rates of fatalities and non-fatal occupational …€¦ · 02/11/2018 · learning with purpose...

Learning with Purpose

RATES OF FATALITIES AND NON-FATAL

OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES IN LOBSTERING

FULMER S 1, BUCHHOLZ B 1, JENKINS P 2, SCRIBANI M 2

1 UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL, LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS, USA

2 NORTHEAST CENTER FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

AGRICULTURE – FORESTRY - FISHING,

COOPERSTOWN, NEW YORK, USA


The audience will learn:

• Why this investigation was needed, and

how it was conducted

• The lobstering fatality rate in 2012-2015

• Body segments most affected by

occupational exposure to lobstering, and

the prevalence of pain

• The incidence rate of non-fatal injury by

type, and by location

• Important concerns for prevention

GOALS OF THIS

PRESENTATION


OBJECTIVE

BACKGROUND

• To compile data to describe and analyze injury and total occupational

exposure associated with lobstering in the Northeast United States.


LOBSTERING

BACKGROUND

Massachusetts

$82 Million

2016

http://www.maine.gov/dmr/commercial-fishing/landings/documents/lobster.graph.pdf

NMFS Landings Query


SAMPLING

METHODS

• Most lobstermen are from Maine, Massachusetts

State Licenses* (%) Fatalities** FatalitiesPercentage

Connecticut 200 (2) 0 0Maine 8300 (78) 10 56

Massachusetts 1300 (12) 4 22New Hampshire 365 (3) 2 11

New Jersey 70 (1) 0 0New York 300 (3) 1 6

Rhode Island 80 (1) 1 6Total 10615 (100) 18 100

* Non-official estimates, given by state licensing personnel, 2011

**Fatalities for the years 2000-2009 (CDC 2010).


RECRUITING A COHORT

METHODS

• Sample size: using data from prior studies, we estimated mean exposure,

and decided to sample 120 lobster permit holders per state, plus an

additional 15% attrition (total 138 per state) to be representative and

feasible.

• Recruiting protocol: mailed invitation, up to 8 follow up phone calls at

varying times of day

• Informed consent at recruitment, then first interview

• Interviewing:

– Convenience emphasized – call, leave message but don’t ask for call back

– Questionnaire designed to limit time engaged in interview – 5 minutes or less

– By phone, in person


TWO TRACKS, TARGETS OF DATA COLLECTION

METHODS

Pain prevalence:– A modified Nordic Musculoskeletal

Questionnaire

– Captains and voluntary crew, in-person

– Administered once, cross-sectional

Injury incidence– Location, work-related, treatment

– Captains only, by phone

– Administered quarterly over four years,

longitudinal


TWO TRACKS, TARGETS OF DATA COLLECTION

METHODS

Pain prevalence:– Aches, pain, discomfort:

• Non-acute, non-specific, cumulative

trauma

• Location

• Duration

• Intensity

Injury incidence– Reportable injuries in prior 3 months:

– Cuts

– Sprains

– Bruises

– Unidentified pains

– Fractures

– Burns

– Amputations

– Total exposure per boat:

– Hours/trip,

– Day/week,

– Weeks/quarter,

– Number of crew


COHORT DEMOGRAPHICS

RESULTS

Maine Massachusetts Total

Captain Sternman* Captain Sternman* Captains Sternmen* Total

N 137 75 134 49 271 124 395

Gender (%male) 98.5% 89.3% 99.3% 89.8% 98.8% 88.9% 95.9%

mean + SD mean + SD mean + SD mean + SD mean + SD mean + SD mean + SD

Age (yr) 54+13 38+15 56+12 40+14 55+13 39+15 50+15

Experience (yr) 33+13 14+14 28+13 9+8 31+13 12+2 25+16

Height (cm) 180+8 178+8 178+8 178+10 180+8 178+8 178+8

Weight (kg) 94+17 84+17 89+15 84+16 92+16 84+17 89+16

*Sternmen were sampled by convenience. May not be representative.


TOTAL OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE = 5,847 FTE

RESULTS

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Winter Spring Summer Autumn

4 year average FTE per quarter, 2012-2015

Maine Massachusetts


ANNUAL FATALITY RATE = (N/FTE)*100,000

RESULTS

Year FTE Fatalities (N) Rate

2012 5987 1 17

2013 5830 0 0

2014 6097 4 66

2015 5946 0 0

2012-2015 5,847 5 21


PREVALENCE OF ACHES, PAINS, DISCOMFORTS

RESULTS

Location Prevalence1. Low back 49.9%2. Knees 26.6%3. Right shoulder only 18.7%4. Both hands 15.9%5. Ankles/feet 14.9%

Top 5 body locations for pain occurring in the last 3 months (N=395)


ACUTE INJURY INCIDENCE RATES

RESULTS

Type of Injury All reported

N Rate

Sprains 178 17.8

Cuts 149 14.8

Unidentified pains 95 9.4

Bruises 72 7.2

Fractures 12 1.2

Burns 4 0.4

Amputations 2 0.2

Total 512 51.1

Incidence rate = (N/EH)*200,000; EH = Employee hours = 2,005,525.7 total hours of lobstering in the sample for four year


ACUTE INJURY INCIDENCE RATES

RESULTS

Location Rate (per 100FTE)

1. Right hand only 3.6

2. Knees 2.0

3. Right shoulder only 1.8

4. Left hand only 1.8

5. Left shoulder only 1.7

Top 6 body locations for acute injury rates that required treatment

Incidence rate = (N/EH)*200,000; EH = Employee hours = 2,005,525.7 total hours of lobstering in the sample for four year


PROFILE OF BURDEN OF SUFFERING MSD

RESULTS

• The acute injury rate did not appear to decline over the course of 4 years.

• The high prevalence of pain was similar in profile to the body locations of

acute injuries, but not an exact reflection.

• Summer and fall were the most active seasons, while spring and summer

had statistically higher prevalence of pain than fall. No other statistically

significant differences in pain prevalence between seasons were observed.

• Differences in injury rates were not statistically significant between the

states.

• Fatality rate (21/100KFTE) looks smaller than other fisheries in the region:

– 300/100KFTE multi-species groundfish (2005-2014; NIOSH)

– 100/100KFTE flounder/scup/sea bass (2005-2014; NIOSH)


FOCUS FOR INTERVENTION

DISCUSSION

• Data on acute incidence and prevalence of pain would

indicate a focus on intervening at exposures impacting these

outcomes:

1. Back pain

2. Knee pain and injury

3. Hand/wrist injuries

4. Shoulder pain and injuries

• However, the acute injury incidence densities are high at

most body locations.

• Most serious exposure is the cumulative effect of activities

associated with pulling in and breaking down traps.


SUGGESTIONS FOR INTERVENTION

DISCUSSION

• Effective interventions can be developed with focus. In fact, the variability

of current practices include examples of comparatively better ergonomics.

Lobstermen don’t routinely discuss these concerns with each other.

• Engage lobstermen in participatory research to excite and build community

around prevention and improving conditions in the lobster industry.

– No intervention too big, or too small.

– Hydraulics expert is as integral as harbormaster in the industry infrastructure

• Generate a job exposure/intervention matrix for wide dissemination, including

safety measures to prevent entanglements, to inform and enable the strong Do-It-

Yourself culture.


SUMMARY

CONCLUSION

The data show that the lobstering

industry characteristically has high

rates of injury, high prevalence of pain,

and lower rates of occupational

fatalities compared to other

commercial fisheries.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

With deep appreciation to the lobstermen who participated and

informed us, and to the Northeast Ag Center for support.

rates of fatalities and non-fatal occupational …€¦ · 02/11/2018 · learning with purpose...

Documents