Risk and Protective Factors for Injury in Adult Front- and Rear-Seated Motor Vehicle Occupants in New York State.

Although seatbelt use is known to reduce motor vehicle occupant crash injury and death, rear-seated adult occupants are less likely to use restraints. This study examines risk and protective factors associated with injury severity in front- and rear-seated adults involved in a motor vehicle crash in New York State. The Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) (2016-2017) was used to examine injury severity in front- and rear-seated occupants aged 18 years or older (N = 958,704) involved in a motor vehicle crash. CODES uses probabilistic linkage of New York State hospitalization, emergency department, and police and motorist crash reports. Multivariable logistic regression models with MI analyze employed SAS 9.4. Odds ratios are reported as OR with 95% CI. The mortality rate was approximately 1.5 times higher for rear-seated than front-seated occupants (136.60 vs. 92.45 per 100,000), with rear-seated occupants more frequently unrestrained than front-seated occupants (15.28% vs. 1.70%, p < 0.0001). In adjusted analyses that did not include restraint status, serious injury/death was higher in rear-seated compared to front-seated occupants (OR:1.272, 1.146-1.412), but lower once restraint use was added (OR: 0.851, 0.771-0.939). Unrestrained rear-seated occupants exhibited higher serious injury/death than restrained front-seated occupants. Unrestrained teens aged 18-19 years old exhibit mortality per 100,000 occupants that is more similar to that of the oldest two age groups than to other young and middle-aged adults. Speeding, a drinking driver, and older vehicles were among the independent predictors of serious injury/death. Unrestrained rear-seated adult occupants exhibit higher severe injury/death than restrained front-seated occupants. When restrained, rear-seated occupants are less likely to be seriously injured than restrained front-seated occupants.

Motor Vehicle Crash and Hospital Charges in Front- and Rear-Seated Restrained and Unrestrained Adult Motor Vehicle Occupants.

There are reports that historically higher mortality observed for front- compared to rear-seated adult motor vehicle (MV) occupants has narrowed. Vast improvements have been made in strengthening laws and restraint use in front-, but not rear-seated occupants suggesting there may be value in expanding the science on rear-seat safety. METHODS: A linked 2016-2017 hospital and MV crash data set, the Crash Outcomes Data Evaluation System (CODES), was used to compare characteristics of front-seated (n = 115,939) and rear-seated (n = 5729) adults aged 18 years and older involved in a MV crash in New York State (NYS). A primary enforced seat belt law existed for front-seated, but not rear-seated occupants. Statistical analysis employed SAS 9.4. RESULTS: Compared to front-seated occupants, those rear-seated were more likely to be unrestrained (21.2% vs. 4.3%, p < 0.0001) and to have more moderate-to-severe injury/death (11.9% vs. 11.3%, p < 0.0001). Compared to restrained rear-seated occupants, unrestrained rear-seated occupants had higher moderate-to-severe injury/death (21.5% vs. 7.5%, p < 0.0001) and 4-fold higher hospitalization. More than 95% of ejections were unrestrained and had 7-fold higher medical charges. Unrestrained occupants' hospital stays were longer, charges and societal financial costs higher. CONCLUSIONS: These findings extend the science of rear-seat safety in seriously injured rear-seated occupants, document increased medical charges and support the need to educate consumers and policy makers on the health and financial risks of adults riding unrestrained in the rear seat. The lack of restraint use in adult rear-seated motor vehicle occupants consumes scarce health care dollars for treatment of this serious, but largely preventable injury.

Using Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) to examine injury in front vs. rear-seated infants and children involved in a motor vehicle crash in New York State.

BACKGROUND: In New York State (NYS), motor vehicle (MV) injury to child passengers is a leading cause of hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visits in children aged 0-12 years. NYS laws require appropriate child restraints for ages 0-7 years and safety belts for ages 8 and up while traveling in a private passenger vehicle, but do not specify a seating position. METHODS: Factors associated with injury in front-seated (n = 11,212) compared to rear-seated (n = 93,092) passengers aged 0-12 years were examined by age groups 0-3, 4-7 and 8-12 years using the 2012-2014 NYS Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES). CODES consists of Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) crash reports linked to ED visits and hospitalizations. The front seat was row 1 and the rear rows 2-3. Vehicle towed from scene and air bag deployed were proxies for crash severity. Injury was dichotomized based on Maximum Abbreviated Injury Severity (MAIS) scores greater than zero. Multivariable logistic regression (odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI) was used to examine factors predictive of injury for the total population and for each age group. RESULTS: Front-seated children had more frequent injury than those rear-seated (8.46% vs. 4.92%, p < 0.0001). Children in child restraints experienced fewer medically-treated injuries compared to seat belted or unrestrained children (3.80, 6.50 and 13.62%, p < 0.0001 respectively). A higher proportion of children traveling with an unrestrained vs. restrained driver experienced injury (14.50% vs 5.26%, p < 0.0001). After controlling for crash severity, multivariable adjusted predictors of injury for children aged 0-12 years included riding in the front seat (1.20, 1.10-1.31), being unrestrained vs. child restraint (2.13, 1.73-2.62), being restrained in a seat belt vs. child restraint (1.20, 1.11-1.31), and traveling in a car vs. other vehicle type (1.21, 1.14-1.28). Similarly, protective factors included traveling with a restrained driver (0.61, 0.50-0.75), a driver aged < 25 years (0.91, 0.82-0.99), being an occupant of a later vehicle model year 2005-2008 (0.68, 0.53-0.89) or 2009-2015 (0.55, 0.42-0.71) compared to older model years (1970-1993). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to front-seated children, rear-seated children and children in age-appropriate restraints had lower adjusted odds of medically-treated injury.

Treatment Patterns and Costs Among Children Aged 2 to 17 Years With ADHD in New York State Medicaid in 2013.

Objective: To identify children with ADHD enrolled in New York State (NYS) Medicaid and characterize ADHD-associated costs by treatment category. Method: In 2013, 1.4 million children aged 2 to 17 years were enrolled in NYS Medicaid. Medicaid claims and encounters were used to identify children with ADHD, classify them by type of treatment received, and estimate associated costs. Results: The ADHD cohort comprised 5.4% of all Medicaid-enrolled children, with 35.0% receiving medication only, 16.2% receiving psychological services only, 42.2% receiving both, and 6.6% receiving neither. The total costs for the ADHD cohort (US$729.3 million) accounted for 18.1% of the total costs for children enrolled in NYS Medicaid. Conclusion: This study underscores the importance of achieving a better understanding of children with ADHD enrolled in NYS Medicaid. A framework to categorize children with ADHD based on their treatment categories may help to target interventions to improve the quality of care and reduce costs.

Using Rural⁻Urban Continuum Codes (RUCCS) to Examine Alcohol-Related Motor Vehicle Crash Injury and Enforcement in New York State.

Rural areas of New York State (NYS) have higher rates of alcohol-related motor vehicle (MV) crash injury than metropolitan areas. While alcohol-related injury has declined across the three geographic regions of NYS, disparities persist with rural areas having smaller declines. Our study aim was to examine factors associated with alcohol-related MV crashes in Upstate and Long Island using multi-sourced county-level data that included the Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) with emergency department visits and hospitalizations, traffic citations, demographic, economic, transportation, alcohol outlets, and Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (RUCCS). A cross-sectional study design employed zero-truncated negative binominal regression models to assess relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Counties (n = 57, 56,000 alcohol-related crashes over the 3 year study timeframe) were categorized by mean annual alcohol-related MV injuries per 100,000 population: low (24.7 ± 3.9), medium (33.9 ± 1.7) and high (46.1 ± 8.0) (p < 0.0001). In multivariable analyses, alcohol-related MV injury was elevated for non-adjacent, non-metropolitan counties (RR 2.5, 95% CI: 1.6-3.9) with higher citations for impaired driving showing a small, but significant protective effect. Less metropolitan areas had higher alcohol-related MV injury with inconsistent alcohol-related enforcement measures. In summary, higher alcohol-related MV injury rates in non-metropolitan counties demonstrated a dose-response relationship with proximity to a metropolitan area. These findings suggest areas where intervention efforts might be targeted to lower alcohol-related MV injury.

Respiratory protection policies and practices among the health care workforce exposed to influenza in New York State: evaluating emergency preparedness for the next pandemic.

BACKGROUND: New York State hospitals are required to implement a respiratory protection program (RPP) consistent with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration respirator standard. Guidance provided during the 2009 novel H1N1 pandemic expanded on earlier recommendations, emphasizing the need to keep staff in all health care settings healthy to maintain services. METHODS: New York State hospitals with emergency departments having more than 1,000 visits annually were invited to participate; 23 hospitals participated. Health care workers, unit managers, and hospital managers were interviewed regarding knowledge, beliefs, and practices of respiratory protection. Interviewees were observed donning and doffing an N-95 respirator as they normally would during patient care. Written RPPs for each hospital were evaluated. RESULTS: The majority of the hospitals surveyed had implemented an RPP, although unawareness of the policies and practices, as well as inadequacies in education and training exist among health care workers. CONCLUSION: Health care workers and other hospital employees may be unnecessarily exposed to airborne infectious diseases. Having an RPP ensures safe and effective use of N-95 respirators and will help prevent avoidable exposure to disease during a pandemic, protecting the health care workforce and patients alike.