process evaluators discovered the nurses were worried about 1) whether the new IT technology would be good enough for patients 2) the difficulty of the IT technologists and the nurses to «understand each others´ language» 3) the proper IT systems were not always in place neither in the nursing homes nor in the municipalities themselves 4) support for the program at higher municipal levels. As the programs proceeded problems 1, 2, and 4 seemed to be «solved by themselves». However, if problems with the IT infrastructure itself was not solved, the program would flop. Thus, thanks to the process evaluation we now know that if a municipality wants to have IT technology in the nursing homes it must as a basic requirement have established an appropriate IT infrastructure first. This knowledge – if used – will save a lot of effort, frustration and money in the future. We have to constantly learn from our activities through systematic evaluations. In this we, at least in Norway, fail more often than succeed.”
Prof. Peter Westerholm asked who is accountable for OHS training in Norway. Dr. Axel Wannag replied that it is unclear. Prof. Jorma Rantanen raised the question of occupational hygiene. Hygienic measurements are not regularly done any longer, it causes a lack of objective data. After 30 years, there will not be any proof of exposure. Still, some cancers are manifesting only even 40–50 years after exposure. In many countries, patients need to go to court to get their exposures solved. Should we start an action in the Nordic and Baltic Sea countries at the ministerial level to start hygienic training? Dr. Axel Wannag agreed with it. Mr. Sture Bye said that in Norway there is a Governmental decision on a database of exposure levels. In that sense, it is not disappearing. Training for occupational hygienists is provided in Norway.
Self-assessment of occupational health services (OHS)
Dr. Timo Leino
Dr. Timo Leino reported on the Finnish occupational health service system. Occupational health services need to have a good legislative basis. Also, for good results, close cooperation between the client organization and service provider is needed. For client companies it is important to know what is good OHS. New quality key guide for OH units is coming out 2015 in Finland. In addition, a Quality portal for OHS is being prepared at FIOH. The portal makes evaluation of OHS easier and cheaper. In the portal, you can compare your unit to other units inside, it serves as a tool for benchmarking. We may be able to find process indicators that we could use to describe what the situation is in the unit in concern.
Dr. Ivars Vanadzins asked how the surveys are done and pointed out the difficulties to maintain high response rate. Quality portal does not solve everything, continuous improvement of practices and up-to-date training of OHS personnel is needed, too.
OSH Indicators and their use in OHS
Mr. Steinar Aasnaess
In Norway, there is no infrastructure for collecting information about OSH. The surveillance system is based on various things: monitoring indicators, current research, auditing indicators, calculating attributable risk, creating incentive for prevention, and cooperating with the OHS.
Cooperating with Statistics Norway and other data-institutions is very important. Every 4 years “Faktabok” about the surveillance of work and health in Norway is published. Mr. Steinar Aasnaess showed an example of a construction workplace as a spider web presentation. Mineral dust clearly peaked out from the web. The surveillance system aims to be a tool to prevent health hazards at work.
Prof. Jorma Rantanen asked whether they get information from two sources: questionnaires and measured data from different sources. Collection and maintenance of data banks on objectively measured data may have importance even decades after the exposure events. He commented that in the recent years in most countries, all kinds of measured exposure data are getting fewer and fewer, due to declining interest for example to make comprehensive occupational hygiene surveys. For example, the Finnish Job Exposure Matrix, FINJEM, would need updating. The Norwegian surveillance data could likely help in such updating. Mr. Aasnaess expressed his interest in the cooperation.
Dr. Timo Leino asked whether they have done a user survey on who are using the database and how. Mr. Steinar Aasnaess admitted that the website is slightly technical and the users are not using it currently well enough. Some seminars have been arranged to discuss and develop the website. A new version of the website will be announced at the end of 2014. The present site is not very broadly used. Dr. Päivi Mattila-Wiro asked whether the Statistics Norway gives separate data for the researchers, and whether it is raw or analysed data. Mr. Aasnaess told they work closely together with the Statistics Norway on how to implement the survey, as they (SN) do not have sufficient competence on occupational exposures. Statistics Norway gives raw data only, not analysed.
Indicators for the OSH efficacy evaluation at different levels
Mr. Asgeir Winge
Mr. Asgeir Winge presented a survey called Labour Inspection and its Impact on Enterprises’ Compliance with OSH-regulations. Data were collected in nine measurements from approximately 800 inspections/enterprises. Eight checkpoints were used as indicators in an index in every measurement. The key elements of the measurement scheme were an OSH index, a randomly selected experimental group of enterprises, a control group of enterprises, and a comparison of the average score on the OSH-index between the two groups. The differences between the two groups were tested whether they were statistically significant. The results show that inspected enterprises to a higher degree complied with the OSH-requirements in focus. Several reports have been published on the survey, mostly in Norwegian.
Dr. Axel Wannag was concerned whether an inspection really resulted in triggering off good implementation of workplace health and safety activities in the enterprise later on (Compliance with fundamental OSH-requirements). Some companies might respond to inspection, some do not. How can we know whether the inspection as such increases the companies´ responsibility? What is the long-term effect? Mr. Winge replied that they are well aware of the shortcomings of the applied measurement method with regard to short-term effect vs. long-term effects. At the same time, the short-term effects found, are necessary conditions for long-term effects. There is a belief that compliance on a short-term will affect the workplace in the long-term.
Dr. Timo Leino asked about future strategies and action plans. Mr. Asgeir Winge replied that the Inspectorates activities are reorganized in new priority areas, and that they have better data from the initial inspections which enables them to do better measurements on the same enterprises without the use of control groups.
Session V: Forum for exchange of information on training of OSH experts
Country reports on training of occupational health personnel had been collected before the Annual Meeting. In the session, each country presented briefly their training system, both for basic training and upgrading training of occupational health personnel. It was decided that the BSN Secretariat will edit the presentations to make them structure wise more comparable, then asking for missing information from the countries, and will eventually print the material as a publication.
Prof. Jorma Rantanen commented that in Finland occupational hygienists were not accepted in the core group of occupational health services, but they are mentioned as “experts, if needed”.
It was found out that many of the BSN-countries have a situation where trained occupational health personnel is getting older, and there is a lack of training, as well as lack of interest in getting into OH training.
Prof. Jovanka Bislimovska described the situation in South-East Europe. OH specialists specially from ex-Yugoslavian countries are adequately trained and competent, but with relatively high average age. There is also a need to get the younger generations into occupational health training. The European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) has a very clear system for what is specialist training in OH. The political trend has changed in the Republic of Macedonia when trying to access to EU and fortunately, the interest of young physicians in specialist education and training in OH is high and they are trained according to the new 4 years specialist curriculum for OH physician, adjusted to the EU standards and principles. Nowadays, Macedonia, for 2-million population, has about 100 OH specialists and 23 new residents, medical doctors into OH specialist training and it is a good perspective for OH in the country.
Prof. Eda Merisalu suggested that OH-training should be harmonized. Mr. Claude Loiselle confirmed that there are no international standards for the qualifications of OHS-personnel. He would like to see an international meeting looking at the issue. Prof. Jorma Rantanen also pointed out the lack of decision on occupational health curricula. Proper occupational health approach would be needed to tackle the future challenges of the work life. Dr. Timo Leino emphasized the importance of the UEMS in training matters. Prof. Kari Reijula/FIOH is currently chairing the network, looking at qualifications of OH personnel. ICOH is organizing a meeting in the University of Bologna, Italy 15-16 October 2014. There the Scientific Committee on training and education on OHS will discuss the development and activities for the years ahead. The chair of the Committee is professor Frank van Dijk from Holland.
Session VI Future plans of BSN and TG-OSH
Dr. Remigijus Jankauskas started the session with showing the Lithuanian national programme for occupational health and safety. The question in the country is how to motivate enterprises to invest in OH. Lithuania is creating plans of action in a very concrete way. The Ministry of Health must be involved as it is responsible for health issues.
NDPHS strategies renewal and TG-OSH workplan
Mr. Wiking Husberg reminded that the BSN is the professional network with knowledge and expertise on occupational health and safety, whereas the NDPHS is a ministerial-level network, representing the policy-level decision-making. Task group’s aim is to look at what kind of policies in the field of occupational health and safety should be developed for the region.
Mr. Wiking Husberg reported that NDPHS’s representatives for Sweden and Poland are missing. He encouraged the BSN-representatives to take the message back to their countries and inform him of the names. The ILO Moscow Office did participate in the NDPHS earlier, but not currently.
The Health at Work Strategy is also an EU strategy. The star-table describing the countries’ activities and implementation of the Strategy has been filled for years, revealing aspects of OSH and their current stage in the countries. Comparisons help to see where we are in our country. Lately, the stars have been filled to their maximum and there is a need to establish new stages into the Star-table.
The Objective No 6 of the NDPSH Strategy was modified in the Lodz-meeting in June 2014. Words “information” and “reporting systems” were added into it, now being as follows:
Strengthen occupational health and safety and well-being at work through information and reporting systems, workplace activities and occupational health services.
BSN and NDPHS work plans 2015–16
Mr. Wiking Husberg
The meeting discussed in details the draft action plan for the coming NDPHS TG/EG OSH. The agreed amendments are attached.
Pending finalization in the NDPHS (which will be an outcome of the evaluation and development of a new strategy with action plan including cooperation with other EGs), the action plan will be developed into an updated strategy for BSN and TG OSH. The updated OSH strategy will be proposed to be approved by the EU for a Baltic Sea Region strategy.
Realiable Occupational Accident Registration -project
Scheduled meeting in Riga on 20-21 November 2014 in has been postponed, to be held possibly in January 2015. Another meeting will take place later in Spring 2015 also in Riga.
Healthy Lifestyles in Healthy Workplaces -project
It was agreed that although there may not be any funding from the Swedish Institute, all Institutes that wish to carry out the project, could do it utilizing a same template. Reporting in due course would thus allow some comparisons to be made among the countries.
Abstract to ICOH2015
It was agreed to submit an abstract to ICOH2015 Congress on BSN and SEENWH collaboration. Ms Suvi Lehtinen will take care of it.
A Memorandum of Understanding will be drafted by Ms. Suvi Lehtinen. Also, topics for future collaboration in the information system development and occupational health services for all will be discussed. (SL et al.)
BSN Annual Meeting 2015
The 21st Annual Meeting of the Baltic Sea Network will be held in Tallinn, Estonia, in Autumn 2015. The dates will be finalized by the end of 2014.
Notes made by
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health
List of participants
Draft action plan for the coming NDPHS TG/EG OSH