Workers and respirators: What factors influence medical clearance? Experience in the petrochemical industry 2004--2008

This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from more than 2200 OSHA-mandated respirator medical evaluations performed between 2004 and 2008, with information initially obtained using an online questionnaire, to determine what factors influence medical clearance and the ability to safely wear respiratory protection in a large petrochemical company.^ The employees were mostly white males with a high school education, ranging in age from 25 to 60 years of age, who had been employed with the company an average of eight years. Their work was typically performed outdoors in a rural or offshore setting. Respirators were typically required for emergency response – escape or rescue only – and/or limited to less than four hours per month.^ Approximately 90% of the population achieved medical clearance by utilizing the online questionnaire. Of the remaining 10%, 66% were cleared after additional "hands-on" medical examination exam; 28% of the individuals' jobs were modified by their supervisor in order to not use a respirator, and 6% of the individuals (n=13) were excluded from wearing a respirator on the basis of the medical examination. The primary causes for exclusion from respirator use were cardiovascular (37.5%) and respiratory (31.3%) issues, followed by psychological (18.8%) and musculoskeletal (12.5%) concerns. Ultimately, over 99% of workers evaluated under this system were found capable of using respiratory protection safely. This questionnaire has proven to be an excellent health screening tool capable of initiating early detection and further investigation of potentially serious medical conditions within a large and diverse population in multiple locations. ^

Measuring value in cancer-related health care: A case study in head and neck cancer

In the current climate of escalating health care costs, defining value and accurately measuring it are two critical issues affecting not only the future of cancer care in particular but also the future of health care in general. Specifically, measuring and improving value in cancer-related health care are critical for continued advancements in research, management, and overall delivery of care. However, in oncology, most of this research has focused on value as it relates to insurance industry and payment reform, with little attention paid to value as the output of clinical interventions that encompass integrated clinical teams focusing on the entire cycle of care and measuring objective outcomes that are most relevant to patients. ^ In this study, patient-centered value was defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent, and calculated using objective functional outcomes and total care costs. The analytic sample comprised patients diagnosed with three common head and neck cancers—cancer of the larynx, oral cavity, and oropharynx—who were treated in an integrated tertiary care center over an approximately 10-year period. The results of this study provide initial empirical data that can be used to assess and ultimately to help improve the quality and value of head and neck cancer care, and more importantly they can be used by patients and clinicians to make better-informed decisions about care, particularly what therapeutic services and outcomes matter the most to patients.^