OBJECTIVES: To examine how injury rates and injury types differ across direct care occupations in relation to the healthcare settings in British Columbia, Canada. METHODS: Data were derived from a standardised operational database in three BC health regions. Injury rates were defined as the number of injuries per 100 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions. Poisson regression, with Generalised Estimating Equations, was used to determine injury risks associated with direct care occupations (registered nurses [RNs], licensed practical nurses [LPNs) and care aides [CAs]) by healthcare setting (acute care, nursing homes and community care). RESULTS: CAs had higher injury rates in every setting, with the highest rate in nursing homes (37.0 injuries per 100 FTE). LPNs had higher injury rates (30.0) within acute care than within nursing homes. Few LPNs worked in community care. For RNs, the highest injury rates (21.9) occurred in acute care, but their highest (13.0) musculoskeletal injury (MSI) rate occurred in nursing homes. MSIs comprised the largest proportion of total injuries in all occupations. In both acute care and nursing homes, CAs had twice the MSI risk of RNs. Across all settings, puncture injuries were more predominant for RNs (21.3% of their total injuries) compared with LPNs (14.4%) and CAs (3.7%). Skin, eye and respiratory irritation injuries comprised a larger proportion of total injuries for RNs (11.1%) than for LPNs (7.2%) and CAs (5.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Direct care occupations have different risks of occupational injuries based on the particular tasks and roles they fulfil within each healthcare setting. CAs are the most vulnerable for sustaining MSIs since their job mostly entails transferring and repositioning tasks during patient/resident/client care. Strategies should focus on prevention of MSIs for all occupations as well as target puncture and irritation injuries for RNs and LPNs.
OBJECTIVES: To examine how injury rates and injury types differ across direct care occupations in relation to the healthcare settings in British Columbia, Canada. METHODS: Data were derived from a standardised operational database in three BC health regions. Injury rates were defined as the number of injuries per 100 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions. Poisson regression, with Generalised Estimating Equations, was used to determine injury risks associated with direct care occupations (registered nurses [RNs], licensed practical nurses [LPNs) and care aides [CAs]) by healthcare setting (acute care, nursing homes and community care). RESULTS:CAs had higher injury rates in every setting, with the highest rate in nursing homes (37.0 injuries per 100 FTE). LPNs had higher injury rates (30.0) within acute care than within nursing homes. Few LPNs worked in community care. For RNs, the highest injury rates (21.9) occurred in acute care, but their highest (13.0) musculoskeletal injury (MSI) rate occurred in nursing homes. MSIs comprised the largest proportion of total injuries in all occupations. In both acute care and nursing homes, CAs had twice the MSI risk of RNs. Across all settings, puncture injuries were more predominant for RNs (21.3% of their total injuries) compared with LPNs (14.4%) and CAs (3.7%). Skin, eye and respiratory irritation injuries comprised a larger proportion of total injuries for RNs (11.1%) than for LPNs (7.2%) and CAs (5.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Direct care occupations have different risks of occupational injuries based on the particular tasks and roles they fulfil within each healthcare setting. CAs are the most vulnerable for sustaining MSIs since their job mostly entails transferring and repositioning tasks during patient/resident/client care. Strategies should focus on prevention of MSIs for all occupations as well as target puncture and irritation injuries for RNs and LPNs.
Authors: Kermit G Davis; William S Marras; Catherine A Heaney; Thomas R Waters; Purnendu Gupta Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2002-12-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Alison M Trinkoff; Jane A Lipscomb; Jeanne Geiger-Brown; Carla L Storr; Barbara A Brady Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Maurizio Macaluso; Lauren A Summerville; Meredith E Tabangin; Nancy M Daraiseh Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2018-05-07 Impact factor: 5.024
Authors: Sarah J Hewko; Sarah L Cooper; Hanhmi Huynh; Trish L Spiwek; Heather L Carleton; Shawna Reid; Greta G Cummings Journal: BMC Nurs Date: 2015-07-22
Authors: João Amaro; João Magalhães; Margarida Leite; Beatriz Aguiar; Paula Ponte; Joana Barrocas; Pedro Norton Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-12-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Annalee Yassi; Lyndsay Michelle O'Hara; Michelle C Engelbrecht; Kerry Uebel; Letshego Elizabeth Nophale; Elizabeth Ann Bryce; Jane A Buxton; Jacob Siegel; Jerry Malcolm Spiegel Journal: Glob Health Action Date: 2014-05-02 Impact factor: 2.640