Butler Corey, Marsh Suzanne, Domitrovich Joseph W, Helmkamp Jim
a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Western States Division , Denver , Colorado.
b Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Division of Safety Research , Morgantown , West Virginia.
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2017 Apr;14(4):258-270. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2016.1250004.
Wildland fire fighting is a high-risk occupation requiring considerable physical and psychological demands. Multiple agencies publish fatality summaries for wildland firefighters; however, the reported number and types vary. At least five different surveillance systems capture deaths, each with varying case definitions and case inclusion/exclusion criteria. Four are population-level systems and one is case-based. System differences create challenges to accurately characterize fatalities. Data within each of the five surveillance systems were examined to better understand the types of wildland firefighter data collected, to assess each system's utility in characterizing wildland firefighter fatalities, and to determine each system's potential to inform prevention strategies. To describe similarities and differences in how data were recorded and characterized, wildland fire deaths for three of the population-based systems were matched and individual fatalities across systems were compared. Between 2001 and 2012, 247 unique deaths were captured among the systems; 73% of these were captured in all three systems. Most common causes of death in all systems were associated with aviation, vehicles, medical events, and entrapments/burnovers. The data show that, although the three systems often report similar annual summary statistics, events captured in each system vary each year depending on the types of events that the system is designed to track, such as inclusion/exclusion of fatalities associated with the Hometown Heroes Survivor Benefits Act of 2003. The overarching and central goal of each system is to collect accurate and timely information to improve wildland firefighter safety and health. Each system is unique and has varying inclusion and exclusion criteria for capturing and tracking different subsets of wildland firefighter tasks and duties. Use of a common case definition and better descriptions and interpretations of the data and the results would help to more accurately characterize wildland firefighter traumatic injuries and illnesses, lessen the likelihood for misinterpretation of wildland firefighter fatality data, and assist with defining the true occupational injury burden within this high-risk population.
野外灭火是一项高风险职业,对身体和心理都有相当高的要求。多个机构发布野外消防员死亡总结报告;然而,报告的数量和类型各不相同。至少有五个不同的监测系统记录死亡情况,每个系统的病例定义以及病例纳入/排除标准都有所不同。其中四个是针对总体人群的系统,一个是基于个案的系统。系统差异给准确描述死亡情况带来了挑战。对五个监测系统中的每个系统的数据进行了审查,以更好地了解所收集的野外消防员数据的类型,评估每个系统在描述野外消防员死亡情况方面的效用,并确定每个系统为预防策略提供信息的潜力。为了描述数据记录和特征方面的异同,对三个基于总体人群的系统的野外火灾死亡数据进行了匹配,并比较了各系统间的个体死亡情况。在2001年至2012年期间,各系统共记录了247例不同的死亡案例;其中73%在所有三个系统中都有记录。所有系统中最常见的死亡原因与航空、车辆、医疗事件以及被困/翻车事故有关。数据表明,尽管这三个系统通常报告相似的年度总结统计数据,但每个系统每年记录的事件因系统设计要跟踪的事件类型而异,例如2003年《家乡英雄幸存者福利法》相关死亡案例的纳入/排除情况。每个系统的首要和核心目标是收集准确及时的信息,以改善野外消防员的安全与健康状况。每个系统都独具特色,在捕捉和跟踪野外消防员任务与职责的不同子集时,有着不同的纳入和排除标准。使用统一的病例定义以及对数据和结果进行更完善的描述与解读,将有助于更准确地描述野外消防员的创伤性损伤和疾病,减少对野外消防员死亡数据误解的可能性,并有助于确定这一高风险人群中的真实职业伤害负担。