An optional employee wellbeing programme should offer a real choice about health tracking. The ICO says that consent may be suitable for voluntary monitoring only where staff can choose freely and face no negative consequences for declining. Required occupational health surveillance is a different matter and needs its own clear purpose and legal basis.
For a leadership team buying a health benefit, this is a design decision before it is a technology decision. A programme can make care easier to access without turning personal health information into a management dashboard.
Can employees decline wellbeing wearables or health tracking?
If the programme is presented as optional, the choice needs to be meaningful. The ICO's guidance gives an example of a voluntary wellbeing scheme using health tracking, where workers control what is shared and are not disadvantaged if they do not participate. Consent is not automatically valid just because a form has been signed.
The employment relationship creates a power imbalance. People may feel pressure to agree if their manager promotes the programme, if the most visible team members all join or if declining seems likely to affect how commitment is judged. Employers need to consider that reality rather than relying on an opt-in box alone.
Explain the purpose, what is collected, who can see it, how long it is kept and what participation means in practice. Make the route for declining or asking questions straightforward. Do not describe optional tracking as a condition of receiving unrelated medical care unless that arrangement has been properly justified and clearly explained.
Discuss a considered employee wellbeing programme.
How is a wearable different from booking a private GP?
A clinical appointment and ongoing tracking produce different information for different purposes. A doctor needs relevant information to assess and advise an individual. A wearable may collect repeated activity or physiological data and make it visible to a platform or employer.
The ICO defines health monitoring technologies broadly, including apps and wearables that reveal health information. The question is not whether the device looks like a consumer product. It is what the information reveals and how the organisation intends to use it.
The Wellness's employer service offers access to private GP care and coordinated health support. Its published model keeps individual clinical information between the doctor and employee, with employer use reported in aggregate. An occupational health report is a separate process and is not the same as handing an employer the consultation record.
Before commissioning a programme, ask whether tracking is needed at all. Easier appointment access, clear follow-up and useful aggregate service reporting may answer the business question without continuous personal monitoring.
What should HR agree before launch?
Set out a narrow purpose. “Improving wellbeing” is too broad to explain every possible collection or use. State whether the aim is access to care, an optional activity programme or a specific occupational health duty. Avoid combining those purposes without a clear explanation.
Map the data journey. Identify the employer, clinical provider and technology supplier roles, who receives identifiable information and what appears in reports. Set retention arrangements and access controls. Consider whether a data protection impact assessment is required for the proposed monitoring.
Keep an alternative route visible for people who do not want to use a wearable. Do not treat a low step count, missing device data or refusal to share as a diagnosis, proof of poor performance or an automatic reason for intervention.
Agree how small groups will be handled in reports. Calling information “aggregate” does not necessarily prevent identification when a team is tiny or a result is unusual. Reporting should be designed around privacy rather than added after the data has been collected.
Plan access and reporting before choosing a platform.
What about legally required health surveillance?
Some roles involve specific hazards and statutory duties. The ICO gives examples of health monitoring required in particular sectors. That is different from offering an optional benefit to office staff.
The employer should establish the actual duty, relevant information and lawful basis with the appropriate occupational health and data protection advisers. Do not tell people that a voluntary step-count challenge is mandatory health surveillance, or assume that consent is the right basis for a compulsory process.
Likewise, a medical test ordered for one disclosed purpose should not quietly become a different test. The ICO says workers must be told about additional testing of an existing sample and give freely provided consent for that different test. The purpose and scope must remain clear.
How can we judge whether the programme is useful?
Start with what staff can actually use. Record access, participation fairly across groups, patient experience and follow-through at a level that protects individuals. Separate uptake from health improvement and avoid claiming a wearable prevented illness because a dashboard changed.
Our guide to measuring employee wellbeing outcomes explains why attendance and clinical benefit are different measures. The separate guide to employer-funded screening confidentiality focuses on who receives screening information. This article addresses the narrower decision about optional ongoing tracking.
Sources and scope
ICO guidance on worker health monitoring and medical examinations and testing support the privacy and choice principles above. The ICO marks this guidance as under review following the Data (Use and Access) Act. Sources checked 4 November 2026. This is a planning guide, not legal advice for a particular employer or a statement that The Wellness supplies a wearable platform.