Showing posts with label Occupational Safety and Health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Occupational Safety and Health. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 4, 2020

Do employers need a workplace Contact Tracing plan or app?

If you are an employer, you have a positive duty to protect workers from harm.  Industry-specific guidelines on how to do that in the COVID-19 environment are now published by occupational safety and health organizations (such as  CDC, SafeWorkAustralia, and WorkSafeBC). The physical barriers, personal protective equipment, physical distancing, cleaning guidance and safe-work protocols required to discharge this duty are essential preventative measures. 


Prevention is rarely perfect.  The safeguards, barriers and defenses put in place to protect workers from harm may be subject to inadvertent active or latent defects;  despite multiple layers of precautions, when gaps or defects in prevention align, workers in your workplace may well be exposed to harms including the COVID-19 virus. 


Every jurisdiction has specifically emphasized employer responsibilities during this pandemic.  For example, consider this guidance to employers in Ontario:


The employer is required to take every reasonable precaution in the circumstance to protect the health and safety of workers, and do a risk assessment to determine what parts of the jobsite and what other workers the affected worker would have had contact with.


Based on this risk assessment, the employer may be required to:

  • send co-workers who were exposed to the worker home for two weeks. Ask them to self isolate and self monitor and report any COVID-like illness to their employer
  • shut down the job site while the affected workplace area and equipment are disinfected

[See Government of Ontario, COVID-19 (coronavirus) and workplace health and safety]


No employer wants any worker to be exposed to or infected by this virus; nor does anyone want to see operations shut down or healthy employees quarantined.  Yet, close contact exposures may occur in your workplace; planning for them can mitigate the impact on your employees and operations. 


Just the facts


The science around COVID-19 is still developing but there are four very important facts to keep in mind:

  1. COVID-19 is a respiratory illness contracted when virus particles are either directly inhaled from droplets expelled by an infectious person or indirectly transferred from contaminated surfaces to face, eyes, mouth or nose. 
  2. After unprotected close contact with an infectious person or contaminated surface, an exposed person’s symptoms may develop during an incubation period of 14 days, however, up to a quarter of those infected are asymptomatic. 
  3. An infected person is infectious to others during a communicability period; that period for those with mild symptoms begins two days before the onset of symptoms.  Infected persons are considered infectious until 10 days after onset of illness, as long as they are fever free and have improved. Those with more severe cases may be infectious until two consecutive negative laboratory test results, at least 24 hours apart, which could take weeks to establish.
  4. Just because a person is no longer infectious does not mean they are fully recovered.  Lingering symptoms including fatigue, cough, respiratory and neurological issues may persist. 


Exposure and Close Contact


Unless you are in the healthcare sector, you or your employees may not know when, where, or exactly how an exposure to COVID-19 has occurred.  It is very unlikely a customer will produce a sudden, uncovered cough or sneeze then announce, “I’m positive of COVID-19”.  (If that every happens, your response as an employer would have to be immediate).   More likely, an employee or public health contact tracer will report a close contact exposure, an illness suspected to be caused by the coronavirus, or a positive test result.  The actions you take next are critical to stopping the spread of the disease in your enterprise and the broader community.   


COVID-19 is a respiratory illness.  Your employee breathing in a quantity of droplets from an infectious person, for example, is certainly an exposure that may lead to the development of the disease.  The now ubiquitous plexiglass shields erected in workplaces prevent some of that, but surfaces, tools, and containers may become inadvertently sources allowing a worker to transfer virus particles to their hands then to their eyes, nose or mouth.  Just because a barrier is in place does not mean all potential contact in the workplace has been eliminated; nor do the precautions you take eliminate the possible introduction of the virus into the workplace by other routes. 


Workers may also be exposed to the virus outside the workplace and not realize they have been exposed. Crowded spaces like transit, house parties, and shopping venues have been identified as places where the virus easily spreads.  An employee may be exposed in any of these settings, become infectious, and expose others at work. 


You employees may be exposed at work or in the course of their employment.  It is not uncommon for a worker, customer, or other person in the workplace (such as a delivery person, courier, student, service technician, inspector) to begin to feel symptoms while at work.  Infectious persons (possibly asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic) in “close contact” with workers or customers may inadvertently and unknowingly expose others in the workplace. Definitions of “close contact” vary but if you work within two meters (6 feet) of another worker, customer, or other person in the workplace for fifteen minutes or more, you would likely meet the definition in most jurisdictions. 


Not all exposures or close contacts with a person who is infectious will result in illness. With the knowledge that some people are asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic but infectious, we now know that exposures to this virus may be more common and less obvious than in the above example.   In many cases, the first sign that one of your workers was exposed will be when they report being ill.  Where they were infected may not be obvious.  Their safety and health are paramount but beyond that, investigating the source of the exposure and protecting workers and others in the workplace must be your priority.


A Workplace Scenario


As an employer, you are likely to encounter a case of COVID-19 in your workplace at some point.  Whether or not an employee becomes infected in the course or employment, you are going to have to determine who came in close contact with a source of the infection (an infectious customer or co-worker, contaminated surfaces or discarded tissues used by an infectious person) , which employees should be quarantined, and when the diagnosed and quarantined employees can return to work.  Acting quickly is critical to stopping the spread of the virus and limiting the impact on operations.


Consider this scenario:


Anna and her two other team members worked in close proximity Monday to Thursday.  They did their best to keep physically distanced, but the nature of their work meant working side by side for periods of time.  On Friday morning, Anna woke with a dry cough, headache and fever.  She called her manager’s line and left a message regarding her symptoms; she then called her doctor who told her to self-isolate and immediately referred her to testing.  On the following Monday morning her test results were received:  positive for COVID-19.  After receiving the diagnosis and instructions from her physician, she called her manager with the news.


As Anna’s employer, you will be concerned for her.  You will also have concerns for your other staff and your production.  While it may not be clear if Anna contracted the disease at work, you have a duty of care for your other employees who were in close contact with her and others who may have been exposed through the immediate operational space.


When can my employee return to work?


In the above scenario, Anna will be told to isolate and will not be returning to work for at least 10 days from symptom onset. Isolation prevents sick persons from spreading the disease to others, including family members.  Isolation means not going out for food or entertainment and definitely not to the workplace.


If Anna is well enough and can work from home while isolated, that may be an option; she can’t end her isolation until she is no longer infectious.  The infectious period begins two days before the onset of symptoms and extends for at least 10 days even if symptoms subside.  Beyond the 10 days, isolation is required until the worker is fever free for three days and all other symptoms are resolving. 


Even though the isolation period may have ended, workers like Anna may need more time to recover from other symptoms to return to work. For some occupations, another test may be necessary to confirm a worker is no longer infectious.  Although no longer infectious, many who recover from COVID-19 experience fatigue and other symptoms that may delay a full, safe, and durable return to work.  Your “duty to accommodate” a worker extends to such cases. 


What about close contacts?


Remember, Anna was likely infectious for the two days prior to symptom onset.  It is likely her team members were in close contact with her during that time.  Cleaners, supervisors and others who visited Anna’s work area may have been exposed.  Perhaps she met with her manager or another team concerning the next project.  None of those employees may report being ill (or ill yet). 


The sooner well employees are informed of their exposure, the better the chances of arresting the spread of the disease.  As a precaution, workers with close contact should be told to self-quarantine for fourteen days from the date of exposure.  Quarantine is a means of restricting the contact and movement of a person who has been exposed; it prevents the spread of disease to others.  The following concisely describes what Anna’s close contacts will be expected to do 14 days from last contact with her:


  • stay at home and monitor yourself for symptoms, even just one mild symptom
  • avoid contact with other people to help prevent transmission of the virus prior to developing symptoms or at the earliest stage of illness
  • do your part to prevent the spread of disease by practicing physical distancing in your home

[see How to quarantine (self-isolate) at home when you may have been exposed to COVID-19 and have no symptoms, https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/diseases-conditions/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-how-to-self-isolate-home-exposed-no-symptoms.html]


Exactly how your enterprise will handle COVID-19 absence for those who must isolate or quarantine is up to you.  It may require amended sick-leave policies, new procedures for initiating quarantine, and even supports to enable quarantine to be effective.  Your quick action can prevent cascading exposures to other workers, their family members, and the broader community.  If Anna’s test results are negative for the COVID-19 virus, then her continued self-isolation and quarantine of her close contacts would not be necessary.


If informing employees waits until there is a positive test result, the implications may be more profound. The well employees may have returned to work on Monday morning but once Anna (or a public health contact tracer) makes you aware of the positive COVID-19 test, all employees having had close contact with Anna must quarantine for fourteen days following the last close contact.  The potential length of the quarantine does not change but the delay in starting their self-isolation raises the potential for Anna’s close contacts to unknowingly become infectious and infect others at work, home or in their community.    


In the scenario above, Anna experienced the first symptoms on Friday morning and got her test results on Monday.  That may be close to the ideal case.  Had she come to work ill, the potential for a wider exposure would expand.  The fact she stayed home and got her test result so quickly means she had limited contacts and the virus had limited opportunities to spread.  Co-workers with close contact would count their quarantined period from their last close contact.  Team member that worked with Anna on Wednesday or Thursday would count their quarantine date from their last close contact with Anna.  Hopefully, quarantined employees will not get sick but if they do, they will not spread the disease further.  Quarantined workers can return to work once the quarantine period expires if they are otherwise healthy and symptom free.


Can I leave identifying close contacts up to public health contact tracers?


Public health contact tracers have special training and knowledge to do their jobs but you, as an employer, have a duty to protect your workers.  As an employer, you have important information for contact tracers. You know your workplace and are in the best position rapidly identify close contacts.  Your attendance records, work schedules, employee contact information, building entry logs, and meeting minutes can help you rapidly identify close contacts and prevent wider exposure.


It may be that you as an employer will be contacted by public health with information that an infectious customer, technician or other person was at your workplace, raising the possibility of close contact exposure.   Your records of who was working with or serving that customer will be important to the contact tracer but also to your ability to fulfill your duty of care for your employees.  Remember, the faster exposures are identified, the sooner the spread of the virus can be halted; the impacts on your workers’ health and your operation’s production are limited the sooner you act.


Isn’t there an app for that?


Many countries and some employers are mandating or recommending smartphone apps or other technologies to facilitate contact tracing.  Korea, Singapore, the UK, Iceland, Norway and others have implemented programs with varying degrees of success.  The apps generally use Bluetooth technology to register either location and/or proximity to others with the app or tracking “token”.  If a person is identified as infected with COVID-19, the app can quickly identify others who may have had close contact during the infectious period. [see Ryan Brown, Why coronavirus contact-tracing apps aren’t yet the ‘game changer’ authorities hoped they’d be, CNBC, July 3, 2020].


These apps are not without controversy.  They only work well if widely enabled on many devices, so public acceptance (or government mandate) are required.  In Singapore, for example, temporary foreign workers are required to carry a tracking token and that interacts with the nationally mandated smartphone app (voluntary for citizens).  [see Saira Asher, Coronavirus: Why Singapore turned to wearable contact-tracing tech, BBC News, Singapore, 5 July 2020].  Not all smartphones are capable of handling contact tracing apps and those with greatest vulnerability such as lower income citizens and older individuals may not have access to the latest technology.          


Corporate apps are also available.  These may be adopted and mandate by a firm for employees but there are both privacy and efficacy issues.  Not everyone is OK with 24 hour a day GPS tracking by an employee or a government.  Questions about how data will be collected and used are often raised. 


Privacy issues aside, efficacy issues include the false positives of proximity.  Even if the app only measures proximity to another smartphone for a given period (say, 15 minutes), that may not mean any exposure has taken place.  Just because the agent renewing your insurance or the Uber driver were taking you to your appointment were close enough to register contact in a tracing app, the presence of a plexiglass shield  or divider will not be registered;  if either you or the other person is identified as infectious, the close contact warning would be a false positive.  The converse is also true; a missed close contact is like a false negative.  If an infectious person does not have the app or token (or the device is out of power or app not enabled), no close contact can be recorded.  Tracing apps cannot record proximity to environmental exposures and may yield a false sense of security.   These technologies cannot detect the virus; they only detect proximity (or location, in some cases).  


Take action now


Before COVID-19 hits your workplace, put your plans in place.  Besides doing what is necessary to comply with OSHA and public health orders or guidance, you need to have a plan for what to do when an employee or public health identifies a COVID-19 exposure or transmission. Your plan may include containment and decontamination teams, but you will need to address policy issues like when and how to isolate, deep clean and disinfect the area concerned.  Your personnel plan for containment, informing close contacts, supporting quarantine, isolation and return-to-work is even more important.  The speed and thoroughness of your actions to stop the chain of transmission is essential to the safety and health of your employees and others in your workplace.  With that in mind: 

  1. Prepare:  develop policies and procedures so staff know what to do if they feel ill and particularly if they are diagnosed with COVID-19.  Privacy laws and policies will vary so keep those in mind as you prepare.  Confidentiality is important and safeguards should be built into your policies and procedures. Involve staff and union representatives in your plan development. Consultation, addressing concerns, developing policies, and then training staff will challenging in the COVID-19 era but critical to your planning and preparation.   
  2. Update and keep current:  Where people work, seating floor plans, travel records and entry/exit logs need to be accurate and immediately available when required.  Meetings may not always have minutes, but every meeting should have a record of attendees, location and times. Update employee contact information for home, mobile phone numbers, and email.
  3. Operationalize your plan:  Assign specific resources to manage suspected or known COVID-19 exposures.  Delays in identifying close contacts can result in wider spread within your operations and beyond.  Having key resources familiar with operations and records, knowledgeable of your policies and equipped with the commensurate authority to act will be necessary.  Be sure to build redundancy into your plan. Your plan needs to operate even if the specific resources become ill or unavailable.
  4. Consult, train, build awareness:  Your operations depend on people.   The very steps necessary to limit the spread of COVID-19 and facilitate contact tracing need to be understood and concerns addressed in advance of any need.  Activity logs, attendance at meetings, entry and exit logs are necessary but concerns over why they are needed, how long they will be kept, who has access and the purposes allowed for that access need to be clear and understood.  Build awareness of your plans and why the procedures are needed to protect workers and others in the workplace.
  5. Build resilience:  For the near to medium term, COVID-19 is part of our reality.  Anticipating the consequences of exposures and close contacts in your workplace can mitigate against the greatest impacts and accelerate your ability to keep workers safe and restore operations.  Having your plans and resources in place, assigning and cross-training personnel, and testing your plans are essential to restoring and maintaining the health and safety of your employees and the success of your operations.

COVID-19 will be in our workplaces for some time—likely measured in years rather than months.  Whether this or some other infectious disease, workplaces must adapt in ways to protect workers and others in the workplace.  


Wednesday, June 3, 2020

Are workers getting workers’ compensation for work-related COVID-19 illness?

Workers contracting the COVID-19 virus in the course of their employment are claiming workers’ compensation.  Just how many workers’ compensation claims for work-related coronavirus disability have been filed to date is not reported in most jurisdictions but a few recent reports provide some insight into what may be a significant class of ongoing workers’ compensation claims.

Health care workers are filing and receiving workers’ compensation claims

It is no surprise that those on the front lines of treating those infected with the COVID-19 virus will be at elevated risk of contracting this disease.  Some doctors, nurses, healthcare attendants and personal care aides as well as cleaners and other personnel working in close contact with the sick are contracting COVID-19 despite administrative controls and personal protective equipment (PPE).

Washington state was hit early and hard with COVID-19.  Acute care centres and long-term care homes became the epicenter of serious and fatal outbreaks of the virus. Work-related COVID-19 claims followed.  Reported data from Washington state’s exclusive state fund shows Washington State’s Department of Labor and Industries (L&I):
“ … began taking COVID-19-related [workers’ compensation] claims on March 1, …. Since then, 1,074 total claims were filed statewide by May 20, and 931 of them were accepted, according to the data…Nearly 85% of workers’ compensation claims related to COVID-19 filed from Whatcom and Skagit counties were from healthcare workers…” [Denver Pratt, “Healthcare workers make up majority of COVID-19 workers’ comp claims in Whatcom, Skagit”, Bellingham Harold, May 27, 2020 ].

Claims are being filed beyond the healthcare sector

Just north of Washington State, the Canadian province of British Columbia was similarly hit early with cases of coronavirus.  Again, acute care and long-term care centres have experienced dozens of outbreaks resulting in infections and deaths of both residents and staff in these congregate settings.  Work-related COVID-19 infections also spread in settings outside of health care.   As in many other jurisdictions, prisons and food processing plants have also experienced significant COVID-19 outbreaks in BC.

The exclusive workers’ compensation insurer in the province, WorkSafeBC reports: 
Ind. classification unitIndustry subsectorClaims registered
Acute CareHealth Care and Social Services173
Long-Term CareHealth Care and Social Services64
Ornamental Nursery or Floral Field ProductionAgriculture23
Residential Social
Service Facility
Health Care and Social Services15
Pre-hospital Emergency Health CareHealth Care and Social Services14
Local Government and Related OperationsPublic Administration12
Daycare Centre,
Preschool, or Playschool
Other Services (nes)12
Community Health Support ServicesHealth Care and Social Services10
Physician Professional ServicesHealth Care and Social Services9
Pulp and Paper MillWood and Paper Products7
SupermarketRetail7
Law EnforcementPublic Administration7
Outdoor Sport TourAccommodation, Food, and Leisure Services7
Retirement Home or Seniors' Home (accommodation only)Health Care and Social Services7
Commercial Cleaning
or Janitorial Services
Other Services (nes)5
Security or Patrol
Services
Other Services (nes)5
[WorkSafeBC, COVID-19 claims data by industry, (as of May 27, 2020)]

These data reflect a much broader range of industries where workers have filed claims.  These may still be early days and the table above only reflects classification units with 5 or more claims registered.  The table illustrates that workers in a broad range of industrial and occupational situations are contracting this disease and becoming disabled.

Not all claims accepted … or accepted yet

Before a workers’ compensation claim for COVID-19, the workers’ compensation insurer must receive a claim.  Although reporting the injury or illness to the employer directly may be a requirement, most jurisdictions allow a year or more for a claim to be registered with the workers’ compensation insurer.  The one-year timeframe is common but there are both shorter and longer windows for filing a workers’ compensation claim.   Nevada allows just 90 days from the discovery of an occupational illness; Pennsylvania allows 300 weeks from the last exposure.  These early reports from Washington and British Columbia, therefore, should not be reflective of all the cases that might eventually result in workers’ compensation claims.

Once a claim is registered, the workers’ compensation adjudication process kicks in. Among the questions that must be determined are the following:
  • Is this claim from a “worker” as defined by legislation or policy?
  • Is the claim work-related?

Focusing only on medically established cases of COVID-19 infection, not every claim registered with the workers’ compensation claim will result in an accepted workers’ compensation claim.  If the person filing the claim is not covered by the workers’ compensation legislation or policy, the workers’ compensation insurer has no jurisdiction and the claim will be rejected.  If the worker is covered, but the COVID-19 infection was not work-related, then the claim may be denied (or “disallowed” in some jurisdictions).  This determination is often lengthy and may involve the weighing of evidence concerning the work-relatedness of the disease.
Some jurisdictions have put in place “presumptions” regarding COVID-19; if a worker is in an essential occupation and contracts COVID-19, the infection will be considered work-related unless the presumption is rebutted by other evidence.  Presumptions serve several purposes.  They simplify and often shorten the adjudicative process for the workers’ compensation insurer. Presumptive clauses may improve consistency of decision making and reduce the administrative time and effort at determining work-relatedness on every claim.  That is not to say individual claims adjudication won’t arrive at the same conclusion; a presumption may obviate the need to gather and weigh scientific and medical evidence repeatedly. Presumptions may also shift the onus of proof away from the worker.  The announcement of a presumption also raises awareness of the risk and possibility of claiming workers’ compensation.  The downside of presumptions, however, may result in the acceptance of some claims that are not truly work related.  The converse is also true:  the lack of a presumption may result in workers actually disabled or killed by the work-related COVID-19 will not result in an accepted workers’ compensation claim.

When will we know the true extent of work-related COVID-19 workers’ compensation claims?

These are early days of a pandemic.  It will be years before all of the cases of work-related COVID-19 that have occurred to date are filed, adjudicated and accepted.  That said, the early data provides some evidence of just how many workers may have entitlement to worker’ compensation for their work-related COVID-19 illness, disability or death.

WorkSafeBC reports far fewer claim filings to date than Washington state.  Of the 514 claims filed as of May 27, 2020, 186 have been allowed.  Two-thirds of these allowed claims arose from the healthcare sector. About a third of claims have been disallowed or rejected with about the same proportion either pending or suspended, often awaiting additional information.

The differences in reported and accepted claims between two jurisdictions of similar size, economic structure, and geography are likely not relevant at this time.  The development of the pandemic in these two jurisdictions has been very different.  The sectors impacted overlap but are not the same.  That said, data from both jurisdictions can highlight the risks workers are facing during this pandemic.

Is a coronavirus COVID-19 infection reportable

It should be noted that Washington State and British Columbia have exclusive workers’ compensation agencies.  Both the Department of Labor and Industries in Washington State and WorkSafeBC are also the principal occupational health and safety agency for their respective jurisdictions.  It may be that incidences of work-related COVID-19 are more likely to be reported than in jurisdictions where workers’ compensation is a separate authority.  Regardless of the agency responsible for occupational safety and health, there is a general requirement for work-related COVID-19 cases to be recorded or reported.

In the US, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) reporting standards would require a COVID-19 illness be recorded in OSHA 300 logs.  In a May 19 Enforcement Memo, OSHA [see Revised Enforcement Guidance for Recording Cases of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)]  revised its reporting requirements specifically for COVID-19, noting:
Accordingly, until further notice, OSHA will enforce the recordkeeping requirements of 29 CFR 1904 for employee COVID-19 illnesses for all employers according to the guidelines below. Recording a COVID-19 illness does not, of itself, mean that the employer has violated any OSHA standard.

The standard does not apply to employers with 10 or fewer employees and certain employers in low hazard industries.  That said, all employers have a duty to investigate reported injuries and illnesses regardless of any reporting requirement.  As noted in my previous post, contact tracing is going to be an important factor in determining work-relatedness [see Should workplace health and safety go back to “normal”?].  All jurisdictions require an employer to consider an injury or illness to be work-related if an event or exposure in the workplace either caused or contributed to the resulting condition.  COVID-19 falls clearly in this category.

Employers may fear reporting a work-related injury or disease because of possible detection of a safety or health violation. Employers may also be unaware of their obligations or the protections offered by workers’ compensation.  Workers are typically obligated to report work-related injuries or diseases to the employer but may not always file a claim for a variety of reasons including fear of reprisals from the employer, a lack of understanding of their rights, and the loss of earnings not covered by workers’ compensation.

Removing barriers to filing a claim for work-related COVID-19

Many workers and employers are not fully aware of the potential for a workers’ compensation claim related to COVID-19.  This barrier is addressed to some degree by agency promotion and open source reporting illustrating accepted workers’ compensation claims.

There are many barriers to receiving workers’ compensation [see  Why aren’t all time-loss work injuries compensated?].  Some barriers relate to misperceptions.  Workers may fear filing a claim will hurt their employer at a time when businesses are suffering. Employers may similarly worry about the impact COVID-19 claims will have on their premiums.  To address this barrier, some workers’ compensation boards have differed premiums, exempted payroll protection or emergency wage benefits from premiums, or addressed the experience rating of premiums.  Nova Scotia’s Workers’ Compensation Board announced that, “Employers who have front-line workers contract COVID-19 due to their work will not have the costs of those workplace injury insurance claims impact their industry rate or individual experience rating…”.  Instead of the COVID-19 claim costs being included in calculation of experience rating, the costs will be pooled across the overall employer base.  [see Nova Scotia, Workers’ Compensation Board , “WCB Nova Scotia announces further support for employers during COVID-19”, NS WCB News,  (May 29/20)].

Employers and workers may also be unaware of the exclusive remedy workers’ compensation provides.  In almost all jurisdictions in North America, workers’ compensation protects employers from being sued by workers harmed in the course of and out of the duties related to their employment.  The few exceptions relate to employer actions that amount to deliberate or egregious disregard for a worker’s heath or safety.  Although certain states do not permit such actions (Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Wyoming), the threshold of proof in those that do is extremely high.  Workers’ compensation is a no-fault system and effectively shields the employer (and other workers) from being sued by workers with work-related injury or disease.

More data needed

Accepted workers’ compensation claims are a trailing indicator at best.  The timeliness and transparency of workers’ compensation claims data for COVID-19 claims are important.  While it may take years to fully assess the impact of this disease on workers and workplaces, the knowledge of the occupations and sectors at risk can better inform prevention activities and awareness of hazards.  Data on claims reported, accepted and denied inform workers, employers and policy makers.  Just as important are process times; knowing how long it takes for cases to be reported, claims registered, determinations made and payments issued are essential to policy makers, employers, workers and their families.

Monday, July 9, 2018

How risky is your job… really?



There are hazards in every job and every workplace.  Despite barriers, safeguards, and defenses, exposure to those hazards can harm workers and others in the workplace.  The possibility of injury (including illness, disease and even death) is a reality of work but specific job or task risk data necessary to assess the risk are rare.    Data on the past frequency and impact of work injury that do exist are often industry-based rather than specific to a job or task.  Unfortunately, supervisors and workers may equate the lack of accurate, accessible, and appropriate risk data with minimal risk; they may believe, “If this job or task was risky, I am sure someone would warn me”. 


Why risk awareness is important

Whether it’s your investments, sports activities, or medical treatments, having access to and an understanding of risk data are essential to decision making.  Depending on your risk tolerance and  armed with an understanding of the risks, you can decide whether or not to invest in a particular mutual fund, take up a particular sport, or undergo a particular therapy or treatment.  Knowing the risks, you can also make choices to mitigate them (diversification in your investments, classroom training for your chosen sport, and performing specific stretching exercises between physical therapy treatments, for example).  

Knowing the risks in your work is no less important.  Few employment engagements include explicit and precise information about risks.  Yes, employers have a duty of care and a general duty to inform workers about workplace and job-specific risks but few job interviews cover your risk of occupational injury, illness, disease or death.  Your job does not come with a warning sticker outlining the risks.  Under-stated, misrepresented or incomplete risk data may lead to incorrect judgements about precautions you ought to take or dissuade you from exercising your right to refuse unsafe work. 

Assessing Risk

So, how risky is your job?  What tasks in my job are risky?  Is working in healthcare riskier than working in construction?  How would you know?

Some jurisdictions require formal "risk assessments”.  These often involve examining the likelihood and impact of harm from a given task.  (see WorkSafeBCAssessing Risks, for example).  A risk assessment will include an analysis of who might be harmed, how that harm might occur, and what to do to eliminate, minimize or otherwise manage the risks, particularly those with the highest probability and impact.  

Risk Matrix.  Source:  WorkSafeBC, Assessing Risk

This type of risk matrix is typically applied to very specific job tasks and often relies on a subjective estimation of probability and impact.  At their best, words like "low", "unlikely" , "minor" are useful in relative terms but lack precision  and may, at worst, be misinterpreted as "not worth worrying about".  Even if the probability  is rare, the consequences may be extreme and warrant some form of mitigation.  This is particularly true for biological toxins where the probability of exposure is low but the consequences may be severe illness or death--a combination that may warrant a "high" rather than "medium" subjective risk rating. 

Quantifying and Comparing Risks

At the enterprise or sectoral level, performance data may exist to add objectivity to the risk analysis. Statistical measures help quantify both probability and impact in risk analysis.  Impact may be quantified by workers' compensation costs, average days away from work (calendar or working days), or thresholds that exceed a particular level or case definition such as "serious injury".  Probability may be quantified as a ratio based on exposure (cases per million hours worked or 100 employees).  

The lack of data at the jobsite, enterprise or sectoral level may be due to a number of factors.  Workplace injuries and deaths are (thankfully) relatively rare events.  With small numbers, it is often difficult to calculate an accurate frequency rate that adequately represents risk.  There are also counting issue.  Most risk data come from workers’ compensation administrative information or “OSHA Log” surveys but not all work injuries are recorded or result in workers’ compensation claims.  Poor record keeping, intentional under-reporting, claim suppression, high denial rates for some types of injuries and occupational diseases are among the main reasons that reported injury rates may not adequately reflect actual workplace risk.

Many sectors and employers use “injury rate”  or “incidence rate” data a way to quantify risk.  These are admittedly trailing indicators of safety and, (as we are always told when assessing risk in our investments), past performance may not be indicative of future results. 

The idea behind injury and incidence rates is to provide a standardized expression of risk in terms of injury (illness, disease or death) events relative to a quantity of exposure (a measure related to a quantity of employment such as “person years”).  The US Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes “incidence rates” (among other statistics) that provide data at an industry level.  Here are the top ten for 2016:

TABLE SNR02. Highest incidence rates1 of nonfatal occupational injury and illness cases with days away from work, restricted work activity, or job transfer, 2016  [Extracted from Supplemental News Release Tables, 2016]
Industry2
NAICS Code3
Incidence Rate
Nursing and residential care facilities (State government)
623
8.4
Other nonferrous metal foundries (except die-casting) (Private industry)
331529
6.0
Fire protection (Local government)
92216
5.9
Heavy and civil engineering construction (Local government)
237
5.8
Frozen cakes, pies, and other pastries manufacturing (Private industry)
311813
5.8
Couriers and express delivery services (Private industry)
4921
5.8
Scheduled passenger air transportation (Private industry)
481111
5.7
Truss manufacturing (Private industry)
321214
5.6
Amusement and theme parks (Private industry)
71311
5.5
Police protection (Local government)
92212
5.5


1 The incidence rates represent the number of injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers
 and were calculated as: (N/EH) x 200,000, where 
   N = number of injuries and illnesses
   EH = total hours worked by all employees during the calendar year 
   200,000 = base for 100 equivalent full-time workers (working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year)
 2 High rate industries were those having the highest incidence rate of injury and illness cases with 
   days away from work, restricted work activity,
  or job transfer and at least 500 total recordable cases at the most detailed level of publication,
 based on the North American Industry Classification System -- United States, 2012.
 3 North American Industry Classification System -- United States, 2012

Note the limitations of these data.  The “cases” relate to recorded cases; if record keeping is poor or cases are not reported, then the published incidence rate will under-represent the risk.  Also, note the calculation methodology; the specific calculation of the  100 full-time equivalents used as the denominator for this incidence rate is only one way to calculate risk.  Other sources may use different calculations and definitions. 

Rather than using an approximation for 100 full-time workers, SafeWork Australia use both Frequency rates (serious injuries per million hours worked) and Incidence rates (serious injuries per 1,000 employees).  Here are the top 10  from the 2016 tables [Extracted from Australian Workers’ Compensation Statistics 2015-2016] :

Table 22: Frequency rate (serious claims per million hours worked) by industry,
2000–01 and 2010‑11 to 2015–16p
 [Top 10 extracted and re-ordered based on 2015-16 column]

Industry
2000-01
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
% chg
2015-16p
Agriculture, forestry and fishing
14.3
10.5
10.8
10.7
9.1
9.9
-31%
8.9
Manufacturing
13.9
10.5
10.7
9.5
8.8
8.8
-37%
8.4
Construction
13.5
9
9
8.4
7.8
8.1
-40%
8
Transport, postal and warehousing
14.9
11.8
12.2
10.4
9.6
8.6
-42%
7.7
Health care and social assistance
12.1
10.7
10.5
10
9.1
8.7
-29%
7.4
Arts and recreation services
13.7
9.8
9.7
8
9.2
8
-41%
7.1
Wholesale trade
8.2
7.7
7.1
6.5
6.6
6.6
-20%
6.6
Public administration and safety
8.8
9.1
8.1
8.3
7.2
6.9
-22%
6.1
Accommodation and food services
8.9
7.2
7.5
7
6.6
6.1
-31%
5.9
Administrative and support services
11.6
9.4
8.3
7.4
6.7
5.6
-52%
5.8


Table 23: Incidence rate (serious claims per 1000 employees) by industry,
2000–01 and 2010–11 to 2015‑16p
[Top 10 extracted and re-ordered based on 2015-16 column]
Industry
2000-01
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
% chg
2015-16p
Agriculture, forestry and fishing
27.8
20.6
21.4
20.7
18.1
19.1
-31%
17.5
Construction
27.7
18
18
17.1
15.9
16.1
-42%
16
Manufacturing
27.2
20.2
20.7
18.1
16.4
16.6
-39%
15.5
Transport, postal and warehousing
29.3
22.4
23
19.7
18.1
16.3
-44%
14.4
Wholesale trade
16.1
14.7
13.4
12.2
12.5
12.7
-21%
12.3
Health care and social assistance
17.8
15.3
15.3
14.3
13
12.3
-31%
10.7
Public administration and safety
15.5
15.3
13.9
14.2
12.1
11.5
-25%
10.2
Arts and recreation services
18.6
12.4
12.8
10.7
12
10.1
-46%
9.7
Administrative and support services
19.1
15.2
13.5
12.1
10.8
9
-53%
9.2
Mining
25.1
12.5
12.2
11.9
11.1
9.9
-61%
9.2

Note these data relate to accepted workers’ compensation claims.  By definition, denied claims (and unreported injuries) are not included.  The definition of “Serious” is also important. In this context, only injuries resulting in absences of a working week or more are considered. The definition of serious is not standardized.

Note also that the rank order changes depending on the method of calculation.  Using both incidence and frequency rates provide a richer depiction of risk. 

Risks for males and females are more similar than injury counts might suggest

Frequency and incidence rates provide similar but different representations of risk.  A frequency rate may be more appropriate where there is wide variation in the hours worked by particular groups.  Men tend to work more hours in a work week than women.  On an incidence basis, the injury rate for women would under-represent risk.    The same Australian report notes the frequency rate (serious injury claims per million hours worked) for men and women differs:  4.9 for women and 6.2 for men.  

The injury frequency rates for men and women are much closer than conventional wisdom might suggest. One often quoted statement presents a wide variation in risk for men and women:

 "Women incurred less than one-tenth of the job-related fatal injuries and one-third of the nonfatal injuries and illnesses that required time off to recuperate in 1992-1996".  US Department of Labor,   "Women Experience Fewer Job-related Injuries and Deaths than Men",  Issues in Labor Statistics, Summary 98-8, July 1998
In the two decades since this analysis was published, women have increased their participation in the labor force.  Although most North American jurisdictions do not publish frequency or incidence rates specific to males and females, data representing risks by sex may provide valuable insights.  Women now account for about half the labour force in Canada, the US and Australia, although average hours worked per week are higher for men than women.  The apparent lower number of accepted workers’ compensation claims for women arises from a lesser exposure (the smaller pool of hours worked).  

I asked WorkSafeBC to apply the Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (LTIFR) calculation to its data and data on work hours from Statistics Canada.  In this case, all accepted time loss injuries (rather than just serious injuries as used in the Australian study) were used in the calculation. 

WorkSafeBC  Unofficial Injury Rates and Estimated LTIFR for Males and Females - 2016

2016  Injury Rate (Accepted time loss claims per 100 person years of employment)
2016 LTIFR (Accepted time-loss claims per 1,000,000 hours of employment)
Males
2.61
13.9
Females
1.75
11.6

Comparing LTIFR to the traditional Injury Rate (per 100 persons years of employment calculation) reinforces the point.  LTIFR may present a more accurate and compelling representation of work-injury risk for women. 

Risks and consequences

Risk calculations noted above may carry a level of consequence in the case definition.  The US analysis uses a definition of "work absence or restricted duties" while the Australian data includes "accepted workers’ compensation claims with a week or more away from work". Many state and provincial jurisdictions publish workers’ compensation injury rate statistics but the case definitions used to calculate the risk indicator will vary.    WorkSafeBC publishes an annual Statistics Report with subsector injury rates and claim durations.  Cases are accepted time-loss claims and this is a no-waiting period jurisdiction so claims cover wages lost beyond the day of injury.   Here are the top 10 from that jurisdiction. 

WorkSafeBC Top Ten Subsectors by injury rate and duration
[Based on data extracted and re-ordered from the WorkSafeBC Statistics 2016 edition, Table 2-11]
 




Note that this analysis does not consider sectors that are “self-insured” (Deposit account employers including the provincial government).  

The duration part of the table is useful in considering conditional risk:  if you work in warehousing and  have an accepted time-loss workers’ compensation claim then, on average, you will miss 42 paid days from work (a bit more than eight calendar weeks).

Risk varies with age

The risk of work-related injury also varies with age.  Many studies point to the high risk associated with young male workers.  This table,extracted from an Australian study, reinforces this fact but it also demonstrates that risk varies with age.  Also, note the frequency of injury for females is essentially the same as males for ages 50 and above.  

Table 4: Frequency rate (serious claims per million hours worked) by injury or disease, sex and age group, 201516p    [Extracted from Australian Workers Compensation Statistics 2015-2016]  

Age group
Injury and musculoskeletal disorder claims
[per million hours worked]
Male
Female
Total
 < 20 years
7.7
3.4
5.7
20-24 years
6.5
3.3
5.1
25-29 years
5.1
2.7
4.1
30-34 years
4.6
2.9
4.0
35-39 years
4.8
3.5
4.3
40-44 years
5.3
4.3
4.9
45-49 years
5.6
5.0
5.3
50-54 years
6.1
5.9
6.0
55-59 years
6.4
6.3
6.4
60-64 years
6.9
6.6
6.8
65 years+
5.1
5.7
5.3
Total
5.6
4.3
5.1

Demographic change in the US, Canada, Australia and many other countries is driving dramatic shifts in the age profile of labour force participants.  More women, more older workers, fewer younger workers are driving changes in the risk in the labour force.  Frequency and mix of injuries as well as the duration of disability are all likely to increase as a result.

Risk data may under-represent actual risk

All representations of risk using workers’ compensation administrative data are subject to several important caveats.  As pointed out in previous posts, exclusions from coverage, under-reporting (including  claim suppression), claim denial rates result many potential cases of work injury missing from the calculation .  As a result, statistics like those in this post may well understate the actual risk.  

Categories of classification also vary by jurisdiction making simple apples-to-apples comparisons very difficult.  That said, data from multiple sources may provide a better sense of the risks.  Just like data from multiple medical trials or rating agencies can better inform your decisions regarding your health and investments, work-risk data from multiple sources may help workplace participants better understand and mitigate work-related risk.   

Your workplace is unlikely to have a warning sticker on the entrance providing risk data.  Your risk in your job on your worksite is going to be very specific, subject to a lot of factors,  and difficult to estimate accurately.  Risks associated with your demographic characteristics and your industry’s (and maybe even your firm’s) experience are likely more available and may provide guidance on just how risky your job really is. 

Providing risk data may not be formal regulatory requirement but sharing the risk data that are available with supervisors and workers may lead to a more accurate appreciation for the risk of workplace injury, illness and disease.  And that may lead to safer and healthier workplaces.