|
Citation
|
Bellal J, Zangbar B, Bains S, Kulvatunyou N, Khalil M, Mahmoud D, Friese RS, O'Keeffe T, Pandit V, Rhee P. Traffic Injury Prev. 2016; 17(5): 460-464. |
|
Affiliation
|
Division of Trauma, Critical Care, Burns, and Emergency Surgery , Department of Surgery , University of Arizona , Tucson , Arizona. |
|
Abstract
|
INTRODUCTION: Distracted driving (talking and/or texting) is a growing public safety problem with increasing incidence among adult drivers. The aim of this study was to identify the incidence of distracted driving (DD) among health care providers and to create awareness against DD. We hypothesized that distracted driving is prevalent among health care providers and a preventive campaign against distracted driving would effectively decrease distracted driving among healthcare providers.
METHODS: We performed a four-phase prospective interventional study of all health care providers at our level one trauma center. Phase one: one week of pre-intervention observation, phase two: one week of intervention, phase three: one week of post-intervention observation, and phase four: one week of 6 months post-intervention observation. Observations were performed outside employee parking garage at time intervals: 6.30-8.30am, 4.40-5.30pm, and 6.30-7.30pm. Intervention comprised of email survey, pamphlets and banners in the hospital cafeteria, and post intervention survey. Hospital employees were identified with: badges and scrubs, employees exiting through employee gate, and parking pass on the car. Outcome measure was incidence of DD pre, post, and 6 months post-intervention.
RESULTS: A total of 15,416 observations (Pre: 6,639, Post: 4,220, 6 months Post: 4,557) and 520 survey responses were collected. The incident of DD was 11.8% among healthcare providers. There was a significant reduction in DD in each time interval of observation between the pre and post intervention. On sub-analysis, there was a significant decrease in talking (p = 0.0001) and texting (p = 0.01) while driving post intervention as compared to that of pre-intervention. In survey, 35.5% of respondents admitted to DD and 4.5% respondents were involved in an accident due to DD. We found that 77% respondents felt more informed after the survey and 91% respondents supported a state legislation against DD. The reduction in the incidence of DD post intervention was sustained even at 6-month follow up.
CONCLUSION: There was 32% reduction in the incidence of distracted driving post-intervention which remained low even at 6 month follow up. Implementation of an effective injury prevention campaign could reduce the incidence distracted driving nationally. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, interventional study.
Language: en |