Comparison of U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards and German Berufsgenossenschaften Guidelines for Preventive Occupational Health Examinations

Our plain-English summary of Comparison of U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards and German Berufsgenossenschaften Guidelines for Preventive Occupational Health Examinations, by K. Straif, M. Silverstein (American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 1997).

The study

• Authors: K. Straif, M. Silverstein
• Journal: American Journal of Industrial Medicine
• Published: 1997;31(4):373-80
• Cited by: 6 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

Thirty-three U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards contain mandated medical service provisions. The German Berufsgenossenschaften Guidelines for Preventive Occupational Health Examinations currently comprise 38 guidelines, which contain mandated medical service provisions. Based on a previously published method for scoring several medical program elements, the Berufsgenossenchaften guidelines were compared with the OSHA standards. Specific program elements were combined to generate and compare quality control scores, screening scores and surveillance scores. The asbestos standard/guidelines were compared in more detail (e.g., physical examination, laboratory tests, examination schedule, eligibility). The German medical requirements consistently ranked higher than their U.S. counterparts for overall scores and the scoring indices for quality control, screening, and surveillance. However, this comparison also reveals that few surveillance features have been incorporated into the medical requirements of either country, suggesting that neither country is making full use of workplace medical services for primary prevention.

In plain English

This article was not a study of workers' health. The authors compared the medical examination requirements in U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) general industry standards with those in the German Berufsgenossenschaften guidelines for preventive occupational health examinations. They used a previously published method that scored program elements from 0 (poor) to 2 (good), and reported the results as percentages of the highest possible total, quality control, screening and surveillance scores. Across the substances and conditions covered in both countries, mean total scores were 41 for the U.S. and 77 for Germany, and mean surveillance scores were 31 and 49. For asbestos, the U.S. standard scored 52 total and 30 for surveillance, and the German guideline scored 84 and 60. Neither asbestos rule required aggregate data analysis or workplace evaluations or changes. Only the OSHA rule required telling workers about the increased lung cancer risk from the combined effect of smoking and asbestos exposure. The authors concluded that neither country was making full use of medical services for primary prevention. They noted that they examined how the rules were designed, not whether they were followed.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Comparative analysis of regulations. Mandated medical provisions were scored using a previously published scoring method; this was not a study of exposed people.
• Who was studied: U.S. OSHA standards (33 contain mandated medical provisions) and 38 legally required German Berufsgenossenschaften guidelines. The scored comparison covered 24 substances plus respirator and hearing conservation programs that are regulated in both countries.
• Exposure: Multiple workplace substances and conditions, with a detailed comparison for asbestos. The U.S. standard (29 CFR 1910.1001) sets a permissible exposure limit of 0.1 f/cc for all fiber types. The German guideline (G 1.2) applies to chrysotile, which has a technical limit concentration of 0.25 f/cc, and to asbestos abatement work.
• Main results:
  • Asbestos rules, as percentages of the highest possible score. U.S.: total 52, quality 36, screening 83, surveillance 30. Germany: total 84, quality 86, screening 89, surveillance 60.
  • Mean scores across all compared standards. U.S.: total 41, quality 26, screening 65, surveillance 31. Germany: total 77, quality 74, screening 82, surveillance 49.
  • The OSHA cadmium standard scored best among the U.S. standards and was the only one with a surveillance score above 50%. Three German guidelines (asbestos, hearing conservation and the respirator program) reached 60%.
  • Neither the U.S. asbestos standard nor the German asbestos guideline required aggregate data analysis, workplace evaluations or workplace changes.
  • Only the OSHA asbestos standard required the physician's written opinion to state that the employee had been informed of the increased lung cancer risk from the combined effect of smoking and asbestos exposure. The German guideline has no such feature.
  • Examination schedules differed. The OSHA standard requires annual examinations and an examination when employment ends. The German guideline requires examinations every 1 to 3 years and continued regular examinations after employment ends.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that German requirements consistently ranked higher than U.S. ones. They also concluded that few surveillance features had been built into either country's requirements, suggesting that neither country was making full use of medical services for primary prevention.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The paper examined the design of the requirements, not actual compliance with them.
  • The paper did not evaluate the effectiveness of individual standards in depth.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: OSHA.

Related studies

• Analysis of workplace compliance measurements of asbestos by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (1984-2011) — D.M. Cowan, T.J. Cheng, et al. (2015)
• A labor-management occupational health service in a construction industry — I.R. Tabershaw, W.C. Cooper, et al. (1970)
• Occupational health in Australia — W.O. Phoon (1998)
• An industrial hygienist's perspective on generic standards — J.S. Lee (1989)
• Asbestos examinations for construction workers: a workable alternative — M.D. Whorton (1986)
• Development of a medical examination program for former workers at a Department of Energy national laboratory — P.N. Breysse, V. Weaver, et al. (2002)

Browse more research in American Journal of Industrial Medicine, or return to medical research.