Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:37:41.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Disabling Job Injuries Among Urban EMS Providers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Bartholomew J. Tortella*
Affiliation:
Section of Trauma and EMS, The New Jersey Trauma Center, Department of Surgery, New Jersey Medical School and University Emergency Medical Services, UMDNJ—University Hospital, Newark, NJ
Robert F. Lavery
Affiliation:
Section of Trauma and EMS, The New Jersey Trauma Center, Department of Surgery, New Jersey Medical School and University Emergency Medical Services, UMDNJ—University Hospital, Newark, NJ
*
UMDNJ—University Hospital, 150 Bergen Street, J-200, Newark, NJ 07103–2406USA

Abstract

Objective:

Nationwide data were collected concerning serious, disabling injuries requiring hospitalization (SDIH) or deaths among urban emergency medical services (EMS) providers.

Design and Setting:

A mail survey of EMS systems was conducted among the 200 most populated U.S. cities.

Participants:

Participants were training and operations officers of urban EMS systems.

Measurements and Main Results:

Ninety forms (45%) were returned with 88 evaluable (44%). There were 81 SDIHs for a rate of one in 31,616 dispatches. No deaths were reported. Body parts most frequently injured were the hand (22%), head (19%), foot (16%), and eye (14%). Although 90% of fire-based EMS systems (fire-EMS) provided helmets, eye protection, safety shoes, and gloves, less than half (45%) of nonfire-EMS did so. Three (4%) SDIHs resulted from acts of violence.

Conclusion:

Occupational injuries of EMS personnel are at a serious level. Fire-based EMS systems experienced a higher rate of hand SDIHs despite the provision of protective equipment. Few nonfire-EMS staff are provided with safety equipment, which may have resulted in a relatively high number of head and hand SDIHs. Fire-EMS medical directors need to take an active role in verifying that protective equipment is adequate and appropriate to allow the performance of field EMS duties without being too cumbersome. Medical directors of nonfire-EMS must be advocates for the provision of basic protective equipment aimed at mitigating SDIHs of EMS staff.

Type
Original Research
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Hogya, PT, Ellis, L: Evaluation of the injury profile of personnel in a busy urban EMS system. Am J Emerg Med 1990;8:308311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Schwartz, RJ, Benson, L, Jacobs, L: The prevalence of occupational injuries to EMTs in New England. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 1991;6:386. Abstract.Google Scholar
3. Saunders, CE, Floersch, D: A study of ambulance collisions in an urban environment. Ann Emerg Med 1992;21:643. Abstract.Google Scholar
4. EMS in the United States: A survey of providers in the 200 most populated cities. JEMS 1990;14:101112.Google Scholar
5. Accident Facts 1991. Chicago, IL, National Safety Council, 1991, pp 3449.Google Scholar
6. Churka, PA, Almeida, SL, Pepe, PE, et al. : Diminishing occupational exposure to communicable diseases in an EMS system. Ann Emerg Med 1992;21:600. Abstract.Google Scholar
7. Johnson, DW, Hammond, RJ, Sherman, RE: Hearing in an ambulance paramedic population. Ann Emerg Med 1980:9:557561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Iserson, KV: Injuries to search and rescue volunteer. West J Med 1989:151:352353.Google Scholar
9. Hales, T, Seligman, PJ, Newman, SC, et al. : Occupational injuries due to violence. J Occup Med 1988;30:483487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed