Guest blog by Janet O'Neill
The recently published feasibility study paper Feasibility Study: Establishing a National Dataset of Occupational Health Assessments (McElvenny, D et al, 2026) should be on every clinician’s radar.
Occupational health (OH) in the UK is at a pivotal moment. Despite decades of discussion about the relationship between work and health, we still lack a robust, national-level evidence base that captures what we as OH clinicians see every day. For a specialty that routinely manages complex interactions between health, work demands, organisational culture and regulatory requirements, this absence of high‑quality, aggregated data limits our ability to influence policy, demonstrate value, and improve outcomes for workers.
This new feasibility study takes a major step toward addressing that gap. The time is right, the appetite exists. With the right governance and collaboration, the UK could finally build the evidence base OH has always needed and aligning with the goals of the Keep Britain Working, Work and Health Intelligent Unit. (Keep Britain Working Review – March update, DWP, 2026.)
The research team conducted semi‑structured interviews with 18 stakeholders across the OH ecosystem, including in‑house clinicians, outsourced providers, hybrid models, and policymakers. Their aim: to understand whether a national OH dataset is feasible, what it might contain, and what barriers would need to be overcome. The interviews identified three dominant operating models for OH data:
- In‑house services, where data sit on employer systems.
- Outsourced providers, who act as data controllers.
- Hybrid arrangements, where responsibilities are shared.
These models shape everything from data access to governance, and they matter because any national dataset must work across all three.
Across organisations, the study found that OH services routinely generate rich clinical and operational data: management referrals, health surveillance, fitness-for-work assessments, wellbeing activity, and more. Yet the structure and coding of these data vary dramatically. Some providers use ICD codes and structured occupational categories; others rely on free text or broad diagnostic groups, and some in-house services described ‘diagnosis group’ categories without formal ICD coding. This variability is a barrier, but also an opportunity!
The study proposes a core minimum dataset that all providers could contribute to, with an optional enhanced dataset for those with more sophisticated systems. This mirrors approaches used successfully in other health domains such as the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), one of the world’s most widely used research resources and the one the study suggests should be explored for adoption in this context.
What a national dataset will add
Clinicians, providers, employers, policymakers overwhelmingly support the concept of a national OH dataset, provided governance and anonymisation are robust. It will not solve every challenge, but it could transform our ability to demonstrate impact, influence policy, and improve worker health. Benefits include:
- Benchmarking and service improvement - Clinicians and providers want to compare referral patterns, musculoskeletal and mental health trends, turnaround times, and staffing ratios.
- Demonstrating value and ROI - In an era where OH services must justify investment, aggregated data could finally provide the evidence base for return‑on‑investment arguments, something the Faculty of Occupational Medicine and the Society of Occupational Medicine have long highlighted as a gap.
- Policy insight and national strategy - Government departments and professional bodies are enthusiastic. A national dataset could support the Work and Health agenda, workforce planning, and evidence‑based guidance updates. The WHIU needs high‑quality occupational health data to understand patterns of work‑related ill health, evaluate interventions, and support national strategy.
- Research and innovation - From understanding predictors of sustained return‑to‑work to evaluating interventions, the research potential is enormous. Such data could help estimate the burden of work‑related ill health more accurately, a longstanding challenge.
Obstacles to overcome
- GDPR, re‑identification risk, and data controllership are major concerns. The study emphasises the need for strong Information governance (IG) frameworks and trusted research environments.
- Commercial and reputational sensitivity. Providers and employers need clarity on permissible use and value returned.
- Technical divergence. Legacy systems, paper records, and inconsistent coding complicate extraction.
Yet the report is optimistic and the authors recommend:
- Starting with a small pilot across diverse provider types.
- Defining a core minimum dataset,
- Engaging software vendors early.
- Providing benchmarking dashboards back to contributors.
- Aligning with national initiatives such as the Workplace Health Intelligence Unit.
This feasibility study is a significant step forward and for clinicians, this is a moment to engage. The profession has long argued for better data and this study provides a credible roadmap for achieving. Not every challenge facing OH will be solved, but it could transform our ability to demonstrate impact, influence policy, and improve worker health. The dataset will need a policy home and the WHIU will be ideal, a place where data can be standardised, governed, analysed, and translated into action.
Janet O’Neill is an Occupational Health Nurse specialist, Deputy Head of the National School of Occupational Health and Head of PAM Academy, PAM Group.