These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Assessment of respiratory health surveillance for laboratory animal workers.
    Author: Allan KM, Murphy E, Ayres JG.
    Journal: Occup Med (Lond); 2010 Sep; 60(6):458-63. PubMed ID: 20448059.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Occupational asthma is the most common work-related respiratory disease in the UK. Individuals whose work potentially puts them at risk include those exposed to laboratory animals. Workplace health surveillance programmes aim to minimize these health risks but are recognized to be challenging to implement effectively. AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy of the respiratory health surveillance programme provided by a National Health Service occupational health service (OHS) to individuals potentially exposed to respiratory sensitizers at work with laboratory animals. METHODS: Case notes from the OHS respiratory health surveillance programme over a 2 year period were examined. Symptom detection by the OHS surveillance questionnaire was compared to a cross-sectional survey using items from the validated International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (IUATLD) questionnaire. The surveillance spirometry records were audited against good standards of practice. RESULTS: The response rate for the anonymized survey using IUATLD questions was 60% and detected similar numbers of potential work-related symptoms to the OHS surveillance questionnaire. Over 80% of spirometry records met accepted standards for technique, effort and recording. In this study of 85 individuals over 2 years, three cases of occupational asthma were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The current surveillance appears to be effective in identifying potential cases of occupational asthma. Modification of the questionnaire content and layout might improve response rates. This study suggests that spirometry does not detect new cases other than those already identified by questionnaire.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]