Search

Flag (touch or intramural) football is a popular sport among the U.S. Air Force (USAF) active duty population and causes a substantial number of lost-workday injuries. The purpose of this study is to describe the mechanisms of flag-football injuries to better identify effective countermeasures.The data were derived from safety reports obtained from the USAF Ground Safety Automated System. Flag-football injuries for the years 1993-2002 that resulted in at least one lost workday were included in the study conducted in 2003. Narrative data were systematically reviewed for 32,812 USAF mishap reports; these were then coded in order to categorize and summarize mechanisms associated with flag football and other sports and occupational injuries.Nine hundred and forty-four mishap reports involving active duty USAF members playing flag football met the criteria for inclusion into this study. Eight mechanisms of injury were identified. The eight mechanisms accounted for 90% of all flag-football injuries. One scenario (contact with another player) accounted for 42% of all flag-football injuries.The most common mechanisms of injury caused by playing flag football can be identified using the detailed information found in safety reports. These scenarios are essential to developing evidence-based countermeasures. Results for flag football suggest that interventions that prevent player contact injuries deserve further research and evaluation. The broader implications of this study are that military safety data can be used to identify potentially modifiable mechanisms of injury for specific activities such as flag football.

The U.S. military leadership has recently increased its efforts to reduce the number of lost-workday injuries for both the active duty and civilian employee components of the total force. The detailed causes and circumstances of those nonfatal injuries-information needed for injury prevention-has largely been unexplored. The purpose of this project was to determine the utility of Air Force safety data for nonfatal injury prevention.In 2004, events associated with injury-producing mishaps reported through the U.S. Air Force (USAF) Ground Safety Automated System from 1993-2002 (n = 32,812 injuries) were reconstructed. Essential data elements necessary to reconstruct event causes and circumstances were identified in both coded data and in free-text mishap narratives. Activities and mechanisms were coded in a format similar to that of the ICD-10. A taxonomy was then developed to identify hazard scenarios associated with injury-producing activities or mechanisms.Coded data provided only four data elements (activity, injury event/exposure, nature of injury/body part, and outcome) that were sufficiently descriptive for prevention purposes. Therefore, narrative information was coded and analyzed to obtain additional information. The assembled data enabled identification and description of hazard scenarios associated with the most common injury-producing activities and mechanisms.Safety reports from the USAF provide detailed mishap descriptions for lost-workday injuries that could support in-depth analysis and more effective preventive efforts. However, some of the most valuable information is found in the pre-text narratives that require coding and classification, such as was conducted for this report in order to be optimally useful for injury epidemiology and prevention.

The U.S. Air Force (USAF) active duty and civilian populations experience a substantial number of lost-workday injuries while lifting, handling, and carrying objects. Back injuries are most frequently reported.The purpose of this study is to describe the hazard scenarios of lift-handle-carry injuries to better identify effective countermeasures.The data were derived from safety reports obtained from the USAF Ground Safety Automated System. Lift-handle-carry injuries for the years 1993-2002 that resulted in at least one lost workday were included in the study. A total of 4085 lost-workday injuries resulting in 24,940 lost workdays for USAF military and civilian members met the criteria for inclusion. Objects associated with these injuries were identified and aggregated to determine the most common causes of lift-handle-carry injuries.Twelve distinct objects or type of objects were identified as the most common source of lift-handle-carry injuries. Among the most common sources of injury were lifting aircraft components, boxes, and furniture. Most importantly, lifting one group of objects, aircraft components, was associated with 33% of all lift-handle-carry injuries.Safety report data can be used to identify the most common object or object types causing lift-handle-carry injuries. The information included in this report suggests countermeasures that should be considered for implementation and evaluation studies. Countermeasures to address the most common lift-handle-carry injuries, such as lifting aircraft components among aircraft maintenance workers, are warranted.

Basketball is the most popular sport among the U.S. Air Force (USAF) active duty population and causes a large number of lost-workday injuries. The purpose of this study is to describe how basketball injuries occur to allow development of effective countermeasures.This study used data derived from safety reports obtained from the USAF Ground Safety Automated System. Basketball injuries for the years 1993-2002 that resulted in at least one lost workday were included in the study conducted in 2003. Narrative data from 32,818 safety reports were systematically reviewed and coded in order to categorize and summarize mechanisms associated with these injuries.A total of 2204 mishap reports involving active duty USAF members playing basketball were documented by the study. This study identified seven mechanisms causing basketball injury. Two similar causes involving jumping (landing awkwardly and landing on someone's foot) accounted for 43% of basketball injuries followed by collisions with other players (10%).This study shows that mechanisms of basketball-related injury can be identified using the detailed information found in USAF safety reports. Knowledge of leading hazards or mechanisms for basketball injuries can be used to prioritize and develop prevention strategies.

Softball is a popular sport in civilian and military populations and results in a large number of lost-workday injuries. The purpose of this study is to describe the mechanisms associated with softball injuries occurring among active duty U.S. Air Force (USAF) personnel to better identify potentially effective countermeasures.Data derived from safety reports were obtained from the USAF Ground Safety Automated System in 2003. Softball injuries for the years 1993-2002 that resulted in at least one lost workday were included in the study. Narrative data were systematically reviewed and coded in order to categorize and summarize mechanisms associated with these injuries.This report documents a total of 1181 softball-related mishap reports, involving 1171 active duty USAF members who sustained one lost-workday injury while playing softball. Eight independent mechanisms were identified. Three specific scenarios (sliding, being hit by a ball, and colliding with a player) accounted for 60% of reported softball injuries.Mechanisms of injury for activities such as playing softball, necessary for prevention planning, can be identified using the detailed information found in safety reports. This information should also be used to develop better sports injury coding systems. Within the USAF and U.S. softball community, interventions to reduce injuries related to the most common mechanisms (sliding, being hit by a ball, and colliding with a player) should be developed, implemented, and evaluated.

Previous studies have used questionnaires to evaluate G-LOC incident rates in different aircraft types, but no studies of G-LOC-related incident, crash, and fatality rates in different aircraft types were found in a search of the literature.G-LOC events (including both incidents and crashes) for the fiscal years 1982 to 2002 were obtained from the USAF Safety Center. Aircraft sortie numbers were obtained for all aircraft that had a G-LOC event reported. Contingency table analysis and Chi-squared tests were used to evaluate differences in G-LOC rates.Overall 559 G-LOC events occurred for a rate of 25.9 per million sorties (PMS), but event rates differed by almost two orders of magnitude between aircraft categories, being highest in basic training aircraft, intermediate in single crewmember fighters, and lowest in other aircraft types (p0.001). The proportion of events resulting in crashes was 30% in single-crewmember aircraft compared with 0.6% in trainers and other two-crewmember aircraft (p0.001). All of the crashes and fatalities occurred in aircraft occupied at the time by only a single crewmember. The crash fatality rate was 100% in attack aircraft, 73% in single-crewmember fighters, and zero in basic trainers (p0.05). The F-15 and F-16 aircraft did not have higher G-LOC rates than other single-seat fighters.The data suggest that both crew complement and mission play a role in determining G-LOC rates. The data also suggest that G-LOC in an aircraft with a ground attack mission is more likely to result in a fatality.

Is the military's casualty (mortality) reporting system a reliable surrogate for International Classification of Diseases-coded death certificate information? To answer this question, the investigators compare official casualty data to the Air Force Mortality Registry for injury-related deaths occurring in 1991-1997. The investigators first derived International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and Supplementary Classification of External Causes of Injury and Poisoning (E) codes for each death from casualty data and then compared the precision of those codes with the registry's E codes derived and medically coded from death certificates and autopsy reports. Sixty-five percent of registry E codes were "precise" vs. 35% from casualty data. The registry listed nonspecific E codes for 1% (12 deaths) vs. 6% (81 deaths) for casualty data. Unlike casualty data, the registry included expectant deaths that occurred within 120 days after medical retirement. The study concludes that casualty information compares poorly with that of the registry. Air Force Mortality Registry data should be used instead of casualty data for epidemiological research.