紧急事件类型在识别第一响应者健康暴露风险中的作用

IF 3.7 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Emily J. Haas , Katherine N. Yoon , Alexa Furek , Megan Casey , Susan M. Moore
{"title":"紧急事件类型在识别第一响应者健康暴露风险中的作用","authors":"Emily J. Haas ,&nbsp;Katherine N. Yoon ,&nbsp;Alexa Furek ,&nbsp;Megan Casey ,&nbsp;Susan M. Moore","doi":"10.1016/j.jnlssr.2023.01.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Fire-based emergency management service (EMS) personnel are dispatched to various incidents daily, many of which have unique occupational risks. To fully understand the variability of incident types and how to best prepare and respond, an exploration of the U.S. coding system of incident types is necessary. This study uses potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2 as a case example to understand if and how coding categories for incident call types may be updated to improve data standardization and emergency response decision making. Researchers received emergency response incident data generated by three fire department computer-aided dispatch (CAD) systems between March and September 2020. Each incident was labeled <em>EMS, Fire</em>, or <em>Other</em>. Of the 162,766 incidents, approximately 8.1% (<em>n</em> = 13,144) noted potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure within their narrative descriptions of which 86.3% were coded as <em>EMS</em>, 9.9% as <em>Fire</em>, and 3.9% as <em>Other</em>. To assess coding variability across incident types, researchers used the original 3-incident type variable and a new 5-incident type variable reassigned by researchers into <em>EMS, Fire, Other, Hazmat,</em> and <em>Motor Vehicle</em>. Logit regressions compared differences in potential exposure using the 3- and 5-incident type variables. When evaluating the 3-incident type variable, those responding to a <em>Fire</em> versus an <em>EMS</em> incident were 84% less likely to be associated with potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2. For the 5-incident type variable, those responding to <em>Fire</em> incidents were 77% less likely to be associated with a potential exposure than those responding to <em>EMS</em> incidents. Changes in potential exposure between the 3- and 5-incident type models show the need to understand how incident types are assigned. This demonstrates the need for data standardization to accurately categorize incident types to improve emergency preparedness and response. Results have implications for incident type coding at fire department municipality and national levels.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":62710,"journal":{"name":"安全科学与韧性(英文)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The role of emergency incident type in identifying first responders’ health exposure risks\",\"authors\":\"Emily J. Haas ,&nbsp;Katherine N. Yoon ,&nbsp;Alexa Furek ,&nbsp;Megan Casey ,&nbsp;Susan M. Moore\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jnlssr.2023.01.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Fire-based emergency management service (EMS) personnel are dispatched to various incidents daily, many of which have unique occupational risks. To fully understand the variability of incident types and how to best prepare and respond, an exploration of the U.S. coding system of incident types is necessary. This study uses potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2 as a case example to understand if and how coding categories for incident call types may be updated to improve data standardization and emergency response decision making. Researchers received emergency response incident data generated by three fire department computer-aided dispatch (CAD) systems between March and September 2020. Each incident was labeled <em>EMS, Fire</em>, or <em>Other</em>. Of the 162,766 incidents, approximately 8.1% (<em>n</em> = 13,144) noted potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure within their narrative descriptions of which 86.3% were coded as <em>EMS</em>, 9.9% as <em>Fire</em>, and 3.9% as <em>Other</em>. To assess coding variability across incident types, researchers used the original 3-incident type variable and a new 5-incident type variable reassigned by researchers into <em>EMS, Fire, Other, Hazmat,</em> and <em>Motor Vehicle</em>. Logit regressions compared differences in potential exposure using the 3- and 5-incident type variables. When evaluating the 3-incident type variable, those responding to a <em>Fire</em> versus an <em>EMS</em> incident were 84% less likely to be associated with potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2. For the 5-incident type variable, those responding to <em>Fire</em> incidents were 77% less likely to be associated with a potential exposure than those responding to <em>EMS</em> incidents. Changes in potential exposure between the 3- and 5-incident type models show the need to understand how incident types are assigned. This demonstrates the need for data standardization to accurately categorize incident types to improve emergency preparedness and response. Results have implications for incident type coding at fire department municipality and national levels.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":62710,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"安全科学与韧性(英文)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"安全科学与韧性(英文)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1087\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266644962300004X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"安全科学与韧性(英文)","FirstCategoryId":"1087","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266644962300004X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

消防应急管理服务(EMS)人员每天被派往各种事故,其中许多事故具有独特的职业风险。为了充分了解事件类型的可变性以及如何最好地准备和响应,有必要对美国事件类型编码系统进行探索。本研究以潜在的SARS-CoV-2暴露为例,了解是否以及如何更新事件呼叫类型的编码类别,以提高数据标准化和应急响应决策。研究人员收到了2020年3月至9月期间三个消防部门计算机辅助调度(CAD)系统生成的应急事件数据。每个事件都被标记为EMS, Fire或Other。在162,766起事件中,大约8.1% (n = 13,144)在其叙述描述中指出了潜在的SARS-CoV-2暴露,其中86.3%被编码为EMS, 9.9%被编码为Fire, 3.9%被编码为Other。为了评估不同事件类型的编码可变性,研究人员使用了最初的3个事件类型变量和一个新的5个事件类型变量,研究人员将其重新分配为EMS、Fire、Other、Hazmat和Motor Vehicle。Logit回归比较了使用3和5事件类型变量的潜在暴露差异。在评估3个事件类型变量时,与EMS事件相比,对火灾做出反应的人与潜在暴露于SARS-CoV-2的可能性降低了84%。对于5个事件类型变量,响应火灾事件的人员与潜在暴露相关的可能性比响应EMS事件的人员低77%。3和5事件类型模型之间潜在暴露的变化表明需要了解如何分配事件类型。这表明需要进行数据标准化,以便准确地对事件类型进行分类,以改进应急准备和反应。研究结果对市级和国家级消防部门的事故类型编码具有指导意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The role of emergency incident type in identifying first responders’ health exposure risks

Fire-based emergency management service (EMS) personnel are dispatched to various incidents daily, many of which have unique occupational risks. To fully understand the variability of incident types and how to best prepare and respond, an exploration of the U.S. coding system of incident types is necessary. This study uses potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2 as a case example to understand if and how coding categories for incident call types may be updated to improve data standardization and emergency response decision making. Researchers received emergency response incident data generated by three fire department computer-aided dispatch (CAD) systems between March and September 2020. Each incident was labeled EMS, Fire, or Other. Of the 162,766 incidents, approximately 8.1% (n = 13,144) noted potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure within their narrative descriptions of which 86.3% were coded as EMS, 9.9% as Fire, and 3.9% as Other. To assess coding variability across incident types, researchers used the original 3-incident type variable and a new 5-incident type variable reassigned by researchers into EMS, Fire, Other, Hazmat, and Motor Vehicle. Logit regressions compared differences in potential exposure using the 3- and 5-incident type variables. When evaluating the 3-incident type variable, those responding to a Fire versus an EMS incident were 84% less likely to be associated with potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2. For the 5-incident type variable, those responding to Fire incidents were 77% less likely to be associated with a potential exposure than those responding to EMS incidents. Changes in potential exposure between the 3- and 5-incident type models show the need to understand how incident types are assigned. This demonstrates the need for data standardization to accurately categorize incident types to improve emergency preparedness and response. Results have implications for incident type coding at fire department municipality and national levels.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
安全科学与韧性(英文)
安全科学与韧性(英文) Management Science and Operations Research, Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality, Safety Research
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
72 days
×
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