Skip Navigation


Occupational Medicine Advance Access originally published online on April 28, 2005
Occupational Medicine 2005 55(5):385-388; doi:10.1093/occmed/kqi072
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Supplementary data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
55/5/385    most recent
kqi072v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Huggins, V.
Right arrow Articles by Burge, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Huggins, V.
Right arrow Articles by Burge, S.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Occupational Medicine. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions{at}oupjournals.org

Improving the quality of peak flow measurements for the diagnosis of occupational asthma

Vicky Huggins1, , Wasif Anees1, Charles Pantin2 and Sherwood Burge1

1 Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, Respiratory Medicine, Bordesley Green East, Birmingham B9 5SS, UK2 City General Hospital, Newcastle Road, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffs ST4 6QG, UK

Introduction Serial measurements of peak expiratory flow (PEF) are recommended in the evidence-based review list as the first stage in objective confirmation of occupational asthma. Different centres have reported widely different success in obtaining records of sufficient data quantity for diagnosis. We investigated different methods of instruction and determined the return rate and quality of the resulting record for the diagnosis of occupational asthma.

Methods Consecutive new referrals were recruited from a specialized occupational lung disease clinic and requested to carry out serial PEFs for the assessment of suspected occupational asthma. Requests to carry out the records were either from written postal instructions or personal instruction from a PEF specialist. Record quality received from other clinicians was also analysed separating those using dedicated occupational forms, and those submitting on graph type forms.

Results The postal return rate was 56% and the personal rate 85%. The number of records fulfilling all the data quality criteria were similar in the postal and personal groups (55 and 59%, respectively). Pre-existing records from other clinics plotted from graph charts (fulfilling all criteria) were only adequate in 23%, compared with 61% adequate for pre-existing records plotted from occupational forms. Failure of the record to contain consecutive work periods of ≥3 workdays was the most common failure.

Conclusion The return rate of PEFs for diagnosing occupational asthma is better when patients have been given specific instructions from a PEF specialist and the data quantity better when recorded on a dedicated form.

Keywords      Diagnosis; occupational asthma; peak expiratory; flow measurements


* Correspondence to: Vicky Huggins, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, Respiratory Medicine, Bordesley Green East, Birmingham B9 5SS, UK. Tel: +44 121 424 2745; fax: +44 121 772 0292. Email: vicky.huggins{at}heartsol.wmids.nhs.uk


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
ThoraxHome page
D Fishwick, C M Barber, L M Bradshaw, J Harris-Roberts, M Francis, S Naylor, J Ayres, P S Burge, J M Corne, P Cullinan, et al.
Standards of care for occupational asthma
Thorax, March 1, 2008; 63(3): 240 - 250.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.