Agreement in diagnosing occupational asthma by occupational and respiratory physicians who report to surveillance schemes for work-related ill-health.

OBJECTIVES: To assess diagnostic agreement for occupational asthma, and to identify case and rater characteristics associated with this diagnosis. METHODS: Summaries of possible occupational asthma cases were sent to 104 occupational and respiratory physicians. Raters assigned likelihood scores (0-100%) of occupational asthma based on case histories (phase 1), and on histories plus investigative procedures (phase 2). Interclass correlation coefficients were calculated as statistical measures of reliability for occupational asthma scores. Comparisons between mean scores were assessed for statistical significance using tests based on multilevel models. RRs were calculated to summarise effects of raters' demographics, and of supplying investigative procedures information. RESULTS: Occupational asthma scores showed limited agreement within each group of (occupational or respiratory) physicians, but scores were not systematically different. The difference between mean overall scores was 2.1% (52.1% occupational physicians; 50.0% respiratory physicians) in phase 1 (95% CI -2.6 to 6.8, p=0.37). In phase 2, mean overall scores were 46.1% (occupational physicians) and 41.5% (respiratory physicians); the difference in mean overall scores was 4.6% (95% CI -3.5 to 12.5, p=0.27). Raters with General Medical Council registration > or =1986 were more likely to give a positive occupational asthma diagnosis. In phase 2, male raters were more likely to label cases as occupational asthma than female raters (RR 4.5, 95% CI 3.3 to 6.0). CONCLUSIONS: The RR of a positive occupational asthma diagnosis was unaffected by clinical specialty. Further work on why physicians consider cases to be occupational asthma will assist better diagnosis and prevention of this disease.

Facilities for investigating occupational asthma in UK non-specialist respiratory departments.

BACKGROUND: The facilities which should be available to physicians offering specialist occupational asthma services have recently been agreed upon by a UK panel of experts. AIMS: This study aimed to investigate whether these facilities are available in UK non-specialist secondary care respiratory departments and to document tertiary care referral patterns. METHODS: A random sample of 100 UK respiratory units was selected, and the lead consultant invited to participate. Face-to-face interviews were conducted to document information on departmental facilities available for investigating cases of occupational asthma and utilization of tertiary referral centres. RESULTS: In total, 66% of consultants interviewed had seen a case of occupational asthma in the previous month, and 76% reported having ever referred a patient with suspected occupational asthma to a specialist centre for further investigation (referral distance range 1-111 miles). All the departments were able to perform the investigations previously deemed an absolute necessity in all patients. The availability of in-house facilities that were deemed as must be available varied between 3-100%. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate that while the majority of basic facilities are widely available, many respiratory departments do not have direct access to investigations routinely required to investigate occupational asthma. Access to specialist occupational respiratory centres varies within the UK, and in some parts of the country involves long travelling distances for patients.