rates of fatalities and non-fatal occupational …€¦ · 02/11/2018 · learning with purpose...
Post on 15-Oct-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Learning with Purpose
RATES OF FATALITIES AND NON-FATAL
OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES IN LOBSTERING
FULMER S 1, BUCHHOLZ B 1, JENKINS P 2, SCRIBANI M 2
1 UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL, LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS, USA
2 NORTHEAST CENTER FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
AGRICULTURE – FORESTRY - FISHING,
COOPERSTOWN, NEW YORK, USA
Learning with Purpose
The audience will learn:
• Why this investigation was needed, and
how it was conducted
• The lobstering fatality rate in 2012-2015
• Body segments most affected by
occupational exposure to lobstering, and
the prevalence of pain
• The incidence rate of non-fatal injury by
type, and by location
• Important concerns for prevention
GOALS OF THIS
PRESENTATION
Learning with Purpose
OBJECTIVE
BACKGROUND
• To compile data to describe and analyze injury and total occupational
exposure associated with lobstering in the Northeast United States.
Learning with Purpose
LOBSTERING
BACKGROUND
Massachusetts
$82 Million
2016
http://www.maine.gov/dmr/commercial-fishing/landings/documents/lobster.graph.pdf
NMFS Landings Query
Learning with Purpose
SAMPLING
METHODS
• Most lobstermen are from Maine, Massachusetts
State Licenses* (%) Fatalities** FatalitiesPercentage
Connecticut 200 (2) 0 0Maine 8300 (78) 10 56
Massachusetts 1300 (12) 4 22New Hampshire 365 (3) 2 11
New Jersey 70 (1) 0 0New York 300 (3) 1 6
Rhode Island 80 (1) 1 6Total 10615 (100) 18 100
* Non-official estimates, given by state licensing personnel, 2011
**Fatalities for the years 2000-2009 (CDC 2010).
Learning with Purpose
RECRUITING A COHORT
METHODS
• Sample size: using data from prior studies, we estimated mean exposure,
and decided to sample 120 lobster permit holders per state, plus an
additional 15% attrition (total 138 per state) to be representative and
feasible.
• Recruiting protocol: mailed invitation, up to 8 follow up phone calls at
varying times of day
• Informed consent at recruitment, then first interview
• Interviewing:
– Convenience emphasized – call, leave message but don’t ask for call back
– Questionnaire designed to limit time engaged in interview – 5 minutes or less
– By phone, in person
Learning with Purpose
TWO TRACKS, TARGETS OF DATA COLLECTION
METHODS
Pain prevalence:– A modified Nordic Musculoskeletal
Questionnaire
– Captains and voluntary crew, in-person
– Administered once, cross-sectional
Injury incidence– Location, work-related, treatment
– Captains only, by phone
– Administered quarterly over four years,
longitudinal
Learning with Purpose
TWO TRACKS, TARGETS OF DATA COLLECTION
METHODS
Pain prevalence:– Aches, pain, discomfort:
• Non-acute, non-specific, cumulative
trauma
• Location
• Duration
• Intensity
Injury incidence– Reportable injuries in prior 3 months:
– Cuts
– Sprains
– Bruises
– Unidentified pains
– Fractures
– Burns
– Amputations
– Total exposure per boat:
– Hours/trip,
– Day/week,
– Weeks/quarter,
– Number of crew
Learning with Purpose
COHORT DEMOGRAPHICS
RESULTS
Maine Massachusetts Total
Captain Sternman* Captain Sternman* Captains Sternmen* Total
N 137 75 134 49 271 124 395
Gender (%male) 98.5% 89.3% 99.3% 89.8% 98.8% 88.9% 95.9%
mean + SD mean + SD mean + SD mean + SD mean + SD mean + SD mean + SD
Age (yr) 54+13 38+15 56+12 40+14 55+13 39+15 50+15
Experience (yr) 33+13 14+14 28+13 9+8 31+13 12+2 25+16
Height (cm) 180+8 178+8 178+8 178+10 180+8 178+8 178+8
Weight (kg) 94+17 84+17 89+15 84+16 92+16 84+17 89+16
*Sternmen were sampled by convenience. May not be representative.
Learning with Purpose
TOTAL OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE = 5,847 FTE
RESULTS
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Winter Spring Summer Autumn
4 year average FTE per quarter, 2012-2015
Maine Massachusetts
Learning with Purpose
ANNUAL FATALITY RATE = (N/FTE)*100,000
RESULTS
Year FTE Fatalities (N) Rate
2012 5987 1 17
2013 5830 0 0
2014 6097 4 66
2015 5946 0 0
2012-2015 5,847 5 21
Learning with Purpose
PREVALENCE OF ACHES, PAINS, DISCOMFORTS
RESULTS
Location Prevalence1. Low back 49.9%2. Knees 26.6%3. Right shoulder only 18.7%4. Both hands 15.9%5. Ankles/feet 14.9%
Top 5 body locations for pain occurring in the last 3 months (N=395)
Learning with Purpose
ACUTE INJURY INCIDENCE RATES
RESULTS
Type of Injury All reported
N Rate
Sprains 178 17.8
Cuts 149 14.8
Unidentified pains 95 9.4
Bruises 72 7.2
Fractures 12 1.2
Burns 4 0.4
Amputations 2 0.2
Total 512 51.1
Incidence rate = (N/EH)*200,000; EH = Employee hours = 2,005,525.7 total hours of lobstering in the sample for four year
Learning with Purpose
ACUTE INJURY INCIDENCE RATES
RESULTS
Location Rate (per 100FTE)
1. Right hand only 3.6
2. Knees 2.0
3. Right shoulder only 1.8
4. Left hand only 1.8
5. Left shoulder only 1.7
Top 6 body locations for acute injury rates that required treatment
Incidence rate = (N/EH)*200,000; EH = Employee hours = 2,005,525.7 total hours of lobstering in the sample for four year
Learning with Purpose
PROFILE OF BURDEN OF SUFFERING MSD
RESULTS
• The acute injury rate did not appear to decline over the course of 4 years.
• The high prevalence of pain was similar in profile to the body locations of
acute injuries, but not an exact reflection.
• Summer and fall were the most active seasons, while spring and summer
had statistically higher prevalence of pain than fall. No other statistically
significant differences in pain prevalence between seasons were observed.
• Differences in injury rates were not statistically significant between the
states.
• Fatality rate (21/100KFTE) looks smaller than other fisheries in the region:
– 300/100KFTE multi-species groundfish (2005-2014; NIOSH)
– 100/100KFTE flounder/scup/sea bass (2005-2014; NIOSH)
Learning with Purpose
FOCUS FOR INTERVENTION
DISCUSSION
• Data on acute incidence and prevalence of pain would
indicate a focus on intervening at exposures impacting these
outcomes:
1. Back pain
2. Knee pain and injury
3. Hand/wrist injuries
4. Shoulder pain and injuries
• However, the acute injury incidence densities are high at
most body locations.
• Most serious exposure is the cumulative effect of activities
associated with pulling in and breaking down traps.
Learning with Purpose
SUGGESTIONS FOR INTERVENTION
DISCUSSION
• Effective interventions can be developed with focus. In fact, the variability
of current practices include examples of comparatively better ergonomics.
Lobstermen don’t routinely discuss these concerns with each other.
• Engage lobstermen in participatory research to excite and build community
around prevention and improving conditions in the lobster industry.
– No intervention too big, or too small.
– Hydraulics expert is as integral as harbormaster in the industry infrastructure
• Generate a job exposure/intervention matrix for wide dissemination, including
safety measures to prevent entanglements, to inform and enable the strong Do-It-
Yourself culture.
Learning with Purpose
SUMMARY
CONCLUSION
The data show that the lobstering
industry characteristically has high
rates of injury, high prevalence of pain,
and lower rates of occupational
fatalities compared to other
commercial fisheries.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
With deep appreciation to the lobstermen who participated and
informed us, and to the Northeast Ag Center for support.
top related