International Comparison of Fire Department Injuries
- 500 Downloads
Firefighting remains a dangerous profession. The objective of this study was to compare injury rates among career and volunteer fire departments internationally. Methods: Injury and staffing data were collected for 2004–2009. All reported, lost-time, and activity-specific injury rates were calculated for fireground, medical, training and physical exercise activities. Injury rates were also adjusted for number of fireground and medical responses, and average annual training hours. Injury rates were generally higher in the U.S. than in Commonwealth nation and Japanese fire departments. Lost-time injury rates varied markedly among fire departments, from 0.6 (95% CI 0.4–0.9) to 23.5 (95% CI 22.4–22.7) injuries per 100 firefighters per year. The greatest pair-wise differences in lost-time injury rates were seen in the fireground and medical call activities, and these differences persisted when the rates were adjusted by the number of firefighters responding to fireground and medical incidents, respectively. Injury rates vary substantially across fire departments, suggesting that substantial improvements could result from adoption of more optimal health and safety approaches.
KeywordsFirefighter Injuries International Risk management
We wish to thank the partnering fire department administrations and unions for their willingness to share their expertise and data. In addition, we would like to thank the Metro Chiefs, in particular Russ Sanders, and the International Association of Fire Firefighters for their support of the study. Casey Grant and the panel members of the Fire Protection Research Foundation of the National Fire Protection Association provided essential review of the study design, results and interpretation.
This study was supported by FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program—Fire Prevention and Safety grant # EMW-2008-FP-01536.
Conflict of interest
- 4.Karter MJ, Molis JL (2010) U.S. Firefighter Injuries—2010. National Fire Protection Association, Fire Analysis and Research Division, Quincy, MAGoogle Scholar
- 5.Poplin GS, Harris RB, Pollack K, Peate W, Burgess JL (2011) Beyond the fireground: injuries in the fire service. Inj Prev. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2011-040149
- 6.Robens Committee (1972) Committee of inquiry into health and safety at work. Cmnd HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 7.AS/NZS ISO 31000 (2009) Risk management—principles and guidelines. Standards Australia, Australia. ISBN: 0-7337-9289-8.Google Scholar
- 8.Japan Industrial Safety and Health Association, English translation of Guidelines on Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems, Ministry of Labour Notification No. 53. http://www.jisha.or.jp/english/pdf/Ministry_of_Labor,Health_OSHMS_Guideline.pdf. Accessed 13 Aug 2012
- 10.Centre of Fire Statistics of CTIF—World Fire Statistics 2006—Report No. 11 (2006) http://www.ctif.org/IMG/pdf/CTIF_report11_world_fire_statistics_2006-2.pdf. Accessed 13 Aug 2012
- 12.Maizlish NA (ed) (2000) Workplace health surveillance: an action-oriented approach. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 13.Karter MJ (2012) Patterns of firefighter fireground injuries. National Fire Protection Association, Fire Analysis and Research Division. Quincy, MAGoogle Scholar
- 16.Aherns M (2007) Trends and patterns of U.S. fire losses. National Fire Protection Association, Fire Analysis and Research Division, Quincy, MAGoogle Scholar
- 17.Karter MJ (2011) Fire loss in the United States during 2010. National Fire Protection Association, Fire Analysis and Research Division, Quincy, MAGoogle Scholar
- 22.Moore-Merrill L, Zhou A, McDonald-Valentine S, Goldstein R, Slocum C (2008) Contributing factors to firefighter line-f-duty injury in metropolitan fire departments in the United States. International Association of Fire Fighters. AugustGoogle Scholar
- 24.Stout N, Frommer M, Harrison (1990) Comparison of work-related fatality surveillance in the U.S.A. and Australia. J Occup Accid 13:195–211Google Scholar