Using absence data without misreading it
Absence trends can guide investigation, but do not diagnose pressure or identify its cause on their own.
The performance question
An increase in recorded absence may reflect illness, better reporting, changing workforce composition or several other factors. Low recorded absence can also coexist with unmet support needs. Interpret trends with context and protect sensitive information.
What the evidence supports
NICE NG146 recommends reviewing non identifiable absence trends, including duration, frequency and relevant work factors. ICO describes health information as special category data requiring lawful processing, minimisation and security; its guidance is currently under review.[1][2]
A practical approach
Define the rate and denominator consistently and show changes in headcount, role mix and recording practice. Review sufficiently large groups and suppress identifying breakdowns. Combine patterns with work assessment and employee input. Involve the privacy lead before processing new health detail and use appropriate individual support routes.
How to review progress
Report plausible explanations and the investigation prompted, not a percentage automatically attributed to stress. Check whether changes improve workable return and support. Do not target a person for intervention solely because a dashboard flags their absence.
Sources and references
- Workplace health: Sickness absence and capability to work Opens in a new tab
NICE
NG146: absence monitoring, sustainable return and preventing recurrence
- Data protection and workers health information Opens in a new tab
Information Commissioner’s Office
Special category data, lawful processing, minimisation and security. Guidance is under review following legislative change