Introduction

Occupational disease remains a substantial but often under‑recognised contributor to ill health, healthcare utilisation and reduced workforce productivity in the United Kingdom. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) estimates that 1.9 million workers experienced work‑related ill health in 2024/25, with the greatest burden arising from mental ill health, musculoskeletal disorders, respiratory diseases and occupational cancers.

This review examines whether existing NHS and occupational health datasets can determine how many occupational diseases are diagnosed following hospital admission after multiple primary care consultations. It also assesses the current evidence base and identifies gaps requiring further research.

Current Evidence Base

No national dataset currently links occupational exposure, primary care consultations and hospital diagnoses in a way that allows this diagnostic pathway to be quantified. Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) do not record occupational exposure or the number of GP consultations, and occupational disease surveillance systems such as THOR do not track patient journeys across primary and secondary care.

Evidence of diagnostic delay exists, particularly for occupational respiratory diseases and cancers, where missed opportunities and late recognition have been documented. Studies of occupational asthma, COPD and cancer illustrate delays in diagnosis, but these findings are condition‑specific and do not provide a national picture of occupational disease pathways.

Broader patient safety literature highlights missed diagnostic opportunities in primary care, suggesting that similar patterns likely affect occupational conditions. However, the absence of linked datasets means the scale of delayed diagnosis in occupational disease cannot currently be quantified.

Key Findings

• No national dataset captures the full diagnostic pathway from primary care to hospital admission for occupational disease.
• Occupational exposure is not routinely recorded in NHS clinical systems, limiting identification of work‑related conditions.
• Evidence of diagnostic delay is strongest for respiratory diseases and occupational cancers.
• Existing surveillance systems provide partial insight but cannot quantify missed opportunities or repeated consultations.
• Any national estimate of delayed occupational disease diagnosis would be speculative given current data limitations.

Recommendations

This review indicates that linked datasets combining primary care records need to be developed, e.g., HES, THOR, cancer registry and mortality data to enable pathway analysis. Improved routine recording of occupational exposure within NHS systems is required. Systematic reviews of diagnostic pathways across a wider range of occupational diseases are needed. Population‑level studies to examine diagnostic delays and missed opportunities should be conducted and integrate occupational disease recognition into broader diagnostic safety initiatives.

Overall Conclusion

Delayed diagnosis of occupational disease is plausible and supported by evidence in specific conditions, particularly respiratory disease and cancer. However, the absence of linked datasets and the lack of routine occupational exposure recording mean the scale of the problem cannot currently be quantified. This remains a significant gap in UK occupational health and health services research.

Robust data linkage across care settings is essential to understand diagnostic pathways, identify missed opportunities and improve early recognition of occupational disease. Current evidence is limited by incomplete datasets, reliance on clinician reporting, and a narrow focus on respiratory conditions. Addressing these gaps is critical for improving diagnostic safety and reducing the burden of occupational disease.

References

Cheraghi-Sohi, S., Campbell, S.M., Panagioti, M., Esmail, A., Campbell, J. and Avery, A.J. (2021) ‘Incidence, origins and avoidable harm of missed opportunities in diagnosis’, BMJ Quality & Safety, 30(12), pp. 977-985. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2020-012594.

Health and Safety Executive (2025) Work-related ill health and occupational disease statistics in Great Britain. Bootle: Health and Safety Executive.

Money, A., Carder, M., Hussey, L. and Agius, R.M. (2015) ‘The utility of information collected by occupational disease surveillance systems’, Occupational Medicine, 65(8), pp. 626-631. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqv138.

NHS England (2025) Hospital Episode Statistics: Admitted Patient Care. London: NHS England.

Perret, J.S. et al. (2023) ‘Undiagnosed and overdiagnosed COPD…’, BMJ Open Respiratory Research, 10(1), e001478. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2022-001478.

Rodriguez, J.L. et al. (2025) ‘Decoding diagnostic delay in COPD’, Diagnostics, 15(17), 2209. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15172209.

Walters, G.I. et al. (2019) ‘Hospital attendances and acute admissions preceding a diagnosis of occupational asthma’, Lung, 197(5), pp. 613-616. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00408-019-00249-w.