AN EPIDEMIOLOGIC DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF LOST WORKDAY OCCUPATIONAL BURN INJURIES

Background research consisted of a hospital case series of all adult burn patients (n = 162) admitted to John Sealy Hospital's burn unit from January 1978 to June 1979. Comparisons between occupationally and nonoccupationally burned adults demonstrated that occupationally burned adults were significantly more likely to have been active in the burn injury event and to have changed jobs during the prior year. They were significantly less likely to have physical or mental problems which contributed to sustaining the burn injury. Comparisons between occupational and nonoccupational burn injury events concluded that occupational burn injury events were significantly more likely to involve multiple sources of energy, sparks as the source of ignition and gases as the source of combustion. Other salient characteristics of occupational burn injuries indicated that subsequent research should focus upon lost workday occupational burns and other injuries sustained by blue-collar petrochemical workers employed in Galveston County, Texas.^ Subsequent research consisted of a historical cohort study of occupational injuries sustained in 1979 by a cohort of blue-collar petrochemical workers (n = 1771) who belonged to O.C.A.W. Local 4-449 in Texas City, Texas. Specific cohort injury rates included 15.08 occupational injuries per 100 person work-years, 11.98 lost workday occupational injuries per 100 person work-years, and 1.64 lost workday occupational burn injuries per 100 person work-years. Salient results from this study indicate that burn injuries are a very important type (in terms of both frequency and severity) of occupational injury sustained by blue-collar petrochemical workers, pipefitters are at greatest risk of lost workday injuries and lost workday burn injuries, company-specific experiences are comparable for lost workday occupational injuries, differences among company-specific nonlost workday occupational injury experiences may not be "safety-related", and minimal job-specific experience may not place employees at greater risk of lost workday burn injuries.^

Energy expenditure, body-part discomfort and mental work load among nurses

The purpose of this prospective observational field study was to present a model for measuring energy expenditure among nurses and to determine if there was a difference between the energy expenditure of nurses providing direct care to adult patients on general medical-surgical units in two major metropolitan hospitals and a recommended energy expenditure of 3.0 kcal/minute over 8 hours. One-third of the predicted cycle ergometer VO2max for the study population was used to calculate the recommended energy expenditure.^ Two methods were used to measure energy expenditure among participants during an 8 hour day shift. First, the Energy Expenditure Prediction Program (EEPP) developed by the University of Michigan Center for Ergonomics was used to calculate energy expenditure using activity recordings from observation (OEE; n = 39). The second method used ambulatory electrocardiography and the heart rate-oxygen consumption relationship (HREE; n = 20) to measure energy expenditure. It was concluded that energy expenditure among nurses can be estimated using the EEPP. Using classification systems from previous research, work load among the study population was categorized as "moderate" but was significantly less than (p = 0.021) 3.0 kcal/minute over 8 hours or 1/3 of the predicted VO2max.^ In addition, the relationships between OEE, body-part discomfort (BPCDS) and mental work load (MWI) were evaluated. The relationships between OEE/BPCDS and OEE/MWI were not significant (p = 0.062 and 0.091, respectively). Among the study population, body-part discomfort significantly increased for upper arms, mid-back, lower-back, legs and feet by mid-shift and by the end of the shift, the increase was also significant for neck and thighs.^ The study also provided documentation of a comprehensive list of nursing activities. Among the most important findings were the facts that the study population spent 23% of the workday in a bent posture, walked an average of 3.14 miles, and spent two-thirds of the shift doing activities other than direct patient care, such as paperwork and communicating with other departments. A discussion is provided regarding the ergonomic implications of these findings. ^