Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T04:00:46.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Work-related Injuries Among Emergency Medical Technicians in Western Turkey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2016

Atakan Yilmaz*
Affiliation:
Pamukkale University Medical Faculty, Department of Emergency Medicine, Denizli, Turkey
Mustafa Serinken
Affiliation:
Pamukkale University Medical Faculty, Department of Emergency Medicine, Denizli, Turkey
Onur Dal
Affiliation:
Acıbadem University Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey
Serpil Yaylacı
Affiliation:
Adnan Menderes University Medical Faculty, Department of Emergency Medicine, Aydın, Turkey
Ozgur Karcioglu
Affiliation:
Adnan Menderes University Medical Faculty, Department of Emergency Medicine, Aydın, Turkey
*
Correspondence: Atakan Yilmaz, MD Assistant Professor of Emergency Medicine Pamukkale University Hospital Department of Emergency Medicine Denizli, Turkey E-mail: dr_atakanyilmaz@yahoo.com

Abstract

Objectives

Emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and paramedics are at serious risk for work-related injuries (WRIs) during work hours. Both EMTs and paramedics have higher WRI rates, according to the literature data. This study was designed to investigate causes and characteristics of WRIs involving EMTs and paramedics staffed in Western Turkey.

Methods

All health care personnel staffed in Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in the city were interviewed face-to-face in their off-duty hours to inform them about the study. Excluded from the study were those who declined to participate in the study, those who were not on duty during the two-month study period, and those who had been working in the EMS for less than one year. The subjects were asked to answer multiple-choice questions.

Results

A total of 163 personnel (117 EMTs and 46 paramedics) comprised the study sample. Eighty-three personnel (50.9%) were female and mean age was 29.7 years (SD=8.4 years). The most common mechanisms of WRI, as reported by the personnel, were motor vehicle accidents (MVAs; 31.9%), needlestick injuries (16.0%), ocular exposure to bodily fluids (15.4%), and sharp injuries (9.8%), respectively. Needlestick injuries commonly occurred during intravenous line procedures (59.4%) and inside the cruising ambulance (n=20; 62.5%). Working inside the cruising ambulance was the most commonly accused cause of the WRI (41.3%).

Conclusion

Paramedic personnel and EMTs are under high risk of WRI. Motor vehicle accidents and needlestick injuries were the most common causes of WRI. Strict measures need to be taken to restructure the interior design to protect personnel from all kinds of WRIs.

YilmazA, SerinkenM, DalO, YaylacıS, KarciogluO. Work-related Injuries Among Emergency Medical Technicians in Western Turkey. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2016;31(5):505–508.

Type
Original Research
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Reichard, AA, Marsh, SM, Moore, PH. Fatal and nonfatal injuries among emergency medical technicians and paramedics. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2011;15(4):511-517.Google Scholar
2. Turkish Statistical Institute (TURKSTAT). Social Security Statistics. http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1051. Accessed March 05, 2014.Google Scholar
3. Yılmaz, A, Dal, O, Yaylacı, S, Uyanık, E. Rate of exposure to violence in 112 staff in Denizli City. Eurasian J Emerg Med. 2015;14:103-106.Google Scholar
4. Eksi, A, Celikli, S, Kıyan, S. The effects of social networking on disaster communication used by the emergency medical and rescue staff - the case of the Van Earthquake. Eurasian J Emerg Med. 2014;13:58-61.Google Scholar
5. Maguire, BJ, Hunting, KL, Smith, GS, Levick, NR. Occupational fatalities in Emergency Medical Services: a hidden crisis. Ann Emerg Med. 2002;40(6):625-632.Google Scholar
6. Levick, NR, Swanson, J. An optimal solution for enhancing ambulance safety: implementing a driver performance feedback and monitoring device in ground Emergency Medical Service vehicles. Annu Proc Assoc Adv Automot Med. 2005;49:35-50.Google Scholar
7. Studnek, JR, Fernandez, AR. Characteristics of emergency medical technicians involved in ambulance crashes. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2008;23(5):432-437.Google Scholar
8. Kahn, CA, Pirrallo, RG, Kuhn, EM. Characteristics of fatal ambulance crashes in the United States: an 11-year retrospective analysis. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2001;5(3):261-269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Fournier, M, Chenaitia, H, Masson, C, Michelet, P, Behr, M, Auffray, JP. Crew and patient safety in ambulances: results of a personnel survey and experimental side impact crash test. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2013;28(4):370-375.Google Scholar
10. El Sayed, M, Kue, R, McNeil, C, Dyer, KS. A descriptive analysis of occupational health exposures in an urban Emergency Medical Services system: 2007-2009. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2011;15(4):506-510.Google Scholar
11. Ford, J, Phillips, P. An evaluation of sharp safety intravenous cannula devices. Nurs Stand. 2011;26(15-17):42-49.Google Scholar
12. Reed, E, Daya, MR, Jui, J, Grellman, K, Gerber, L, Loveless, MO. Occupational infectious disease exposures in EMS personnel. J Emerg Med. 1993;11(1):9-16.Google Scholar
13. Stratton, SJ. Publishing survey research. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2012;27(4):305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed