Objectives The authors estimated the associations between transient risk factors and laceration injuries in workers at two meatpacking plants in the Midwest.
Methods The case-crossover design was used to collect within-subject transient work task and personal-level exposure information. RRs of laceration injuries were estimated by comparing exposures during the ‘hazard’ period (just before the laceration injury) with exposures in the ‘control’ period (the previous workweek). Stratified analyses were utilised to estimate the effects of gender, ethnicity, training and the number of adjacent coworkers on each transient risk factor.
Results The authors interviewed 295 meatpacking workers with laceration injuries (mean age 36.6 years, SD 11.2, 75% men, 48% Hispanic). Recent tool sharpening (RR 5.3, 95% CI 3.8 to 7.4) and equipment malfunction (RR 5.3, 95% CI 3.9 to 7.3) were associated with the highest RR for laceration injury, followed by using an unusual work method to accomplish a task (RR 4.1, 95% CI 2.6 to 6.4) and performing an unusual task (RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.8 to 3.0). Rushing and being distracted were not significantly associated with an elevated RR of a laceration injury. In stratified analyses, there were a number of significant differences in laceration risk factors by gender, ethnicity, training, and number of workers on the line.
Conclusions Sharpening tools, equipment malfunction, using an unusual work method to accomplish a task and performing an unusual task were all associated with increased risk of lacerations. Expanded training in atypical work circumstances and evaluation of tool sharpening procedures are intervention areas in meatpacking that need examination.
- traumatic injury
- meat processing
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding This work was supported by grant R01OH008174 (NIOSH, MJP, PI).
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval Ethical approval was provided by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and the Office of Human Research Administration of the Harvard School of Public Health.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.