RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Current industry classification systems in the United States do not differentiate mechanized and nonmechanized logging operations. The objectives of this article are to quantify injury risk differences between mechanized and nonmechanized logging operations in Washington State and to evaluate for potential injury risk tradeoffs, such as decreasing traumatic injuries while increasing nontraumatic injuries that might occur when mechanized logging operations are substituted for nonmechanized logging operations. METHODS: Using Washington State workers' compensation insurance risk classes to differentiate mechanized and nonmechanized logging operations, injury and illness claims data and employer reported hours were used to compare claim rates and to characterize injuries by type of logging operation. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2014, the accepted Washington State worker's compensation claim rate for nonmechanized logging was 46.4 per 100 full-time equivalent employees compared to 6.7 per 100 full-time equivalent (FTE) for mechanized logging activities. The rate ratio for comparing nonmechanized to mechanized logging claims rates for all accepted claims was 6.9 (95% Confidence Interval 6.4-7.5). Claim rates for traumatic injury and nontraumatic injuries in nonmechanized logging exceeded comparable rates in mechanized logging activities, although the distribution of types of injury differed by type of logging operation. A greater percentage of accepted claims in nonmechanized logging were traumatic injuries than in mechanized logging (92.2% vs. 85.0%, respectively). In addition, nonmechanized logging had higher total claim and medical costs per FTE and had a higher proportion of claims with lost work time than mechanized logging. CONCLUSION: Mechanized logging offers a considerable safety advantage over nonmechanized logging operations. Continued efforts to increase the mechanization of logging operations will result in decreased injury rates.
Asunto(s)
Accidentes de Trabajo/economía , Agricultura Forestal/instrumentación , Traumatismos Ocupacionales/economía , Indemnización para Trabajadores/economía , Accidentes de Trabajo/estadística & datos numéricos , Costos y Análisis de Costo , Agricultura Forestal/economía , Humanos , WashingtónRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Underreporting in the nation's primary source of non-fatal occupational injury and illness data are well documented, but worker-level characteristics of unreported cases have not been fully explored. METHODS: Bureau of Labor Statistics' Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII) data were linked to Washington workers' compensation claims to identify injury and claim characteristics associated with unreported cases. Workers' compensation administrative date data were used to characterize timing of disability and SOII case eligibility. RESULTS: Based on claim date data, one in five lost time claims with an injury date in the survey year were likely ineligible for SOII case reporting during the survey year. Among SOII-eligible claims, those involving sprains or strains, employer protests, and those not eligible for work disability payments until months after the initial injury were least likely to be reported in SOII. CONCLUSIONS: SOII case capture is limited both by its cross sectional survey design and employer underreporting. Am. J. Ind. Med. 60:264-275, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Asunto(s)
Accidentes de Trabajo/estadística & datos numéricos , Formulario de Reclamación de Seguro/estadística & datos numéricos , Enfermedades Profesionales/epidemiología , Traumatismos Ocupacionales/epidemiología , Indemnización para Trabajadores/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Washingtón/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Studies suggest employers underreport injuries to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII); less is known about reporting differences by establishment characteristics. METHODS: We linked SOII data to Washington State workers' compensation claims data, using unemployment insurance data to improve linking accuracy. We used multivariable regression models to estimate incidence ratios (IR) of unreported workers' compensation claims for establishment characteristics. RESULTS: An estimated 70% of workers' compensation claims were reported in SOII. Claims among state and local government establishments were most likely to be reported. Compared to large manufacturing establishments, unreported claims were most common among small educational services establishments (IR = 2.47, 95%CI: 1.52-4.01) and large construction establishments (IR = 2.05, 95%CI: 1.77-2.37). CONCLUSIONS: Underreporting of workers' compensation claims to SOII varies by establishment characteristics, obscuring true differences in work injury incidence. Findings may differ from previous research due to differences in study methods.
Asunto(s)
Formulario de Reclamación de Seguro/estadística & datos numéricos , Traumatismos Ocupacionales/epidemiología , United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration/estadística & datos numéricos , Indemnización para Trabajadores/estadística & datos numéricos , Accidentes de Trabajo/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Incidencia , Gobierno Local , Industria Manufacturera/estadística & datos numéricos , Análisis de Regresión , Instituciones Académicas/estadística & datos numéricos , Gobierno Estatal , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Washingtón/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Workers in the United States with limited English proficiency likely perform more hazardous work, experience higher rates of work-related injury and illness, and have worse disability outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive study of employment characteristics, timeliness and utilization of workers' compensation (WC) insurance benefits, cost and occupational health outcomes for Washington State WC state fund, non-traumatic low back disorders (LBD) claimants by language preference. RESULTS: A greater proportion of Spanish language preferring (SLP) LBD claims filed were accepted and resulted in lost work time than English language preferring (ELP) LBD claims. There were significant differences in the demographic, employment, and occupational characteristics between the SLP and ELP compensable claimant populations. The SLP LBD compensable claimants had greater time loss duration, greater medical and total claim costs, more use of physical therapy and vocational services than the ELP LBD compensable claimants. With the exception of the timeliness for providing the first time loss payment, the time periods for provision of insurance benefits did not differ between the SLP and ELP populations. SLP compensable claimants received less back surgery and had comparable permanent partial disability payments to the ELP population. Employers were more likely to protest the acceptance of a SLP compensable than one in an ELP LBD compensable claim. CONCLUSION: For those injured workers accessing the Washington State WC system, we observed differences based on language preference for pre-injury, and workers compensation outcomes. Further research is needed to explain the observed differences.
Asunto(s)
Evaluación de la Discapacidad , Dolor de la Región Lumbar/etnología , Indemnización para Trabajadores/tendencias , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Escolaridad , Femenino , Hispánicos o Latinos , Humanos , Dolor de la Región Lumbar/diagnóstico , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Washingtón , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Although early and accurate diagnosis of work-related asthma is critical to avoid unnecessary medical, legal, social, and economic consequences, little is currently known about the diagnostic practices of physicians treating workers with work-related asthma. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the use of objective diagnostic testing for work-related asthma by physician specialty. METHODS: A cross-sectional, descriptive, comparative evaluation was conducted of 301 workers' compensation claimants with work-related asthma. RESULTS: A few claimants (36.9%) were treated by specialists in work-related asthma (allergists, pulmonologists, or occupational medicine physicians) either initially or through the course of their claim. Workers with occupational asthma were more likely to have seen a specialist than those with work-aggravated asthma (47.9% vs 23.0%; P < .001). Less than half of the claimants with work-related asthma (43.2%) had received an objective evaluation of pulmonary function, through either pulmonary function testing or testing for reversible airflow limitation, for the evaluation of their work-related asthma. Claimants treated by specialists were significantly more likely to have received diagnostic testing during evaluation of their disease than those treated solely by generalists (82.9% vs 20.0%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study point to the lack of appropriate diagnostic care received by workers with work-related asthma. Physicians who may have questions about diagnostic procedures should consider referral to a specialist. The development of referral networks for work-related asthma may be warranted and should be explored.