BackgroundDeath certificates contain a box labeled “Injury at Work” which is to be marked “Yes” for all fatal occupational injuries. The accuracy of this box in Michigan is not fully characterized.MethodsThe accuracy of the Injury at Work box on the Michigan death certificate was compared to deaths identified from 2001 through 2016 by the Michigan Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation multi‐source surveillance system. The sensitivity was calculated across this time period, while specificity and positive and negative predictive values were derived for 2011‐2016. Univariate and multivariate regression were used to examine differences in the sensitivity over time and across demographic variables, industry, and the type of death.ResultsWe found a sensitivity for the Injury at Work box of 73.1% among 2156 deaths. The sensitivity showed a significant declining trend over the 17 years, from 79.8% to 63.1%. Sensitivity varied significantly across incident type (aircraft, animal‐related, drug overdose, motor vehicle, and suicides having particularly lower sensitivities, and electrocutions, falls, and machine‐related incidents having higher sensitivities), and industry sector (construction, manufacturing, public safety, transportation, and trade sectors having higher sensitivities, and agriculture and services sectors showing lower sensitivities). Across nearly all categories the sensitivity was significantly below 1.ConclusionsThe Injury at Work box on the Michigan death certificate was often incorrectly completed and has become less accurate with time, though the degree of this inaccuracy varies by the industry of the victim and the type of incident.

We aimed to describe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) deaths among first responders early in the COVID-19 pandemic. We used media reports to gather timely information about COVID-19–related deaths among first responders during March 30–April 30, 2020, and evaluated the sensitivity of media scanning compared with traditional surveillance. We abstracted information about demographic characteristics, occupation, underlying conditions, and exposure source. Twelve of 19 US public health jurisdictions with data on reported deaths provided verification, and 7 jurisdictions reported whether additional deaths had occurred; we calculated the sensitivity of media scanning among these 7 jurisdictions. We identified 97 COVID-19–related first-responder deaths during the study period through media and jurisdiction reports. Participating jurisdictions reported 5 deaths not reported by the media. Sixty-six decedents worked in law enforcement, and 31 decedents worked in fire/emergency medical services. Media reports rarely noted underlying conditions. The media scan sensitivity was 88% (95% CI, 73%-96%) in the subset of 7 jurisdictions. Media reports demonstrated high sensitivity in documenting COVID-19–related deaths among first responders; however, information on risk factors was scarce. Routine collection of data on industry and occupation could improve understanding of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality among all workers.

Objective: Take-home lead exposure involves lead dust inadvertently carried from the worksite by employees that becomes deposited in their homes and vehicles. We piloted a program in 2 counties in Michigan to investigate the countywide potential for take-home lead exposures across industries. Methods: During 2018-2020, we identified establishments through internet searches and industry-specific registries. We visited establishments with a physical storefront in-person; we attempted to contact the remaining establishments via telephone. We administered questionnaires at the establishment level to assess the presence of lead and the current use of practices meant to mitigate the potential for take-home lead exposures. We recruited workers for wipe sampling of lead dust from their vehicle floors to test for lead levels. Results: We identified 320 establishments with potential lead use or exposures. Questionnaire responses revealed widespread worker exposures to lead and a lack of education and implementation of best practices to prevent lead from leaving the worksite. Dust samples (n = 60) collected from employee vehicles showed a ubiquitous tracking of lead out of the workplace, with a range of 5.7 to 84 000 µg/ft2 and a geometric mean of 234 µg/ft2. Of the sample results, 95.0% were above the lead dust clearance levels for homes established by the US Environmental Protection Agency. Conclusions: This work suggests that take-home lead exposures are widespread and may be important sources of lead exposure among children. It also demonstrates the feasibility of a program for the identification of establishments whose employees may be susceptible to taking lead dust home with them and whose children may subsequently be targeted for blood lead monitoring.

No abstract