Kathleen M Fagan1, Michael J Hodgson2. 1. Office of Occupational Medicine and Nursing, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Ave, NW, Room N3457, Washington, DC 20210, USA. Electronic address: fagan.kathleen@dol.gov. 2. Office of Occupational Medicine and Nursing, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Ave, NW, Room N3457, Washington, DC 20210, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A 2009 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report, along with numerous published studies, documented that many workplace injuries are not recorded on employers' recordkeeping logs required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and consequently are under-reported to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), resulting in a substantial undercount of occupational injuries in the United States. METHODS: OSHA conducted a Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program (NEP) from 2009 to 2012 to identify the extent and causes of unrecorded and incorrectly recorded occupational injuries and illnesses. RESULTS: OSHA found recordkeeping violations in close to half of all facilities inspected. Employee interviews identified workers' fear of reprisal and employer disciplinary programs as the most important causes of under-reporting. Subsequent inspections in the poultry industry identified employer medical management policies that fostered both under-reporting and under-recording of workplace injuries and illnesses. CONCLUSIONS: OSHA corroborated previous research findings and identified onsite medical units as a potential new cause of both under-reporting and under-recording. Research is needed to better characterize and eliminate obstacles to the compilation of accurate occupational injury and illness data. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Occupational health professionals who work with high hazard industries where low injury rates are being recorded may wish to scrutinize recordkeeping practices carefully. This work suggests that, although many high-risk establishments manage recordkeeping with integrity, the lower the reported injury rate, the greater the likelihood of under-recording and under-reporting of work-related injuries and illnesses. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
INTRODUCTION: A 2009 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report, along with numerous published studies, documented that many workplace injuries are not recorded on employers' recordkeeping logs required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and consequently are under-reported to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), resulting in a substantial undercount of occupational injuries in the United States. METHODS:OSHA conducted a Recordkeeping National Emphasis Program (NEP) from 2009 to 2012 to identify the extent and causes of unrecorded and incorrectly recorded occupational injuries and illnesses. RESULTS:OSHA found recordkeeping violations in close to half of all facilities inspected. Employee interviews identified workers' fear of reprisal and employer disciplinary programs as the most important causes of under-reporting. Subsequent inspections in the poultry industry identified employer medical management policies that fostered both under-reporting and under-recording of workplace injuries and illnesses. CONCLUSIONS:OSHA corroborated previous research findings and identified onsite medical units as a potential new cause of both under-reporting and under-recording. Research is needed to better characterize and eliminate obstacles to the compilation of accurate occupational injury and illness data. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Occupational health professionals who work with high hazard industries where low injury rates are being recorded may wish to scrutinize recordkeeping practices carefully. This work suggests that, although many high-risk establishments manage recordkeeping with integrity, the lower the reported injury rate, the greater the likelihood of under-recording and under-reporting of work-related injuries and illnesses. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Entities:
Keywords:
Data; Medical management; Occupational; Recordkeeping; Under-reporting
Authors: Kelly K Dineen; Abigail Lowe; Nancy E Kass; Lisa M Lee; Matthew K Wynia; Teck Chuan Voo; Seema Mohapatra; Rachel Lookadoo; Athena K Ramos; Jocelyn J Herstein; Sara Donovan; James V Lawler; John J Lowe; Shelly Schwedhelm; Nneka O Sederstrom Journal: J Bioeth Inq Date: 2022-05-06 Impact factor: 2.216
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: Bertina Kreshpaj; Theo Bodin; David H Wegman; Nuria Matilla-Santander; Bo Burstrom; Katarina Kjellberg; Letitia Davis; Tomas Hemmingsson; Johanna Jonsson; Carin Håkansta; Cecilia Orellana Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2021-09-20 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Andre G Montoya-Barthelemy; Karyn Leniek; Emily Bannister; Marcus Rushing; Fozia A Abrar; Tobias E Baumann; Madeleine Manly; Jonathan Wilhelm; Ashley Niece; Scott Riester; Hyun Kim; Jonathan Sellman; Jay Desai; Paul J Anderson; Ralph S Bovard; Nicolas P Pronk; Zeke J McKinney Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 3.079