American journal of industrial medicine · 2000
Nature, incidence, and cause of work-related amputations in Minnesota.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Boyle D, Parker D, Larson C, Pessoa-Brandão L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The Minnesota Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risks (SENSOR) has collected data on the nature, incidence, and cause of work-related amputation injuries that have taken place since 1992.
METHODS: SENSOR defined an amputation as any finger amputation or the loss of any other body part; 832 workers were identified as having amputation injuries between 1994 and 1995 and 72% of these workers completed telephone interviews.
RESULTS: The amputation injury rate for Minnesota workers was 39 per 100,000 workers, with agriculture and manufacturing having the highest rates. Sixty-six percent of the injuries involved one finger; 14% involved two or more fingers. Persons working with machinery reported 73% of the injuries.
CONCLUSIONS: A closer examination of the incidence and causes for amputation injuries shows that these were not random events. Reliance on human reactions to prevent injury is inadequate; therefore, additional research needs to be conducted.
METHODS: SENSOR defined an amputation as any finger amputation or the loss of any other body part; 832 workers were identified as having amputation injuries between 1994 and 1995 and 72% of these workers completed telephone interviews.
RESULTS: The amputation injury rate for Minnesota workers was 39 per 100,000 workers, with agriculture and manufacturing having the highest rates. Sixty-six percent of the injuries involved one finger; 14% involved two or more fingers. Persons working with machinery reported 73% of the injuries.
CONCLUSIONS: A closer examination of the incidence and causes for amputation injuries shows that these were not random events. Reliance on human reactions to prevent injury is inadequate; therefore, additional research needs to be conducted.