post offer pre employment challenge
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 11:05am
I work for a large hospital and perform this exam on every new employee in the hsopital from clerical, to nursing to admin. I currently indicated on one of my exams for an ICU nurse hiree that she was only able to safely lift 25 lbs. on a one time trial. Upon frequent lifting and pull/push testing, the employee significantly exceeded her HR limit. I marked that the employee may be able to perform her job but that she would need accommadations for no lifting over 25 lbs. ( we require at present that our nurses be able to lift 50 lbs.) The ICU director has now called a meeting with Admin and HR to challenge what we are doing. Her arguments seem to be that we require too much physically of the prospective employees and that we are biased against older nurses that have higher skill levels. Any help would be appreciated. Any pointers would be greatly appreciated as well as any advice for us changing what we require of our nurses.
Thanks
Fri, 06/19/2009 - 2:06pm
#2
I'm not sure about failing
I'm not sure about failing someone because their heart rate exceeds the maximum for their age. In the absence of symptoms (dizziness, etc), is that clinically meaningful? You would also have to consider the possibility of measurement error from the heart rate device.
If they are able to safely complete the lift without pain or other complaints, shouldn't they pass that portion of the test?
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 11:36am
#3
post offer pre employment challenge
The basis for many industrial rehabilitation services starts with a comprehensive "ADA compliant" job description. If you don't have that, your decisions regarding worker fit are easily compromised and perhaps, illegal. If you have a high quality job description and are ethically testing applicants, stand by your decisions. If not, you know where you need to start.
Jim Clouse also said:
For all of the precedents regarding ADA case law, as well as all of the other concepts regarding the "safety" issue for work, heart rate guidelines seem pretty sound (refer to the post-offer coursework). As far as measurements tools and validity, if the functioning of your equipment is in question-replace it. If not, the manufacturer is taking a pretty big leap stating it works well-why should you doubt it? I say trust the compass unless you know it is inaccurate. As far as "looking safe", most people don't need their safety belts unless they have an accident. When that will exactly happen is the crux that employers aren't liable for-and I have never known anyone to have this concept disputed in court. On a lighter note, cardiovascular capacity is something that is remedied pretty easily-you might recommend a work conditioning program with a RTW pending improvement. To show the other side of the coin, I was recently deposed on a case where someone did not provide high levels of effort during testing (including material handling-to include pushing/pulling). By sheer repetition and the relative irrelevance of pushing/pulling, her heart rate met her max safe limit. Her attorney questioned if I stopped testing due to "fear for her life". I had never really thought of it in those terms (not sure I agree!).