In August 2025, Germany’s DGUV described occupational health precautions required for work in tropical or subtropical conditions and other overseas locations involving particular climatic or infection hazards under ArbMedVV. The note corroborates the scope of an issue relayed in a December 2023 newsletter. It describes a risk-based requirement, rather than a universal examination for every foreign business trip or a new law introduced in December 2023.
Start with the work and destination
The employer should identify the proposed activity and conditions before deciding what occupational health preparation is appropriate. A country name alone may not provide enough information about the exposure. Management should ensure that the responsible specialists receive the relevant description of the work, location and circumstances. They can then assess the applicable obligations using the current rules and the employee’s actual assignment.
This is a different task from asking whether an employee holds a travel insurance card. Insurance describes an arrangement for covered events; occupational health preparation addresses exposure before and during the work. The employer’s process should explain who assesses each matter and how the conclusions reach the person organising the trip. Neither function should assume that the other has completed work outside its responsibility.
Give occupational medicine a workable route
The process needs to allow time for the relevant assessment before departure. A travel request received late can leave little room for the required preparation. Management should agree a route for identifying higher-risk assignments early and escalating urgent cases to the appropriate specialists. The route should make responsibilities clear without asking an employee to decide alone whether a particular medical precaution is legally required.
Medical information should be handled through the appropriate professional channels. A manager generally needs to understand the actions affecting the assignment, while the handling of personal health information requires care. The process should specify what information is needed by each party and avoid circulating unnecessary clinical detail with routine travel documentation. Employees should know where to ask questions about the preparation and how confidentiality is maintained.
Distinguish preparation from approval
Completion of a step in the travel system should not be treated as proof that every relevant risk has been assessed. Management should establish what each confirmation means and who supplied it. If the work or destination changes materially, the responsible person should be able to determine whether a reassessment is needed. A process designed only around booking approval may miss that change after tickets have been issued.
The employer should also explain the route for reporting a problem during the assignment. Occupational medicine, assistance and local management can have different responsibilities. Employees need an intelligible contact route, and the organisations involved need a shared understanding of who responds. The practical test is whether someone facing a difficulty can reach useful support without first deciding which internal policy owns the issue.
Apply a local rule within a global process
A multinational travel framework can require destination risk assessment and identify responsible functions. It still needs to accommodate the requirements applicable to German operations and employees. Similar job titles across countries do not establish that the same legal process applies. Headquarters should seek confirmation of the local procedure rather than treating a common global form as evidence that all requirements have been satisfied.
The employer can compare implementation by examining whether each country has an identified owner, a reliable escalation route and appropriate specialist input. That review should focus on delivery and unresolved questions. A count of completed forms gives limited assurance if the forms fail to describe the activity being undertaken or if the person reviewing them lacks the information needed to assess the exposure.
Review the process after use
Feedback from travellers and the responsible specialists can reveal where preparation was delayed or responsibilities remained unclear. The employer should use that information to improve the route for future assignments. Aggregate process feedback may be enough for this purpose; reviewing effectiveness should not turn into unnecessary collection of individual medical records. Any material incident requires the response appropriate to its actual circumstances.
This editor recommends using the official guidance to clarify the boundary of the occupational health obligation, then testing the employer’s process against a realistic assignment. The historical newsletter is a prompt to examine the topic, not a substitute for current local assessment. A risk-based explanation helps employees and managers understand why some trips require particular preparation while avoiding an inaccurate claim that every overseas visit requires the same medical procedure.
Share this:
- More [2]
