A school I teach a couple of pupils at (independent) has just decided, after some years, and in the face of an impending inspection, that I need to present all my qualification certificates to them and fill in a medical questionnaire. I have never before had to show my certificates to anyone, but have managed to find them. The medical questionnaire is detailed - "Have you ever experienced dissatisfaction at work?" (can anyone say no?); "Have you ever experienced any increased irritability?" (answer, yes, having to answer all these questions!

The bit I don't like, though, is the "lifestyle" bit. I have to tell them how much I drink and smoke per week, and also what exercise I take. I don't think, as long as I carry out my teaching duties properly, that it's any of their business. Can I refuse to answer this bit?

Does anyone else get this sort of questionnaire from a school?

Are you a member of Musician's Union or ISM? It might be worth asking them what they think. It sounds as thought the school have gone a bit over the top. I would want to know who was going to have access to this information, and what it would be used for.

I agree it's OTT and I would not take kindly to being asked this kind of intrusive question.

I'm sure no-one could truthfully say they have never experienced dissatisfaction at work.

What sort of independent school is it? Does it have a particular ethos whereby smoking and drinking are strictly forbidden?

I would lie and not think twice.

As long as you're not claiming to have qualifications you don't have/not to have criminal convictions that you do have, then I think it's utterly ridiculous and doesn't desere any better. (After all, dissastifaction is a subjective term and what you drink during a week - do they mean last week, a week of your choosing, on average and, if so, what average - since the day you were born ? etc.etc.)

PS I'm assuming the school doesn't provide you with private medical insurance

When I worked for a county council school, I had to complete a very similar intrusive questionnaire. The attitude of the other staff was to roll their eyes, but it still had to be done!

A considerable amount of it is actually making sure that YOU are not being put under undue stress at work, or exhibiting signs of addiction which you need help and support to overcome. Of course employers can use such information to weed out staff, but if you have been there any length of time, that is not so easy.

The clue is that they are about to be inspected and know that there are shortcomings in their record keeping of staff welfare.

Well, you can either fill it in like Mickey Mouse or fill it in as you feel is honest, it is up to you. But do take the advice of everyone else, join a union if you are not a member already, it does not have to be musical. If you spoke to a rep, you might be surprised that they can reassure you.

Maybe, but I would still consider it to be intrusive and nannying. As long as a person is fulfillng their work obligations their private life is not the concern of their employers - otherwise where will it stop and who is going to decide what criteria are acceptable for employees' private lives? It is a different matter if a problem actually arises at work (like turning up for work under the influence of drugs or alcohol) but what goes on outqide the work place is private.

I would, like dolcé@piano quite simply lie or write 'Not appliccable" as an answer.

I've had to fill these sort of things in a few times- especially at interview stages where they always seem to ask every candidate for permission to go and view confidential medical records with your doctor. I find it very intrusive, and do not like signing these things if I dont get a job. I don't trust them when they say "We will destroy it if you are unsuccessful in the interview". All it takes is an idiot to not do their job properly (or not be trained to do their job) and my confidential information is floating around for the world to see and abuse.

One employer said they needed to know about medical things so that they could administer the right medical help if I was injured or ill at work. This I can sort of identify with having worked with a few people who were allergic to wasp stings, have diabeties or epilepsy. We were all given basic training on how to respond int he best way in an emergency. (Ring ambulance: Shout at person to keep them conscious: Run round in circles because we are not allowed to do anything for fear of health and safety laws).

If something happened in lessons, any child would probably poke a collapsed teacher a few times and then go get help!!

There have been a few reports recently about the mental status of teachers. Apparently over half suffer from depression and mental anxiety. (Probably because of having too much paperwork and stupid hoops to jump through- including filling out questionnaires to create goverment statitics on how stressed/depressed/busy they all are!!)

It feels intrusive and nannying, I agree, and I also agree that it can be abused, there is no dispute about that. Employers are under a legal obligation to provide appropriate consideration, be it religious, welfare or medical, and sexual orientation, to name a but a few.

If employers do not collect certain statistical information, they can leave themselves wide open to claims that they are not monitoring subtle or unsublte forms of discrimination. If they are unaware of an employee's health issues, then how can they help? You do not have to sign to let anyone have access to your medical records, and they cannot discriminate on those grounds. You can withhold information if you wish, but if it is pertinent to your job, or could affect how you work, then by not informing them you can run the risk of disciplinary proceedings (for a job applicant who is subsequently employed and has problems working).

As far as existing employees are concerned, if a new policy has been put in place, it is up to you how you decide to comply or not comply and how either decision will affect you. Ultimately, but not disclosing you could be worse off. Equally by disclosing you could end up being sidelined, not considered for promotion. You could also be given extra consideration if you have a disability, or care for a disabled relative for instance.

Most large companies will have a drink or drugs policy. Some will sack for the slightest sign of intoxication, or suspicion if no contrary evidence is provided. They are probably not good employers anyway. However, most would consider ways of support, either by providing information about health services to deal with addiction (this is just one example).

From recent experience in my family, employers who don't provide an adequate care or welfare programme run the risk of litigation. So although you may feel intimidated by the questions, they may actually be realising that they need to do more to look after employers who might need just a little extra help, either in the form of moral support (which in my own family's case was completely absent). This might seem trivial, but when the result is a severe and debilitating illness which other senior staff refuse to recognise, without remedial action then the company is in trouble too.

I've also done some first aid training, and the first thing any first aider needs is information. If a collapsed person is say, diabetic, carries no information to indicate that and could say before any collapse took place, then that in certain instances be fatal. Again, there is a history of diabetes in my family, and that is something I can speak of with experience. By being coy, you can put yourself in real physical danger.

The one thing I'd not do is lie - if you do that, you are opening the door to being more generally labelled dishonest if/when the truth comes out. Your choice lies between choosing not to answer the questions, or giving them a bland statement along the lines of medical details can be supplied if successful, but that you find them intrusive at this stage, and answering them honestly, but don't lie. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that they do not have any need to know this early on - we do fill in forms at my work once accepted, and that then is so that work can address any medical needs of its employee properly - but to ask for it in advance opens the employer to accusations of under-the-table discrimination - eg, not taking on a woman because she's pregnant, or not taking on a depressive in case they're off sick for ages.

This sort of reasoning sends shivers down my spine. "affect how you work'? What doesn't affect you in some way? Why not just install CCTVs in all our homes and have done with it?

It is true that they have some obligations/duties towards employers but there is a huge difference between factual medical info and questions like "How do you feel..."

A person may answer such questions differently on different days. Such a questionnaire may be acceptable if it were perfectly voluntary, but to make them obligatory is quite scary. Are you then legally tying yourself to these answers? Perhaps the next week, you feel completely different.

I find it hard to believe that a person can be forced to fill in a questionnaire like this. Something doesn't seem right.

Otherwise write whatever you want but put a disclaimer that the info is confidential, and the questions too subjective and open to interpretation to be answered accurately.

Steve

It would probably be worth joining a suitable union (not sure exactly what you teach) just to get a bit of guidance on this. I've taught for 10+ years in an independent school and never been asked for such details. I'd have no problems answering sensible medical questions, such as relating to epilepsy, or diabetes, but providing you turn up for teaching duties sober and not apparently under the influence of any strange drugs I would find the lifestyle questions rather OTT.

I might be inclined to find out what other teachers are doing, and why exactly does the school want this info. What are they going to do with it?

Thanks for all your replies.

No, the school does not have any such ethos.

I have emailed the MU and will see if they reply.

In the meantime I will have to decide whether for the sake of 2 organ pupils I should tell the school to get lost, or inform them how much I drink during the week and whether I have to get up to go to the loo during the night!

There are these 4 questions which I think should only be asked in a confidential interview with a line manager:
Have you recently experienced any of the following:
Inability to sleep well
Awoken feeling tired
Feeling of profound sadness
Dissatisfaction at work
Any increased irritability

You have the advantage of being in post but if it really is only for the sake of 2 pupils I would be inclined to tell them where to go.
These sound like the sort of questions a psychiatrist asks you when they are assessing if you are a suicide risk. You can be sure it is not for your benefit, but to cover their backs legally if you turn out to be some sort of flake.

If you feel you have to provide some sort of answer, I would provide minimum details such as 'moderately' or 'occasionally' when it comes to drinking, but these questions sound absurd to me. No doubt there will be those who feel they can justify this kind of intrusion for the greater good.

Sorry, but why is this any of their business? Is the person a qualified doctor or pschologist? Once you agree to this sort of 'obligatory questioning, you set a dangerous precedent.



Be honest and say that "I'm far too drunk to answer the questions, especially about sadness - anyway the prozac never works - but your probation officer said you should try as part of your rehabilitation after your conviction for selling CRB certificates on Ebay, and besides, they never found the bodies, so don't try and pin anything on me!"

Steve

These questions are specifically aimed at people suffering from depression, and may or may not be aware of their problem. Yes I agree they are being nosey, but if anyonce could answer yes to all those questions and avoided getting help, then would possible putting themselves of greater risk of being more seriously ill. My husband has been seriously ill with depression since the spring. And yes, it is no joke. Currently he is improving and will continue to do so. His place of work have played their part in his illness, more than that I'm not prepared to say. They were also a little slow and unhelpful at first because they did not really want to believe how ill he was, that is human nature. They have since pulled out all the stops, and have put in place specific measures to help him, and other people who are currently fine and may never be ill, but could need help later.

Some line managers are the cause of such problems, and answering them in a questionnaire is the only opportunity for some people to answer such questions without feeling under pressure to give certain answers!

I would go to the person who thought this questionnaire was a good idea and recommend that they get immediate treatment for what appears to be advanced symptoms of control freakery.

On a more serious note, it is one thing for an employer to be responsive to medical conditions if an employee requests it; it is quite another matter for individuals to be obliged to divulge their innermost thoughts and medical conditions which they may prefer to keep private for whatever reason. Unless there is an overriding safety issue, an individual should be able to maintain personal privacy, and as a former employer, I think these questions are entirely unreasonable. If I were an employee, I would refuse to answer them, citing the Human Rights Act and the Right to Privacy if necessary. What are they going to do about it - dismiss someone for refusing to answer a deeply intrusive questionnaire? If they did, it would lead to a costly tribunal and I can't see them wanting to get involved in that over such a ridiculous matter. Different if you're self-employed with the school, of course, but one of the main advantages of being self-employed is that you can walk away from situations which don't suit you. Are they willing to lose a good teacher all for the sake of a questionnaire?

I must put that right - they are not questions put if you are a suicidal risk - indeed they are several stages away from such questions. Yes, they do point to inquiry about anxiety and depression, but not the sort of drama you suggest here.

I re-iterate - don't lie - provide either honest answers or a rebuttal with reasoning for why you are not willing to reply. They may well then give you the reasoning behind their inquiry, and you can reassess the situation accordingly. In the health service such questionnaires are also issued, management never see them, and they go straight on to Occupational Health. And as someone who has had to make use of Occupational Health, may I just say that they are a very positive dimension to the issue of sickness in the workplace? They provide a supportive medical interface between the employee and employers, and can help when someone has been sick and needs to be reintegrated into their workplace afterwards.

The questionnaire doesn't have the word confidential anywhere. I've no idea who is going to see it.

My objection (and I do object strongly) is on principle. The "psychiatric" questions could be of no constructive use to anyone. If I did have problems with stress no psychiatrist is going to base his diagnosis on answers given on a questionnaire filled in at some previous time.

Is there anyone with legal knowledge who can tell me if I have a legal right to refuse to answer the questions I think are unjustifiably intrusive?

Be careful, I answered yes to those questions a few years back by a GP I'd never met before and he diagnosed me on the spot with clinical depression and handed me a prescription for Prozac!!!
Very bad practice and stupid questions for a GP, let alone an un-medically qualified school penpusher.

By the way, I've never been depressed in the slightest but on occasion all those questions could answer yes to me, you or anyone!
Will be interested to hear the outcome.

Seems to me then that your path is clear - you would be justified in asking why they ask this, and in telling them you think they are too intrusive, and not answering them. I would do both, not simply refuse on principle, because that way you find out if there is a reasonable reason behind them, and also it will highlight to them more clearly that maybe they ought to rethink.
We got asked by our employers to give our racial origins and gender interests (sorry but the stupid censor still can't cope with the word s3x...) - as well as any details of disabilities and other such information - it was a circular contained in our payslips to "update their data" - and I refused to fill that in, just as you're contemplating for yours.

Questions like that only ever indicate the possibility of depression. Anyone who prescribes on a tick box basis without more searching questions pertinent to the individual is clearly overworked!

Now I think I understand what is concerning Stephen a little more.

Basically, you can decline to answer personal health questions, but this can raise more questions. I've filled in some pretty intrusive questionnaires before, and been hired despite some history of odds and ends of illnesses.

Declare what you want, as honestly as you want, and quite frankly it is unlikely to come back and haunt you unless you are hired on the basis of a clean bill of health and it turns out that you are as sick as a parrott.

Addendum - "And don't be concerned about hangovers affecting my performance; I'm too acclimatised to alcohol to get 'em."

ok - let's see ...

Have you recently experienced any of the following:
Inability to sleep well
Yes - one night recently I woke several times. Didn't stay awake more than a few minutes, but didn't feel as though I'd slept well.

Awoken feeling tired - yes - see above.

Feeling of profound sadness - yes - we have just sung our way through two requiems at choir, one for All Souls' Day and one for Remembrance Day. I'd be lying if I answered 'no' to this one. At the same time I would not have missed either of those two events .

Dissatisfaction at work - yep - one particularly frustrating student who is highly capable and is going through a bad patch.

Any increased irritability - yes - see above.

On the other hand work is mostly great, choir is fantastic, most nights I sleep well ...

Hmmm.

Sorry - couldn't resist. In the wrong hands I imagine the above could be quite damaging.

Yep I agree, it is easy to be funny about all this, and sometimes it is possible to be too serious, but then again, if my husband's employers had been less demanding and more on the ball regarding personnel managment, he wouldn't have been so ill for so many months.

Hence the questionnaires, they are often insurance based, but if for every 2000 sent out and filled in one is picked out as being worthy of further consideration, then I'm all for it.

Depression affects 25% of the population at sometime or another. Living with someone who wants to kill themself isn't funny.

No questionnaire would be taken out of context in the way those questions have been on this thread - and yes, JaneS, you are right, it's all too easy to be flippant and dismissive of them presented in such a snapshot. There has been a lot of outrage on the thread about intrusiveness, not all of it misplaced because this questionnaire appears to be coming from a body which may not be entitled to know the answers: the questions of themselves have their use in the correct context and with suitable avenues for followup in place. It would be interesting to know how the employer justifies asking these things - it is quite possible that they do so for supportive reasons rather than to undermine their staff.
Anxiety and depression are debilitating conditions - we're not talking feeling a bit nervous or a bit sad here, but about something which is totally incapacitating, and as JaneS points out, well worth screening for, given so many struggle with it undiagnosed. Thank goodness there are treatments available.

Over the years I've known several people with depression, and by no means is stress or depression necessarily work related or something which an employer can do something about - even if the employee wanted them to, which is not always the case. The other side of the coin is that sometimes it is helpful that at work the person can function as normal, leaving personal problems behind. When friends and family know that someone is suffering depression, they can sometimes treat the person with kid gloves. At work, where no-one knows, it's the one place where the person can "escape" their problems for a time and be surrounded by people who treat them normally.

During my time as an employee, I've worked for more than one highly manipulative persons and I'm pretty cynical about the uses which an employer could make of sensitive medical information. I'm also pretty cynical about so-called "confidential" information - I've seen too much of it bandied around and not enough care taken to protect it. I think one only has to look at the highly publicised carelessness which government agencies take over "confidential" information to realise that familiarity breeds contempt, and many people working with confidential information in both the public and private sector simply forget how sensitive some information is to the individuals concerned.

I think the tongue in cheek type responses - mine included - are exactly what the people who set this kind of questionnaire deserve. They are not qualified to collect, read and file this type of information about others.
They should mind their own business. The questions themselves, as maggie-may shows are just a lot of meaningless hype. Disclosing such information to do-gooders is not safe.

If a person is in difficulty, what is needed is not yards of form filling but a sensitive response and a listening ear if one is the person chosen by the sufferer as a listener. Good relationships in the work place and realistic expectations by employers are what is needed. Also, perhaps, some sort of space - even anonymous - where an employee can go for help. Putting everyone in a situation where they feel spied upon can only add to the stress of the work place. I know if I were asked to put my job on the line by being put in the position of having to answer questions about my private concerns I would start to feel threatened
and insecure. If it went over a certain threshold I might start to feel suicidal. I would certainly feel aggressive.

Employees of the EDF in France have just received a very long questionnaire because oF the high number of suicides in that organisation. It is very very sad. As an investigation into how these employees feel about their work and howthis appalling situation came about I think this questionnaire may help resolve some of the problems. But - and this is very important - it is anonymous. It has nothing to do with individuals' privacy but rather to do with the policies of the EDF which have given rise to deaths.

Aquarelle, I couldn't agree more.

When I say that I would very happily lie in answering those questions I mean that there is no precise 'yes/no' answer that fits the box and that, therefore, a 'yes' is as true, or not true, as a 'no'.

Have I felt dissatisfaction at work ? Well, yesterday I would have answered 'yes' (irritating 8 year-old girl who acts like she's the bee's knees) but, today, looking back, I feel more kindly disposed towards her and so today's truthful answer is 'no' because now I don't think I was really dissastisfied yesterday, just mildly irked. Inability to sleep well ? What does 'well' mean ? 'Well' for your average woman of 50 probably means getting up twice in the night to have a pee - my 19 year-old thinks he hasn't slept well if he sleeps less than 10 hours solid.

These questions only have any relevancy to someone who knows you/is talking to you face to face and can follow up and lead the questioning as appropriate.

Frankly, I would answer as you see fit and not waste too much time on it.

You have my sympathy. We have similar problems where I work - a huge organisation.

But in our case, information is being gathered anonymously - as Aquarelle described - and the results are made known to everyone. Since the initiative started about three years ago, we also have access to confidential meetings with counsellors and doctors and there is more effort made to let everyone know that help IS available.

This seems to be working well. But I cannot imagine anybody ever accepting the personal questionnaires as described in this thread. Trying to justify such questionnaires because of insurance and firms trying to cover themselves is absurd because the questions are mostly so subjective that they couldn't be used.

I would love to know who originally took the decision to use these questionnaires and if they took any legal advice before doing so. I'm not a lawyer but I have the feeling that making them obligatory would never stand up if challenged in court.

Steve

Thanks, Stephen for your comments. I also agree that there is a time and a place for gathering information such as you've described and in your shoes, I'd be inclined to make them remind me to fill in the form, probably about six times and they might get the message! After that, fill it in as you see fit.

Funnily enough, some of my bosses came straight from the 50s and 60s style of managment, barely competent and manipulative as goodness knows what. However, if they take you on as a new employee, with a fairly honest filled in form about medical conditions, they are then obliged to accommodate you. It all boils down to timing. If you have disability it gives extra protection too.

It sounds to me Stephen as if your bosses are covering their derrieres prior to be inspected. Ofsted, I presume? I've worked in schools through 2 such inspections and it wasn't much fun, and the methods they used were questionable too. Have some sympathy for your bosses, they are in for a difficult time, but then perhaps you think they deserve it?

Crikey, nothing like that. Besides, it's not a school, just a very large company.

The changes were sparked after years of grumbling, then somebody killed themselves about 3 years ago and the unions demanded more help from the management. There was actually no problem with getting help from the management and we have a much better system now, as I described.

But it is based on voluntary information and voluntary participation which is very different from forcing people to answer very personal questionnaires and which is what this thread is all about.

We have medicals every year, so the doctors already know our weight, smoking habits, alcohol intake, medication etc. All this information is confidential and although the checkups are part of our job, they are subject to standard medical privacy laws. Our bosses don't know a thing about our medical history. It is up to the doctors to deal with any problems and use their professional judgement. So for example, if somebody is depressed, they will be treated and helped, but the bosses will only know if either the person gives their consent, or the doctors feel that there is a good reason for informing the management.

But again, this is very different from those questionnaires. As I said before, I would check the legality of them.


Steve

OK sorry Stephen, I was under the impression that you worked at a school, and was about to have an inspection by Ofsted

OK, it sounds like a lot of my posts on this thread were a bit more accurate than I realised! My hubby works for a pretty big company, and a while back there were a number of incidences closely related to suicide and disappearances.

It can come over as being heavy handed on their part, but they do have a duty of care to their employees, if the employees need help and don't know where else to go, which can also be a serious problem for people who have to work away from their home area and have yet to build up local friends. Now that scenario is familiar to a lot of people in modern Britain I think.

Remember, from my understanding, you don't have to answer questions if you don't want to, or you can answer as you choose. But for some people, that could be keeping them away from help they need.

Stephen asked me to look at this thread (which I do not normally see) because of the legal implications.

The following thoughts may be of some help. They are not, of course, complete.

The situation is quite different if one is applying for a job. The prospective employer is entitled to know about your health. Sending detailed questionnaires to existing staff is another matter.

The questions that have been quoted are worrying. They are as useless as the now much discredited 'Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator' that was popular twenty years ago - and is still used in some church circles. That failed miserably because of the nature of the questions asked. Similarly, the questions quoted are unlikely to invoke useful responses because of they way they have been phrased. As Stephen rightly points out, they are better asked, by a medical practitioner, in a confidential interview, (see below,) or for the person's GP to complete a questionnaire. It seems to me that the questions are designed to get quite different information and not all of it medical.

The best way of approaching these things is for the prospective employer to state that the post is subject to a satisfactory medical check and to have the person looked at by a registered medical practitioner.
(A 'doctor' in common parlance, though they do not always have university doctorates.) Similarly, the best practice is for references from a current employer only to be taken up when the post has been offered, subject only to the reference, so that the employee is not unduly embarressed with their current employer.

Far too often these things are done on the cheap, often by firms holding themselves out as experts - we call them 'para legals', though the term is far too complimentary. These firms go in for very aggressive marketing, offering their 'products' as management tools. Many local authorities have given them 'block' contracts and then force their services on head teachers. It is most unfortunate but very common.

My advice is: complete the form (but carefully and keep a copy) if you want the job and consult your union if the request comes from your present employer.

It is well established that an employer can reasonably request a member of staff with ongoing health problems to see the employer's medical practitioner.

Finally, quoting Jane S: "Depression affects 25% of the population at sometime or another", I beg to differ. The proportion is well over 33% and probably higher if one discounts anxiety, which often masquerades as depression. Moreover, depression is, nowadays, invariably treatable. The current managment style (one could not dignify it with the term 'technique') of some of the employers is enough to give anyone depression.

I hope that these hurried thoughts are helpful.



Barry Williams

The previous post to yours was not from me - I think you thought it was because of the similarity of the name! I do teach in schools, both as an employee and as self-employed. I am employed by this particular school to teach organ and I only have 2 pupils. I have been teaching there for 3 years - I am not a new employee. Yes, they are about to have an Ofsted.

It's this bit that I'm interested in: You say, "you don't have to answer questions if you don't want to"

Is this right?

Thank you for taking the time to look at this, Barry. I think I shall take your advice and fill the thing in, but I will send a covering letter outlining my objections.

I think it's time to put this to bed, but here are a few more of the questions.
These ones I am quite happy to answer to a medical practitioner, but my questionnaire will, apparently, be seen by the Principal and a Deputy and then by kept by personnel:

Over the last two years, have you suffered any of the following symptoms?
RENAL SYMPTOMS
Passing blood in urine
Difficulty or pain on passing urine
Increased frequency of urination
Reduction of urinary stream
Getting up at night to pass urineUnexplained thirst


And lifestyle ones:
What is your average alcohol intake per week in units? ……………………………………………(1 unit = ½ pint beer = 1 measure of spirits = 1 glass of wine = 1 glass of sherry)

Are you a smoker / ex-smoker / never smoked?What is your average consumption of tobacco per day?Cigarettes ……………………………………..
Cigars …………………………….………………….Pipe tobacco ………………………………oz
If an ex-smoker, how long since you have given up? ……………………………………………...
How many did you smoke per day? ……………………………………………..……………………..

Do you take any exercise (excluding normal working practices)?Type: ……………………………………………………………………â€
¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.……………..
Frequency: Regular / Occasional / Little / None

Do you have a special diet, e.g. vegetarian? …………………………………………………………..

Personally I think it's a damn cheek!

So do I.
(At the risk of drawing down opprobrium from certain quarters)

Apologies to the 2 Stevens for muddling them up!! Quite funny really!

The advice I was given about medical forms regarding medical questions is this, when applying for a job, you are not obliged to answer questions about your disabilities, if you have them, although you could be sacked if you were found to be struggling later and deliberately did not give information. Tell them and they have to accommodate you under the disability laws, so it is in your interests to be honest. It all boils down to what is reasonable and sensible.

I take it Barry is a legal eagle? Well his point is to fill in the form and keep a copy, which is easy enough to do. And again, if you feel uncomfortable about the nature of the questions, let them know, but why in writing? I don't know about you, but at my age, it takes a little while to remember all the visits I've made to the GP over the years, and would most definitely leave plenty of stuff of such a list of questions, quite simply I can't remember!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Barry - the figure of 25% is something which health professionals use when talking about depression, and anxiety is a feeling not a state of mental health.

Right now I'm feeling like Baldrick.

"So which Steve am I then?"

Never mind. I'll fill in some more questionnaires under my pseudonym of Andrew Lloyd Weber, then go and see my psychiatrist, carrying my axe, and then ask my son's piano teacher why he still doesn't speak french after seven years in Italy!



Though all rather academic really since we all know that everyone will end up jumping through whatever hoops the so called authorities will put in front of them!



Steve

Wow!

The 'Renal Questions' are rather more than the title! They include a primitive screen for Diabetes Mellitus and Prostate problems, to mention only two. I doubt if the Head/Deputy Head teacher is qualified to deal with the answers.

That questionnaire is rather more than a damn cheek. It needs to be read by a medical practitioner.

Barry Williams

Some of this goes to Employment Law. Put very shortly, (and therefore not completely), dismissal is more or less at the employer's whim (except for certain items) up to one year. Thereafter the Employment Rights Act 1996 bites. If the employee has been less than candid with the employer it may tip the scales the other way and the employee might have to show that the disability etc does not affect their work. Each case runs on its own facts, but the situation is best avoided by as much candour and frankness as is possible at the outset.

Even with careful records and diaries one cannot remember everything, as Jane correctly points out. This tendancy to issue questionnaires is part of the trend to compile information on citizens. It is intrusive.

My opinion is that an employee who refused to complete the Questionnaire is reasonably safe from dismissal but, as always, employers often find other ways of making life difficult - which leads me to- anxiety. There is no doubt in my mind that the pressure brought to bear by managers on staff, including these intrusive questionnaires, can easily lead to anxiety, which is a recognised medical condition and for which specific drugs are available. Jane rights points out that it is a state of mind. But when that state of mind is caused by an employer's attitude and the anxiety becomes disabling i.e. it prevents the employee from working, it is very serious matter indeed and then becomes an issue of health. The technical term is 'bullying' and Employment Tribunals take a very dim view indeed of that. I have seen a number of cases where an employee has been put under such strain that the anxiety has caused them to take time off work and caused untold misery, not just to the employee but also to their family and work colleagues.

The deveopment of modern Employment Law (it started in its present form in 1961,) favours the employee. There is no longer a need to have a formal grievance procedure, (for employees against employers/managers), though the must at least be a recognised process which is fair. (The converse procedure, against the employee by the employer, is termed a disciplinary procedure.)

The unions have skilled staff who can represent employees at hearings and most will engage a specialist solicitor for an Employment Tribunal. I thought that only the church was generally a bad employer. It seems that some schools are not a lot better.

Whilst the questionnaire issue on an existing employee would be an interesting one to test in court, I doubt if anyone would want to take it as a single point. I could find no case law on it.

Barry Williams

To be honest, I think that the school is just trying to tick every conceivable box and have every stupid bit of paper that the inspectors could ask for. I'm sure there is no malicious intent. Nor do I think that the questionnaire is there to help them look after me.

Nonetheless I had hoped that I could tell them that I preferred not to answer certain questions and leave them blank. I think I'd better just bite the bullet and tell them that my night-time visits to the loo depend on whether or not I've drunk beer!

Obviously I know this wouldn't apply to you, but just as a matter of interest, would female staff have to divulge details of any gynaelogical problems on the questionnaire? I've sometimes had female staff confide in me about their gynaelogical problems, but that's been of their own volition and wasn't as a result of a work issue, and their problems didn't affect their work at all. The problems would have been classed as "medical conditions" though, but the notion that such intimate conditions should be divulged in a questionnaire would be outrageous, in my opinion.

That is an interesting point, though the questions that Stephen has quoted are just as intrusive for males.

I see these questionnaires as part of an increasingly nosy trend. Someone, somewhere, will challenge them at law, as has happened recently with CRBs. The trouble is, such legal action is expensive and in respect of CRBs tends to raise the profile uncomfortably, though the new Supreme Court (ex House of Lords) is rather more sympathetic to anonymity than the rest of the judicial system. It is still very costly though. Litigation of this type tends to win the battle rather than the war, even when it helps all the other people.

Barry Williams

Which was my reason for advising the OP to find out where the questionnnaire was going before deciding how to answer - and you have also given again the reasons for avoiding misleading replies, but giving no answers, with your justification for that, seems perfectly reasonable to me in the circumstances.

In the right context, with a medical practitioner who is looking after your concerns, those sorts of questions come up when appropriate, and would certainly be asked, say, in a HGV licence or insurance medical. Intrusive yes, but appropriate to be asked in those circumstances: maybe not in the situation described in this thread though. I may seem to be harping on - but everyone was jumping on a bandwagon of "how dreadful" before we had the necessary information to judge this one properly, with a sort of Daily Mail shock horror reaction.

Oh, and in the UK, medical doctors carry the honorary title of "Dr" for work purposes without necessarily holding doctorates - in the only countries where I know anything of their healthcare systems, the medical doctorate is also not of equivalent standing to a PhD, being completed in a shorter time frame than the academic "real" doctorate. It is of little importance one way or the other - what matters is the medical degree (five years' study in the UK compared with three in England and four in Scotland for honours degrees in most other subjects), and appropriate postgraduate qualification (depending on the subject, between three and eight years' further study and exams). These are what equip doctors to do the job they're employed for.

OK something tells me that it is going to be a little while before the two Steven/Stephens/Baldricks decide to stop teasing me - and don't I deserve it

Thanks for the PM Barry! Now, all I can say I've had to fill in two very similar forms, one for a state school and one for a large company in private ownership. And the questions were all embracing and very intimate, covering everything from epilepsy, narcolepsy, diabetes, and all points west including the female questions! By answering them, it did give me extra protection from carrying out duties which were not suitable for me - bad back and such like.

I accept, bad managers could abuse the information, but good managers will probably file it away safely and only use or access the information in a sensible way. They are not all voyeurs, and probably would rather not know!

It is up to an individual to decide how many details to provide, and how far back they need to go.

And I'm with Anacrusis about the medical qualifications, doctors may or may not hold PHds, but I know I'd rather be treated by someone who had been to med school, rather than someone who knew a lot about Chaucer

The way the NHS is going, you may regret those words.

What's wrong with leeches and a bit of burning at the stake anyway?

Steve

I would be tempted to answer the whole thing with "my doctor is aware of all relevant issues and I attend regularly/appropriately if I am feeling unwell" and include a statement from your GP that they have no worries about your health at this time. After all, such a questionnaire does not in any way preclude you from becoming an alcoholic, drug-addicted suicidal with kidney failure next week, does it?

So, from now on, as long as my doctor or nurse can quote Chaucer, and knows one end of a leech from another, I needn't be too worried about being burned at the stake? Maybe the OP should try filling his form in along these lines instead, think how Baldrick would fill it in, with plenty of references to rats and dandruff!

We used leeches in the 1980s when I was a junior doc. They were named after the consultants...

They still have a use in the preservation of skin flaps which are made by surgeons to cover damaged areas, and are amazingly effective, though still really not in the cute range.

Oh, and:

A povre widwe, somdeel stape in age
was whilom dwellinge in a narwe cotage
in a grove stondinge in a dale.
This widwe, of whom I telle you my tale
sin thilke day when she was last a wyf
in patiaunce ladde a ful simple lyf
for litel was hir catel and hir rente
By wisdom swich as god hir sente
she foonde hirself and eke hir doughtren two.

Apologies for the spelling and any errors, but that was from memory...

so what was that about the state of the NHS?