Interdepartmental occupational disease registry: data integration for maintaining labor potential

Introduction. Occupational disease incidence is an integral indicator of the realized occupational risk and efficiency of prevention, the prognostic value of which strongly depends on data completeness and reliability. Yet, the current multi-stage and multi-channel Russian system for occupational disease registration reduces the completeness and trustworthiness of records and creates discrepancies between medical and insurance statistics.

The purpose of the study is to improve the system for registering occupational disease cases in the Sverdlovsk Region by developing architecture of an interdepartmental registry for dynamic surveillance, analysis of effectiveness of treatment and rehabilitation, and evaluation of disease outcomes.

Materials and Methods. The materials of the study included data from the Regional Registry of the Occupational Health Center at the Yekaterinburg Medical Research Center for Prophylaxis and Health Protection in Industrial Workers (Regional Registry), the Sverdlovsk Region Branch of the Social Fund of Russia (Social Fund), and health facilities of the Sverdlovsk Region. We analyzed the document flow and logistics between occupational health centers, health facilities, offices of the Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing (Rospotrebnadzor), and the Social Fund. We also compared data from the Regional Registry of confirmed occupational disease cases with those of the Social Fund and health facilities on insurance payments and followed-up patients with occupational diseases, respectively.

Results. The current system for occupational disease surveillance is characterized by multiple registration points, fragmented data, a lack of end-to-end patient support, and limited interdepartmental feedback, all leading to significant statistical discrepancies.

Limitations. The study is limited due to the lack of common formats and mandatory routing of data on occupational diseases between medical, insurance, and surveillance authorities.

Conclusion. The development and setting up of a single interdepartmental registry will improve the completeness and reliability of statistics on occupational diseases, ensure continuous patient support from diagnosis to outcome assessment and rehabilitation, and create a basis for management decisions aimed at maintaining the labor potential of the working population.

Compliance with ethical standards. Not applicable.

Contribution:
Gazimova V.G. – study conception and design, draft manuscript preparation and revision;
Sozonova T.V. – data collection and processing, draft manuscript preparation and revision;
Gurvich V.B. – draft manuscript preparation and revision;
Alshits E.A. – data preparation, revision;
Shastin A.S. – data preparation and processing;
Kuzmin D.V. – data collection and processing;
Ivashchenko M.A. – data collection and processing.
All authors are responsible for the integrity of all parts of the manuscript and approval of its final version.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding. The study had no sponsorship.

Received: June 18, 2026 / Revised: July 21, 2026 / Accepted: July 1, 2026 / Published: October 20, 2026

1. Tukov A.R., Vlasova I.V., Mikhaylenko A.M., Ziyatdinov M.N. Health statistics indicators as a factor in accounting for occupational morbidity. Ural’skiy meditsinskiy zhurnal. 2023; 22(5): 42–8. https://doi.org/10.52420/2071-5943-2023-22-5-42-48 https://elibrary.ru/kjybtj (in Russian)

2. Tukov A.R. Violation of medical statistics as one of the reasons for the low incidence of occupational diseases. Meditsina truda i promyshlennaya ekologiya. 2021; 61(8): 510–4. https://doi.org/10.31089/1026-9428-2021-61-8-510-514 https://elibrary.ru/amxqbw (in Russian)

3. Kubishin E.S. Reliability of occupational morbidity accounting in Russia: problems and solutions. Sotsial’no-trudovye issledovaniya. 2023; (1): 94–107. https://doi.org/10.34022/2658-3712-2023-50-1-94-107 https://elibrary.ru/rdklwy (in Russian)

4. Martsevich S.Yu., Lukina Yu.V., Kutishenko N.P., Tolpygina S.N., Lukyanov M.M., Drapkina O.M. Guidelines “Medical registries. Role in evidence-based medicine. Recommendations for creation”: a brief review. Kardiovaskulyarnaya terapiya i profilaktika. 2023; 22(6): 95–9. https://doi.org/10.15829/1728-8800-2023-3615 https://elibrary.ru/rpdydf (in Russian)

5. Ziyatdinov M.N., Tukov A.R., Mikhailenko A.M., Archegova M.G. Digital technologies in recording occupational diseases and their analysis. Meditsinskaya radiologiya i radiatsionnaya bezopasnost’. 2025; 70(1): 39–44. https://doi.org/10.33266/1024-6177-2025-70-1-39-44 https://elibrary.ru/ouhixd (in Russian)

6. Poteryaeva E.L., Shpagina L.A., Panacheva L.A., Smirnova E.L., Novikova I.I., Karmanovskaya S.A., et al. Analysis and prospects of the occupational pathology service in the Siberian Federal District. Meditsina truda i promyshlennaya ekologiya. 2025; 65(2): 86–94. https://doi.org/10.31089/1026-9428-2025-65-2-86-94 https://elibrary.ru/drjivt (in Russian)

7. Spreeuwers D., de Boer A.G., Verbeek J.H., van Dijk F.J. Characteristics of national registries for occupational diseases: international development and validation of an audit tool (ODIT). BMC Health Serv. Res. 2009; 9: 194. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-9-194

8. Urban P., Cikrt M., Hejlek A., Lukáš E., Pelclová D. The Czech National Registry of Occupational Diseases. Ten years of existence. Cent. Eur. J. Public Health. 2000; 8(4): 210–2.

9. Davoodi S., Sadeghniat Haghighi K., Rostam Niakan Kalhori S., Shams Hosseini N., Mohammadzadeh Z., Safdari R. Occupational disease registries: characteristics and experiences. Acta Inform. Med. 2017; 25(2): 136–40. https://doi.org/10.5455/aim.2017.25.136-140 https://elibrary.ru/yhjovx

10. Khoe L.C., Fitriana Saldi S.R., Isbayuputra M., Mansyur M., Wiseman V., Asante A. Global reporting and underreporting of occupational diseases: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2026; 21(3): e0345318. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0345318 https://elibrary.ru/focvpt

11. Hoy R.F., Brims F.J. The National Occupational Respiratory Disease Registry (NORDR): it is time to learn from failure. Med. J. Aust. 2022; 216(7): 328–30. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.51465 https://elibrary.ru/wmlmtf

12. Nowak-Pasternak J., Lipińska-Ojrzanowska A., Świątkowska B. Epidemiology of silicosis reported to the central register of occupational diseases over last 20 years in Poland. Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health. 2022; 35(5): 561–70. https://doi.org/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.01950 https://elibrary.ru/nyicdc

13. Zakharinskaya O.N., Nikitina M.I., Tereshchenko Yu.A., Baskova N.V., Mikhaylov A.O. About development of interagency register of people with occupational diseases in Krasnoyarsk territory. Meditsina truda i promyshlennaya ekologiya. 2015; (9): 56–7. https://elibrary.ru/umgppv (in Russian)

14. Bezrukova G.A., Mikerov A.N. Current aspects of patient register methodology: registers of occupational diseases (review). Meditsina truda i ekologiya cheloveka. 2022; (1): 99–118. https://doi.org/10.24412/2411-3794-2022-10107 https://elibrary.ru/fczhhs (in Russian)

15. Halkier-Sørensen L. Occupational skin diseases: reliability and utility of the data in the various registers; the course from notification to compensation and the costs. A case study from Denmark. Contact Dermatitis. 1998; 39(2): 71–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.1998.tb05836.x

16. Oksa P., Sauni R., Talola N., Virtanen S., Nevalainen J., Saalo A., et al. Trends in occupational diseases in Finland, 1975–2013: a register study. BMJ Open. 2019; 9(4): e024040. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024040

17. Izmerov N.F., Piktushanskaya T.E. Mortality parameters of patients with occupational diseases and evaluation of medical care quality. Meditsina truda i promyshlennaya ekologiya. 2016; (9): 18–23. 18–23. https://elibrary.ru/wmgsub (in Russian)

18. Ishteryakova O.A., Bodrova R.A. The effectiveness of complex rehabilitation in occupational diseases in the Republic of Tatarstan. Vestnik novykh meditsinskikh tekhnologiy. Elektronnoe izdanie. 2021; 15(5): 143–7. https://doi.org/10.24412/2075-4094-2021-5-3-15 https://elibrary.ru/umuubu (in Russian)

19. Bezrukova G.A., Pozdnyakov M.V., Novikova T.A. The use of digital technologies in social and hygienic monitoring of the health status of workers in harmful working conditions. Gigiena i Sanitaria. 2021; 100(10): 1157–62. https://doi.org/10.47470/0016-9900-2021-100-10-1157-1162 https://elibrary.ru/lxtlrr (in Russian)