Work-related slip, trip and fall injuries reported by National Health Service staff in Great Britain: how many are due to slipping?

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Mark Liddle, Gillian Nicholls, David Leigh, Jennifer Kinder, Alison Curran, Michael Zand
{"title":"Work-related slip, trip and fall injuries reported by National Health Service staff in Great Britain: how many are due to slipping?","authors":"Mark Liddle, Gillian Nicholls, David Leigh, Jennifer Kinder, Alison Curran, Michael Zand","doi":"10.1136/ip-2023-045210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Workplace injuries due to a slip, trip or fall on the level (STF) are often reported together, making the potential impact of targeted interventions, such as slip-resistant footwear, difficult to assess. The objective of this research was to review workplace non-fatal injuries reported as STFs under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 to determine what proportion of staff STF injuries reported by the National Health Service (NHS) in Great Britain were caused specifically by a slip.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The free text descriptions of all 1004 STF injuries reported by NHS staff in summer 2018 and winter 2018/2019 were independently reviewed by two researchers to determine whether a slip was the primary cause or not. Where agreement could not be reached or the cause was unclear, an STF specialist reviewed the reports to establish the likely cause. The kappa statistic was used to measure inter-reviewer agreement, and the χ<sup>2</sup> test was used to compare proportions across seasons.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The reviewers agreed on the initiating event, slip or non-slip, for 917 (91.3%) of the incidents. The kappa statistic was 0.842 (95% CI 0.785 to 0.898) indicating strong agreement between reviewers. In total, 431 or 42.9% (95% CI 39.8% to 46.1%) of the STF incidents were slips. This percentage was greater in winter compared with summer (49.0% and 36.0%, respectively, p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The high proportion of slips among reported STF injuries implies that an effective intervention targeting workplace slips in the NHS could have a substantial impact on the number of injuries reported.</p>","PeriodicalId":13682,"journal":{"name":"Injury Prevention","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Injury Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/ip-2023-045210","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Workplace injuries due to a slip, trip or fall on the level (STF) are often reported together, making the potential impact of targeted interventions, such as slip-resistant footwear, difficult to assess. The objective of this research was to review workplace non-fatal injuries reported as STFs under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 to determine what proportion of staff STF injuries reported by the National Health Service (NHS) in Great Britain were caused specifically by a slip.

Methods: The free text descriptions of all 1004 STF injuries reported by NHS staff in summer 2018 and winter 2018/2019 were independently reviewed by two researchers to determine whether a slip was the primary cause or not. Where agreement could not be reached or the cause was unclear, an STF specialist reviewed the reports to establish the likely cause. The kappa statistic was used to measure inter-reviewer agreement, and the χ2 test was used to compare proportions across seasons.

Results: The reviewers agreed on the initiating event, slip or non-slip, for 917 (91.3%) of the incidents. The kappa statistic was 0.842 (95% CI 0.785 to 0.898) indicating strong agreement between reviewers. In total, 431 or 42.9% (95% CI 39.8% to 46.1%) of the STF incidents were slips. This percentage was greater in winter compared with summer (49.0% and 36.0%, respectively, p<0.001).

Conclusion: The high proportion of slips among reported STF injuries implies that an effective intervention targeting workplace slips in the NHS could have a substantial impact on the number of injuries reported.

英国国民健康服务人员报告的与工作有关的滑倒、绊倒和跌倒伤害:有多少是由于滑倒造成的?
背景:因滑倒、绊倒或在平地摔倒(STF)而造成的工伤通常一起报告,这使得防滑鞋等有针对性的干预措施的潜在影响难以评估。本研究的目的是审查根据《2013 年伤害、疾病和危险事故报告条例》(Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013)作为 STF 报告的工作场所非致命伤害,以确定英国国家医疗服务系统(NHS)报告的 STF 员工伤害中有多大比例是滑倒造成的:由两名研究人员独立审查 NHS 工作人员在 2018 年夏季和 2018/2019 年冬季报告的所有 1004 起 STF 受伤事件的自由文本描述,以确定滑倒是否是主要原因。在无法达成一致或原因不明确的情况下,由一名 STF 专家对报告进行审查,以确定可能的原因。卡帕统计量用于衡量审查人员之间的一致意见,χ2 检验用于比较不同季节的比例:在 917 起(91.3%)事故中,评审员对起因(滑倒或非滑倒)达成了一致。卡帕统计量为 0.842(95% CI 0.785 至 0.898),表明评审员之间的意见非常一致。总共有 431 起 STF 事件或 42.9%(95% CI 39.8% 至 46.1%)属于滑倒。与夏季相比,这一比例在冬季更高(分别为 49.0% 和 36.0%,p 结论:在所报告的 STF 伤害中,滑倒所占的比例很高,这意味着在国家医疗服务系统中针对工作场所滑倒的有效干预措施可能会对所报告的伤害数量产生重大影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Injury Prevention
Injury Prevention 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
2.70%
发文量
68
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Since its inception in 1995, Injury Prevention has been the pre-eminent repository of original research and compelling commentary relevant to this increasingly important field. An international peer reviewed journal, it offers the best in science, policy, and public health practice to reduce the burden of injury in all age groups around the world. The journal publishes original research, opinion, debate and special features on the prevention of unintentional, occupational and intentional (violence-related) injuries. Injury Prevention is online only.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信