 |
|
Effectiveness of Safety Measures Recommended for Prevention of Workplace Homicide
Dana Loomis, PhD;
Stephen W. Marshall, PhD;
Susanne H. Wolf, RN,MPH;
Carol W. Runyan, PhD;
John D. Butts, MD
JAMA. 2002;287:1011-1017.
Context Homicide is the second leading cause of death on the job for US workers. Government agencies recommend that employers prevent violence against workers by adopting interventions originally designed to prevent robbery, but the effectiveness of these interventions is unknown.
Objective To investigate the effectiveness of existing administrative and environmental interventions recommended for preventing workplace homicide.
Design, Setting, and Participants Population-based case-control study of North Carolina workplaces where a worker had been killed between January 1, 1994, and March 31, 1998, identified through a statewide medical examiner system (cases; n = 105) and an industry-matched random sample of workplaces at risk during the same period, selected from business telephone listings (controls; n = 210).
Main Outcome Measure Risk of death of a worker due to homicide.
Results Among environmental interventions, strong and consistent reductions in the risk of a worker being killed on the job were associated with bright exterior lighting (odds ratio [OR], 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-1.0). Among administrative interventions, the largest beneficial effect was for staffing practices that prevented workers from being alone at night (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.9). Keeping doors closed during working hours was also associated consistently with substantially reduced risk (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.1-1.1) but was not statistically significant. Combinations of 5 or more administrative measures were associated with significantly lower levels of risk (OR, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.0-0.5).
Conclusions We found evidence suggesting that eliminating solo work at night could reduce the risk of homicide for workers. Keeping doors closed and using bright exterior lighting or combinations of administrative interventions also appear to be beneficial, but there was no evidence of effectiveness for a number of other recommended measures.
Author Affiliations: Department of Epidemiology (Drs Loomis and Marshall and Ms Wolf), Injury Prevention Research Center (Drs Loomis, Marshall, Runyan, Butts and Ms Wolf), and Department of Health Behavior and Health Education (Dr Runyan), University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; and Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Department of Pathology, University of North Carolina and North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Chapel Hill (Dr Butts).
RELATED ARTICLE
February 27, 2002
JAMA. 2002;287(8):1055-1056.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Work-Related Hazards and Workplace Safety of US Adolescents Employed in the Retail and Service Sectors
Runyan et al.
Pediatrics 2007;119:526-534.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Employee and Customer Injury During Violent Crimes in Retail and Service Businesses
Peek-Asa et al.
Am. J. Public Health 2006;96:1867-1872.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
US workers who carry guns are more likely to be killed on the job
Tanne
BMJ 2005;330:1043-1043.
FULL TEXT
Employer Policies Toward Guns and the Risk of Homicide in the Workplace
Loomis et al.
Am. J. Public Health 2005;95:830-832.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Lighting research for interiors: the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning
Boyce
Lighting Research and Technology 2004;36:283-293.
ABSTRACT
Role of Environmental Interventions in Injury Control and Prevention
Peek-Asa and Zwerling
Epidemiol Rev 2003;25:77-89.
FULL TEXT
|
