Preventing occupational chemical eye injuries: important lessons from poison information centres.

BACKGROUND: Occupational exposure to hazardous substances is a major public health problem. In the workplace, eye exposures are common and can be a major cause of morbidity and disability. This commentary discusses the role of poison information centres in providing valuable information on the circumstances and causes of these incidents. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SURVEILLANCE: As many eye exposures are easily preventable, there is a need to establish better safety practices in the workplace. Currently, both governments and labour organizations primarily employ injury statistics for the purpose of occupational health surveillance. Identifying risk factors associated with acute exposures in the workplace requires a comprehensive approach using a variety of information resources. Using information from poison information centres can provide invaluable insight into the specifics of the exposure, including the route(s) of exposure, the substances involved and the cause of the exposure. CIRCUMSTANCES OF OCCUPATIONAL EYE EXPOSURES: Exposure to hazardous substances can occur at various time points during work. A prospective study performed by the Dutch Poisons Information Centre showed that cleaning is a high-risk activity for occupational eye exposure. Patients were often exposed to chemical mixtures that frequently contained alkalis or acids. CHEMICAL EYE INJURIES: Symptoms following eye contact with chemicals can vary greatly depending on factors such as the type and concentration of the substance(s) involved, the duration of exposure and the time and duration of irrigation (first-aid measure). Eye contact will usually cause irritation, but in more severe cases, chemical burns will result. Recent studies demonstrate that occupational eye exposures often result in only relatively mild symptoms, such as pain, redness, lacrimation or temporary loss of vision. More severe symptoms, such as corneal abrasion, were reported rarely, which may be explained by prompt eye irrigation. ROOT CAUSES OF OCCUPATIONAL EYE EXPOSURES: To control risks to workers, a hierarchy of prevention and control measures has been established, which employers must take. If elimination or substitution of the dangerous substance is not possible, the exposure can be prevented or reduced by taking organizational (e.g., providing work instructions), technical (e.g., ventilation) and personal (e.g., wearing personal protective equipment) measures. The study performed by the Dutch Poisons Information Centre showed that organizational factors (such as lack of work instructions) and personal factors (such as time pressure and fatigue, and not (adequately) using personal protective equipment), were the main causes of occupational eye exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Poison information centres provide valuable information that can be used to develop prevention strategies to reduce the number of acute occupational exposures in the future. A multidisciplinary approach is essential to ensure that these preventive measures are actually applied in practice. Therefore, all organizations involved (including governments, labour organizations, medical professionals, occupational physicians, occupational hygienists, safety experts and poison information centres) must work closely together.

Causal factors of work-related chemical eye injuries reported to the Dutch Poisons Information Center.

This study investigated the circumstances of chemical occupational eye exposures reported to the Dutch Poisons Information Center. During a 1-year prospective study, data were collected through a telephone survey of 132 victims of acute occupational eye exposure. Victims were often exposed to industrial products (35%) or cleaning products (27%). Most patients developed no or mild symptoms. Organizational factors (such as lack of work instructions (52%)), and personal factors (such as time pressure and fatigue (50%), and not adequately using personal protective equipment (PPE, 14%), were the main causes of occupational eye exposures. Exposure often occurred during cleaning activities (34%) and personal factors were reported more often during cleaning (67%) than during other work activities (41%). Data from Poison Control Centers are a valuable source of information, enabling the identification of risk factors for chemical occupational eye exposure. This study shows that personal factors like time pressure and fatigue play a significant role, although personal factors may be related to organizational issues such as poor communication. Therefore, risk mitigation strategies should focus on technical, organizational, and personal factors. The need to follow work instructions and proper use of PPE should also have a prominent place in the education and training of workers.

Acute occupational exposures reported to the Dutch Poisons Information Center: a prospective study on the root causes of incidents at the workplace.

BACKGROUND: Hazardous substances at the workplace can cause a wide variety of occupational incidents. This study aimed to investigate the nature and circumstances of acute occupational intoxications reported to the Dutch Poisons Information Center. METHODS: During a one-year prospective study, data on the circumstances and causes of the incident, the exposure(s) and clinical course, were collected by a telephone survey with victims of an acute occupational intoxication. RESULTS: We interviewed 310 patients. Most incidents occurred in industry (25%), building and installation industry (14%) and agriculture (10%). Patients were often exposed via multiple routes. Inhalation was the most common route of exposure (62%), followed by ocular (40%) and dermal contact (33%). Acids and alkalis were often involved. Exposure often occurred during cleaning activities (33%). The main root causes of these accidents were: technical factors such as damaged packaging (24%) and defective apparatus (10%), organizational factors such as lack of work instructions (44%) and poor communication or planning (31%), and personal factors such as disregarding work instructions (13%), not (adequately) using personal protective equipment (12%) and personal circumstances (50%) such as inaccuracy, time pressure or fatigue. The majority of the patients only reported mild health effects and recovered quickly (77% within 1 week). CONCLUSIONS: Poison Center data on occupational exposures provide an additional source of knowledge and an important basis for poisoning prevention strategies related to hazardous substances at the workplace. These data are useful in deciding which risk mitigation measures are most needed in preventing future workplace injuries.