Department of Livestock and One Health, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, 8 West Derby Street, Liverpool L69 7BE, UK.
Institute for Risk and Uncertainty, University of Liverpool, Chadwick Building, Peach Street, Liverpool L7 7BD, UK.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jul 10;18(14):7377. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18147377.
Dog bites are a health risk in a number of workplaces such as the delivery, veterinary and dog rescue sectors. This study aimed to explore how workers negotiate the risk of dog bites in daily interactions with dogs and the role of procedures in workplace safety. Participants who encounter dogs at work were recruited using snowball sampling. Ethnographic methods (interviews, focus group discussions, participant-observations) were used for data collection. All data were coded qualitatively into themes. Six themes describing dog bite risk management were identified: 'Surveillance of dogs'; 'Communicating risk; 'Actions taken to manage perceived risk'; 'Reporting bites and near-misses', 'Investigating bites and near-misses', and; 'Learning and teaching safety'. While the procedures described dog bite risk as objective, when interacting with dogs, participants drew on experiential knowledge and subjective judgment of risk. There was a discrepancy between risks that the procedures aimed to guard against and the risk participants were experiencing in the course of work. This often led to disregarding procedures. Paradoxically, procedures generated risks to individual wellbeing and sometimes employment, by contributing to blaming employees for bites. Dog bite prevention could be improved by clarifying definitions of bites, involving at risk staff in procedure development, and avoiding blaming the victim for the incident.
在许多工作场所，如送货、兽医和狗狗救援领域，狗咬是一种健康风险。本研究旨在探讨工人如何在与狗的日常互动中应对狗咬风险，以及程序在工作场所安全中的作用。使用滚雪球抽样法招募在工作中遇到狗的参与者。采用民族志方法（访谈、焦点小组讨论、参与者观察）收集数据。所有数据均进行定性编码为主题。确定了描述狗咬风险管理的六个主题：“对狗的监视”；“沟通风险”；“采取措施管理感知风险”；“报告咬伤和险些咬伤”；“调查咬伤和险些咬伤”；以及；“学习和教授安全”。虽然所描述的程序将狗咬风险视为客观，但在与狗互动时，参与者会利用经验知识和对风险的主观判断。程序旨在防范的风险与参与者在工作过程中经历的风险之间存在差异。这往往导致无视程序。矛盾的是，程序通过将责任归咎于被咬的员工，对员工的个人福利甚至有时就业造成风险。可以通过澄清咬伤的定义、让有风险的员工参与程序开发以及避免将事件归咎于受害者来改善狗咬预防。
