Supervision of occupational fitness assessments

Abstract

Controversy continues regarding an appropriate level of supervision for occupational fitness assessments. A bout of vigorous physical activity can augment the immediate risk of a cardiac catastrophe by a factor of 5-100 depending on age, cardiac risk factors, and the physical and emotional circumstances of the participant. However, if a person engages regularly in such activity, the immediate risk is more than offset by an improvement in prognosis during intervening periods of rest. During demanding physical work, there is a small but measurable risk of sudden death (3 to 7 episodes per 100,000 personnel per year). The risk associated with a brief (< 15 min) but vigorous occupational fitness assessment is so low as to preclude attempts to reduce it still further by direct medical supervision. If testing encourages an increase in personal fitness, any immediate increase in risk is enormously offset by a reduction in the number of cardiac deaths while resting. Furthermore, evidence is unconvincing that the average medical practitioner can prevent or treat any emergencies that may arise better than a well-trained professional fitness and lifestyle consultant (PFLC), a person certified by the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology who has had frequent opportunities to practice the necessary skills. Since occupational fitness assessments are not diagnostic procedures, they appear to fall outside the jurisdiction of medical licensing bodies. In the absence of a history of cardiovascular disease, supervision of such assessments is safely and appropriately undertaken by the PFLC. Unnecessary insistence on medical supervision could preclude annual evaluation of occupational fitness and a resulting enhancement of physical condition, thus increasing rather than diminishing the risk to the worker.