When a Crash Is Really an Accident: A Concept Analysis.

The debate over using the word accident has encouraged some groups to adopt the word crash, while other groups retain using accident. This article addresses the inconsistent and interchangeable use of the terms accident and crash. This conceptual analysis used a Critical Review Method, with Critical Theory as the theoretical framework. A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE and CINAHL for articles published through 2011. An extensive review of literature was followed by purposive sampling of articles published in 2011 across countries, disciplines, and contexts. Forty-seven articles were read in entirety, resulting in 2 themes for accident: intent and injury. Seven articles were critically analyzed for intent, injury, and underrepresented margins of society (5 articles using the term accident, 1 article using crash and accident interchangeably, and 1 using only crash). There was congruency on injury across all 7 articles. Results were mixed for intent and the incorporation of marginalized people. Although there is evidence that the use of the word accident should be maintained when the event could not have reasonably been prevented, the theoretical framework highlights this will likely perpetuate the conceptual confusion. The recommendation is to (1) identify the mechanism of injury, (2) identify event as intentional versus nonintentional, and (3) identify event as preventable versus nonpreventable.