SAFETYLIT WEEKLY UPDATE

We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
Email Signup | RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article

Citation

Bonauto DK, Wuellner SE, Marcum JL, Adams DA. J. Agromed. 2019; ePub(ePub): ePub.

Affiliation

Washington State Department of Labor Industrie , SHARP , Olympia , Washington , USA.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2019, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/1059924X.2019.1566106

PMID

30624159

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Current industry classification systems in the United States do not differentiate mechanized and non-mechanized logging operations. The objectives of this article are to quantify injury risk differences between mechanized and non-mechanized logging operations in Washington State and to evaluate for potential injury risk tradeoffs, such as decreasing traumatic injuries while increasing non-traumatic injuries that might occur when mechanized logging operations are substituted for non-mechanized logging operations.

METHODS: Using Washington State workers' compensation insurance risk classes to differentiate mechanized and non-mechanized logging operations, injury and illness claims data and employer reported hours were used to compare claim rates and to characterize injuries by type of logging operation.

RESULTS: From 2005-2014, the accepted Washington State worker's compensation claim rate for non-mechanized logging was 46.4 per 100 full-time equivalent employees compared to 6.7 per 100 FTE for mechanized logging activities. The rate ratio for comparing non-mechanized to mechanized logging claims rates for all accepted claims was 6.9 (95% Confidence Interval 6.4-7.5). Claim rates for traumatic injury and non-traumatic injuries in non-mechanized logging exceeded comparable rates in mechanized logging activities, although the distribution of types of injury differed by type of logging operation. A greater percentage of accepted claims in non-mechanized logging were traumatic injuries than in mechanized logging (92.2% vs. 85.0%, respectively). Additionally, non-mechanized logging had higher total claim and medical costs per Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) and had a higher proportion of claims with lost work time than mechanized logging.

CONCLUSION: Mechanized logging offers a considerable safety advantage over non-mechanized logging operations. Continued efforts to increase the mechanization of logging operations will result in decreased injury rates.


Language: en

Keywords

injury; logging; mechanization; safety; workers’ compensation

NEW SEARCH


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley
Print