Finding the gaps. Fixing the process. What began as a respiratory protection program became an investigation into how occupational health safeguards can fall through the cracks between hiring, vendors, and operations.
03 / CASE STUDY · OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
While developing a respiratory protection program, I reviewed occupational health records to understand whether employees were ready for the medical evaluations and fit testing their roles required. That review exposed missing respiratory medical-clearance documentation following an earlier occupational health vendor transition.
As I traced the records and processes behind that gap, I found a second, separate issue: more than 100 field employees had not completed pre-employment physical screening. The inconsistencies extended across hire dates and could not be attributed to the vendor transition alone.
Two weaknesses had surfaced through one investigation. But they didn't share the same origin, and treating them as a single administrative cleanup would have missed the larger problem.
One gap emerged when a vendor transition failed to preserve an occupational health requirement. The other was a broader records-integrity and hiring-process issue that extended beyond that transition. Each called for a different response, even though both intersected with workforce operations and employee safety.
A health-provider transition interrupted the medical-clearance pathway for roles requiring respiratory protection. The correction needed to reconnect job hazards, evaluation requirements, scheduling, and fit testing.
The broader screening gap revealed a weakness in how field-role occupational health expectations were built into hiring and verified before employees started work.
The investigation moved beyond a single program file. I looked at how medical requirements were determined, how records were maintained, how vendors supported the process, and where supervisors and Workforce Operations needed clearer checkpoints.
Distinguish respiratory protection needs from broader field-role physical screening.
Connect requirements to the onboarding process before a worker's start date.
Identify vendor-transition continuity and record verification as additional controls to formalize.
To communicate the findings, I developed two complementary resources: a concise leadership assessment of the exposure and a phased working plan that outlined coordination, tracking, escalation, and employee considerations. Those materials informed the corrective approach; the original internal documents are not reproduced here.
Clarified the different origins, affected roles, and actions required for respiratory clearance and general occupational health screening, rather than imposing a single response on both issues.
Prepared a leadership-level brief and detailed implementation plan covering responsibilities, provider coordination, employee protections, progress tracking, and escalation points.
Established corrections to the prospective pre-employment physical screening and respiratory medical-clearance processes, embedding the requirements into the appropriate field-role and onboarding workflows.
Strengthened the prospective screening and clearance workflows. I also proposed additional safeguards for future occupational health vendor transitions; the vendor-transition checklist was a separate preventive measure, not a completed implementation outcome.
The most important result was not the production of a report. It was putting the organization in a better position to prevent the same gaps from being created for future employees.
The forward-looking field-employee physical screening process was corrected so screening requirements would be addressed as part of onboarding rather than discovered after employees were already working.
The prospective clearance pathway was corrected so respiratory requirements could be identified and coordinated for applicable roles before employees reached the fit-testing and respirator-use stages.
The experience reinforced something I return to across disciplines: the visible problem is not always the problem that needs solving. Sustainable improvement comes from understanding the relationships between people, workflows, and systems, then changing the conditions that allowed the failure to occur.
← EXPLORE MORE WORK