The objective of this study was to evaluate repeated patient handling injuries following a multi-factor ergonomic intervention program among health care workers.
This was a quasi-experimental study which had an intervention group and a non-randomized control group. Data were collected from six hospitals in Saskatchewan, Canada from September 1, 2001 to December 1, 2006.
A total of 1,480 individuals who had a previous injury were eligible for the study. Medium and small size hospitals in the intervention group had significantly fewer repeated injuries than in the control group. Multivariate analysis showed that the intervention group had 38.1% lower odds of having repeated injury compared to the control group, after adjusting for hospital size.
The work-related repeated injury after a multi-factor intervention program was reduced. The synergistic relationships between components of multi-factor intervention and applicability of injury prevention programs to different settings need to be further explored.
Implementing a multi-factor program with the right equipment and training can lower the risk of injury among health care workers.
Legislators in the Canadian province of Alberta have successfully resisted pressure to increase state injury-prevention efforts.
This study seeks to identify the narratives used by legislators to manage political pressure for increased injury-prevention efforts.
Narrative analysis of legislative transcripts from 2000 to 2012.
Three narratives are identified in the data: (1) injuries are caused by ignorance and inattention, (2) workplaces are safe and getting safer, and (3) risk is inevitable and mitigation is (too) expensive. Each narrative has 2-4 subcomponents.
The consistency of the messages delivered by legislators over time suggests an intentional effort to frame workplace injury in ways that manage political pressure for greater state efforts to prevent workplace injuries while maintaining the government's legitimacy. The narratives used by legislators draw on widely held beliefs about workplace injuries, including the careless worker myth and the notion that safety pays.
With the June 2010 publication of EU Council Directive 2010/32/EU scrutiny is now being focused on the safety and protection of diabetes nurses.
We used a questionnaire to study the frequency and risks of Needlestick Injuries (NSI) associated with diabetic injections in European hospitals. 634 nurses participated from 13 western European countries and Russia.
When patients with diabetes who self-inject at home are hospitalized injections are given always by the staff in 31% of cases, by the patients themselves where possible in 33%, initially by staff, then the patient takes over in 12% and both staff and patient throughout the stay in 21%. 86% of nurses said their hospitals had a written policy on the prevention of NSI but, where it was available, only 56% were familiar with it. 67% of the nurses had not attended any training on the prevention of NSI and only 13% had attended one in the last year. 7.1% of nurses report recapping needles and 5.9% report storing unprotected needles temporarily on a tray, trolley or cart. 32% of nurses report suffering a NSI while giving a diabetic injection at some point in the past. 29.5% of NSI occurred while recapping a used needle. 57% of nurses unscrew pen needles using their own fingers. In 80% cases the source patient's identity was known and the sharp item was "contaminated" (known previous percutaneous exposure to patient) in almost half the cases (43%). NSIs were reported to the proper authorities in only 2/3 of cases.
Our study shows that frequent NSI occur in European nurses treating people with diabetes in hospital settings. These injuries are a source of possible infection despite the small size of diabetes needles. The introduction of safety-engineered medical devices has been shown to reduce the risk of injury. A new European Directive that has now come into force specifically stipulates that wherever there is risk of sharps injury, the user and all healthcare workers must be protected by adequate safety precautions, including the use of "medical devices incorporating safety-engineered protection mechanisms".
Animal-related injuries are among the most common occupational injuries in agriculture. Despite the large number of documented animal-related injuries in dairy farming, the issue has received relatively limited attention in the scientific literature. The farmers' own perspectives and views on risks and safety during livestock handling and what they think are effective ways of preventing injuries are valuable for the future design of effective interventions. This paper presents results from a qualitative study with the aim to investigate Swedish dairy farmers' own experience of animal-related occupational injuries, as well as their perceptions of and attitudes towards them, including risk and safety issues, and prevention measures. A total of 12 dairy farmers with loose housing systems participated in the study. Data collection was conducted by means of semistructured in-depth interviews. Three main themes with an impact on risks and safety when handling cattle were identified: the handler, the cattle, and the facilities. They all interact with each other, influencing the potential risks of any work task. Most of the farmers believed that a majority of the injuries can be prevented, but there are always some incidents that are impossible to foresee. In conclusion, this study indicates that Swedish dairy farmers are aware of the dangers from working with cattle. However, even though safety is acknowledged by the farmers as an important and relevant issue, in the end safety is often forgotten or not prioritized. One concern is that farmers are willing to take calculated risks to save money or time. In situations where they work alone with high stress levels and under economic distress, safety issues are easily given low priority.