National examination of occupational hazards in emergency medical services

Abstract

ObjectiveEmergency medical services (EMS) clinicians operate in environments that predispose them to occupational hazards. Our objective was to evaluate the frequency of occupational hazards and associations with mitigation strategies in a national dataset.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional analysis of currently working, nationally certified civilian EMS clinicians aged 18–85 in the USA. After recertifying their National EMS Certification, respondents were invited to complete a survey with questions regarding demographics, work experience and occupational hazards. Three multivariable logistic regression models (OR, 95% CI) were used to describe associations between these hazards and demographics, work characteristics and mitigation strategies. Models were adjusted for age, sex, minority status, years of experience, EMS agency type, service type and EMS role.ResultsA total of 13 218 respondents met inclusion criteria (response rate=12%). A high percentage of EMS clinicians reported occupational injuries (27%), exposures (38%) and violence (64%) in the past 12 months. Odds of injury were lower with the presence of a lifting policy (0.73, 0.67–0.80), lift training (0.74, 0.67–0.81) and always using a powered stretcher (0.87, 0.78–0.97). Odds of exposure decreased with chemical, biological and nuclear exposure protection training (0.75, 0.69–0.80). Training in de-escalation techniques was associated with lower odds of experiencing violence (0.87, 0.79–0.96).ConclusionsOccupational hazards are commonly experienced among EMS clinicians. Common mitigation efforts are associated with lower odds of reporting these hazards. Mitigation strategies were not widespread and associated with lower odds of occupational hazards. These findings may present actionable items to reduce occupational hazards for EMS clinicians.