1. BACKGROUND & SIGNIFICANCE RESULTS RESULTS (CONTINUED)
MISCLASSIFICATION OF ANIMAL HANDLING INJURIES TO SWINE WORKERS
Deirdre Green 1, Jessica Evanson 2, Jeff B. Bender 1,2, Bruce H. Alexander 1
1Division of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Minnesota 2 College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota
BACKGROUND & SIGNIFICANCE
RESULTS
RESULTS (CONTINUED)
Provide context with individual company info? Or combine all data?
Indirect/direct – change language? (provide definitions)
Change to pie chart or bar graph?
Show indirect/direct for medical and indemnity
Bullets:
Sow farms most common injury location
Most commonly injured body part = knees
Indemnity/medical costs
Animal agriculture ranks among one of the most hazardous industries in the United States (OSHA)
Correctly identifying the cause of these injuries is essential for developing injury prevention protocols
Injuries reported by swine production companies for regulatory and workers’ compensation purposes may be misclassified by specific cause
Obtained 1,573 Reported Injuries
331 injuries were reported to be caused by animals
An additional 104 injuries were identified after reviewing and recording data
Source of Injury
Original coding under-ascertained animals as the source of 114 (26%) injuries of 435
Animals were over-ascertained as the source of injury in 8 (2%) of 435
Costs
Originally reported animal handling injuries total $729,393.23
With re-classification an additional $170, was added
Table 1. Summary of Costs associated with Workers Compensation Claims
Claims
Cost*
Total (N)
Medical ($)
Indemnity ($)
Total ($)
All Injuries
1788
1,394,769.87
3,179,603.09
4,574,372.96
AHI (Company Coded)
331
92,061.14
637,332.09
729,393.23
AHI (Coded by Researcher)
435
99,059.22
800,959.99
900,019.21
OBJECTIVES
Figure 1. Originally coded causes of under-ascertained animal handling injuries
Examine the occurrence of misclassifications of cause of injury to workers from animal handling injuries (AHI)
Characterize the potential consequences of this misclassification on estimated injury burden
CONCLUSIONS
Misclassification of cause of injury may result in an underestimate of total injury burden from animal related injuries
This could impair strategies to prioritize injury prevention strategies
Development of a standardized system for capturing injury data in the swine industry may result in better characterization of swine related injuries
METHODS
Data from two large swine producing companies were obtained and injuries were enumerated from OSHA 300 logs and Worker Compensation claims
The injury event narratives were reviewed to specifically identify animal involvement and re-coded based on the Occupational Injury and Illness Classification System (OIICS)
The original and re-coded injury source and event were compared by frequency and total cost.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The most common codes used in place of AHI’s were “Caught in/between” (26%) and “Struck by/against” (24%)
This research was supported by NIOSH/CDC - U54 OH010170
National Pork Board Pork Checkoff CON
The Upper Midwest Agricultural Safety and Health Center is funded by a cooperative agreement from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health - U54 OH010170
Upper Midwest Agricultural Safety and Health Center ~ umash.umn.edu
A collaboration of the University of Minnesota School of Public Health and College of Veterinary Medicine, the National Farm Medicine Center of the Marshfield Clinic with the Migrant Clinicians Network, and the Minnesota Department of Health.