Recording occupation in general practice--a second cycle audit

Physicians' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice of Occupational Diseases Diagnosis and Occupational History Taking

OBJECTIVES

This cross-sectional study assessed physicians' knowledge and attitudes toward occupational diseases, their practice of occupational history taking, and the associated factors and barriers.

METHODS

From January 1 to June 30, 2023, Egyptian physicians from different specialties (n = 278) completed a questionnaire including sociodemographic and occupational data, questions measuring knowledge, attitudes, practice, and barriers.

RESULTS

The significant predictor of low knowledge was the nonuse of a standard history form. The lack of undergraduate education/postgraduate training in occupational diseases was the predictor of unfavorable attitudes and poor practice. Unfavorable attitudes also predicted poor practice. The main barriers were insufficient knowledge and busy schedules.

CONCLUSIONS

Different specialties physicians are essential in recognizing occupational diseases. They need to be knowledgeable about occupational diseases within their specialties. Specialized undergraduate and postgraduate training in this topic can help achieve such needs.

Collecting occupation and hazards information in primary care using O*NET

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of collecting occupation and occupational hazard data in a primary care setting, using the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) database to assist with classification.

METHODS

We collected data from 204 employed adult primary care patients in Toronto, Canada, on their occupation and exposure to occupational hazards, and mapped their job titles to the O*NET database. We compared their self-reported occupational hazard exposures with the likelihood of exposure on O*NET.

RESULTS

Exposure to repetitive arm movement was reported by 78%, to vapors/gas/dust/fumes by 30%, to noise by 30%, and to heavy loads by 31%. Significant differences in exposure to vapors/gas/dust/fumes were associated with work precarity. We matched the majority of job titles (89%) to O*NET categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Collecting employment information in primary care setting was feasible, with the majority of job titles mapping onto O*NET classifications.

Attitudes and practices of ophthalmology doctors in London (UK) on the importance of discussing work as a clinical outcome with patients during consultations: A cross sectional survey

Background

Limited research suggests that non-occupational health doctors rarely discuss occupation with their patients. There is a gap in research regarding the attitudes and practices of doctors towards discussing patient occupation and return to work. The aim of this work was to explore the attitudes of ophthalmology doctors towards work as a clinical outcome and assess the need for occupational health training among participants (doctors).

Methods

A cross-sectional survey among doctors working in ophthalmology in two London teaching hospitals. The survey focused on the attitudes of doctors towards ‘work’ as a clinical outcome, their practices of asking patients about occupation, their perceived level of competency in this area of clinical practice and the level of training doctors had received in this field. Descriptive data analysis was undertaken and results presented as frequencies and proportions.

Results

The response rate was 30/72 (42%). Approximately a quarter (8/30;27%) of doctors ‘always’ discussed return to work during care planning whilst the majority (25/30;87%) of doctors agreed or strongly agreed that this should always be the case. Over half of the doctors had received no formal OH training on how to discuss or assess the impact of health on work and only 17/30 (57%) considered themselves competent in discussing these work outcomes with patients. Over half agreed that additional training would be useful, with the majority believing that it would be most useful at all stages of medical training.

Conclusion

We found the majority of ophthalmology doctors regard ‘return to work’ as an important clinical outcome yet most do not routinely discuss work outcomes with patients to inform care planning. Majority of doctors lack training in how to discuss issues relating to work and would benefit from additional OH training.

Doctors' attitudes to patient occupation information in four hospital specialties

BACKGROUND

Although we do not know how often doctors enquire about their patients' work, evidence suggests that occupation is often not recorded in clinical notes. There is a lack of research into doctors' views on the importance of patient occupation or their educational needs in this area.

AIMS

To assess doctors' attitudes to using patient occupation information for care-planning and to determine doctors' need for specific training in occupational health.

METHODS

We undertook a cross-sectional survey of doctors in cardiology, obstetrics and gynaecology, oncology and orthopaedics. Our questionnaire explored attitudes of the doctors to asking patients about their occupational status, their training and competency to do so, and their training needs in occupational health.

RESULTS

The response rate was 42/46 (91%). Obstetrics and gynaecology 6/9 (67%) and oncology doctors 3/6 (50%) reported enquiring about the nature of patients' occupations' 'most of the time'/'always' and that it rarely influenced clinical decisions. This contrasted with orthopaedic doctors 12/12 (100%) and cardiology doctors 14/15 (93%). Although 19/42 (45%) participants felt it was important to ask patients their occupation, only 10/42 (24%) 'always' asked patients about their work. The majority of participants 29/41 (71%) reported receiving no training in occupational health, but 37/42 (88%) considered that some training would be useful.

CONCLUSIONS

Training on the importance of occupation and its' role as a clinical outcome in care-planning, might help doctors feel more competent in discussing the impact of health on work with patients.

Training GPs to improve their management of work-related problems: results of a cluster randomized controlled trial

Background: Paying attention to their patients’ work and recognizing work-related problems is challenging for many general practitioners (GPs).

Objectives: To assess the effect of training designed to improve the care for patients with work-related problems in general practice.

Methods: A cluster randomized controlled trial among 32 Dutch GPs. GPs in the intervention group received five-hour training. GPs in the control group were not trained. Included patients (age 18–63, working ≥12 h per week) completed baseline questionnaires and follow-up questionnaires planned after one year. Primary outcome at patient level was patients’ expectations about their ability to work, measured using the return-to-work self-efficacy scale (RTW-SE). Primary outcomes on GP level were their use of ICPC-code Z05 (‘work-related problem’) per 1000 working-age patients and percentage of the electronic medical files of working-age patients in which information about occupation had been recorded.

Results: A total of 640 patients completed the baseline questionnaire and 281 the follow-up questionnaire. We found no statistically significant differences in patients’ RTW-SE scores: intervention 4.6 (95%CI: 4.2–5.0); control 4.5 (95%CI: 4.1–4.9). Twenty-nine GPs provided data about the GP-level outcomes, which showed no statistically significant differences: use of ICPC code Z05 11.6 (95%CI: 4.7–18.6) versus 6.0 (95%CI: –1.2 to 13.2) per 1000 working-age patients; recording of occupation 28.8% (95%CI: 25.8–31.7) versus 28.6% (95%CI: 25.6–31.6).

Conclusion: Training GPs did not improve patients’ work-related self-efficacy or GPs’ registration of work-related problems and occupation.

Reporting and prediction of work-related sickness absence by general practitioners

BACKGROUND

Information on sickness absence (SA) duration in general practice is difficult to record. The duration of absence certified by general practitioners (GPs) can be viewed as a prognosis for return to work. The Health and Occupation Research network in General Practice (THOR-GP) collects SA information from GPs associated with cases of work-related ill-health. A sample of these cases is followed up 1 year retrospectively to gather information on the duration of absence.

AIMS

To examine the extent of the underestimation of SA in routinely reported data and to investigate how well GPs predict patients' return to work.

METHODS

THOR-GPs submit case and SA information using a web-based form. GPs who submitted selected cases were asked about the total number of days of SA and whether the patient had returned to work.

RESULTS

THOR-GPs' routine SA data collection underestimated absence duration by 61%. According to the retrospective data, a much larger proportion of periods of absence due to work-related mental ill-health developed into long-term SA (60%) than episodes attributed to musculoskeletal disorders (32%). In over half the reported cases, the return to work was longer than the GP initially predicted.

CONCLUSIONS

THOR-GP prospectively reported SA data underestimated the total length of absence; however, these data can examine the episodic rates of absence within different groups. More accurate longitudinal data can be collected retrospectively. GPs' ability to predict the length of time a patient will be away from work is important to enable treatment and rehabilitation planning in order to decrease the likelihood of a patient falling into long-term SA.