The Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII) is a Federal/State cooperative program that publishes estimates on nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses. Each year, approximately 200,000 employers report for establishments in private industry and the public sector (state and local government). In-scope cases include work-related injuries or illnesses to workers who require medical care beyond first aid. See the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for the entire recordkeeping guidelines. The SOII excludes all work–related fatalities as well as nonfatal work injuries and illnesses to the self–employed; to workers on farms with 10 or fewer employees; to private household workers; to volunteers; and to federal government workers. More information and details about the data provided can be found at https://www.bls.gov/iif/soii-overview.htm

AbstractBackground Moral injury is an emerging explanation of burnout and suicidality, but remains poorly quantified in at-risk practitioners. We hypothesized that COVID-19 pandemic-related moral injury differs between frontline clinicians, genders, age, and country of practice. Methods We conducted an online cross-sectional survey of international physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, paramedics and respiratory therapists between April and June 2020. We included the adapted version of the Expressions of Moral Injury Scale (EMIS). The primary outcome was differences in moral injury scores between clinician roles. Results Three hundred and two clinicians participated, including physicians (61% [n=184]), nurses (28% [n=85]), and nurse practitioners (5% [n=14]). The median age was 39 (IQR 32-76), females comprised 54% of the respondents, and the majority resided in Canada (n =183 [61%]) or the United States (US; n = 106 [35%]). Emergency medicine (88% [n=265]), and intensive care (6% [n=17]) were the main specialties responding. Median moral injury scores across multiple domains were higher for nurses compared to physicians, as well as for younger, and female respondents. Moral injury scores were also significantly higher for respondents from the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, compared to Canada. Conclusions Our research suggests that during COVID-19, measures of moral injury differ across roles, gender and place of work. Future research is warranted to better understand the impact of moral injury on clinicians’ psychological well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. MethodsThis dataset was collected through the Qualtrics online survey application.

On December 20 2021, all estimates and standard errors for 2017–2018 were revised in this table to correct programming errors. Data on initial injury-related visits to hospital emergency departments, by sex, age, and intent and mechanism of injury. Please refer to the PDF or Excel version of this table in the HUS 2019 Data Finder (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/hus/contents2019.htm) for critical information about measures, definitions, and changes over time. Due to a change in national medical data coding standards in 2015, from the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) to the ICD-10-CM, the definition for injuries and injury subcategories changed for the 2017 reporting period and beyond. Results from 2017 and subsequent years should not be compared with previous reporting periods. Any observed changes in trends across this transition period should not be considered. Data for 2016 are not included. Additional information regarding injury definitions and categorization of injuries by mechanism and intent of injury is available at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/injury/injury_tools.htm. Note that the data file available here has more recent years of data than what is shown in the PDF or Excel version. SOURCE: NCHS, National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. For more information on the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, see the corresponding Appendix entry at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus17_appendix.pdf.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.

Abstract

A. Objective To generate national statistics on occupational injuries essential for better management of safety and health in the workplace and for formulation of effective policies and programs for the prevention of occupational accidents.

B. Uses of Data Guide policy makers, program planners, employers and workers in identifying persistent and new areas of risk at the workplace and in evaluating safety performance and effectiveness of current accident preventive measures; used in developing training materials and programs for accident prevention; and provide basis for identifying areas for future research.

C. Main Topics Covered Cases of occupational injuries Occupational accidents Cases of injuries due to commuting accidents

Geographic coverage

National, 16 administrative regions

Analysis unit

Establishment

Universe

Covered non-agricultural establishments employing 20 or more workers except national postal activities, central banking, public administration and defense and compulsory social security, public education services, public medical, dental and other health services, activities of membership organizations, extra territorial organizations and bodies.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Statistical unit: The statistical unit is the establishment. Each unit is classified to an industry that reflects its main economic activity---the activity that contributes the biggest or major portion of the gross income or revenues of the establishment.

Survey universe/Sample frame: The sampling frame used for the survey was taken from the List of Establishments of the National Statistics Office. On a partial basis, this is regularly updated based on the responses to other surveys of the BLES, establishment reports on retrenchments and closures submitted to the Regional Offices of the Department of Labor and Employment and other establishment lists.

Sample design: Establishments are stratified by 3-digit industry level (except for industries observed to be heterogeneous within their 3-digit level and therefore requires further breakdown at the 4-digit classification) and by employment size. Geographical location was not considered in the stratification to allow for detailed industry disaggregation. Establishments with at least 100 workers were covered with certainty. The estimated number of sample establishments for the stratum 20-99 workers is the difference of the total number of establishments in the other two strata (100-199 and 200 and over) from the estimated sample size for the survey.

The estimated number of samples in each cell of this stratum was allocated proportionate to its population share to the stratum total population. The sample size for each cell was adjusted to build-in replacement, e.g., sample size divided by 0.8 as expected retrieval rate is 80 percent.

Sample size: For OIS 2000 , the sample size was 7,738, of which, 6,207 were found to be eligible sampling units.

Note: Refer to Field Operations Manual Chapter 1 Section 1.5.

Sampling deviation

Due to the inadequacy of the frame used, during field operations there are reports of permanent closures, non-location, duplicate listing and shifts in industry and employment outside the survey coverage. Establishments that fall in these categories are not eligible elements of the population and their count is not considered in the estimation. In addition to non-response of establishments because of refusals, strikes or temporary closures, there are establishments whose questionnaires contain inconsistent item responses that are not included in the processing as these have not replied to the verification queries by the time output table generation commences. Such establishments are also considered as non-respondents.

Mode of data collection

Other [oth] Mixed method: self accomplished, mailed, face to face

Research instrument

The questionnaire contains the following sections:

Cover Page - This contains the address box, status codes, information on the purpose of the survey, coverage, reference period, collection authority, authorized field personnel, confidentiality clause, due date, availability of results and assistance available.

Part A. General Information - This portion inquires on: a) main economic activity; b) major products/goods or services; c) average total employment by sex; d) normal working hours per day for majority of workers; e) total number of working days of the establishment; and f) total hours actually worked of all persons employed.

Part B. Occupational Accidents - This portion inquires on the occurrence and number of occupational accidents if there is any.

Part C. Occupational Injuries - This portion is to be accomplished if there have been occurrences of occupational accidents resulting to occupational injuries. It inquires on: a) cases of incapacity for work (fatal, permanent incapacity, temporary incapacity) and cases without lost workdays classified by major occupation group, type of injury, part of the body injured and cause of injury; b) lost workdays of cases of permanent and temporary incapacity classified by major occupation group, type of injury, part of the body injured and cause of injury.

Part D. Cases of Injury Due to Commuting Accidents - This portion inquires on the cases of injury due to commuting accidents and if any, the number of workers injured.

Part E. Certification of Respondent

Remarks - This space is provided for the respondent’s explanations on the given information and comments/suggestions on the survey.

Contact Person - This space is provided for the signature, name, position, telephone/fax numbers and e-mail address of the person responsible for filling out the form and the date the questionnaire was accomplished.

Note: Refer to Questionnaire.

Cleaning operations

Data are manually and electronically processed. Field editing was done by the enumerators to ensure completeness, consistency and reasonableness of entries in accordance with the field operations manual. Then, the process is replicated by their field supervisors. BLES personnel undertake the final review, coding of information used, data entry and validation and scrutiny of aggregated results for coherence. PC-Edit is used for editing and Microsoft Access data format.

Note: Refer to Field Operations Manual, Chapter 1, Section 1.11.

Response rate

The retrieval rate in terms of eligible units was 89.2%.

Sampling error estimates

Estimates of sampling error are not computed.

Data appraisal

The survey results are checked against administrative–based statistics on work injuries.

WISQARS is an interactive query system that provides data on injury deaths, violent deaths, and nonfatal injuries treated in U.S. emergency departments.

This dataset contains coded and themed data from the round 1 survey of the TBPI JLA PSP. The survey was launched and invited respondents to submit their unanswered research questions about the assessment, diagnosis, treatment and long term follow up of brachial plexus injuries. Data was inputted into a online Google form between January 2023 and March 2023. Data was coded and summary questions developed ready for evidence checking and entering into an interim survey (launched in Autumn 2023)

This dataset contains non-fatal injury and illness data by industry from US Bureau of Labor Statistics for 2016. The industries are classified according to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

Current approaches regarding injury prevention focus on the transfer of evidence into daily practice. One promising approach is to influence attitudes and beliefs of players. The objective of this study was to record player's perceptions on injury prevention. A survey was performed among players of one German high-level football (soccer) club. 139 professional and youth players between age 13 and 35 years completed a standardized questionnaire (response rate = 98%). It included categories with (1) history of lower extremity injuries, (2) perceptions regarding risk factors and (3) regularly used prevention strategies. The majority of players (84.2%) had a previous injury. 47.5% of respondents believe that contact with other players is a risk factor, followed by fatigue (38.1%) and environmental factors (25.9%). The relevance of previous injuries as a risk factor is differently perceived between injured (25%) and uninjured players (0.0%). Nearly all players (91.5%) perform stretching to p...

This is a dataset that contains 7,275 records from 1,279 households from 3 rural municipalities in Nepal where a burn injury survey was conducted in 2018.

Total DESIGN-R score and body location of pressure injuries (n = 113).

The VICP program publishes a summary PDF report with several data tables: Number of Petitions Filed by Adjudication Categories by Alleged Vaccine, including # of doses distributed (2006-2014) Number of Petitions Filed, Compensated, and Dismissed by Alleged Vaccine (cumulative 1998 through 2016) Number of Petitions Filed by year (1998-2017) Number of Adjudications compensable, dismissed and total (FY1989 - FY2017) Awards paid including amounts, attorneys fees, and total outlays (FY1989 - FY2016)

Abstract

The GSHS is a school-based survey which uses a self-administered questionnaire to obtain data on young people's health behaviour and protective factors related to the leading causes of morbidity and mortality among children and adults worldwide.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

Individuals

Universe

School-going adolescents aged 13-17 years.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

A two-stage cluster sample design was used to produce data representative of all students in grades JSS 2, JSS3, SSS 2, SSS 3 in Sierra Leone. At the first stage, schools were selected with probability proportional to enrollment size. At the second stage, classes were randomly selected and all students in selected classes were eligible to participate.

Mode of data collection

self-administered

Research instrument

The following core modules were included in the survey: alcohol use dietary behaviours drug use hygiene mental health physical activity protective factors sexual behaviours tobacco use violence and unintentional injury

Cleaning operations

All data processing (scanning, cleaning, editing, and weighting) was conducted at the US Centers for Disease Control.

Response rate

The school response rate was 94%, the student response rate was 87%, and the overall response rate was 82%.

Data from 2014 limited to first 3 to 5 months.Total injuries, injury rates per 1000 years of exposure and by type of injury, 2003–2014.

This dataset describes injury mortality in the United States beginning in 1999. Two concepts are included in the circumstances of an injury death: intent of injury and mechanism of injury. Intent of injury describes whether the injury was inflicted purposefully (intentional injury) and, if purposeful, whether the injury was self-inflicted (suicide or self-harm) or inflicted by another person (homicide). Injuries that were not purposefully inflicted are considered unintentional (accidental) injuries. Mechanism of injury describes the source of the energy transfer that resulted in physical or physiological harm to the body. Examples of mechanisms of injury include falls, motor vehicle traffic crashes, burns, poisonings, and drownings (1,2).

Data are based on information from all resident death certificates filed in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Age-adjusted death rates (per 100,000 standard population) are based on the 2000 U.S. standard population. Populations used for computing death rates for 2011–2015 are postcensal estimates based on the 2010 census, estimated as of July 1, 2010. Rates for census years are based on populations enumerated in the corresponding censuses. Rates for non-census years before 2010 are revised using updated intercensal population estimates and may differ from rates previously published.

Causes of injury death are classified by the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD–10). Categories of injury intent and injury mechanism generally follow the categories in the external-cause-of-injury mortality matrix (1,2). Cause-of-death statistics are based on the underlying cause of death.

SOURCES

CDC/NCHS, National Vital Statistics System, mortality data (see http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm); and CDC WONDER (see http://wonder.cdc.gov).

REFERENCES

1. National Center for Health Statistics. ICD–10: External cause of injury mortality matrix.

2. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital statistics data available. Mortality multiple cause files. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/vitalstatsonline.htm.

3. Murphy SL, Xu JQ, Kochanek KD, Curtin SC, and Arias E. Deaths: Final data for 2015. National vital statistics reports; vol 66. no. 6. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2017. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr66/nvsr66_06.pdf.

4. Miniño AM, Anderson RN, Fingerhut LA, Boudreault MA, Warner M. Deaths: Injuries, 2002. National vital statistics reports; vol 54 no 10. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2006.

Abstract

This study is an exploratory convergent parallel design mixed method assessment of the trauma healthcare system serving the population under demographic surveillance in Karonga, Northern Malawi. The Methodologies used are numbered as follows 1) community focus group discussions; 2) community photovoice study; 3) household survey; 4) verbal autopsy database analysis; 5) geographic information system analysis; 6) a survey of facility healthcare workers; 7) clinical vignettes for care process quality assessment of healthcare workers; 8) process mapping study of the care pathway and barriers following injury; 9) facility assessment survey. The findings from each study component are to be assessed for convergence, divergence or silence with those from the other relevant studies within an analytical matrix. The study is therefore an indepth injury care health system assessment for this population, aiming to provide generalizable methodological insight for application in other LMIC injury care health system assessments.

Approval Number: NHSRC #19/03/2263

Geographic coverage

MEIRU

Analysis unit

Individual

Universe

The DSS community (1,2,3,4) The geography around the DSS (5) Facility based health care workers (6,7,8) Healthcare facilities (9)

Sampling procedure

1 and 2 - purposive sampling of 3 groups of 6-8 DSS adult members with recent injury (past 12/12), without recent injury and community leaders. 3 - Random sample of 2,200 households identified. Out of 2200 households visited, 1819 (82.7%) households completed the survey. 4 - All Trauma deaths available within the DSS VA database. 6 - Surveys were completed by 228 health care workers. All available staff members who had been involved in the management of an injured person in the preceding 12 months were eligible and approached to take part in the survey. Eligible participants included those staff groups who provide direct care as well as technical and administrative staff, who might share insight into barriers and delays experienced by injured persons. 7 - All clinicians (Doctors, Clinical Officers and Medical Assistants) who would be involved in the treatment of the injured and were available (e.g. not on leave) during the facility visit were invited to take part. We employed a pragmatic, purposive, opportunistic sampling strategy, comparable with that adopted by others using vignettes. No clinicians declined to participate. Eighty five clinicians completed the vignettes; 14 generalist Doctors, 51 Clinical Officers, and 20 Medical Assistants 8 - Health Care Workers (HCWs) in each facility identified as serving injured patients from the Karonga Demographic and Surveillance site population of interest were invited to participate in process mapping workshops. Between 4 and 8 participants, per facility, were requested to be identified to take part. A senior staff member identified suitable participants in each facility. Participants were eligible if they were able to share insight into the process of care for patients following injury to deciding to seek care, successfully reaching care and receiving good quality care. Participants could be of any staff cadre, not limited to clinicians, who might be able to understand aspects of these processes. 9 - All facilities identified as potentially providing injury care to the DSS population were assessed using a facility assessment survey.

Sampling deviation

NA

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Study 1 Three community Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were undertaken. Eight adults (>18 years) were purposively selected for each. The first (FGD 1) consisted of members of the general public who had recently (within the past 12 months) sustained an injury with a minimum severity of preventing usual activity for > 1 day, or accessed formal injury care. These participants were identified through the Karonga DSS key informant network embedded within the local community whose role is describe in detail elsewhere. The second (FGD 2) consisted of adult members of the general public without experience of significant injury. They were identified from households close to those of the first focus group participants. The third (FGD 3) consisted of community leaders identified through the traditional authority network within the DSS. Candidates were selected from those potentially eligible to cover a range of gender, age, mechanism of injury (for FGD1) and location within the DSS. Eight participants were invited to each discussion group,

Two native Chitumbuka speaking research assistants visited these individuals in their communities to explain about the project using the participant information sheet at least 24 hours in advance of the discussion group meetings. These same research assistants assisted the authors (JW and ET) in conducting the group discussion.

Following initial training and practice, FGDs were facilitated by a research assistant, in the local language, following a discussion guide translated in advance. Discussions took place at a building in a central location in the DSS (Uliwa trading centre) convenient for participants. Present at each discussion workshop were two native Chitumbuka speaking employed research assistants, one male one female, trained and experienced in qualitative research within the specific community and 2 project researchers non-native speakers (JW male British and ET female Nigerian) trained in qualitative research as part of ongoing full studies towards PhD and MSc in Global Health systems research. Participants were not specifically known to the research team in advance of the study.

Research assistants contextualised the participants by providing examples of potential physical injuries by mechanisms and symptoms using the sentinel conditions used throughout this mixed method assessment. Then they asked participants to describe, in order, potential barriers then facilitators to care seeking (delay 1), reaching care (delay 2) or receiving quality care (delay 3) following injury within their community. They were asked to rank the most important barrier or facilitator for each delay and across all delays. To aid discussion and visually representation “spidergrams” were created upon which the barriers and facilitators were placed. Discussions lasted approximately 90 minutes. FGDs were audio recorded and subsequently transcribed and translated into English by MEIRU trained staff. The “spidergrams” were photographed for use in analysis as field notes. Discussions continued until no additional factors acting as either a barrier or a facilitator to injury care were proposed, this was deemed to represent conceptual saturation for each discussion group.

Study 2 Participants from the FGD1 were then invited to continue into a second phase of the study using photovoice methodology. Participants were provided with a basic digital camera for use during the study to be returned to the research team on completion. They participated in a training session on the use of the provided camera, basic principles of photography, the ethical implications of taking photos of people, the principles of photovoice, and the study aims. Participants were asked to use the medium of photography to illustrate what they believe to be important barriers to seeking, reaching and receiving good quality health care after injury. Participants were provided with a physical training manual for reference and given one week in which to take the photos. Midway through the week the research team visited participants at home to ensure progress and identify and resolve any problems or misunderstandings. After one week participants were visited and selected 3 images that best illustrated the barriers they wished to discuss and provided titles for the images. The research team printed these photos on A4 laminate paper. A follow up discussion group was then held with all the photovoice participants the following day.

During this follow up discussion meeting participants were asked to explain the meaning behind each photo and the reason they took it and wish to highlight it. Participants discussed how each photo might be mapped to the “Three Delays” conceptual framework and each photo was placed onto a Venn Diagram of 3 overlapping circles representing each delay. The meeting was audio recorded. Where photos selected involved identifiable people, those individuals were identified, visited and specific written consent for use of the images sought. If individuals could not be located then faces within the images were to be blurred to make the individuals unrecognisable. Translation and transcription of all audio recordings was conducted by trained native Chitumbuka speakers fluent in English. It was not possible to confirm transcriptions with participants for practical reasons.

Study 3 The survey was adapted from the WHO Guidelines for conducting community surveys on injuries and violence. Additional questions were included to capture health seeking behaviour and preferences, experience of and reasons for delays to seeking, reaching and receiving health care and experienced healthcare quality. The survey was translated into the vernacular language Chitumbuka by trained native speakers. It was then back translated to confirm accuracy of meaning.

The survey was divided into 2 sections. The first 7 questions were asked of all households. The second section was only applicable if the household reported at least 1 non-fatal injury in the preceding 12 months.

In the first section of the survey the informant was asked the following; which facility they would prefer to go to if they were to suffer an injury, with

Occupational Injury Statistics Network Reporting System Hand Injury Loss Days Conversion Chart Data (Updated when there are adjustments to hand injury loss conversion days)

The highest number of unintentional-injury-related deaths at home in the United States occurred in 2022 with 128,800 such deaths. This statistic shows a timeline of the number of unintentional-injury-related deaths at home in the United States from 1930 to 2023.

View data or report work-related injuries and illnesses to the Department of Public Health

This dataset contains estimates for the number of working days lost due to workplace non-fatal injuries and the rates of working days lost per worker and per case of injury, by the gender and age of workers, in the United Kingdom. The statistics are calculated by Health and Safety Executive (HSE) based on the Labor Force Survey (LFS) data provided by the Office for National Statistics.