ACUTE TRAUMATIC INJURIES IN AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURING

Citation
M. Warner et al., ACUTE TRAUMATIC INJURIES IN AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURING, American journal of industrial medicine, 34(4), 1998, pp. 351-358
Citations number
39
Categorie Soggetti
Public, Environmental & Occupation Heath
ISSN journal
02713586
Volume
34
Issue
4
Year of publication
1998
Pages
351 - 358
Database
ISI
SICI code
0271-3586(1998)34:4<351:ATIIAM>2.0.ZU;2-X
Abstract
Motor vehicle manufacturing, with its varied tasks, challenging work e nvironment, and diverse worker populations, presents many hazards to e mployees. This study examined routinely collected surveillance data fr om a major motor vehicle manufacturer to identify injury types, high-r isk workers, causes of injury, and factors associated with work loss. Injury and personnel data were used to calculate injury rates. Injury data were fi om the routinely collected medical and safety surveillanc e system on occupational injuries. The number of persons working in th e plants was estimated using year-end personnel reports. Key word sear ches supplementing the analyses provided insight into the specific cir cumstances of injury. The most common injuries were sprains/strains (3 9% of the total), lacerations (22%), and contusions (15%). Forty-nine percent of the injuries resulted in one or more lost or restricted wor kdays; 25% resulted in 7 or more lost or restricted workdays. The inju ries most likely to result in work loss were amputations, hernias and fractures. Sprains/strains accounted for 65% of all lost workdays. Inj ury rates ranged from 13.8 per 100 person-years at stamping plants to 28.7 at parts depots. Even within similar types of plants, injury rate s varied widely, with a twofold difference among the individual assemb ly plants in overall injury rates. Injury surveillance systems with de scriptive data on injury events shed light on the circumstances under which certain types of injuries occur and can provide the basis for pr eventive interventions. Sources of variation and potential biases are discussed, providing guidance for those interested in designing and us ing surveillance systems for occupational injuries. (C) 1998 Wiley-Lis s, Inc.