In recent days, several pharmacies have received a somewhat surprising letter from occupational health. The latter would like to impose reinforced monitoring on employees required to vaccinate patients. Will it be imperative to comply with this precautionary measure?
As specified on the service-public.fr website, reinforced individual monitoring (SIR) “concerns employees exposed to particular risks to their health and safety”. It can, for example, be imposed on workers in contact with asbestos, lead, carcinogens or even ionizing rays. If this is the case, these employees may be required to undergo a medical fitness examination (which must be renewed at least every four years), supplemented by an intermediate visit carried out by a health professional. A precautionary measure which aims to verify whether the employee exposed to these risks is firstly capable of carrying out his work and, secondly, whether these particular conditions do not present too high a risk for his health or safety.
At first glance, we do not necessarily imagine employees of a community pharmacy being potentially affected by this reinforced monitoring. However, occupational medicine sent letters to several holders informing them of its desire to apply this monitoring to staff required to vaccinate patients. “This is the first year that pharmacists have informed us of receiving letters of this type,” specifies Philippe Besset, president of the Federation of Pharmaceutical Unions of France (FSPF). To his knowledge, at least three pharmacies have received it but there are undoubtedly more. These documents do not specifically cite certain live vaccines, such as that against MMR, but clearly mention “the vaccination act” generally. If the motivations for occupational medicine seem a little obscure, are they nevertheless justified? “From our point of view, the fact of vaccinating, particularly with vaccines which are classified in a certain category of biological risks, is not sufficient for staff to be placed in reinforced monitoring. We therefore contest the reason given by occupational medicine,” summarizes Philippe Besset.
The FSPF will send a circular to its members in the coming days with a list of elements to oppose for those who would like to contest this decision through a written response addressed to occupational medicine. “If it remains in its position, pharmacists will however be obliged to follow”, warns the president of the FSPF, who nevertheless hopes that an agreement will be found with occupational medicine on this subject.
