PURPOSE: To assess the need for services in occupational medicine, we determined the prevalence of reported occupational exposures in patients seen in the primary care setting. In addition, we evaluated the validity of our survey instrument. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients (n = 1,112) seen over a 3-month period of time in the Primary Care Clinic at the Iowa City Veterans Affairs Medical Center were considered eligible for this study. A survey instrument was developed to obtain specific information regarding occupational exposures. The questionnaire was administered to 534 or 48% of all eligible patients. The validity of the survey instrument was evaluated by comparing chest radiographs in subjects with a history of exposure to asbestos, coal dust, or silica to those in patients who were not exposed to any of these agents. RESULTS: We found that almost 75% of the patients reported prior occupational exposure to at least one potentially toxic agent, and over 30% claimed exposure to at least four potentially toxic agents. The validation study indicated that the reported exposure history for asbestos, coal dust, and silica is significantly associated with anticipated changes on chest radiographs. These findings suggest that this easily administered survey instrument is valid for pneumoconiotic dust exposures and may also be valid for other potentially toxic exposures. CONCLUSION: Data from our study indicate that patients seen in the ambulatory care setting may have clinically significant occupational exposures that are relevant to their medical condition.
PURPOSE: To assess the need for services in occupational medicine, we determined the prevalence of reported occupational exposures in patients seen in the primary care setting. In addition, we evaluated the validity of our survey instrument. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients (n = 1,112) seen over a 3-month period of time in the Primary Care Clinic at the Iowa City Veterans Affairs Medical Center were considered eligible for this study. A survey instrument was developed to obtain specific information regarding occupational exposures. The questionnaire was administered to 534 or 48% of all eligible patients. The validity of the survey instrument was evaluated by comparing chest radiographs in subjects with a history of exposure to asbestos, coal dust, or silica to those in patients who were not exposed to any of these agents. RESULTS: We found that almost 75% of the patients reported prior occupational exposure to at least one potentially toxic agent, and over 30% claimed exposure to at least four potentially toxic agents. The validation study indicated that the reported exposure history for asbestos, coal dust, and silica is significantly associated with anticipated changes on chest radiographs. These findings suggest that this easily administered survey instrument is valid for pneumoconiotic dust exposures and may also be valid for other potentially toxic exposures. CONCLUSION: Data from our study indicate that patients seen in the ambulatory care setting may have clinically significant occupational exposures that are relevant to their medical condition.