Why an individual assessment matters
General electromagnetic-field exposure limits do not, by themselves, establish compatibility with every medical implant. A device may experience interference or physical effects under conditions that do not present the same risk to other workers. Assessment must bring together workplace information, implant characteristics and relevant clinical advice, without automatically concluding that the person cannot continue working. Compatibility is a specific question, not a blanket judgement about fitness.
Active and passive implants
Active implants include pacemakers, defibrillators and certain neurostimulators. Medical devices worn on the body also need consideration. Passive implants, such as some prostheses or bone-fixation materials, raise different questions concerning their composition and interaction with the field. They should not all be assessed as though they were pacemakers. Equally, different models of the same type of medical device cannot automatically be treated as equivalent.
Information needed by the assessment team
Identify sources, frequencies, operating modes, proximity and task duration. Occupational health can coordinate access to relevant device information, settings and manufacturer warnings while protecting confidentiality. A vague job description or knowledge of the implant brand alone may be insufficient. Include movement through the workplace, occasional access and maintenance activities as well as the main task, because these can bring a person closer to a source.
Compatibility does not mean one universal distance
Assessment of electromagnetic fields must relate the actual source to the device’s susceptibility. Separation distances recommended for a domestic appliance cannot simply be transferred to welding, induction heating or medical equipment. Documentary assessment may suffice in well-characterised situations; others require measurement or specialist advice. Compatibility must never be tested by bringing the worker closer to a source to see whether symptoms develop.
Measures that support safe continued work
Solutions may involve relocating sources, defining restricted areas, changing routes or adapting particular tasks. Measures should be proportionate to the assessment findings and understood by those organising work. The answer is not a general exclusion of everyone with an implant. Where possible, adaptation should preserve the person’s activity while avoiding situations identified as incompatible or not yet assessed. Record the practical arrangements rather than unnecessary medical details.
Changes that require review
Review the assessment if the implant, relevant programming, emitting equipment or workplace layout changes. Workers need a confidential route for reporting changes and obtaining clear advice. An old assessment does not automatically cover a new machine. If interference is suspected, follow the safety procedure and clinical guidance rather than attempting exposure experiments or adjusting the medical device independently. Responsibilities for review should be clearly assigned.
