You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 262 No. 21, December 1, 1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Law and Medicine
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Mandatory Reporting of Occupational Diseases by Clinicians

Eugene Freund, MD, MSPH; Paul J. Seligman, MD; Terence L. Chorba, MD, MPH; Susan K. Safford, MD; Jonathan G. Drachman, MD; Harry F. Hull, MD

JAMA. 1989;262(21):3041-3044.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

OCCUPATIONAL disease surveillance is a critical step in the prevention of work-related injury and illness.1 Case reporting by health care providers to public health authorities is one way of identifying sources of exposure toward which control measures can be directed. Most health care providers are familiar with the existence of reporting requirements for infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and the sexually transmitted diseases; however, less attention has been paid by the medical community to recognizing and reporting occupationally related conditions.2,3

The Department of Labor estimated that in 1978 approximately 1.9 million people were severely or partially disabled from occupationally related diseases, at an annual cost of $11.4 billion in lost wages alone.4 The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported an incidence of occupational injury and illness for 1984 of 8.0 cases and 63.4 lost workdays per 100 full-time workers.5 This is most likely an underestimate, especially for . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]


Author Affiliations

From the Medical Section, Surveillance Branch, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control, Cincinnati, Ohio (Drs Freund and Seligman); the Epidemiology Program Office, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Ga (Drs Chorba, Safford, and Drachman); and the New Mexico Health and Environment Department, Santa Fe (Dr Hull).


Footnotes

Reprint requests to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Pkwy, Mailstop R21, Cincinnati, OH 45226 (Dr Freund).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1989 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.