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.
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.