ArticleOccupational medicine (Oxford, England)2020
Covid-19: statutory means of scrutinizing workers' deaths and disease.
Article in Occupational medicine (Oxford, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Continuity or Change: Occupational Health Policies of Key Organizations in Great Britain After the Major COVID Waves 2020-2022.New solutions : a journal of environmental and occupational health policy : NS · 2026Article
- COVID-19 in Workplace Settings: Lessons Learned for Occupational Medicine in the UK.La Medicina del lavoro · 2023Article
- Occupational differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection: analysis of the UK ONS COVID-19 infection survey.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBy law, covid-19 disease and deaths in workers may lead to coroners' inquests and/or Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigations.
aimsThis study assesses the adequacy of these statutory means to yield recommendations for prevention of acquiring covid-19 infection from work.
methodsCovid-19 guidance from the chief coroner and the HSE was appraised, including using Office for National Statistics (ONS) data. Practitioners were asked to estimate the likelihood that covid-19 disease may have arisen from 'near-miss' scenarios. Data from the judiciary and the HSE were analysed.
resultsThe coroners' guidance allowed a wider range of reports of death than did the HSE and conformed better with ONS data on covid-19 mortality by occupation. In the practitioner survey, 62 respondents considered a higher likelihood that reported covid-19 cases would have arisen from the scenario deemed unreportable as a 'dangerous occurrence' by HSE than the reportable scenario (P < 0.001). On average there was only one coroner's report to prevent future death from occupational disease every year in England and Wales. The HSE dealt with a yearly average of 1611 reports of work-related disease including 104 on biological agents, but has received about 9000 covid-19 reports.
conclusionsCurrent HSE guidance for reporting work-related covid-19 may miss many thousands of cases and needs further iteration. Coroners have very limited experience of inquiry into occupational disease caused by biological agents compared with the HSE. Concerns regarding national policy such as on protective equipment warrant a full public inquiry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.