Article

Occupational injury among full-time, part-time and casual health care workers.

Statistics and Evaluation Department, Occupational Health and Safety Agency for Healthcare, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Occupational Medicine (Impact Factor: 1.45). 04/2008; 58(5):348-54. DOI: 10.1093/occmed/kqn026
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Previous epidemiological studies have conflicting suggestions on the association of occupational injury risks with employment category across industries. This specific issue has not been examined for direct patient care occupations in the health care sector.
To investigate whether work-related injury rates differ by employment category (part time, full time or casual) for registered nurses (RNs) in acute care and care aides (CAs) in long-term facilities.
Incidents of occupational injury resulting in compensated time loss from work, over a 1-year period within three health regions in British Columbia (BC), Canada, were extracted from a standardized operational database. Detailed analysis was conducted using Poisson regression modeling.
Among 8640 RNs in acute care, 37% worked full time, 24% part time and 25% casual. The overall rates of injuries were 7.4, 5.3 and 5.5 per 100 person-years, respectively. Among the 2967 CAs in long-term care, 30% worked full time, 20% part time and 40% casual. The overall rates of injuries were 25.8, 22.9 and 18.1 per 100 person-years, respectively. In multivariate models, having adjusted for age, gender, facility and health region, full-time RNs had significantly higher risk of sustaining injuries compared to part-time and casual workers. For CAs, full-time workers had significantly higher risk of sustaining injuries compared to casual workers.
Full-time direct patient care occupations have greater risk of injury compared to part-time and casual workers within the health care sector.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
91 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patient care workers in acute care hospitals are at high risk of injury. Recent studies have quantified risks and demonstrated a higher risk for aides than for nurses. However, no detailed studies to date have used OSHA injury definitions to allow for better comparability across studies. We linked records from human resources and occupational health services databases at two large academic hospitals for nurses (n = 5,991) and aides (n = 1,543) in patient care units. Crude rates, rate ratios, and confidence intervals were calculated for injuries involving no days away and those involving at least 1 day away from work. Aides have substantially higher injury rates per 100 full-time equivalent workers (FTEs) than nurses for both injuries involving days away from work (11.3 vs. 7.2) and those involving no days away (9.9 vs. 5.7). Back injuries were the most common days away (DA) injuries, while sharps injuries were the most common no days away (NDA) injuries. Pediatric/neonatal units and non-inpatient units had the lowest injury rates. Operating rooms and the float pool had high DA injury rates for both occupations, and stepdown units had high rates for nurses. NDA injuries were highest in the operating room for both nurses and aides. This study supports the importance of a continuing emphasis on preventing back and sharps injuries and reducing risks faced by aides in the hospital setting. Uniform injury definitions and work time measures can help benchmark safety performance and focus prevention efforts.
    American Journal of Industrial Medicine 02/2012; 55(2):117-26. · 1.97 Impact Factor
  • Occupational Medicine 03/2013; 63(2):83. · 1.45 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study investigated whether 1) the risk of occupational injury differs among permanent employees and specific types of temporary workers, 2) the risk of occupational injury differs across different employment types depending on the degree of job stressors. A cross-sectional study design based on self-report survey data. A total of 36,688 full-time workers (28,868 men and 7820 women; average age = 35.4) were surveyed by means of a self-administered questionnaire. Employment types consisted of permanent employment and two forms of temporary employment: direct-hire and temporary work agent (TWA). Job characteristics including job demands, job control, and social support at work were measured. Occupational injury was measured by asking whether the participant had an injury on the job in the past 12 months that required a medical treatment. To investigate the relationships between employment types, job stressors, and occupational injury, hierarchical moderated logistic regression tests were conducted. High job demands (OR = 1.44) and low job control (OR = 1.21) were significantly associated with an increased risk of occupational injury, while controlling for demographic, life style, health, and occupational factors. In addition, direct-hires (OR = 1.85) and temporary agent workers (OR = 3.26) had a higher risk of occupational injury compared with permanent employees. However, the relationship between employment types and the risk of occupational injury depended on the levels of job demands and job control. Specifically, the magnitude of the relationship between job demands and the risk of occupational injury was substantially greater for temporary work agents than for permanent employees when they reported low levels of job control. Such an interaction effect between job demands and job control on the risk of occupational injury was not observed between permanent employees and direct-hire temporary workers. The current study indicated that temporary workers might be more vulnerable to occupational injury than permanent employees. High levels of job demands and low levels of job control might also add to temporary workers' risk of occupational injury, particularly for TWAs.
    Public health 11/2013; · 1.26 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
41 Downloads
Available from
May 16, 2014