RESUMO
We conducted a comprehensive review of state workers' compensation laws in the United States to evaluate the extent to which they support first responders with mental injury. Most state workers' compensation systems divide mental injuries into categories based on their presumed etiology: physical-mental, mental-physical, and mental-mental. Major differences exist among states as to which workers are eligible. Proving workplace causation can be difficult where no traumatic physical injuries exist. Latency periods, time limits, preexisting health conditions, restrictions as to types of condition covered, and complex chains of causation may make this burden, which falls on the claimant, even more challenging. Only nine (9) states enacted presumption of causation laws for mental health conditions to ease claimants' burden of proof. This contrasts starkly with presumption laws for chronic and infectious diseases. State decision-makers should create presumptions that mental health conditions in first responders are caused or significantly exacerbated by their stressful workplaces.
Assuntos
Transtornos Mentais , Indenização aos Trabalhadores , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Indenização aos Trabalhadores/legislação & jurisprudência , Saúde Mental/legislação & jurisprudência , Governo EstadualRESUMO
Levofloxacin prophylaxis reduces bloodstream infections in neutropenic patients with acute myeloid leukemia or relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia. A retrospective, longitudinal cohort study compares incidence of bacteremia, multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO), and Clostridioides difficile (CDI) between time periods of levofloxacin prophylaxis implementation. Benefits were sustained without increasing MDRO or CDI.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The Fire service Organizational Culture of Safety (FOCUS) survey is an assessment tool comprised of psychometrically validated metrics of safety climate, safety behavior, and downstream outcomes (organizational and injury) that are specific to the U.S. fire and rescue service. METHODS: This analysis consists of a descriptive summary of two independent survey waves (FOCUS 1.0 and 2.0). The fire departments included in these survey waves were from convenience sampling (n1.0 = 275; n2.0 = 170). In addition to department level characteristics, we examined individual level characteristics for firefighters and EMS providers in participating departments (n1.0 = 22,719; n2.0 = 16,882). We conducted regression analyses to examine the associations between safety climate and safety behaviors, organizational outcomes, and safety outcomes. All analyses were stratified by organization type (career, volunteer). RESULTS: Our analysis indicated that a majority of respondents were males (90.7%FOCUS 1.0; 90.4%FOCUS 2.0), non-officers (68.4%FOCUS 1.0; 66.4%FOCUS 2.0), and non-Hispanic Whites (70.8%FOCUS 1.0; 69.5%FOCUS 2.0). For both samples there was a higher prevalence of injuries among individuals in career departments (nFOCUS 1.0 = 3778 [17.5%]; nFOCUS 2.0 = 3072 [18.7%]) than volunteer departments (nFOCUS 1.0 = 103 [8.8%]; nFOCUS 2.0 = 34 [7.4%]). We observed an approximate 10-point difference between the mean scores of Management Commitment to Safety for career and volunteer departments in both samples. We observed associations for two organizational outcomes, Safety Behavior and Job Satisfaction, with Management Commitment to Safety and Supervisor Support for Safety overall and when stratified by organization type. We observed a decrease in the odds of injuries associated with a one-unit increase in Management Commitment to Safety (OR1.0 overall: 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.99; OR2.0 volunteer: 0.90, 95% CI 0.85-0.95) and Supervisor Support for Safety (OR1.0 overall: 0.95, 95% CI 0.93-0.97; OR1.0 career: 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: From our current study, and a prior analysis of a geographically stratified random sample of U.S. fire departments, we identified that from all the organizational outcomes, job satisfaction was most consistently associated with FOCUS safety climate. Further, firefighters in our samples consistently rated Supervisor Support for Safety higher than Management Commitment to Safety. Future interventions should support fire departments in improving their departmental Management Commitment to Safety and maintaining their Supervisor for Safety.
RESUMO
Background: Smoke exposure from wildfires or residential wood burning for heat is a public health problem for many communities. Do-It-Yourself (DIY) portable air cleaners (PACs) are promoted as affordable alternatives to commercial PACs, but evidence of their effect on health outcomes is limited. Objective: Pilot test an evaluation of the effect of DIY PAC usage on self-reported symptoms, and investigate barriers and facilitators of PAC use, among members of a tribal community that routinely experiences elevated concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) from smoke. Methods: We conducted studies in Fall 2021 ("wildfire study"; N = 10) and Winter 2022 ("wood stove study"; N = 17). Each study included four sequential one-to-two-week phases: 1) initial, 2) DIY PAC usage ≥8 h/day, 3) commercial PAC usage ≥8 h/day, and 4) air sensor with visual display and optional PAC use. We continuously monitored PAC usage and indoor/outdoor PM2.5 concentrations in homes. Concluding each phase, we conducted phone surveys about participants' symptoms, perceptions, and behaviors. We analyzed symptoms associated with PAC usage and conducted an analysis of indoor PM2.5 concentrations as a mediating pathway using mixed effects multivariate linear regression. We categorized perceptions related to PACs into barriers and facilitators of use. Results: No association was observed between PAC usage and symptoms, and the mediation analysis did not indicate that small observed trends were attributable to changes in indoor PM2.5 concentrations. Small sample sizes hindered the ability to draw conclusions regarding the presence or absence of causal associations. DIY PAC usage was low; loud operating noise was a barrier to use. Discussion: This research is novel in studying health effects of DIY PACs during wildfire and wood smoke exposures. Such research is needed to inform public health guidance. Recommendations for future studies on PAC use during smoke exposure include building flexibility of intervention timing into the study design.