Outcomes in Contact Dermatitis
| Principal investigator(s): | D. Linn Holness |
| Sponsoring Institution: | St. Michael's Hospital |
Results
The 100 workers were similar to our general clinic population that we have characterized previously. Two thirds of those with work-related contact dermatitis (WRCD) had had some occupational health and safety or WHMIS training in their workplace, however training related to glove use and skin care was less common.
By the time of assessment at St. Michael’s Hospital, almost all the workers had seen their family doctor for their skin problem, on average 8 times, and 71% saw a dermatologist, on average 5 times. Workers reported that although the family doctors and dermatologists asked what their jobs were, they rarely asked further details about their workplace exposures and they provided minimal advice about job change or job modifications on return to work.
Six months post assessment, clinical improvement was noted in 40%. 38% were not working, almost all because of their skin problem. Of the 62% working 32% had changed job, almost all because of their skin problem. Two thirds had filed a workers’ compensation claim and 70% of the claims were accepted at 6 months. 62% saw their family doctor in follow-up during the 6 months following the diagnosis but rarely was advice provided related to job change or job modification.
Objective
There are many gaps in knowledge related to occupational disease including contact dermatitis. There is little descriptive information related to prevention, return to work and health care delivery for occupational contact dermatitis.
The objectives of the study were to: 1) describe outcome in workers with contact dermatitis over a six month period following diagnosis, 2) describe the return to work process in workers with contact dermatitis, including the roles of the injured worker, employer, health care providers and others and the modifications made to the workplace to accommodate the worker, and 3) describe workers’ compensation.
Methods
100 workers with hand dermatitis were enrolled and followed for 6 months post assessment at St. Michael’s Hospital. Information was collected at the time of diagnosis and at 3 and 6 months. Questionnaires were administered to collect information about clinical presentation and status, quality of life, health services utilization, workplace exposures and practices, the return to work process and workers’ compensation.
Conclusions
This descriptive information suggests that there are gaps in prevention and return to work programs for work-related skin disease. Research on effective strategies that are sustainable in the workplace is needed. The results also suggest that there is a need for refinement of health services delivery related to occupational disease. Design of the occupational health care delivery system to address these issues seems appropriate.
Publications:
Holness, D.L. (2002), “Workplace and health care characteristics of workers with possible contact dermatitis.”American Journal of Contact Dermatitis 13:95.
Saary, M.J., Holness, D.L. (2003), “Outcome measures in workers with contact dermatitis.” American Journal of Contact Dermatitis 14:111.
For more information:
holnessl@smh.toronto.on.ca
|
| | |
