The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
WORK INJURIES
AN D WORK- INJURY RATES
IN HOSPITALS
Bulletin No 1219
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
James P. Mitchell, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Ewar Ciagu*
Commissioner
WORK INJURIES
AND WORK-INJURY RATES
IN HOSPITALS
Bulletin No. 1219
February 1958
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Jam es P. Mitchell, Secretary
BU REAU O F LA BO R STA TISTICS
Ew an C la gu e , Commissioner
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C. - Price 40 cents
CONTENTS
Page
A b s t r a c t .......................
The industry record
iv
...........................................................................................
Scope and method o f survey
C o v e r a g e ..............................................................................
Nonrespondent c h e c k .................... .................................................. . . . .
D e fin it io n s .......................................................................................................
D isabling i n ju r y .......................................................................................
F a t a lit y * ...........................
Perm anent-total d is a b ilit y . ........................................................
Perm anent-partial d i s a b i l i t y ................................................. .
Tem porary-total d i s a b i l i t y ................ . .......................................
Injury-frequen cy r a t e ...................................
Average time charge per i n ju r y ............................................................
In ju ry -se v e rity r a t e ...............................................................................
1
2
3
3
3
b
b
h
b
I4.
U
5
Comparisons by type o f h o s p i t a l ....................................................................
5
H ospital s iz e c o m p a r is o n s ...................................
7
Comparisons by type o f ownership .......................................................
10
R egional, S tate, and m etropolitan comparisons . . . . . . . . . . .
General h osp ita ls ...........................................................................................
Mental h o s p i t a l s ...........................................................................................
Tuberculosis h osp ita ls ............................................ . . . . . . . . .
S pecial h osp ita ls . . ...................................................................................
13
13
18
20
21
Comparisons by operating departm ents.................................................................
Plant operation and maintenanced i v i s i o n .............................................
P rofession al care d i v i s i o n .......................................................................
Adm inistrative d i v is io n ...........................................
22
2b
21
2b
Kinds o f in ju r ie s experienced ..............................................................
Trunk in ju rie s . . . . . .................................................................................
Arm, hand, and fin g er in ju rie s
................................
Leg, fo o t , and toe in ju rie s ...............................................
Head i n ju r i e s ..................................................................................................
28
29
30
Occupational comparisons ...............................................
30
Appendix— S ta tis tic a l tables . . . . . . . . . . .
................................
Table 1 . - - W ork-injury rates in h o sp ita ls, by type and siz e o f
h o s p ita l, 1953 .................................................................................
Table 2 .—W ork-injury rates in h osp ita ls, by type and s iz e o f
h o sp ita l, 1953 .................................................................................
-i-
2?
35
3k
35
2b
CONTENTS— Continued
Tables— Continued
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Page
3»— Distribution of work-injury frequency rates in hospitals,
by si2e of hospital, 1933 .................. * ......... 36
1*.— Distribution of hospitals, employees, injuries, and days
charged in hospitals, by work-injury frequency rates,
1953 ...................................................
36
5.— -Work-injury rates in hosnitals, by type of ownership,
1953 ...................................................
37
6 .— Work-injury frequency rates in hosnitals, by geographic
region, State, and type of hospital, 1953 ..............
39
7 •— Work-injury frequency rates in hosnitals, by metropolitan
area and type of hospital, 1953 .............. . . . . •
1*0
8.— Work-injury rates in hospitals, by division and depart
ment, 1953 .............................................. 1*2
9 .-Work-injury frequency rates in hospitals, by division
and department and type of hospital, 1953 ...............
1*3
10.— Work injuries in hospitals, by nature of injury and
extent of disability, 1953
11.— Work injuries in hosnitals, by nature of injury and
type of hospital, 1953
12.— Work injuries in hospitals, by division and department
and nature of injury, 1953 .............. . ............1*6
13.— Work injuries in hospitals, by part of body injured and
nature of injury, 1953
ll*.— Work injuries in hospitals, by part of body injured and
extent of disability, 1953
15.— Work injuries in hospitals, by part of body injured and
type of hospital, 1953
16.— Work injuries in hospitals, by division and department
and part of body injured, 1953
50
17.— Work injuries in hospitals, by occupation and type of
hospital, 1953 . . . . . ..............................
51
18.— Work injuries in hospitals, by occupation and nature of
injury, 1953 ..........................................
53
19.— Work injuries in hospitals, by occupation and part of
body injured, 1953 ........................ « ..........55
Charts:
1 . — Work injuries in hospitals, by typeof hospital, 1953 . . . . .
2 . — Work-injury frequency rates in hospitals, by size of hospital,
6
1953 ..........................................................
8
3 . — Work-injury frequency rates in hospitals, by type and size of
hospital, 1953 ..................
9
I4..— Work-injury frequency rates in hospitals, by type of ownership,
1953 ............................................................ n
5.— Work-injury frequency rates in hospitals, by level of
government-ownership, 1953 ...................................... 12
i i
-
CONTENTS— Continued
Charts— Continued
Page
6. — Work-injury frequency rates in general and tuberculosis
hospitals, by geographic region, 1 9 5 3 ........................
7. — Work-injury frequency rates in mental and special hospitals,
by geographic region, 1933 . . . . . . . . . ............ •
8 .— Work-injury frequency rates in general and tuberculosis
hospitals, by State, 1953
...................................
9 .— Work-injury frequency rates in mental and special hospitals,
by State, 1953 ...............................................
10. — Work injuries in hospitals, by operating division, 1953 . . .
11. — Work-injury frequency rates in hospitals, by department, 1953
12. — Work-injury frequency rates in nursing departments of
hospitals, by occupation, 1953
13 .— Work injuries in hospitals, by nature of injury, 1953 . . . .
IJ4..— Work injuries in hospitals, by part of body injured, 1953 • •
iii -
11+
15
16
17
22
23
26
29
ABSTRACT
Work injuries occurred in hospitals at the rate of 8*6 per million hours
worked during 1953* Compared with the all-manufacturing average, this rate
was low but it was considerably higher than some individual manufacturing
industries such as explosives manufacturing, 3*6, and synthetic-fiber manu
facturing 1.7.
Injuries were most frequent in mental hospitals, 1£>.3 per million hours
worked. Tuberculosis hospitals (11.7) end special hospitals (11.3) had rates
about one-third greater than the industry average. For general hospitals,
the frequency rate was 6.5.
Government hospitals had higher frequency rates than nongovernment— city
and county hospitals, generally having the highest. Among the nongovernment
hospitals, injury-frequency rates were higher in general and special hospi
tals operated by nonprofit organizations than in those operated by proprie
tary owners, while the reverse was true for mental and tuberculosis hospitals.
Of the 3 general operating divisions in hospitals, the plant operation
and maintenance divisions had the highest average frequency rate while the
administrative divisions had the lowest. The rate for the professional care
divisions was approximately 13 percent better than the average for all hos
pital activities. The farms and dairies, and transportation departments in
the plant operation and maintenance division, the nursing departments in the
professional care division, and the purchasing and issuing departments in the
administrative division had the highest rates in their respective divisions.
Strains, sprains, bruises, contusions, cuts, lacerations, and fractures
accounted for more than four-fifths of all disabling work injuries. However,
hospital workers suffered a large number of occupational diseases, tubercu
losis alone accounting for 2.5 percent of all disabling injuries. Trunk
injuries, mostly strains and sprains, were responsible for 35 percent of all
hospital injuries.
Nursing service attendants experienced more injuries than ary other
occupational group of workers. Most of these were strains, sprains, bruises,
and contusions.
- iv -
W o r k In ju ries
a n d W o r k - In ju r y Rates in H ospitals
THE INDUSTRY RECORD
In 195U, the U# S# Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics
undertook an extensive and detailed study of the work-injury experience of
hospital employees, based upon records for the year 1953* Prior to this
study, there were no national injury-rate data relating specifically to hos
pital employees* There were, therefore, no figures available to permit time
comparisons which would indicate trends in injury occurrence or determine
whether or not 1953 was a typical year in respect to the injury experience of
hospital workers•
The 1*,680 hospitals participating in the survey had an average of 8*6
disabling work injuries per million employee hours worked during 1953 (table
1), 1 / In comparison with the experience of most other industries, this was
not an unduly high injury-frequency rate# 2/ The all-manufacturing average
(13#li), for example, was more than 50 percent higher# More specifically, the
hospital rate was vastly better than the averages of 76*8 for logging and 53*1
for sawmill operations# But it was much higher than the average of 3*6 for
the explosives manufacturing industry or the average of 1#7 for workers manu
facturing synthetic fibers# In the field of institutional-type operations, it
was better than the rate of 13.2 for hotels, but not as good as the rate of
7#!* for publicly operated colleges. As an average, the hospital injuryfrequency rate did not look very bad— nor did it look very good# It did indi
cate that there was considerable room for improvement in the injury experience
of hospital workers#
*This report was prepared in the Division of Industrial Hazards, Bureau
of Labor Statistics, U# S. Department of Labor by Prank S# McElroy and
George R# McCormack#
1/ See scope and method of survey for definition of "disabling injury"
and "^Frequency rate"
2/ Injury rates by industry 1953, BLS release Oct# 7, 195U.
-
1 -
-
2
-
In respect to injury severity, the comparisons were generally favorable
to the hospitals. Only 0.2 percent of the disabling injuries reported in
the hospital survey resulted in death or permanent-total disability and only
3.5 percent resulted in permanent-partial disability. 3/ The corresponding
ratios for all-manufacturing were 0.1» and 5*lf,respectively. For hotels, the
averages were 0.3 and 1.2, and for publicly operated colleges they were 0.6
and 1.7. Broadly speaking, the proportion of hospital injuries resulting
in death or permanent-total disability was lower than in most other classifi
cations of employment. The proportion of hospital injuries resulting in
permanent-partial disability was low in comparison with the experience of
most industries in which machine operations are common, but was rather high
for an activity in which machine operations are relatively uncommon. In
terms of the usual injury-severity measures, the hospital reports showed an
average time charge of 62 days per disabling injury and a severity rate of
0.5 days lost or charged in each 1,000 employee-hours worked by hospital
employees, k /
In broad terms, therefore, the record indicates that approximately 1 in
every 57 full-time hospital employees experienced a disabling work injury
during 1953* The average time charge of 62 days for each of these injuries
represents an economic loss of about 1 day during the year for each full
time employee* As indicated later, however, there were wide deviations from
these general averages among hospitals of different types and sizes.
SCOPE AND METHOD OF SURVEY
Coverage
In accordance with the provisions of the Standard Industrial Classification
Manual, 5/ only establishments primarily engaged in providing hospital facili
ties were included in the survey. Institutions such as sanatoria, rest homes,
convalescent homes, and curative baths or spas in which medical or surgical
services are not a main function were excluded.
Both government and nongovernment hospitals were included. To insure
comparability, military personnel attached to Federal hospitals were specifi
cally excluded from the reports. With this exception, the reports covered
the hours worked and the injury experience of all other workers employed by,
or contributing their services directly to the reporting hospitals.
3/ See scope and method of survey for definitions of disabilities,
average time charge, and severity rate.
h / The standard average time charge per injury and the injury-severity
rate computed in this special survey are not strictly comparable with corre
sponding measures shown in the Bureau* s regular annual reports because of a
refinement in the computations for the special survey.
5/ Standard Industrial Classification Manual, Nonmanufacturing Indus
tries, U. S. Bureau of the Budget, 19^9, Vol. II (p. 119).
- 3 -
The c o n ta c t l i s t in c lu d e d a l l F e d e r a l h o s p ita ls an d a l l n o n fe d e r a l
h o s p ita ls l i s t e d i n th e d ir e c t o r y is s u e (J u n e 1 9 5 3 ) o f th e J o u r n a l o f th e
A m e ric a n H o s p ita l A s s o c ia tio n * The c o n ta c ts , t h e r e f o r e , in c lu d e d p r a c t i c a l l y
1 0 0 p e r c e n t o f th e a c c r e d ite d h o s p ita ls i n th e U n ite d S ta te s *
The d a ta w e re c o lle c t e d b y m a il on a v o lu n ta r y r e p o r tin g b a s is * R e p lie s
w e re r e c e iv e d fro m n e a r ly 5 ,5 0 0 h o s p it a ls , a p p ro x im a te ly 78 p e rc e n t o f th e
t o t a l m a ilin g l i s t o f n e a r ly 7 ,0 0 0 * The r e p lie s y ie ld e d u s a b le r e p o r ts fro m
U ,6 8 0 e s ta b lis h m e n ts r e p r e s e n tin g 6 7 p e r c e n t o f th e o r ig in a l c o n ta c t l i s t *
The u s a b le r e p o r ts c o v e re d a t o t a l o f 1 ,6 8 8 m illio n em ployee -h o u rs w o rked b y
f u l l - t i m e , p a r t - t im e , and v o lu n te e r w o rk e rs * In te rm s o f f u l l - t i m e w o rk e rs ,
t h e r e f o r e , th e r e p o r ts u s e d i n th e s u rv e y r e p r e s e n t a f u l l y e a r 's e x p e rie n c e
f o r a p p ro x im a te ly 8 3 8 ,0 0 0 h o s p it a l w o rk e rs *
N o n re s p o n d e n t C heck
A t th e c o n c lu s io n o f th e b a s ic s u r v e y , a random sam ple o f th e n o n re
s p o n d e n t e s ta b lis h m e n ts was s e le c te d f o r th e p u rp o s e o f m e a s u rin g th e p o s s ib le
b ia s in tro d u c e d in t o th e s u rv e y r e s u lt s b y th e f a i l u r e o f th e n o n re s p o n d e n ts
t o p a r t ic ip a t e * T h ro u g h in te n s iv e m a il s o lic it a t io n s and p e r s o n a l v i s i t s ,
r e p lie s w e re o b ta in e d fro m n e a r ly a l l e s ta b lis h m e n ts i n t h is c h e c k s a m p le *
C om parison s b e tw e e n th e d a ta ta b u la te d fro m th e c h e c k sam ple an d th o s e o b ta in e d
fro m th e m a in s u rv e y in d ic a te t h a t th e r a te s d e r iv e d fro m th e s u rv e y w o u ld n o t
h a v e b e e n s ig n if ic a n t ly d i f f e r e n t i f a 1 0 0 -p e r c e n t re s p o n s e h ad b e e n o b ta in e d *
D e f in it io n s
The injury-rate comparisons presented in this report are based primarily
on injury-frequency and severity rates compiled according to the definitions
and procedures specified in the American Standard Method of Compiling Indus
trial Injury Rates, as approved by the American Standards Association in 19U5*
These standard rates have been supplemented by an additional measure of injury
severity designated as the average time charge per disabling injury*
Disabling Injury*— A disabling injury is any injury sustained by an em
ployee in the course of and arising out of his employment which results in
death, permanent-total disability, permanent-partial disability, or temporarytotal disability* The definitions 7/ of the several disability classifica
tions as applied in this survey are as follows:
6J E f f e c t iv e J a n u a ry 1, 1955, th e a v e ra g e tim e c h a rg e p e r d is a b lin g
i n ju r y i s a s ta n d a rd m easu re f o r in ju r y d a ta c o m p ile d f o r p e rio d s fo llo w in g
t h a t d a te * S ee A m e ric a n S ta n d a rd M ethod o f R e c o rd in g and M e a s u rin g W o rk In ju r y E x p e rie n c e a p p ro v e d b y th e A m e ric a n S ta n d a rd s A s s o c ia tio n , D ecem ber 1 6 ,
195U*
7 / S ee A m e ric a n S ta n d a rd M ethod o f C o m p ilin g In d u s t r ia l In ju r y R a te s
a p p ro v e d b y th e A m e ric a n S ta n d a rd s A s s o c ia tio n , O c to b e r 1 1 , 1 9U 5*
- U -
(1) Fatality*-— A death resulting from a work injury is classified as a
work fatality regardless of the time intervening between injury and death*
(2) Permanent-Total Disability*— An injury other than death which
permanently and totally incapacitates an employee from following any gainful
occupation is classified as permanent-total disability* The loss, or com
plete loss of use, of any of the following in one accident is considered
permanent-total disability:
(a) Both eyes; (b) 1 eye and 1 hand, or arm,
or leg, or foot; (c) any 2 of the following not on
the same limb: hand, arm, foot, or leg*
(3) Permanent-Partial Disability .--The complete loss in one accident
of any member or part of a member of the body, or any permanent impairment of
functions of the body or part thereof to any degree less than permanent-total
disability is classified as permanent-partial disability, regardless of any
preexisting disability of the injured member or impaired body function. The
following injuries are not classified as permanent-partial disabilities, but
are classified as temporary-total or temporary-partial disabilities, or as
medical treatment cases, depending upon the degree of disability during the
healing period: (a) hernia, if it can be repaired; (b) loss of fingernails
or toenails; (c) loss of teeth; (d) disfigurement; (e) strains or sprains not
causing permanent limitation of motion; (f) fractures healing completely with
out deformities or displacements.
(U) Temporary-Total Disability•— Any injury not resulting in death or
permanent impairment is classified as a temporary-total disability if the
injured person, because of his injury, is unable to perform a regularly
established job, open and available to him, during the entire time interval
corresponding to the hours of his regular shift on any one or more days
(including Sundays, days off, or plant shutdowns) subsequent to the date of
injury*
Injury-Frequency Rate.— The injury-frequency rate represents the average
number of disabling work injuries occurring in each million employee-hours
worked. It is computed according to the following formula:
Number of disabling injuries
Frequency rate
-
Average Time Charge Per Injury.— The relative severity of a temporary
injury is measured by the number of calendar days during which the injured
person is unable to work at any regularly established job open and available
to him, excluding the day of injury and the day on which he returns to work.
The relative severity of death and permanent impairment cases is determined
by reference to a table of economic time charges included in the American
Standard Method of Compiling Industrial Injury Rates. These time charges,
-
5
-
based upon an average work-life expectancy of 20 years for the entire working
population, represent the average percentage of working ability lost as the
result of specified impairments, expressed in unproductive days*
The evaluation of tuberculosis cases constituted a special problem in
this survey* A broad review of workmen's compensation cases involving tuber
culosis, and extended consultation with medical and rehabilitation people indi
cated that on recovery, tuberculosis patients generally were, to some degree,
restricted as to the activities and occupations in which they might safely
engage* Under the commonly accepted disability definitions this would con
stitute permanent-partial disability* The American Standard Method of
Measuring and Recording Work-Injury Experience, however, does not provide a
specific time charge for this kind of disability, but rather leaves the time
charge to be determined on the basis of medical evaluation in each case*
Because of the obvious complications of attempting to obtain a separate
evaluation of each case, however, it was necessary to adopt an average time
charge for tuberculosis cases reported in this survey. A value of 1,200 days
per case was established by averaging the awards made for tuberculosis cases
in a number of workmen's compensation jurisdictions• The method of computa
tion and the "determined" time charge were presented informally to the Zl6*l
Committee on Interpretations of the American Standards Association for review
and comment* The committee, without registering a formal decision, found no
objection to this procedure*
The average time charge per disabling injury is computed by adding the
days lost for each temporary injury and the days charged according to the
standard table for each death and permanent impairment and dividing the total
by the number of disabling injuries*
Injury-Severity Rate*— The injury-severity rate weights each disabling
injury with its corresponding time loss or time charge and expresses the
aggregate in terms of the average number of days lost or charged per 1,000
employe e-hours worked* It is computed according to the following formula:
Severity rate =
Total days lost or charged
multiplied by 1,000
Number of employee-hours worked
COMPARISONS BY TYPE OF HOSPITAL
For basic comparison purposes, each reporting hospital was assigned to
one of the four general classifications used and defined by the American
Hospital Association— general, mental, tuberculosis, and special* For more
detailed comparisons, the "special hospital" group was further broken down
into seven subclassifications— geriatric; isolation and contagious diseases;
cancer; orthopedic; eye, ear, nose, and throat; obstetric; and pediatric*
-
6
-
C h a rt 1. W o r k Injuries in Hospitals
BY TYPE OF HOSPITAL, 1953
IN J U R Y S E V E R I T Y : A v e ra g e N u m b e r of
D a y s L o s t or C h a r g e d P e r D is a b l in g In j u r y
150
I
100
I
50
i I
IN J U R Y F R E Q U E N C Y : A v e r a g e N u m b e r of
D i s a b l in g In ju rie s P e r M illio n H o u rs W o r k e d
0
0
I
5.0
10.0
15.0
1------------1--------- n -------------1
MENTAL
HOSPITALS
I
I
TUBERCULOSIS
HOSPITALS
SPECIAL
HOSPITALS
{/ ■> > > > > > > } > y \
/ / / / / / / / / / /\
/ / / / / / / / / / /\
{ii
A
{ *3
AVERAGE
A ll R e p o r t i n g H o s p it a l s
GENERAL
HOSPITALS
I// // // // // // //////</' // //
/////////>'//
AVERAGE
All R e p o r t i n g H o s p i t a l s
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
General hospitals constitute by far the largest of the several groups
of hospitals* In the reporting sample, this classification included 77 per
cent of the entire volume of institutions and 72 percent of the total employ
ment (table 1)* The experience of general hospitals, therefore, carried a
very heavy weight in the "all hospitals" averages*
The average injury rates for the different types of hospitals varied
widely* The highest level of injury occurrence among the four major groups
was in the mental hospitals, 15>*3 disabling injuries per million employee
hours worked* The lowest average, 6.5, was far tire general hospitals* The
tuberculosis and special hospitals groups had average injury-frequency rates
of 11*7 and 11*3, respectively* (See chart 1*)
- 7 -
The subclassifications of the specialty hospitals showed a somewhat
wider range of Injury-frequency rates* The geriatric hospitals had the
highest group average recorded, 15*9, and the pediatric hospitals had the
lowest, 5.U. The full range for the subgroups of specialty hospitals was
as follows:
Geriatric-------------------- - —
15*9
Isolation and contagious diseases —
15.3
C a n c e r ------ ---------- —
-------12*7
Orthopedic - - - - - - - - - - - - 9,2
Eye, ear, nose, and throat - - - - 8*6
Obstetric - ------------- 7,8
Pediatric - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.U
The average severity of the injuries experienced was much higher in the
tuberculosis hospitals than in any of the other classifications* This was a
reflection of the relatively high volume of occupational tuberculosis cases
reported by these institutions— 1 in every 9 of their disabling injuries was
a tuberculosis case* For this group of hospitals,the average time charge per
disabling injury was lit3 days and the standard severity rate was l*7o
In sharp contrast, the average time charge per case for the general
hospitals was 59 days; for mental hospitals, 5>1 days; and for special hos
pitals, I4I days* The severity rates, similarly, was substantially lower
than that of the tuberculosis hospitals— mental hospitals, 0,8} special hos
pitals, 0*5} and general hospitals, 0,U,
HOSPITAL SIZE COMPARISONS
There was a striking relationship between hospital size, as measured
by total employment, and the level of injury occurrence* Generally, the
findings indicate that injury-frequency rates for hospitals tend to vary
directly with the size of the hospitals (table 1 and chart 2)*
A breakdown of the entire reporting sample into establishment size
groups indicated that the smallest hospitals— those with less than 10
employees each— have the lowest incidence of work injuries* Their average
injury-frequency rate was only 2*6* In each successively larger group, the
average frequency rate rose progressively to a maximum of 13*5 for hospitals
having between 1,000 and 2,i;99 employees. The hospitals with 2,500 or more
employees had a slightly lower average, 12*U, but this reflected primarily
the fact that this size group was composed almost exclusively of general
hospitals.
The relationship between the average days lost per temporary-total dis
ability and establishment size was consistently the reverse of the frequencyrate relationship.
-
8
-
Chart 2. Work-Injury Frequency Rates in Hospitals
BY SIZE OF HOSPITAL, 1953
Average Number of Disabling Injuries
Per Million Hours Worked
14.0
12.0
10.0
6.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0
Less
Than
10
1019
20
49
Number of Employees
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
In regards to the relationship between injury frequency and establish
ment size: In the general-hospital classification where the reporting sample
was relatively large and the influence of individual establishments was mini
mized, the frequency rates varied directly with employment size throughout
the range* In this group, the average frequency rates varied from
for
establishments with less than 20 employees to 10*3 for those with 2,3>00 or
more employees* In the mental and special hospital groups, the pattern was
much the same, but with greater differences between the rates of the small
and large institutions* For tuberculosis hospitals^ the pattern was less
sharply defined, but in general, it displayed the same characteristics*
9 -
Chart 3. Work-Injury Frequency Rates in Hospitals
BY TYPE AND SIZE OF HOSPITAL, 1953
RATE
25.0
Mental Hospitals
A V E R A G E N U M B E R OF DISABLING
INJURIES P E R MILLION H O U R S
WORKED
20.0
------------ ---------------------
15.0
10.0
-
AVERAGE
All Mental Hospitals
5.0
LESS
THAN
1019
2049
10
5099
100249
250499
N U M B E R OF E M P L O Y E E S
500999
1,000- 2,500
2,499
OR
LESS
THAN
50
MORE
5099
100 249
250499
500999
N U M B E R OF E M P L O Y E E S
1,000
OR
MORE
RATE
RATC
30.0
Special Hospitals
A V E R A G E N U M B E R OF DISABLING
INJURIES P E R MILLION H O U R S
25.0
WORKED
20.0
AVERAGE
15.0 h
10.0
All Special Hospitals
.--------------- ©
---------------
100- 2 5 0 ~
249
499
N U M B E R OF E M P L O Y E E S
5 0 0 - I,COO9 9 9 2,499
N U M B E R OF EM P L O Y E E S
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
This pattern is particularly interesting in that it deviates from the
distribution of injury rates by plant size usually observed in industry. In
industrial operations, the highest level of injury rates commonly is found in
the middle-size establishments, roughly in the range between 100 and 500 em
ployees. Frequency rates for the larger industrial establishments generally
average lower than those of the medium-size plants, but not as low as those of
the relatively small plants.
-
10
-
Group averages, however, tend to conceal wide variations in injury rates
among individual establishments. Actually 55 percent (2,596) of all hospitals
cooperating in the survey operated the entire year without a disabling injury
(table 3). Most of these, of course, were small but together they accounted
for 19 percent of all employees surveyed. Included in the group of zerofrequency-rate hospitals, was one with nearly 1,100 employees.
In contrast, 35 hospitals had frequency rates in excess of 50, of which
Again, most of these hospitals were small but
one with an average employment of approximately 800 had a rate of 52 for the
year. At the adverse end of the scale, 610 hospitals (13 percent of the
reporting sample) employing 19 percent of all hospital workers accounted for
51 percent of the disabling injuries reported in the survey and 1*3 percent
of the total time lost (table 1*).
k had rates exceeding 100.
COMPARISONS BY TYFE OF OWNERSHIP
During its 195k meetings, the President's Conference on Occupational
Safety adopted a recommendation of its Committee on Public Employee Safety
that the Bureau of Labor Statistics expand its factfinding activities to
include studies on accident occurrence among public employees. Accordingly,
the data collected in this survey were tabulated by tvpe of ownership—
governnent, nonprofit, and proprietary. Because of injury rate variations by
type of hospital, the comparisons were made by tTrpe of hospital within the
various classes of ownership.
Generally, government hospitals, which are usually larger than nonprofit
and proprietary hospitals, tended to have the most adverse injury-frequency
rates. In all k types of hospitals— general, mental, tuberculosis, and special
— frequency rates in government hospitals were substantially higher than in
similar hospitals operated by nonprofit or proprietary organizations (table
5 and chart !*)•
General and special hospitals, operated by nonprofit organizations, had
higher frequency rates than similar hospitals operated by proprietary owners
while the reverse was true for mental and tuberculosis hospitals. Injuries
were, on an average, most severe in proprietary hospitals, although for men
tal hospitals, the average time lost per disabling injury was greatest in the
nonprofit group.
Of the government hospitals, those operated by local governments— city
and county— had the most adverse frequency rates in 3 of the 1* classes of
hospitals (mental^ tuberculosis, and special); in general hospitals, Federal
institutions had the highest rate (table 5 and chart 5). State hospitals
had the lowest frequency rates in the general, tuberculosis^and special
hospital groups. Among the mental hospitals, federally operated hospitals
had the lowest rate.
-
11
-
A comparison between city-and county-operated hospitals indicated very
little variation in injury-frequency rates except in special hospitals. For
that group* the city rate of 20*6 was nearly 1*0 percent greater than the
county rate* llj..9. In general hospitals* the rates were nearly identical*
8.3 in county hospitals and 8.2 in municipal hospitals. For tuberculosis
hospitals* the respective rates were li*.6 and 13.7. A similar comparison for
mental hospitals was not available.
Among the government hospitals* injuries were* on an average* most
severe in federally operated hospitals. In the general* mental* and special
hospital groups* the average time lost per disabling injury was greater in
Federal hospitals than in State or locally operated hospitals. In tubercu
losis hospitals* the State average was about 10 percent higher than the
Federal average. City-county hospitals had the most favorable averages in 3
of the 1+ classes of hospitals— mental* tuberculosis* and special.
-
12
Among the nonprofit hospitals, the church-operated group had the lowest
injury-frequency rate. For general hospitals, the church-operated rate was
the church-affiliated rate, 5«5» and other (mostly incorporated non
profit) institutions, 6.2. For special hospitals, the respective rates were
3.5, 1 »h» and 9»h» Sample limitations did not remit similar comparisons
for mental and tuberculosis hospitals.
The proprietary hospitals, usually, were small; corporation hospitals,
the largest, averaged only 80 workers per establishment. Reflecting the
tendency to low rates in small hospitals, frequency rates in proprietary
hospitals were low. Of the 3 groups of proprietary hospitals— corporation,
partnership, and individual— the corporation hospitals had the highest
frequency rates. For proprietary general hospitals, the rates weret
- 13 -
corporation, 5*3j individual, h»3> and partnership, 1.9. Respective averages
for mental hospitals were 11.2, 8.1, and 5.0. For special hospitals, the
partnership rate, 9.2, exceeded the corporation rate, 6.0. Comparisons for
tuberculosis hosnital3 were not available.
REGIONAL, STATE, AND METROPOLITAN COMPARISONS
The breakdown of injury rates by geographic areas showed a consistency
of patterns for the different classes of hospitals. In each of the four
major classifications--general, mental, tuberculosis, and special hospitals—
the highest incidence of injuries occurred in the Pacific Coast region and
the lowest occurred in either the West South Central or the East South
Central. With relatively few exceptions, the States of the Pacific, Mountain,
Middle Atlantic, and New England regions tended to have higher injuryfrequency rates than those of the central and southern regions. (See table
6 and charts 6 and 7.)
The underlying reasons for these consistent patterns were not apparent
from the data available in the survey. Their import as indicators of the
areas in which intensified accident-prevention efforts are most needed,
however, is clear. For this purpose, the variations in injury experience
among the different States are probably more significant than the regional
variations.
General Hospitals
Although the regional frequency rate for general hospitals was higher
in the Pacific Region than in any other region, the highest of the State
rates for this class of hospitals occurred in Rhode Island (U.1+). The
California average (11.2), however, was only fractionally lower— hardly a
significant difference. The Nevada average (10.8) was also in the high
range. (See table 6, and charts 6 and 8.)
The other States of the Pacific region, had rates considerably lower
than that of California. The Oregon average of 8.7 was relatively high,
but it was exceeded by the rates for Vermont (9.6), New York (9.0), Florida
(9.3), and Arizona (8.9). The Washington average (6.9) was not significantly
different from the national average for all general hospitals.
In the New England region, all of the State rates except New Hampshire's
were above the national average. In the Middle Atlantic region, the
New Jersey and Pennsylvania rates were somewhat below the national average,
but the New York experience pulled the regional average up to 7 .Uo
Three States in the Mountain region— Wyoming, Montana, and New Mexico—
had relatively lew average frequency rates. The rates for Nevada, Arizona,
and Idaho, however, were relatively high.
- Ill -
Chart 6. Work-Injury Frequency Rates
in General and Tuberculosis Hospitals
By Geographic Region, 1953
GENERAL HOSPITALS
B B S More than 5 0 % above average
From 2 5 % to 5 0 % above average
From 2 5 % below to 2 5 % above average
From 2 5 % to 5 0 % below averoge
(Tn iI More than 5 0 % below average
TUBERCULOSIS HOSPITALS
SS I More than 5 0 % above averoge
From 2 5 % to 5 0 % above average
From 2 5 % below to 2 5 % above average
Eft3 From 2 5 % to 5 0 % below average
IT*
A More than 5 0 %
below average
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR Sl'AllSTlCS
T U B E R C U L O S I S HOSPITALS
Average 11.7
F R E O U E N C Y RATE: Average number ot disabling
injuries per million hours worked.
15
Chart 7. Work-Injury Frequency Rates
in Mental and Special Hospitals
By Geographic Region, 1953
MENTAL HOSPITALS
NEW ENGLAND
V' 18.0
&
EAST NORTH CENTRAL
^ 4 ^ ea st south c e n t r a l ,
7 '4- f
WEST SOUTH CENTRAL
SOUTH ATLANTIC
l_ f> K ' ‘
K 8 S More than 50% above average
From 25% to 50% above average
It 1
1\From
25% below to 25% above average
K X 2 From 25% to 50% below averoge
MENTAL HOSPITALS
Average 15.3
P ' - ' j -More than 50% below average
SPECIAL HOSPITALS
NEW ENGLAND
V 10.8*
MIDDLE ATLANTIC
EAST NORTH CENTRAL
EAST SOUTH CENTRAL^
SOUTH ATLANTIC
BSSI More than 50% above average
From 25% to 50% above overage
It * II From 25% below to 25% above averoge
OOP From 25% to 50% below average
K * / j More than 50% below overage
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
FR E Q U E N C Y VRATE: Average number of disabling
injuries per million hours worked
16
Chart 8. Work-Injury Frequency Rates in
General and Tuberculosis Hospitals
By State, ]953
GENERAL HOSPITALS
M ore th an 5 0 % above average
From 2 5 % to 5 0 % above average
E3
From 2 5 % below to 2 5 % above average
E 9
From 2 5 % to 5 0 % below averag e
E J
M ore th a n 5 0 % below a v e ra g e
B B i M ore th an 5 0 % above average
j^ l
F rom 2 5 % to 5 0 % ab o v e o verag e
E 3
From 2 5 % belo w to 2 5 % ab o v e a v e ra g e
frSCl F ro m 2 5 % to 5 0 % below a v e ra g e
M ore th a n 5 0 % below a v e ra g e
UNUFD STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTIC*
FREQ UENCY RATE: Average num ber o f d isabling
injuries per m illion hours worked.
17
Chart 9. Work-Injury Frequency Rates in
Mental and Special Hospitals
By State, 1953
MENTAL HOSPITALS
flS & l M o re than 5 0 % above a v e ra g e
From 2 5 % to 5 0 % ab o v e a v e ra g e
E3
F rom 2 5 % below to 2 5 % a b o v e a v e r a g e
From 2 5 % to 5 0 % b elo w o v e r a g e
ES
M o re th a n 5 0 % below a v e ra g e
M E N T A L H O S P IT A L S
A v e ro g e 1 5 .3
SPECIAL HOSPITALS
B m h M o re th a n 5 0 % ab o v e a v e r a g e
F ro m 2 5 % to 5 0 % a b o v e a v e r a g e
I*-*«*1 From 2 5 % b elo w to 2 5 % a b o v e a v e ra g e
S 3
From 2 5 % to 5 0 % belo w a v e r a g e
E T 3 M o re th a n 5 0 % b e lo w o v e ra g e
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
F R E Q U E N C Y R A T E -A v e ra g e n u m b e r o f d is a b lin g
injuries per m illion hours w orked
18 -
In the East North Central region, Wisconsin had the highest rate (8.7)
and Indiana the lowest O a . 7 ) .
The spread in the West North Central region
was quite similar, from 8.1 in Minnesota to AuO in both Nebraska and South
Dakota. In this region, only the Minnesota rate was above the national aver
age for all general hospitals.
In the South Atlantic region, the range of State frequency rates was
rather wide. In the high range, Florida had a rate of 9 .3; the District of
Colunibiaj7.0; and Virginia,6.7. In contrast, the Delaware rate was 3*2 and
the North Carolina rate was 3*7. The South Carolina and West Virginia rates
were only a shade higher at 3*8.
The two low-rate regions, East South Central and West South Central,
had remarkably similar injury experiences. The two regional frequency rates
were identical, h»3» Each region had only 1 State with a rate of more than
5~Tennessee, 5.8* and Louisiana, 5.6— and each had 1 State with a rate of
less than 3— Oklahoma, 2.3 and Alabama, 2.1}.
For the purpose of more precisely locating the areas of high and low
injury incidence, average frequency rates were computed for general hospitals
in 113 metropolitan areas. 8/ (See table 7.) These area averages ranged
from 16.9 for Miami, Fla. to-0.7 for Waco, Tex. In 15 of the areas, the
average rates were 10.0 or higher— in lh they were 3*0 or lower.
The higher area rates generally occurred in the more populous metropol
itan areas and the low area averages generally occurred in the smaller
metropolitan areas. Of the 15 highest rate metropolitan areas, IJ4. were in
high-rate States and 10 of the 13 lowest rate areas were in low-rate States.
Although sample-size limitations prohibited breakdowns of the State and
metropolitan area data in terms of establishment size, there is some evidence
that the variations in the State and area averages are closely related to the
establishment size distribution. With only a few exceptions, the average
employment per reporting unit was greater in the higiwate States and metro
politan areas than in the States and areas where low injury-froquency rates
prevailed.
Mental Hospitals
The r e g io n a l p a t t e r n o f in ju r y -fr e q u e n c y r a te s f o r m e n ta l h o s p ita ls w as
much th e same as t h a t f o r th e g e n e r a l h o s p it a ls . The h ig h e s t o f th e r e g io n a l
a v e ra g e r a te s w as 2U.5 f o r th e P a c if ic r e g io n , fo llo w e d b y 22.8 f o r th e
M o u n ta in r e g io n , 21.U f o r th e M id d le A t la n t ic r e g io n , 18.0 f o r th e New E ngland
8/ Each of the metropolitan area rates represents the combined exper
ience of at least 3 hospitals.
- 19 -
region, 9.7 for the West North Central region, 9*3 for the East North Central
region, 8.9 for the South Atlantic region, 7 J+ for the East South Central
region, and 7.1 for the West South Central region. (See table 6 and chart ?.)
In the more significant State breakdown, the range of frequency rates
was even wider— from 31«J+ in Colorado to 0Jj. in Oklahoma. Because of sample
limitations, however, it was impossible to compute averages for 15 States
and the District of Columbia. (See table 6 and chart 9.)
The high average for the Pacific region reflected primarily the experi
ence of the California mental hospitals, 26.5. The Oregon average, 13.6,
was substantially lower, in fact somewhat better than the national average
for all mental hospitals. The Washington average of I4..8 was in the lowrange, ranking about eighth among the 33 States for which averages were
computed.
Colorado was the only State in the Mountain region for which a separate
average could be comoutad. The average for the region, however, was consid
erably lower than that of Colorado.
In the Middle Atlantic region, the New York average was high, 25.5*
the New Jersey rate, 17.0, was somewhat above the national average? and the
Pennsylvania rate, 11.7* was a little below the national average.
In the New England region, Connecticut ( 27 . 2 ) and Massachusetts ( 20. 2 )
had high averages while those of Maine (6.9) and Rhode Island (ii.S) were
relatively lovr.
Among the 5 States of the West North Central region for which separate
rates were computed, only Minnesota (16.2) had a rate higher than the na
tional average for all mental hospitals. The Kansas (9.5) and Iowa (8.5)
rates were in the middle range while the Missouri (Ij..5) and Nebraska (I4..0 )
averages were in the low range.
In the East North Central region, all of the States had frequency rates
oelow the national average. The Illinois average of 13.0 was highest in the
region and the Wisconsin average of 7.1 was the lowest.
Florida, the high-rate State (lU.U) in the South Atlantic region, had an
average just a little below the national average, followed by Georgia with a
rate of 11.5* The Maryland average (9.6) and those of Virginia (8.U) and
forth Carolina (5.9) were relatively low, but the West Virginia mental hos
pitals had the best record in the region. The West Virginia rate of 0.5 was
sffectively, if not mathematically, a tie with that of Oklahoma for the
position of lowest in the Nation.
Of the 3 State averages computed in the East South Central region, the
llabama rate of 13.U was high. The Tennessee rate, U.3* and the Kentucky
rate, J>.2 were both low.
-
20
-
In the West South Central region, Oklahoma had the lowest of all the
State frequency rates for mental hospitals, O.ij.. (Oklahoma and West Virginia
were the only States with rates of less than 1.0 for any class of hospitals.)
In the same region, Texas had an average rate of 5.2 and Louisiana a rate of
10 . 6 .
Metropolitan area average frequency rates in mental hospitals could be
computed for only 13 areas. (See table 7.) These comparisons, therefore,
are less significant than those for general hospitals. Within the group,
the area frequency-rate averages ranged from 25.3 for the New YorkNortheastern New Jersey area to 2.3 for the Cleveland, Ohio area. In Ohio,
the low rate for Cleveland was offset by a relatively high rate of 19.6 for
the Columbus area. Similarly in California, a high average of 2U.8 for the
Los Angeles area was balanced by a relatively low average of luk for the
San Francisco area.
Tuberculosis Hospitals
As in the other hospital classifications, the highest of the regional
frequency rates for tuberculosis hospitals fell in the Pacific region (19-3)•
(See table 6 and chart 6.) The average rates for the Middle Atlantic (15.0),
West North Central (12.7), and Mountain (12,l) regions were all relatively
high. The East North Central region's average (10.1) was somewhat below the
national average for all tuberculosis hospitals, but still should be con
sidered as fairly high for hospital operations. The average rates of the
other four regions fell into a rather narrow range. In the New England
region, the average was 7.7? in the West South Central, 7»ki in the East
South Central, 6.I4; and in the low-rate South Atlantic region, 6.0.
Among the 23 States for which State frequency rates for tuberculosis
hospitals were computed, the California average (20.9) was highest and the
Pennsylvania average (5.0) was lowest. (See table 6 and chart 8.) The
rates for Minnesota, New York, New Jersey, Washington, and Arizona were all
in the high range, above 15. The range between 10 and 15 included Ohio,
Indiana, and Wisconsin.
In the range below 10 disabling injuries per million employee-hours
worked, 7 States had averages between 7.5 and 10. These included Missouri,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Colorado, Connecticut, Virginia, and Illinois. The
low-rate group, with average frequency rates of 5 to 7.5, included, in addi
tion to Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Kentucky, Florida,
and Maryland.
For the more detailed metropolitan area comparisons, average frequency
rates were computed for tuberculosis hospitals in and adjacent to 12* cities
(table 7). The highest of these metropolitan area rates was 23.9 for Los
Angeles, Calif., and the lowest was k*9 for the Baltimore, Md. area. The
New York-Northeastern New Jersey and Seattle, Wash.j areas had identical high
-
21
-
averages of 21.1. Similarly, the area rates for St. Louis, Mo. and San
Francisco-Oakland, Calif, were identical at the high level of 18*6. In the
median range, the area averages were: Boston, Mass., 11.1} Madison, Wise.,
10.lj Detroit, Mich., 10.0; and Asheville, N. C., 9.9.
The lo w ra n g e o f m e tr o p o lita n a re a r a te s in c lu d e d , i n a d d itio n t o
B a ltim o r e : D e n v e r, 8.8; C h ic a g o , 6.7; P itts b u r g h , 6.3; an d P h ila d e lp h ia , 5»1»
Special Hospitals
The regional breakdown of injury frequency in the special hospital group
followed the same general pattern that prevailed in the other hospital classi
fications. (See table 6 and chart 7.) Regionally, the Pacific had the high
est average rate, 17.2; followed by the Middle Atlantic, li+.2; Mountain, li*.l;
and New England, 10.8, regions. The averages for the West North Central (8.1 ),
the South Atlantic (7.1;), and the East North Central (6.2)regions were in the
midrange.
The lowest averages were for the West South Central (5*9) and the
East South Central (1;.8) regions.
Only a limited number of State frequency rates could be computed for the
special hospital group— 16 States and the District of Columbia. The range of
these averages, however, was strikingly wide— from 19.U in California to 1*9
in Tennessee. The high-rate (over 11.0 ) States included California, New York,
Connecticut, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Minnesota. The median-rate
(3*0 to 11.0) group included the District of Columbia, Michigan, Missouri,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, and Maryland. In the low-rate range (1.9 to
U.9) were Wisconsin, Texas, New Jersey, and Tennessee*
COMPARISONS BY OPERATING DEPARTMENTS
The fundamental need for a safety program and the general areas in which
that program should be concentrated can be readily established by broad com
parisons such as were presented in the preceding sections of this report*
The effective planning of a safety program, however, requires more specific
details pointing out the particular operating activities in which the
incidence of Injuries is high and which, therefore, are most in need of at
tention. To provide this type of information, the survey data were classified
into the three more or less standard hospital operating divisions— profession
sional care, administrative, and plant operation and maintenance. The data
for each of these divisions were then broken d own further into as many
specific activity classifications as possible. (See charts 10 and 11 and
tables 8 and 9.)
From the first breakdown, it was evident that the primary emphasis of a
hospital safety program might well be directed to the plant operation and
maintenance division. About 30 percent of the total reported employment was
in this division, but these employees experienced I4J4 percent of the reported
injuries. The overall frequency rate for plant operation and maintenance
-
22
-
Chart 10. W ork Injuries in Hospitals
BY OPERATING DIVISION, 1953
IN J U R Y S E V E R I T Y : Average N um ber of
D ays Lost or C ha rge d P er D is a b lin g In jury
I N J U R Y F R E Q U E N C Y : A v e ra g e N u m b e r of
D i s a b l in g i n j u r i e s P e r M i ll io n Hours W ork e d
Plant
Operation and
Maintenance
Division
Professional
Care Division
Administrative
Division
©
AVERAGE
All H o s p i t a l s
AVERAGE
A ll H o s p i t a l s
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
a c t i v i t i e s teas 1 2 .7 * s u b s t a n t ia lly h ig h e r th a n th e 7 * 6 a v e ra g e f o r th e
p r o fe s s io n a l c a re d iv is io n o r th e 2 .U a v e ra g e f o r th e a d m in is tr a tiv e
d iv is io n . T h is g e n e ra l in t e r d iv is io n a l r e la t io n s h ip p r e v a ile d id t h in e a c h
o f th e v a r io u s ty p e —o f - h o s p it a l c la s s if ic a t io n s *
P la n t O p e ra tio n and M a in te n a n c e D iv is io n
Only two departments in this division had frequency rates of less than
10__housekeeping, 8.5* and laundry* 6*8. These hardly merit being called
low rates, but they were in sharp contrast to the rates of 26.6 for farm and
dairy activities, 2U.0 for transportation operations, and 19.1 for the large
group of maintenance workers. Obviously* safety needs to be emphasized in
these three operating departments. The farm and dairy workers were nearly
all employees of mental hospitals and their unfavorable experience contrib
uted substantially to the high average frequency rate for that class of
hospitals.
Chart 11. Work-Injury Frequency Rates in Hospitals
By Department, 1953
PROFESSIONAL CARE DIVISION
PLANT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DIVISION
Average Number of Disabling
Injuries Per Million Hours Worked
DEPARTM ENTS
Average Num ber of D isabling
Injuries Per Million Hours Worked
DEPARTM ENTS
2.0
T
N ursing S ervice
D e p a rtm e n ts
Farm s, D airies
Physical T h e ra p y
D e p a rtm e n ts
Tran sp o rta tio n
O cc u pational T h e ra p y
D e p a rtm e n ts
M ain te n an ce
C linical L a b o ra to rie s
Power
C e n tra l Supply
S ections
Food S ervice and
P rep aratio n
D en tal D ep a rtm e n ts
P la n t P ro tec tio n
Pharm acy D epartm ents
Housekeeping
M iscellaneous
L au n d ry
Radiology D ep artm ents
M iscellaneous
4.0
Purchasing and Issuing
S pecial S e rv ic e s
O utpatien t
D ep a rtm e n ts
A d m in is tra tiv e and
C le ric a l
Nursing Education
D ep a rtm e n ts
M is c e lla n e o u s
M edical L ib ra ry
D ep artm ents
V o lu n te e r S e rv ic e s
S e c tio n
10.0
12.0
r
14.0
r
16.0
l&O
20.0 22J0 2 4 0
-t-
I
ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
Electrocardiography and
Electroencephalography
D e p a rtm e n ts
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
8.0
Division
Average
DEPARTM ENTS
M ed ical R ecords
D ep a rtm e n ts
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
-r
I
I
I
Social S e rv ic e
D e p a rtm e n ts
A nesthesiology
D ep a rtm e n ts
6.0
• • • •
• • •
r*i
3 Division
Average
i
2 6 .0 26.0 30 .0
T
Relatively few of the hospitals indicated that they had a power depart
ment, but the average frequency rate of those which were reported (16.5)
indicates that this activity also deserves more attention from a safety
viewpoint.
The significance of the relatively high injury-frequency rate (13.U)
in the food service and preparation departments is accentuated by the large
number of employees in these departments. The rate calls for particular
attention here and the volume of exposure— that is number of employees en
gaged in these departments— assures that successful accident prevention
efforts in these departments would yield s\ibstantial improvement in the
overall hospital injury record.
Professional Care Division
I n th e p r o fe s s io n a l c a re d iv is io n , th e fo c u s o f s a f e t y a c t i v i t i e s s h o u ld
b e on th e n u rs in g s e r v ic e . The a v e ra g e in ju r y -fr e q u e n c y r a t e f o r n u rs in g
s e r v ic e s was 9 . 1 , c o n s id e r a b ly h ig h e r th a n th e r a t e f o r a n y o f th e o th e r
p r o fe s s io n a l a c t i v i t i e s . The f a c t t h a t t h is s e r v ic e c o m p ris e s th e la r g e s t
g ro u p o f h o s p it a l w o rk e rs e m p h a s ize s th e d e s i r a b il i t y o f c o n c e n tr a tin g
a c c id e n t-p r e v e n tio n e f f o r t s i n t h is a c t i v i t y .
W ith in th e n u rs in g s e r v ic e , o rim a ry a t t e n t io n s h o u ld b e g iv e n t o th e
s a fe ty o f a tte n d a n ts . T h is g ro u p o f w o rk e rs had an in ju r y -fr e q u e n c y r a t e
o f 1 9 .1 , m ore th a n d o u b le th e r a t e f o r a n y o th e r g ro u p o f n u rs in g s e r v ic e
e m p lo y e e s * The em p h asis on s a fe ty f o r a tte n d a n ts , h o w e v e r, s h o u ld n o t le a d
t o n e g le c t o f th e r e g is te r e d n u rs e s , n u rs e a id e s , o r d e r lie s , and p r a c t ic a l
n u rs e s . A l l o f th e l a t t e r g ro u p s o f n u rs in g s e r v ic e w o rk e rs h a d a r e l a t i v e l y
u n fa v o ra b le in ju r y r e c o r d .
The re c o rd a ls o in d ic a te s a need f o r p a r t ic u la r a t t e n t io n to s a fe ty i n
th e o c c u p a tio n a l and p h y s ic a l th e ra p y d e p a rtm e n ts .
A d m in is tr a tiv e D iv is io n
The h ig h e s t o f th e g e n e r a lly fa v o r a b le d e p a rtm e n ta l in ju r y r a te s in th e
a d m in is tr a tiv e d iv is io n was t h a t o f th e p u rc h a s in g and is s u in g d e p a rtm e n ts ,
5.7. D e s p ite th e f a c t t h a t t h is i s n o t a n e x c e p t io n a lly h ig h r a t e , i t is an
in d ic a t io n o f th e a c t i v i t i e s w it h in t h is d iv is io n m ost i n n eed o f a c c id e n tp r e v e n tio n a t t e n t io n .
KINDS OF IN JU R IE S EXPERIENCED
The b a s ic p u rp o s e o f a n a c c id e n t-p r e v e n tio n p ro g ram is t o a v o id o c c u r
re n c e s w h ic h r e s u lt i n i n j u r i e s . A lth o u g h an a n a ly s is o f in ju r ie s w i l l seld o m
in d ic a te th e means o f p r e v e n tin g th o s e o c c u rre n c e s , i t c a n s e rv e a d i r e c t
" in ju r y p r e v e n tio n " fu n c tio n b y e s ta b lis h in g th e fra m e w o rk f o r th e m ore p e r t i
n e n t a n a ly s is o f a c c id e n t c a u s e s . The p r e s e n t s u rv e y d id n o t a tte m p t t o c o v e r
th e c au ses o f h o s p it a l a c c id e n ts , b u t t h is in ju r y a n a ly s is may s u g g e s t
a p p ro a c h e s i n f u t u r e s tu d ie s o f w o rk a c c id e n ts in h o s p it a ls .
-
25
Chart 12. Work-Injury Frequency Rates
in Nursing Departments of Hospitals
BY OCCUPATION, 1953
O C C U P A T IO N
0
20
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
A v e ra g e N um ber o f Disabling
In ju ries P er M illio n H ours W orked
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
1 ---------------1-----------------1---------------- 1-----------------1-------- j-------1---------------- 1----------------- 1---------------- 1-----------------1----------------- 1
ATTENDANTS
PRACTICAL NURSES
NURSES AIDES
ORDERLIES
V L. a A/ _i|I
REGISTERED NURSES
4. A ^
' Vl
STUDENT NURSES
/////
/////
/////
/////
DEPARTM ENT AVERAGE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Strains, sprains, bruises, contusions, cuts, lacerations, and fractures
accounted for more than four-fifths of all disabling work injuries in hos
pitals. Thus, the pattern of work injuries in hospitals is, in general,
similar to the pattern which exists in other industries. There are, however
some noteworthy differences. Strains and sprains, hernias, and fractures are
usually indicative of heavy manual handling activities. Yet, special studies
made by the Bureau in 12 other industries 9/ showed only 1 industry, ware
housing and storage, with a greater proportion of strains and sprains than
9/ Water supply utilities, warehousing and storage, pulpwood logging,
carpentering, plumbing, and the manufacturing industries: paperboard con
tainers, paper and pulp, clay construction products, fertilizer, textile
dyeing and finishing, breweries, and slaughtering and meat packing.
-
26
Chart 13. W ork Injuries in Hospitals
BY NATURE OF INJURY, 1953
IN J U R Y S E V E R IT Y : A v e ra g e N u m b e r o f
D ays L o st o r C h a rg e d P e r D is a b lin g In ju ry
NATURE OF
IN J U R Y
IN J U R Y F R E Q U E N C Y : P e rc e n t o f A ll
D isabling In ju rie s
10.0
2 0 .0
30.0 35.0
Strains,
Sprains
Bruises and
Contusions
Cuts,
Lacerations
Fractures
Occupational
Diseases
Burns, Scalds
Hernias
Irritations Due
to Foreign
Body in Eyes
Amputations,
Enucleations
Other
UNJJED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
hospital workers, and* in that instance, the difference was insignificant:
hospitals, 33»h percent, and warehousing and storage, 33.8 percent. Hos
pital workers suffered more hernias, relatively, than pulpwood loggers,
carpenters, brewers, slaughterers and meat packers, fertilizer mixers, and
paperboard container manufacturing workers. They also had a greater propor
tion of fractures than employees in the water supply utility, fertilizer,
plumbing, textile dyeing and finishing, and slaughtering and meat packing
industries.
- 27 -
Hospital workers experienced more burns and scalds than workers in 10 of
the other 12 industries surveyed and suffered a much greater proportion of
work-connected diseases than employees in any of the other 12 industries*
Tuberculosis accounted for a relatively large number of injuries in the
disease group, 2.5 percent of all disabling injuries* Because of the sever
ity of tuberculosis and its frequency among hospital workers, occupational
diseases, which were responsible for only 8.0 percent of all hospital
injuries, accounted for 57 percent of the total time lost. (See chart 15
and tables 10, 11, 12, and 15.)
Strains and sprains were the most frequent of all injuries in general,
tuberculosis, and special hospitals idth bruises and contusions second in
importance. In mental hospitals, bruises and contusions were slightly more
frequent than strains and sprains, due to personal attacks on workers by
patients. Occupational diseases were most common in tuberculosis hospitals
where tuberculosis constituted more than 9 percent of all injuries reported.
Workers in tuberculosis hospitals also experienced proportionately more
fractures than workers in other hospitals} hernias were most common among
general and tuberculosis hospital workers.
Moire than 59 percent of the injuries occurring in professional care
activities were strains or sprains} they were especially frequent in
physical therapy (57 percent of all disabling injuries), radiology (1+5
percent), and nursing (1+0 percent). Bruises and contusions were also most
common in the professional care division (28 percent of all injuries),
especially in medical records (1+2 percent), occupational therapy (57 percent),
and nursing (29 percent).
Nearly all departments reported some cases of tuberculosis but tuber
culosis was relatively most frequent in the clinical laboratory departments
(11.5 percent of all injuries). In that group of departments, more than 25
percent of all disabling work injuries were occupational diseases.
Fractures were proportionately most common in the administrative and
plant operation and maintenance division.
In the administrative and
clerical departments, 21 percent of all disabling injuries were fractures*
Hernias were most common in the plant operation and maintenance division,
especially in the power, maintenance, and plant protection departments where
they exceeded 5 percent of all disabling injuries.
Strains and sprains were chiefly trunk injuries, specifically back
injuries. Bruises and contusions were usually leg, foot, or toe injuries
although bruised arms, hands, fingers, and trunks were common. Cuts and
lacerations were mostly hand, arm, or finger injuries.
Trunk injuries, accounting for 55 percent of all disabling injuries
were, in general, quite severe.
(See chart li+ and tables 15> ll+, 15> and
16.) Ten of the 25 reported fatalities, 2 of the 5 permanent-total disabil
ities, and approximately 70 percent of all permanent-partial disabilities
-
28
-
were trunk injuries* As a result, they accounted for two-thirds of the total
time lost due to work injuries in hospitals5 on an average, each trunk injury
resulted in 117 days disability, nearly double the average for all types of
injuries, 62 days*
Back injuries were the most common trunk injuries (1? percent of all
disabling injuries)? 88 percent of them were strains or sprains* Generally,
injuries involving the back weye not severe, although they were responsible
for 2 of the f> reported permanent-total disabilities* The ratio of back
injuries was highest in the general hospitals, 21 percent of all injuries*
Departmentally, the medical library, anesthesiology, electrocardiography, the
physical therapy, radiology, transportation, purchasing and issuing, central
supply, and nursing employees all had high proportions of such injuries. In
the nursing departments, back injuries accounted for 39 percent of all inju
ries to orderlies and 29 percent to nurse aides (table 19)*
Six percent of all hospital injuries affected the chest* About UU per
cent of these were occupational diseases, most of them being tuberculosis
cases* As a result, chest injuries were, on an average, very severe account
ing for half of all lost time in hospitals and averaging 527 days lost per
disability* They were most common in tuberculosis hospitals (12 percent of
all disabling injuries) and in the clinical laboratory, medical records, and
radiology departments*
Injuries to the abdomen (5 percent of all injuries) were mostly hernias
although other strains, bruises, and contusions accounted for many of these
disabilities. Departments in which abdominal injuries formed a significant
proportion of all injuries included purchasing and issuing, power, clinical
laboratories, transportation, and plant protection*
About 28 percent of the disabling work injuries in hospitals were arm,
handj and finger injuries. Band injuries were most frequent (11*5 percent of
all injuries) but arm injuries were the most severe (26 days lost or charged
per case). Many of the finger injuries resulted in permanent disability but
the number of minor temporarily disabling finger injuries held their average
disability to favorable levels (22 days)*
Among the hand injuries, cuts and lacerations were most common (26
percent) but there were many burns and scalds (18 percent), bruises and con
tusions (18 percent), fractures (lit percent), and strains and sprains (13
percent). About 10 percent of the hand injuries were occupational diseases,
chiefly dermatoses* Hand injuries were prominent in the food preparation and
service, laundry, clinical laboratories, and housekeeping departments.
Finger injuries were primarily cuts and lacerations (51 percent) with
bruises and contusions second in importance (19 percent). Of the 83 amputa
tions included in the survey, 79 involved 1 or more fingers. Finger injuries
were prominent in the clinical laboratory, food service and preparation,
laundry, and maintenance departments.
- 29 -
Chart 14. W ork Injuries in Hospitals
BY P A R T O F B O D Y INJURED, 1953
P ercen t of All Disabling Injuries
10
15
20
25
1 ----------------------------- 1----------------------------- i---------------------------- 1
Eye-2 .6 %
Head, except e y e - 6 . 3 %
B a c k - 1 8 .7 %
1
Trunk,except b a c k - 1 6.2 tyo
r.
A r m -5 .8 %
i
Hand or f in g e r - 2 2 .0 %
77777T7777T777T77777I
<
j ? j / r / s / s / s / is/,;/‘/ / s A
Le g-9 .9 %
o°0°o ° 0°o°0 •
i
0 0° c 1/ .V *V« _ OO - OO ft 0 0 _ o _ 0 0 ^ o .
• o•
« « j > o. » . oo3
Foot or to e -1 4 %
Body, g e n e r a l-4 .5 %
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
About half of the arm Injuries were bruises or fractures, the injuries
being about equally divided between the two groups. Arm injuries were
relatively most common in the central supply, laundry, and transportation
departments*
Leg, foot, and toe injuries accounted for 2U percent of all disabling
work injuries in hospitals. Foot injuries (11.5 percent) slightly out
numbered leg injuries (9.9 percent)j toe injuries were relatively unimpor
tant (2.5 percent). None of the injuries in this group resulted in death,
- 30
and permanent disabilities were infrequent.
disability was quite low*
Consequently, their average
Three kinds of injuries accounted for nearly 90 percent of all foot
injuries: strains and sprains (US percent), bruises and contusions (23
percent), and fractures (li|. percent). Foot injuries were proportionately
most common in the pharmacy, administration and clerical, plant protection,
and power departments*
Leg injuries were primarily bruises and contusions (1*7 percent),
strains and sprains (30 percent), and fractures (9 percent). They were
relatively most common in the purchasing and issuing, medical records,
plant protection, and the farm and dairy departments. Nearly all of the
toe injuries were either fractures (52 percent), or bruises and contusions
(I4I percent)*
Head injuries accounted for less than 9 percent of the disabling inju
ries in hospitals but included among them were h of the 23 reported
fatalities and 2 of the 5 reported permanent-total disabilities. On the
other hand, permanent-partial disabilities were relatively infrequent* As
a result, the average disability tended to be favorable, 51 days lost per
injury.
Head injuries were usually bruises and contusions (US percent) or cuts
and lacerations (18 percent). There were, however, a substantial number of
eye irritations due to foreign bodies and fractures* Among the latter
group were 12 skull fractures*
Head injuries were prominent in the physical therapy, occupational
therapy, pharmacy, and medical records departments. Many of the head
injuries in the pharmacy and physical therapy departments involved an eye.
OCCUPATIONAL COMPARISONS
Because only a few hospitals were able to supply employment or hours
worked data in occupational detail, it was impossible to compute comparable
rates of injury occurrence for the various hospital occupations* However,
the case records for the reported injuries did show the occupational clas
sifications of the injured persons. From these data, it was possible to
prepare tabulations showing the distribution of injuries among the various
hospital occupations and the kind-of-injury and part-of-body-affected
patterns for the different occupations. (See tables 16, 18, and 19.)
Highlights of these tabulations follow*
In the general hospitals, the nurse aides and registered nurses expe
rienced more injuries than occurred in any other occupational group. These
two occupations alone had nearly 29 percent of the total number of injuries
reported in general hospitals* Kitchen helpers had the third largest
volume of injuries in the general hospitals, followed by maids and nursing
service attendants*
- 31 -
In the mental hospitals, well over half of all the reoorted injuries
were experienced by nursing service attendants. Kitchen helpers, ranking
second in number of injuries, had about 6 percent of the total, and regis
tered nurses, in third place, about 5 percent.
In tuberculosis hospitals, kitchen helpers led all other occupations
in injury volume, followed bv nursing service attendants and registered
nurses.
In the special hospitals, the nursing service attendants were first in
injury volume, but were closely followed by the nurse aides and the kitchen
helpers.
Strains and sprains were prominent in the records for all of the 67
listed occupations. In 1*2 occupations, they constituted the leading variety
of injury. In terms of absolute numbers, strains and sprains were most
heavily concentrated in the occupations of nursing service attendants, nurse
aides, registered nurses, kitchen helpers, maids, porters, practical nurses,
orderlies, handymen, and cooks. In 3 occupations, orderlies, physical
therapists, and auto mechanics, over half the reported injuries were sprains
or strains. In 2l* others, including registered nurses, practical nurses,
and nurse aides, more than a third of the injuries were strains or sprains.
Injuries of this kind generally reflect overexertion, particularly in
lifting.
Similarly significant of overexertion, there were 1 or more hernias
reported in 1*9 of the 67 occupations. Numerically, hernias bulked largest
among the nursing service attendants, porters, handymen, kitchen helpers,
and registered nurses. Proportionately, hernias constituted over 7 percent
of all injuries reported for ambulance attendants, chauffeurs, plasterers,
porters, and stationary engineers. In 1? other occupations, including
handymen, maintenance men, orderlies, and laundry workers, over 5 percent
of the injuries were hernias.
Of the more serious injuries, amputations or enucleations were reported
in 29 different occupations. Carpenters and carpenter helpers had the
largest share of these, but the number also ran relatively high among nurs
ing service attendants, cooks, registered nurses, and stationary engineers.
More than 10 percent of all the reported injuries were fractures— a
relatively high proportion in comparison with most industries. These inju
ries occurred in all but 1* of the 67 listed occupations. In terms of
numbers, fractures were most prevalent among the nursing service attendants,
registered nurses, kitchen helpers, nurse aides, maids, cooks, and porters.
Proportionately, however, the telephone operators led all others in this
field— 1 in every 3 of their injuries was a fracture. The executive house
keepers and food service supervisors were close with 1 fracture in every 1*
of their injuries.
- 32 -
The occupational disease problem in hospitals is highlighted not only
by the number of cases— 8 percent of all reportable injuries— but also by
the wide dispersion of these cases among the various hospital ocdurations.
Some cases of occupational disease were reported in 56 of the 67 listed
occupations. Numerically, the greatest volume occurred among the nursing
service attendants, registered nurses, nurse aides, kitchen helpers, maids,
laboratory technicians, practical nurses, porters, physicians or interns,
student nurses, and handymen. A fairly large number of cases were also
reported among cooks, dishwashers, orderlies, painters, stationary engineers,
and laundry workers. Proportionately, the record of the laboratory techni
cians was noteworthy— 1 in every 5 °f their reportable injuries was an
occupational disease. In 5 other occupations— anesthesiologists, student
nurses, physicians and interns, telephone operators, and wall washers— at
least 1 in 5 of the reported injuries was an occupational disease.
In most industries, hand and finger injuries predominate. In the
hospital experience, however, trunk injuries far outnumbered injuries to the
upper extremities. Back injuries alone outnumbered the combined total of
hand and finger injuries in 50 of the 67 listed occupations, including the
nursing service attendants, nurse aides, practical nurses, registered nurses,
orderlies, and porters. Hand and finger injuries were proportionately most
prominent in the experience of carpenters, cooks, dishwashers, kitchen
helpers, laboratory technicians, maids, meat cutters, pressers, seamstresses,
tray girls, and laundry workers. Office workers and dietitians had a high
proportion of leg and foot injuries. Head injuries ranked high in the
experience of administrators, electricians, elevator operators, and floor
clerks.
APPENDIX— STATISTICAL TABLES
The injury-frequency rate is the average number of
disabling work injuries for each million employeehours worked* A disabling work injury is any in
jury which (a) results in death or any degree of
permanent physical impairment,
or (b) makes the
injured worker unable to perform the duties of any
regularly established job, which is open and avail
able to him, throughout the hours corresponding to
his regular shift on any 1 or more days after the
day of injury (including Sundays,days off,or plant
shutdowns)•
The severity rate is the average number of days
lost for each 1,000 employee-hours worked* The
computations of days lost include standard time
charge for fatalities and permanent disabilities
as listed in the American Standard Method of Com
piling Industrial Injury Rates, approved by the
American Standards Association, 19h$»
- 34-
Table 1 .—Work-injury rates in hospitals,
by type and size of hospital, 1953
Frequency rates 1of—
Number
of
estab
lish
ments
Type and sise
of hospital
All reporting hospitalst
Total
Number
of
em
ployees
Em
ployeehours
worked
(thou
sands)
All
disa
bling
inju
ries
. . .
U,680
837,552
1,688,11*6
8.6
General hospitals: Total 2 / ................
Less than 10 employees ...................
10 to 19 employees...........................
20 to 1*9 employees....................... ...
50 to 99 employees ...........................
100 to 2l*9 enployees.......................
230 to 1*99 employees.......................
500 to 999 employees .......................
1,000 to 2,1*99 employees ................
2,300 employees and over • • • . •
3,617
599,51*9
1,116
6,662
31,3Ul
1*2,805
99,102
139,1*82
162,11*9
79,126
18,663
1,193,607
2,1*02
11*,132
66,1*60
90,989
200,981
273,286
319,620
151,970
36,1*96
6.5
2.5
2.5
l*.l
1*.5
5.3
6,2
7.1*
8.1*
10.3
Mental hospitals: Total .......................
Less than 30 employees . . . . . .
50 to 99 employees ....................... ...
100 to 21*9 employees................... ...
250 to 1*99 employees.......................
300 to 999 employees • • • • • • •
1,000 employees and over • • • . «
358
89
3U
52
72
77
3k
U*l*,339
2,589
8,109
26,686
56,597
1*8,052
301*,206
5,370
5,287
17,962
56,833
119,51*9
99,205
15.3
6.3
8.1
7.6
8.7
15 J*
21.0
Tuberculosis hospitals: Total . . . .
Less than 20 employees • • • • • •
20 to 1*9 employees . . . • • . • •
50 to 99 employees • • • • • • • •
100 to 2l*9 employees .......................
250 to 1*99 employees • • • • • • •
500 to 999 employees................... ...
1,000 to 2,1*99 employees ................
3114.
1*1
78
67
67
W*
Hi
3
1*8,11*5
1*81*
2,631*
1*,670
11,1*11*
15,307
9,005
1*,631
96,973
1,0&*
5,577
9,766
23,61*9
30,859
17,357
8,701
11.7
7.5
9.1
7 J*
9.0
12.6
16.1*
13.8
Special hospitals: Total 2 / • • . . •
Less than 20 employees
20 to 1*9 employees • » . • • • • •
30 to 99 employees ....................... ...
100 to 21*9 employees
391
98
110
68
65
29
17
3
1*5,519
1,11*1
3,631
1*,665
10,001*
10,373
10,11*6
i*,189
93,360
2,390
7,519
9,715
20,621*
20,826
20,601
8,831*
11.3
2.9
9.3
6.7
8.6
9*5
13.1*
25.5
500 to 999 employees ....................•
1,000 to 2,1*99 employees ................
1/
5/
161*
1*51*
990
596
607
390
238
59
6
2,306
Deaths
and
perma
nenttotal
disa
b ili
ties
Perma
nentpartial
disa
b ili
ties
Temporarytotal
disa
b ili
ties
Average number
of days lost or
charged per—
Disa
bling
injury
Tempo
rarytotal
disa
bility
Sever
ity
rate
(1/)
0.3
8.3
62
16
0.5
(If)
.2
—
.1
.1
.1
.1
.2
.2
4*
.5
6.3
2.5
2.1*
i*.o
lull
5.2
6.0
7.2
8.0
9.6
59
11*
72
99
21*
1*0
51*
60
61
155
17
11*
1*0
21
21
22
ie
16
15
11*
•1*
(If)
72
.1*
.1
.2
.3
4*
.5
1.6
11*. 8
6.1
8.1
7.3
8.3
15.0
20.1*
51
17
23
80
58
56
1*3
15
17
23
31
20
16
11
.8
.1
.2
.6
.5
.9
.9
1.2
—
.9
.6
1.1*
1.3
1.5
1.0
10.5
7.5
8.2
'
6.8
| 7.6
11.2
it*.9
12,8
11*3
33
92
121*
189
170
107
102
20
33
32
26
21*
18
13
1.7
.2
.8
•9
1.7
2.2
1.8
14*
.2
—
.3
11.1
2.9
9.0
6.6
84*
9.3
13.2
25.2
ia
16
20
1*1*
37
59
26
28
H*
16
17
23
18
12
12
9
—
(1/)
(if)
(V )
(If)
’ .2
(If)
—
.1
—
(1 /)
(1 / )
—
—
—
.1
__
—
(1 /)
—
- —.
—
—
(1 /)
—
Less than 0,05.
Includes data not shown separately because of insufficient information to classify*
Severity
.5
.2
—
.2
J*
.1*
.6
.1
.2
.2
.2
.3
i
16
.5
(If)
.2
.3
.3
•6
.3
.7
-
35
-
Table 2 .—.Work-injury rates in hospitals,
by type and size of hospitals, 1953
Frequency rates of—
Type of hospital
and
size of hospital
Total ...........................•
Humber
of
estab
lish
ments
Number
of
em
ployees
Em
ployeehours
worked
(thou
sands)
All
disa
bling
inju
ries
Deaths
and
perma
nenttotal
disa
b ili
ties
Perma
nentpartial
disab ilities
Severity
Tempo
rarytotal
disa
b ili
ties
Average number
of days lost or
charged per
Disa
bling
injury
Tempo
rarytotal
disa
bility
Sever
ity
rate
1*,680
837,552
1,688,11*6
8.6
< !/)
0.3
8.3
62
16
0.5
3,617
358
311*
391
599,51*9
H*l*,339
1*8,11*5
1*5,519
1,193,607
301*,206
96,973
93,360
6.5
15.3
11.7
11.3
(1/)
an
an
0.2
.5
1.2
.2
6.3
ll*.8
10.5
11.1
59
51
H*3
Ul
17
15
20
H*
0.1*
•8
1.7
.5
216
562
1,1*1*7
8,237
39,631
3,092
17,518
81*, 305
2.6
3.2
5.0
37
50
80
37
29
22
.1
.2
TYPE OP HOSPITAL
General hospitals . . .
Mental hospitals • . •
Tuberculosis hospitals*
Special hospitals • • .
< J/>
SIZE OP HOSPITAL
Less than 10 employees.
10 to 19 employees . *
20 to 1*9 employees • •
i,a *6
—
—
•1
(i/)
•2
2.6
3.1
1*«8
—-
.1
.3
.3
5.0
5.7
7.0
38
63
71
22
22
18
.1*
50 to 99 employees . •
100 to 21*9 employees. *
250 to 1*99 employees* •
767
791
535
51*,729
128,629
191,81*8
115,758
263,216
381,801*
5.1
6.0
7.3
500 to 999 employees. •
1,000 to 2,1*99 employees
2,900 employees and o w •
3U6
96
7
237,897
133,170
21,1*91
1*77,125
262,087
1*3,118
10.0
13.5
12.1*
(i/)
a/)
.i
.3
.5
.5
9.7
13.0
11.8
59
50
123
16
12
H*
.7
1.5
U nclassified...............
112
20,1*73
1*0,121
7.3
( i /)
.2
7.1
1*9
13
.1*
1/
Less than 0.05
(i/)
it/)
.2
•1*
.5
•6
-36-
Table 3.—Distribution of work-injury frequency rates in hosnitals, by size of hospital, 1953
Number of hospitals with employment of—
Total
number
of
hospitals
1 to 9
to
19
to
1*9
2*,680
216
562
l , 2t*6
0 ..............................
1 ..............................
2 ...............................
2,596
2*2*
105
208
—
517
960
3 ...............................
2* ...............................
——
128
.—
—
—
_
__
Work-injury
frequency rate
Total .......................
10
12*7
132
115
10 to U *
15 to 1 9
20 tor 2U
25 to 2 9
30 to 39
2*59
21*3
—
—
—
—
111
107
................
................
................
................
................
—
—
—
—
lh l
70
89
2*0 to Z4.9 • • • • •
50 to 7 2 * ...............
75 to 9 9 ...............
100 and over . . .
100
500
1,000
to
2l*9
to
2*99
to
999
to
2,2*99
767
791
535
32*6
98
285
—
37
52*
63
81
28
32*
2*9
37
16
12*
26
20
16
1
2
6
37
31
32
33
31
32
35
18
26
28
9
7
5
87
2*9
28
110
7
6
3
1
1
1
1
—
1*62
. .
126
5 ..............................
6 ...............................
7 ...............................
8 ...............................
9 ....................... ... .
50
to
99
20
___
___
,T—,
—
1
2
8
5
13
12
1
5
1
1
32*
22
7
2*
5
6
2
2
6
32
35
26
27
21
96
58
2*8
15
33
12*
8
2
1
59
2*6
22
13
12
5
—N.
1
----
12
250
22
38
15
2
22
30
18
20
65
33
12
10
13
2
1
3
3
2
3
28
11
6
2,500
Un
clas
sified
7
112
and
over
___
——
—
—
—
5
—
3
6
2
3
—
—
—
3
3
1
1
2
1
12*
6
2*
2
3
6
—
~—
3
—
—
—
—
—
m*m
66
—
—
—
-—
Table 2*.—Distribution of hospitals, employees, injuries, and days charged in hospitals, by work-injury frequency rates, 1953
Hospitals
Work-injury
frequency
rates
Cumulative
timber
25
20
15
10
to
to
to
to
29
2i*
19
12*
.
.
.
.
8
« « . . « «
•
.
•
•
.
. .
0•
. .
. .
7 . . . . . .
6 . . . . . .
5 • •••••
2* • • • • • •
3
2
1
• •••••
••••••
«« »*• «
0
....................
1/
Number
Number
Percent
Cumulative
Number
Number
Percent
Number
33
67
156
0.1
.2
.7
1.2*
3.3
52*
325
1,607
7,938
22*,638
52*
379
1,986
9,922*
3U,562
(1/)
(I /)
0.2
1.2
l*.l
15
55
176
681
1,707
15
70
£*6
927
2,632*
0.1
.5
1.7
6.2*
18.0
177
1,530
7,178
18,759
70
12*1
22*3
2*59
107
226
367
610
1,069
1,176
2*. 8
7.8
13.0
22.8
25.1
li*,900
5.9
10.1
18.9
36.7
2*0.7
812
1,522*
2,2*20
3,1*90
601
3,2*2*6
2*,970
7,390
10,880
11,2*81
23.6
73,82*7
12*9,2*98
33,571
2*9,2*62
82*,322
158,169
307,667
32*1,238
111
115
132
12*7
128
1,287
1,2*02
1,532*
1,681
1,809
35.9
38.7
31,039
2*3,915
2*6,558
62*, 567
1*1,22*8
372,277
2*16,192
2*62,750
527,317
568,565
2*2*J*
2*9.7
55.3
63.0
67.9
2*93
607
52*9
635
331
126
105
2*2*
2,596
1,935
2,02*0
2,082*
2*,680
2*1.3
2*3.6
2*2*. 5
100.0
2*3,369
2*7,252*
21,779
156,585
611,932*
659,188
680,967
837,552
73.1
78.7
81.3
100.0
256
193
2*8
—
2*
7
22
32*
89
Less than 0,05.
Percent
Days lost or charged
Cumulative
Cumulative
Number
Number
100 and over
75 to 99 . .
50 to 72* « •
2*0 to 2*9 • •
30 to 39 . .
Injuries
Btaployees
2*
11
27.5
30.0
32.8
32*,860
Percent
61,71a
177
1,707
8,885
27,62*2*
89,385
<!/>
0.2
1.0
3.1
9.9
31*.1
50.6
7l*.6
78.7
35,271
102,503
163,123
21*2,037
58,792*
121*,656
227,159
390,282
632,519
691,113
13.9
25.3
2*3J*
70.3
76,9
11,971*
12,581
13,130
13,765
12*,096
82.1
86.2
90.0
92*.3
96.6
22*,967
38,316
32,291
2*9,901*
22,971
716,080
752*,396
786,687
836,591
859,562
79.6
83.9
87.5
93.0
95.6
H*, 352
12*,52*5
12*,593
U*,593
98.3
99.7
100.0
100.0
19,222
19,32*2*
1,115
878,781*
896,128
899,22*3
899,22*3
97.7
99.9
100.0
100.0
Table 5*— Work-injury rates in hospitals, by type of ownership, 1953
Frequency rates of—
Type of ownership
All reporting hospitals:
Total ...................
Number
Number
of
of
estab
em
lish
ments ployees
U,680
Em
ployeehours
worked
(thou
sands)!/
All
disa
bling
inju
ries
Deaths
and
perma
nenttotal
disa
bili
ties
1,688,11*6
8.6
(2 /)
Government hospitals: Total . 1,558 385,020
General hospitals ....... 1,007 187,606
Mental hospitals .......
230 133,518
Tuberculosis hospitals . .
2U1 1*1*, 260
80
Special hospitals .......
19,616
781*, 1*75
371*, 177
281,351
88,71*8
1*0,198
11.9
8.1*
15.9
12.1
15.2
(2 /)
Federal hospitals: Total .
General hospitals . . .
Mental hospitals . . . .
Tuberculosis hospitals .
Special hospitals . . .
31*1* 136,627
86,886
275
38
36,739
11,21*0
27
1,762
U
261*, 1*61*
168,091*
71,1*93
21,351
3,526
11.1
9.8
13.1
13.8
12.2
State hospitals: Total . .
General hospitals . . .
Mental hospitals . . . .
Tuberculosis hospitals .
Special hospitals . . .
31*6 136,1*31
86
21*,159
9l*,9l*l*
171
59
11,361*
30
5,961*
291,226
1*8,292
205,758
21*, 1*99
12,678
13.9
5.U
16.8
7.5
11.0
City and county hospitals:
Total ...............
General hospitals . . .
Mental hospitals . . . .
Tuberculosis hospitals .
Special hospitals . . .
833 109,132
73,980
613
21
1,835
21,1*27
153
1*6 11,890
223,150
152,619
i*,101
1*2,1*36
23,991*
10 .3
7.8
17.8
11*.0
17.9
2,830
2,561
5,631*
5,172
8.3
8.3
Hospital-district hospitals:
Total 3/ ..............................
General hospitals . . .
35
33
See footnotes at end of table*
837,552
W)
m
m
( ? /)
(2 /)
(V)
(?/>
an
73
(2 /)
—
(2 /)
(V)
—
(2 /)
-—
—
—
—
. . .
Severity
Perma Tempo
nentrarypartial total
disa disa
bili bili
ties
ties
Average number
of days lost or
charged per—
Disa
bling
injury
Tempo
rarytotal
disa
bility
Sever
ity
rate
0.3
8.3
62
16
0.5
.5
.1*
•5
1.3
.3
11.1*
8.0
15.U
10.8
H*.9
71
81
1*9
11*7
1*1*
15
15
11*
19
12
.8
•7
.8
1.8
.7
•7
.5
.7
1.8
.3
10.1*
9.3
12.1*
12.0
11.6
95
87
77
182
180
11*
H*
11*
11*
13
1.0
.9
1.0
2.5
2.2
.1*
.3
.1*
.9
.2
13.5
5.1
16.1*
6.6
10.8
50
70
1*1
198
1*1
15
H*
15
25
17
.7
.1*
•7
1.5
•5
.5
.3
.2
1.3
.3
9.8
7.5
17.6
12.7
17.6
77
77
32
115
32
17
18
16
20
11
.8
.6
.6
1.6
.6
.2
.2
8.1
8.1
21*
23
21*
23
.2
.2
— 38 —
Table 5•-"Work-injury rates in hospitals, by type o f ownership, 1953—Continued
Frequency rates o f—
Number
of
e stablis h ments
Type o f ownership
Nonprofit hospitals: Total .
General hospitals ................
Mental hospitals ................
Tuberculosis hospitals . .
Special hospitals ...............
Number
of
em
ployees
Em
ployeehours
worked
( thou
sands)!/
A ll
disa
bling
inju
ries
2,060 358,755
1,759 367,361
5,687
39
U8
3,239
22,U68
21k
791,109 I
726,359 !
H ,7 k l ;
6,893
1*6,116
5-9
5-7
5-9
7.3
8.7
Church-operated hospitals:
Total 3 / ...............................
General hospitals . . .
Special hospitals . . .
259
227
28
52,389
50,266
2,00k
103,8k3
99,558
3,952 ,
k.k
k.k
3.5
Church-affiliated hospitals :
Total 3/ ..............................
General hospitals . . •
Mental nospitals . . . .
Special hospitals . . .
U62 108,513
Uii 10k,122
12
1,852
28
2,11*5
209,955 :
200,832
3,68k
k ,6 ll
5-5
5-5
2.k
7.k
1,339
1,118
25
38
158
237,853
213,013
3,737
2,78k
18,319
k77,311
k25,970
7,858
5,930
37,553
6.k
6.2
7.k
6.9
9-k
Proprietary hospitals: Total
1,062
General hospitals ...............
851
Mental hospitals ................
89
Tuberculosis hospitals . .
25
Special hospitals . . . . •
97
53,777
kk,582
5,13k
626
3,k35
112,562
93,070
11,113
1,332
7,Ok7
5.1*
k.7
10.1
8.3
6.5
Other: Total .......................
General hospitals . . .
Mental hospitals . . . .
Tuberculosis hospitals .
Special hospitals . . .
Deaths
and
perma
nentto ta l
disa
b ili
ties
(2 /)
(V)
Tl
—
(2 /)
Tempo
rarytotal
disa
b ili
ties
0.1
.1
.3
.3
.2
5.8
5.6
5.5
7.0
8.5
k3
k2
125
52
35
18
18
19
25
15
0.3
.2
.7
.k
.3
.2
.2
.3
k.2
k.2
3.2
kl
k2
21
19
19
20
.2
.2
.1
.1
.1
5.k
5.k
2.k
7.k
37
37
57
21
20
20
57
21
.2
.2
.1
.2
.1
.1
.3
.3
.2
6.3
6.1
7.0
6.6
9.2
k6
kk
139
61
37
17
17
13
28
15
.3
.3
1.0
.k
.k
.1
.1
.2
1.5
.3
5.3
k.6
9.8
6.8
6.2
68
60
85
(U/)
57
2k
2k
31
(k /)
16
.k
.3
>9
1\9
.1
.1
k.7
k.2
8.1
5.k
27
31
(V)
(V)
25
29
(k /)
.1
.1
.2
.1
5.8
5.2
11.0
5.5
59
57
35
88
25
23
3k
16
.3
.3
.k
.5
2.7
1.7
k.O
9.2
226
170
1,213
16
18
16
(k /)
.7
.3
6.0
.2
—
—
(2 /)
W)
—
—
—
—
(2 /)
m
71
—
(2 /)
(2 /)
71
—
—
•
.
.
.
•
.
.
.
•
.
.
.
3U8
281
25
33
7,608
5,95k
969
617
15,973
12,k20
2,102
1,30k
k.8
k.3
8.1
5*k
__
Corporation: Total 3/
General hospitals- •
Mental hospitals . .
Special hospitals .
•
.
.
.
•
.
.
.
U86
385
53
3U
38,957
32,698
3,693
2,128
81,319
68,0k0
8,005
k,330
5.9'
5.3
11.2
6.0
(2 /)
—
—
.1
.1
.2
.5
Partnership: Total 3 /
General hospitals .
Mental hospitals . .
Special hospitals .
.
.
.
.
.
.
•
.
228
185
11
30
7,212
5,930
k72
690
15,270
12,609
1,006
l,k !3
3.0
1.9
5.0
9.2
.1
—
1.0
.2
.2
—
Individual: Total 3/
General hospitals
Mental hospitals .
Special hospitals
1/
2/
3/
k/
—
—
—
—
—
(V)
Average number
of days lo s t or
charged per—
Perma
nentpartial
disa
b ili
ties
—
(V)
Severity
Because o f rounding, sums o f individual items do not necessarily equal totals.
Less than 0.05.
Includes data not shown separately because o f sample lim itations,
Not computed because o f sample lim itations.
Disa
bling
injury
(V)
Tempo
rarytota l
disa
b ilit y
m
Sever
it y
rate
4
-39-
Table 6 .--•Work-injury frequency rates in hospitals, 1 / by geographic region, State, and type of hospital, 1953
Geographic region and State
All reporting hosnitalss
Average:
all
hospitals
Injury-frequency rates in—
General
hospitals
Mental
hospitals
Tuberculosis
hospitals
Special
hospitals
Total . • 0
8.6
6.5
15.3
11.7
11.3
New England r e g io n ...............................
Connecticut .................................. .
M a in e............... .................................
Massachusetts................... • • • .
New Hanpshire................... • • • •
Rhode Island ......................................
Vermont . • • • • • • • • • • • •
10.0
9.8
7.U
11.1
5.U
8.3
9.5
8.2
7.0
8.0
8.7
5.8
11.U
9.6
18.0
27.2
6.8
20.2
U.8
—
7.7
8.2
—
9.6
——
—
10.8
15.0
—
11 .U
...
—
—
Middle Atlantic region .......................
New Jersey . . . • ....................... ....
New York
Pennsylvania • ..................................
11.5
8.3
lU .9
6.8
7.U
6.0
9.0
5.7
21.U
17.0
25.5
11.7
15.0
17.2
18.6
5.0
1U.2
2.6
17.6
East North Central region................ •
Illin ois • . . ..................................
In d ian a.................................. ...
Michigan . . . . . ...........................
Ohio.....................................................
Wisconsin • • • • • • • • • • • •
6.5
7.1
5.U
6.1
5.8
8.5
5.6
6.1
U.7
U.8
U.9
8.7
9.3
13.0
7.3
10.0
7.2
7.1
10.1
7.6
11.5
8.8
1U.0
10.1
6.2
5.0
—
9.7
5.3
U.8
West North Central region • • • • • •
IOWa . 0 0 . 0 . « . . * . . • • «
Kansas ....................... . . . . . . .
Minnesota....................... • • • • •
Missouri.........................................
Nebraska.............................. ... • • .
North Dakota ............................... • •
South Dakota • • • • • ...................
6.6
5.9
5.U
10.1
5.U
3.8
6.3
6.U
5.6
5.2
U.3
8.1
5.1
U.o
5.7
U.o
9.7
8.5
9.5
16.2
U.5
U.o
—
12.7
—
—
18.8
9.7
—
-—
—
8.1 '
—
—
11.1
7.7
—
—
——
South Atlantic region • • • • • • • «
Delaware > • • • • • • ...................
District of Columbia • • • • • • •
Florida •
G eorgia...................
Maryland • ............... • • • « • • •
North Carolina • • • • • » • • • .
South Carolina . . • • • • • • » •
Virginia.............................................
West Virginia . . . .......................
6.1
3.7
7.6
9.9
5Ji
6.1
U.3
5.0
7.2
3.3
5.3
3.2
7.0
9.3
U.o
U.8
3.7
3.8
6.7
3.8
8.8
6.0
—
—
—
iU .il
11.5
9.6
5.0
—
8 ch
0.5
7.U
——
10.7
—
—
5.0
—
East South Central region • • • • • .
Alabama e o . . . . . . . . . . o
Kentucky • « ................ • • • • • «
Mississippi • .............................. •
Tennessee.................................. ...
5.1
5.5
U.2
U.5
5.5
U.3
2.U
3.8
U.6
5.8
13 .U
5.2
—
U.3
West South Central region • • • • • •
Arkansas ............................ . . . •
Louisiana • • • • • • • • • • • •
Oklahoma ................... • • . • • • «
Texas • • • • • • • • ................ •
U.8
7.7
6.5
2.U
U.U
U.3
U.8
5.6
2.3
U.2
10.6
0.U
5.2
Mountain region • • • • • • • • • • •
Arizona • • < • . • • • • • • • 0
Colorado . . • • • • • • • • • . «
I d a h o .................................................
Montana.............................. ... • • .
Nevada # • • • • • • • • • • • • •
New Mexico • • • . • • • • • • • •
Utah ................................................................
Wyoming . . . ..........................................
10.7
1U.6
13.8
8Jt
6.3
10.8
5.6
10.1
6.6
6.9
8.9
6.9
8.U
5.0
10.8
5.2
7.0
U©e
22.8
—
31 .U
Pacific r e g io n ........................... ....
California • • • • • • • • • • • .
Oregon ...........................................................
Washington.......................
13.7
15.8
9.9
10.3
2U.5
26.5
13.6
U.8
1/
8 .2
11.2
8.7
6.9
—
7M
7ol
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
5.8
—
5.3
7.3
«...
7.7
—
7JU
—
—
6.U
—
6.6
—
7.0
U.8
—
—
—
1.9
7M
——
5.9
—
—
6.6
3.6
12.1
15.9
8,3
—
lU .l
—
lU .o
—
—
—
—
——
—
19.5
20.9
17.2
19.U
—
—
—
—
—
—-
16.5
—
Data from -which these rates -were computed are available on request to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
—
40
—
Table 7*—Work-injury frequency rates in hospitals, 1 / by Metropolitan area and type of hospital, 1953
Injury-frequency
rates in—
Metropolitan area
All reporting hospitals:
Total ...............................
Average:
all
hos
pitals
Injury-frequency
rates in—
General
hos
pitals
Mental
hos
pitals
Tuber
culosis
hos
pitals
8.6
6.5
15.3
11.7
Akron, Ohio ...................
Albany-Schenectady-Troy,
N. T...................................
Albuquerque, N. M. • • •
Altoona, Pa, • • • • • •
Amarillo, Tex, • • • • ,
6.3
5.5
—
_
—
—
—
—
Asheville, N. C................
Atlanta, 0a, ...................
Augusta, Ga, • • • • • •
Austin, Tex, . . . . . .
Baltimore, Md. . . . . .
8.7
6.3
9. 5
7. 3
5.U
5.7
5 .5
3.9
6.1*
—
l*.o
Average:
all
hos
pitals
Metropolitan area
7.0
7.0
—
5. 2
U.0
8.U
U.5
—
—
——
—
—
—
—
—-
Huntington, W. Va.Ashland, Ky...................
Indianapolis, Ind. • •
Jacksonville, Fla. • •
Johnstown, Pa. . . . .
Kalamasoo, Mich, . . .
3.0
7.2
7.U
3. 6
U.2
2.5
6.U
7.3
U.O
1.5
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Kansas City, Mo. . . .
Knoxville, Tenn. . . .
Lancaster, Pa. • • . •
Lawrence, Mass. • • • •
Lexington, Ky.................
U.5
U.O
3.9
5.2
5.6
U.2
U.5
3.6
6.1
—
—-—
—
—
U.8
———
—
—
Lima, Ohio • . . . • •
Lincoln, Neb. • . . • «
Little Rock-North
Little Rock, Ark. . .
Lorain-Elyrla, Ohio • .
Los Angeles, Calif. • •
U. 6
5.7
—
6.5
——
—
——
—-
11.7
1.2
15.9
8.7
1.3
11.8
-—
—
2U.8
-—
——
23.9
U.o
8.3
8.9
5.U
8.9
U.5
8.8
8.6
5.U
10 .U
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
10.1
—
—-
17.3
11.5
16.9
12.1
—
—
—
12 J*
3.6
5.1
10 .U
1.0
5a
25.2
—
—
—
—
—
5.3
11.7
5.U
12.0
_
—-
_
—
6.5
5.9
—
—
2.0
8.3
—
8.U
—
—
—
—
1U.5
9a
25.8
21.1
7.8
.6
—
•
7.8
1.9
—
-—
Otaaha, Neb.......................
Peoria, 111. . . . . .
Philadelphia, Pa. . . .
Phoenix, Aria. • • • •
Pittsburgh, Pa................
3.9
10.9
5.7
18.3
8.8
3.7
—
5.6
10 JU
—
—
7.2
—
23.5
—
—
5.1
—
6.3
U.U
U.9
U.o
9.8
2.9
11.3
6.1
U.l
—.
3.0
8.9
6.2
___
—
—
21.5
—
—
—
—
11.1
——
Buffalo, N. Y....................
Canton, Ohio ...................
Charleston, W. Va. . . .
Charlotte, N. C...............
Chattanooga, Tenn. • . •
10.3
2.3
2.8
2.9
2.8
5.8
1.7
2.5
3.2
2.7
—
—
—
—
—
—
——
—
Chicago, 111. •
Cincinnati, Ohio
Cleveland, Ohio
Columbia, S. C.
Columbus, Ohio •
• •. •
• • . •
. . . .
. . . .
. • ••
7.5
U.8
6.7
6. 1
12.3
6.8
5.2
6.1
3a
8.2
17 J*
—
2.3
1946
6.7
—
—
—
—-
Corpus Christi, Tex. • •
Dallas, Tex.......................
Davenport, Iowa-Rook
Island-Mollne, 111. • .
6.0
6.1*
_
6.7
—
- —
U.2
U .9
6.7
UJU
—
6.8
—
——
—
—
—
—
Milwaukee, Wis. • • • .
Minneapolis-St. Paul,
Minn. . .......................
Mobile, Ala.....................
Montgomery, Ala. . . .
Denver, Colo................. ....
Des Moines, Iona • • • •
Detroit, Mich....................
Duluth, Mirm.-Superior,
m s .....................................
10.3
5.5
6.1
8.7
_
__
—
—
8.8
—
10.0
Nashville, Tenn. • . .
New Bedford, Mass. • •
New Britain-B ri st ol,
8.U
5.6
8.2
5.9
—
—
—
SI Paso, Tex. ................
Erie, Pa. . . . . . . .
Evansville, Ind................
Pall River, Mass. . . .
Flint, Mich.......................
U.2
U.8
.6
10.1*
5JU
U .2
11.8
5.1
—
—
—
—
—
__——
—
—-
Ft. Wayne, Ind.................
Ft. Worth, Tex.................
Fresno, Calif. • • • • •
Grand Rapids, Mich. • •
Greensboro-Highpoint,
N. C...................................
7.2
3.7
1*.9
3.1
7.0
3.3
5.2
3.9
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2.8
—
Decatur, 111.
• • «
• ••
• • •
. . .
• • • • .
See footnote at end of table.
5JU
5.3
Tuber
culosis
hos
pitals
U. 9
U.o
9.1
U.3
—
___
___
5.9
Baton Rouge, La. •
Binghamton, H. T.
Birmingham, Ala. •
Boston, Mass.
Bridgeport, Conn.
Mental
hos
pitals
Greenville, S. C. • • •
Hamilton-Middletown,
Ohio • • • • • • • • •
Harrisburg, Pa. • • • •
Hartford, Conn...............
Houston, Tex............... ...
___
6.6
___
2. 3
U.l
9.9
—
___
General
hos
pitals
Louisville, Ky...............
Madison, Wis. ................
Manchester, N. H. • • •
Memphis, Tenn. . • • •
—
—
New Haven, Conn. . . .
New Orleans, La. . . .
New York-Northeastern
New Jersey . . . • • •
Norf olk-Portsmouth
Oklahoma City, Ckla.
6.3
—
41
—
Table 7 .—Work-injury frequency rates In hospitals, 1 / by metropolitan area and type of hospital, 1953—Continued
Inj ury-frequency
rates in—
Metropolitan area
Pittsfield, Mas..................
Portland, Maine • • • • •
Portland, Ore. • • . • •
Providence, R. I . . . . .
Pueblo, C o lo ....................
Average:
all
hos
pitals
11.2
2*.7
9.9
8.2
32.6
Inj ury-frequency
rates in—
Tuber
culosis
hos
pitals
General
hosDitals
Mental
hos
pitals
11.3
6.5
9.0
10.2
...
_
_
—.
—8.2
—
___
—
—
Racine, Wis. • • • • • •
Raleigh, N. C. . . . . .
Reading, Pa. , ................
Richmond, Va. • ................
Roanoke, Va.........................
11.1
6.1
7.9
8.8
12.0
—
—
—
9.0
—
—
—
—
—
Rochester, N. Y..................
Saginaw, Mich.....................
St. Joseph, Mo...................
St. Louis, Mo. . . . o .
Salt Lake City, Utah . .
12,2*
i*.l
5.3
5. 6
8.9
8.3
—
—
U.5
8.1
—
—
——
—
San Antonio, Tex................
San Bernardino-Riveav
side-Ontario, Calif. . .
San Diego, Calif...............
San Francisco-Oakland,
Calif. . . . . ................
San Jose, Calif.................
6.9
—
—
—
23.5
9.8
13.0
10.0
—
—
—
10.2*
19.2*
16 . 2*
Savannah, Ga................... •
Scranton, Pa.......................
Seattle, Wash. ..........................
Shreveport, La. • . • • •
Sioux F&ll8| S« D# • • •
3.1
6.2
11.1
2*.6
5.8
3.1
5.8
9.2*
2*.7
5.8
South Bend, Ind* . . . ♦
Spokane, Wash. . . . . .
Springfield, 111..........................
Springfield, Mo..................
Springfield-Holyoke,
Mass. • • • • • • . . .
5.2*
7.0
3.3
5.9
3.7
9.8
—
—
—
6.1
—
—
11.5
6.0
—
—
1/
9.9
2*.2*
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
18.6
—
18,6
—
Average:
all
hos
pitals
Metropolitan area
Stamford-Norwalk, Conn. •
Stockton, Calif.................
Syracuse, N. Y. • . • 0 •
Tacoma, Wash.......................
Tampa-St. Petersburg
Fla......................................
11.5
23.0
General
hos
pitals
11.2
—
Tubeiv
culosis
hos
pitals
_
n
—
—
—
11.9
7.6
3.1
—
—
—
11.1
12.8
—
—
Toledo, Ohio ....................
Topeka, Kane. . ................
Trenton, N . J . . . . . .
Tulsa, Okie.........................
Utica-Roms, N. Y...............
5.0
7 .2
1.2*
1.3
17.3
i*.2
2.1
1.5
1.3
7 .6
—
—
.—
___
—
—
—
—
.__
—
Waco, Tex.
Washington, D. C................
Waterbury, Conn. . . . .
Waterloo, Iowa • • • • •
Wheeling, W. Va.Steubenville, Ohio . . .
U.3
9.5
8.1
3.2*
.7
7.7
—
3.2*
___
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
5.5
5.6
—
—
3.8
1.7
3.9
3.6
___
—
—
-—
6.8
2*.2
12.1
5.2
3.6
9.2
—
—
—
—
—
—
2*.6
2*. 2
—
—
Wichita, Kans.....................
Wichita Falls, Tex. • • •
Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton,
Pa.................................... ...
Wilmington, Del. . . . .
Worcester, Mass. • • • •
—
—
21.1
—
—
—
—
Youngstown, Ohio
.
.
.
.
—
r'n ,
—
Data from which these rates were computed are available on request to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Mental
hos
pitals
-42-
Table 8. —Work-injury rates in hospitals, by division and department, 1953
Severity
Frequency rates of—
Division and department
All reporting hospitals:
Number
of
units
re
port
ing
Total ^/« § / 1*,680
Number
of
em
ployees
Em
ployeehours
woxiced
(thou
sands)
All
disa
bling
inju
ries
Deaths
and
perma
nenttotal
disa
b ili
ties
Perma
nentpartial
disa
b ili
ties
Temporarytotal
disa
b ili
ties
Average number
of days lost or
charged per—
Disa
bling
injury
Tempo
rarytotal
disa
b ility
Severity
rata
837,552
l,6 8 8 ,lb 6
8.6
<2/>
0.3
8.3
62
16
0 .5
<2/>
.3
•b
.2
.5
.5
7.3
1.7
3.3
b .o
2.8
71
198
.5
.b
.2
21b
327
17
12
19
19
13
.3
—
.2
.1
1.6
.9
1.8
1.2
210
1
112
79
12
1
8
16
<2/>
.3
.5
.2
.3
•b
.2
8.8
18.6
7.3
7 .5
7.8
6.5
2.1
63
bb
b7
20
b6
8b
122
16
13
18
20
13
20
18
.6
.8
.3
.1
•b
.6
.3
.b
.1
.1
.1
.1
—
5.7
1.6
2.7
6 .5
2*b
2.5
70
277
6b
38
99
13
21
21
12
18
3b
13
•b
.5
.2
.3
.2
<2/)
.3
.2
.3
.2
50
60
3b
52
7b
16
16
15
17
19
.6
1.6
.5
•b
.5
Professional care division:
Total 1 / ..............................................
Anesthesiology ...............................
Central supply ...............................
Clinical laboratories ................
Dental ....................... • • • • • •
31,579
1,918
1,798
5,<467
837
507,bb6
b,800
8,026
22,51*9
2,902
1,009,188
9,71*9
16,1*57
1*5,1*62
5,739
7 .6
2.1
3.5
b.5
3.3
Electrocardiography and
electroencephalography . • • •
Medical library • • * • • • • •
Medical records ...........................
Nursing education .......................
1,193
769
2,732
l,li| 2
1,576
1,173
11,816
7,237
3,136
2,337
23,706
lb ,5 b l
1 .9
.9
2.0
1.3
—
-—
Nursing service: Total 1/ . . .
Attendants ...............................
Nurse aides ...............................
Orderlies * ...............................
Practical nurses ...................
Registered nurses • • • • • *
Student nurses • • • • • • •
7,329
381
783
273
2b3
bob
1,06b
38b,572
56,063
23,590
2,310
b,72b
8,b35
60,270
762,263
119,b06
b7,5bb
b,819
9,806
17,7bb
100,569
9.1
19.1
7.5
7.5
8.1
6.9
2.3
(3 /)
(y )
Occupational therapy ...................
Outpatient ........................... ...
Pharmacy . . . ...............................
Physical therapy ....................... *
Radiology • • • • • * • • • • •
Social servioe ................ • • • •
8b9
1,319
1,791
1,198
2,683
9714
5,323
8,502
b,019
b,b35
11,231
b,b58
10,792
16,79b
8,151
8,782
22,6b7
8,886
6.1
1.8
2.8
6.6
2.5
2.5
Plant operations and maintenance
division: Total 1 / ................ ... .
Farm, dairy • • • • * ................
Food service and preparation • «
Housekeeping •
Laundry...................................... ...
16,18b.
165
b,W*2
b,226
2,975
2b5,790
2,b22
102,995
60,b29
27,bl0
507,638
5,375
211,b36
126,518
56,b68
12.7
26.6
13 .b
8.5
6.8
(3 /)
(%/)
.3
12.b
26.2
13.1
8.3
6 .5
3,927
lib
lb9
13b
b7,3U
1,270
l,8 b 5
1,089
96,873
2,627
b,067
2,252
19.1
10.3
16.5
2b.O
.1
—
—
—
.8
—
—
.9
18.2
10.3
16.5
23.1
69
8
17
bO
17
8
17
18
1.3
.1
7,376
b,b08
1,916
255
762
77,b21
59,260
8,299
1,916
6,910
157,0b3
120,08b
16,728
b,lbO
lb ,070
2.b
2.1
5.7
3.b
.b
.1
.1
2.3
2.0
5.b
69
79
56
15
lb
17
19
15
15
lb
.2
.2
Maintenance....................... ....
Plant protection • • • • • • • •
Power » • « . . . * ...................
Transportation................... ...
Administrative division: Total l / .
Administration and clerical * .
Purchasing and issuing • • • • •
Special services ...........................
Volunteer servloes . . . . . . .
1/
5/
J/
—
(2/)
—
__
—
___
——
.1
—
—
—
~
<2/>
.2
—
—
—
—
—
.3
—
—
Includes data not shown separately beoause of insufficient information to classify.
Number of hospitals*
Less than 0*05*
3M
.b
65
1.0
1.1
A
.2
.1
.3
1.0
.3
•1
<2/>
-
43
-
Table 9• -Work-injury frequency rates in hospitals, 1 / by division and department and type of hospital, 1953
Work-injury frequency rates in-Division and department
Average:
a ll
hospitals
General
hospitals
Mental
hospitals
Tuberculosis
hospitals
Special
hospitals
A ll reporting hospitals:
Total ..................................................................
8.6
6.5
15.3
11.7
11.3
Professional care division: Total . . •
Anesthesiology .........................................
Central supply .........................................
Clinical laboratories .............................
Dental ..........................................................
7 .6
2.1
3.5
U.5
3.3
5.2
1.9
3.U
U.2
3.3
15.a
9.6
10.3
Electrocardiography and electroencepha lo g ra p h y ..................................... ....
Medical lib r a r y ..................................... ....
Medical records .........................................
Nursing education . . . . .....................
1.5
.9
2.0
1. 3
1.9
1.1
2.1
1. 1
Nursing service: Total .........................
Attendants ..............................................
Nurse aides .........................................
Orderlies .............................................
Practical nurses .................................
9 .1
19.1
7.5
7.5
8.1
6 .2
12.7
7.2
7.2
7.U
17.2
20.3
6.5
Registered nurses .............................
Student nurses .....................................
6.9
2.3
2.1
2.1
Occupational therapy .............................
Outpatient .................................................
Pharmacy ......................................................
Physical therapy .....................................
Radiology ......................................................
Social service .........................................
6 .1
1.8
2.8
6 .6
2.5
2.5
3.8
1.9
1.6
5.7
2.U
2.2
8.0
—
Plant operations and maintenance
division: Total ..................... . . . . .
Farm, d a ir y ..................................................
Food service and preparation . . . .
Housekeeping ..............................................
Laundry ..........................................................
12.7
26.6
13. U
8.5
6.8
—
—
—
—
—
1.0
a. o
—
—
2.6
3.1
—
—
12.5
19.6
9.0
5.8
11.2
ia .8
13.3
—
5.o
i s .a
a .5
11.6
2.3
10.9
1.2
_
a. 7
13.7
19.2
15.5
15.a
20.8
8.8
16.8
10.2
5.8
16.0
13.1
9.3
23.8
20.6
—
—
20.2
—
—
Administrative division: Total . . . .
Administration and clerica l .................
Purchasing and issuing .........................
Special services .....................................
Volunteer services .................................
2 .h
2.1
2.0
5.6
11.8
10.7
—
11.2
7.9
6 .1
16.9
5.2
13.3
2U.2
1/
—
1.9
2.a
1.7
6.6
3.7
2.2
19.1
10.3
16.5
2U.0
.a
—
—
1.0
—
—
2.3
1.6
Maintenance . . . . . . . .
.................
Plant protection . .................................
Power.......................................................... .
Transportation .........................................
2.1
5.7
3.U
—
6.0
6 .0
a.o
.a
•a
2 9 .8
9 .a
i a .o
1 9 .a
20.1
3.2
2.7
6 .0
7.8
.3
1.9
—
io . a
5.3
5.6
—
—
2.9
2.3
6.5
3.1
2.8
5.8
2.0
—
Data from which these rates were computed are available on request to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
—
44
-
Table 10.—Work injuries in hospitals, by nature of injury and extent of d isa b ility , 1953
Number of injuries
Days lost
or charged
Resulting in-Total
Nature of injury
Number
Death
and
perma
nenttotal
Per
cent 1/ disabil
ity 2/
Perma
nentpartial
disa
b ility
Tempor arytotal
disa
b ility
518
Average number
of days charged
per—
Disabling
injury
Tempo
rarytotal
disa
b ility
Number
Per
cent V
11,017
899,213
100.0
62
16
l
—
3,531
891
23,176
67,161
19,026
2.7
7.8
2.2
279
19
21
___
10
10
18
35
—
1,662
1,119
362
20,972
118,613
18,100
2.1
13.7
2.1
12
80
50
92
35
50
26
A ll reporting hospitals:
Total ..........................................................
Hi, 593
100.0
Amputations, enucleations .................
Bruises, contusions .............................
Burns, scalds . . . .............................
81
3 ,5 U
899
.6
2 5 .2
Cuts, lacerations . .............................
Fractures ..................................................
Hernias ......................................................
1,680
1,190
362
12.0
10.6
2.6
___
(3) 6
Occupational diseases: Total . . .
Infective and parasitic
diseases: Total .............................
Tuberculosis .................................
Diseases attributable to viruses
O t h e r ......................... . . . .
1,119
8.0
(1) 11
311
761
193,061
57.2
111
H
8
6
2
338
338
158
—
131
21
159,733
111,600
17,376
757
53.1
51.3
2.0
.1
912
1281
128
32
U1
1,793
.2
U2
H
291
215
16
7,581
6,852
732
.9
.8
.1
26
28
15
25
27
15
5
l
2.5
1.0
.2
13
.3
___
2
—
—
—
3
1 *
2
2.1
1.8
.3
Diseases of bones and organs of
movement: Total .............................
Synovitis, bursitis,
tenosynovitis .............................
Other ..............................................
Ill-defined conditions .................
Other ......................................................
87
.6
19
38
77
111
.3
.3
.5
Eye irritations resulting from
foreign bodies .....................................
Strains, sprains .....................................
Other ..........................................................
113
1,699
62
l/'
2/
( i)
81 ’
5
501
311
136
2k
291
216
18
. .
—
6 .1
Diseases of the nervous system .
Diseases of skin and cellular
tissues: Total .............................
Dermatitis .....................................
Other ..............................................
Unclassified; insufficient data
(5) 28
511
1
(1)
—
—
1
—
—
.8
.8
3 3 .U
.1
—
—
1
1
2
—
—
1
1
23
—
—
l
k
—
10
32
85
8,066
.9
93
21
19
36
77
112
1,162
6,901
1,687
11,201
.1
.8
.2
1.6
21
182
22
125
21
18
22
20
112
1,676
61
2,131
93,197
6,195
.3
10.8
.8
22
20
105
6
16
8
536
36,105
—
Percents are based on classified cases only.
Figures in parentheses indicate number of permanent-total d isa b ilities included.
39
—
—
—
Table 1 1 .—Work injuries in hospitals, by nature of injury and type of hospital, 1953
Nature of injury
Total
number
of
injuries
Type of hospital
General
hospitals
Mental
hospitals
Number
Per
cent 1 /
1U.593
100.0
7,753
100.0
Amputations, enucleations .............................
Bruises, contusions ..................................... •
Burns, scalds ......................................................
81*
3 ,5U1
899
.6
25.2
6.1*
1*7
1,603
606
.6
21.5
8 .1
21*
1,1*1*8
156
Cuts, lacerations • .........................................
Fractures ..............................................................
Hernias ..................................................................
1,680
1,1*90
362
12.0
10.6
2.6
911*
780
217
12.2
1 0 .5
Occupational diseases: Total .....................
Infective and parasitic diseases:
T o t a l..............................................................
Tuberculosis .........................................
Diseases attributable to viruses •
Other ..........................................................
1,119
8.0
571
3.7
2.5
1.0
.2
225
11*3
69
13
Total ......................................................................
501*
31*U
136
21*
Number
Per
cent 1J
Number
Tuberculosis
hospitals
Per
cent 1 /
1*,61*1* 100.0
Number
Per
cent 1 /
Special
hospitals
Number
Per
cent 1 /
1,137
100.0
1,05?
100.0
.5
32.1*
3.5
7
230
63
.6
21.2
5.8
6
260
72
.6
25.6
7 .1
2.9
1*70
1*85
91*
10.5
10.8
2.1
157
131
31
H*. 1*
12.1
2.9
139
91*
20
13.7
9.3
2.0
7.7
336
7.5
157
11*. 1*
55
5.1*
3 .1
2.0
.9
.2
150
92
1*7
11
3.3
2.1
1.0
.2
102
102
9.3
9 .3
—
—
27
7
20
2.6
.7
1.9
—
—
—
—
Diseases of the nervous system . . . .
Diseases of skin and cellular tissues:
Total ..............................................................
Dermatitis ..............................................
Other ..........................................................
1*3
.3
20
.3
18
•1*
3
.3
2
.2
291*
21*6
1*8
2.1
1.8
.3
171*
11*1
33
2.3
1.9
.1*
62
53
9
1.1*
1.2
.2
1*2
37
5
3.9
3.1*
.5
16
15
l
1.6
1.5
.1
Diseases of bones and organs of
movement: Total .....................................
Synovitis, b ursitis, tenosynovitis
Other..........................................................
Ill-defined conditions .............................
Other .............................................................
87
1*9
38
77
111*
.6
.3
.3
•5
.8
62
36
26
37
53
.8
.5
.3
.5
.7
17
9
8
39
50
•1*
.2
.2
.9
1.1
3
1
2
.3
.1
.2
.5
.3
.2
.1
•1*
Eye irritations resulting from foreign
bodies ..................................................................
Strains, sprains .............................................
O ther............................. ........................................
113
1*,699
62
.8
33.1*
.1*
1*7
2,635
1*1
.6
35.1*
.5
1*7
1,1*15
10
1.0
31*. 7
.6
Unclassified; insufficient data .................
51*1*
1/
Percents are based on classified cases only.
—
290
—
159
1.0
31.5
.2
—
7
.6
5
3
2
1
1*
9
297
5
.8
27.3
.5
10
352
6
—
—
50
—
1*5
—
~ 4 b ~
Table 12.—Work Injuries in h ospitals, bv d ivision and department and nature o f Injury, 1953
Nature o f injury
D ivision and departaent
Total 1 / ..................................
Total
number
of
in ju
rie s
Amputa
tio n s,
enuc
lea
tion s
Bruises,
contu
sions
Burns,
scalds
Cuts,
la ce iv
ations
Frac
tures
Her
nias
Occupa
tion a l
d is
eases
ir r i
ta
tion s
Strains
and
sprains
Other
Un
cla s
s ifie d
14,595
81*
3,54i
899
1,680
1,1)90
362
1,119
113
4,699
62
544
P rofessional care d ivision s
Total 1 / ...............................
Anesthesiology • • • • •
Central supply • • • • •
C lin ica l laboratories • •
Dental ...............................
7,684
XU
29
188
18
18
—
2,077
2
1
11*
1
195
—
2
21*
1
617
1
3
1*8
6
670
3
1*
11
1
123
1
1
1*
—
71*0
2
7
1*3
2
26
__
—
2
—
2,891*
5
9
21*
5
35
289
H*
—
*2
1*
2
E lectrocardiography and
electroencephalography «
Medical lib ra ry ................
Medical records ................
Horsing education • • • •
6
2
U7
13
—
—
—
—
———
—
1
—
—
—
3
2
—
—
3
3
1
—.
1
—
1
—
—
——
1
2
13
3
1
—
—
—
—
——
2
—
Nursing service ...............
Occupational therapy • *
Outpatient • ...................
Pharmacy • .......................
Physical therapy • • • •
7,01*9
65
13
22
56
—
—
1,966
23
2
6
10
16 1
—
—
2
2
520
8
2
5
1*
611
8
1*
—
2
22
1
—
—
2,726
15
5
5
30
19
—
—
1
—
269
3
—
—
R a d iology................... ... •
S ocial service • . • • •
61
15
7
5
1
5
1
10
27
5
-1in
—
—
1
Flsnt operations and mainte
nance d ivision s Total 1 / •
Pern, d a ir y .......................
Food service and preparet i o n ..................................
Housekeeping ................ •
Laundry • • • • • • • • •
Maintenance ................... .
Plant p rotection . . . .
Power . . . .......................
Transportation • . . . •
Adm inistrative d iv ision :
...............................
Adm inistration and
c l e r i c a l ....................... ...
Purchasing and issu ing •
Special services • • • •
Volunteer servloes . . .
1/
___
—
17
1
—
T
—
2
.19
3
—
107
1
5
2
631
5
—
—
—
1
3
3
8
1
___
3
2
—*
1
—
3
6,1*85
171
61*
2
1,361*
27
695
3
1,031*
25
71*5
27
228
5
31*9
7
80
3
1,662
60
26
2
238
10
2,739
1 , 21*2
382
16
6
10*7
66
539
16 1
55
1*1*
262
167
37
55
37
16
123
79
20
5
9
3
572
299
91*
593
370
87
11
——.
2
96
1*8
19
1,1*38
82
310
262
19
57
28
80
219
95
27
11
1*0
26
17
1*6
1
11
9
5
167
9
80
3
lot*
27
—
8
1
13
5
3
52
7
6
—
392
1
96
Total
1/ 6
28
71
10
29
7
131*
15
13
56
1
72
21
3
3
23
5
1
5
1
1
89
1*1
1*
273
102
16
1
—
•—
38
3
3
2
1
...
n
3
1
1*
6
1
——
Includes fig u res not shown separately because o f in su fficie n t inform ation to classify*
—
1*
—
5
—
—
M.
1*01
30
78
1*0
—
2
—
1
9
JU
1
—
7
—
_
2
-4 7 -
Table 1 3 .—Work in ju rie s in h osp ita ls, bv part o f body injured and nature o f in ju rv , 1953
Nature o f in ju ry
Part o f body Injured
Total
number
of
in ju
rie s
Amputa
tio n s,
enuc
lea
tion s
B ruises,
contu
sions
Burns,
scalds
Cuts,
la cer
ations
Frac
tures
Her
nias
Occupa
tion a l
d is
eases
ly e
ir r i
ta
tion s
Strains
and
sprains
1,680
1.1*90
362
1,119
113
lt.699
62
56
_ -.
—
—
113
113
—
li2
3
—
39
3*4
30
12
9*4
1*0
1
53
67
35
2
30
1*
1
139
U*
82
10
17
13
3
...................
U*,595
8U
3 ,9 .1
899
Heads T o t a l ...........................
B ye(s) ..................................
Brain or skull . ................
O t h e r ..................................
1,291
381
93
817
1
1
585
82
73
1*30
80
33
Trunks Total • .......................
Chest (lu n g s), rib s • • •
B ade......................................
A b d oa en ..............................
H ip(s) or p e lv is ................
Shoulder • • • • • • • • •
O t h e r ..................................
5,099
8U7
2,698
759
333
392
30
Upper extranitie s t Total • •
Ara(s) ...................................
Hand(s) ...............................
F inger(s) ...........................
14,036
838
1,671
1,527
Loser extrem ities* Total • ,
I * « (« ) • ...............................
Foot (fe e t) • • • • • • •
Toe(s) ...................................
3,1*66
l,ii38
1,883
365
_„
Body, general ...........................
659
U nclassified; in su fficie n t
data ...................................... ...
82
T otal • • • • • •
—
—
__
hi
219
1*1*
5
170
hh
—
362
—
—
80
—1
79
770
216
283
271
516
155
297
61*
1,229
72
1|21
736
626
21h
232
180
-—
3
2
1,203
61*8
1409
lii6
153
56
96
1
179
87
80
12
51*7
127
233
187
2ta
112
18
8
3
6
—
—
1
—
——
35
18
3
h
5
5
29
2
5
13
5
2
2
250
117
39
—
72
22
73U
223
157
121
135
85
13
—
—
—362
—
5U2
371
26
118
6
15
6
230
36
163
31
—
—
10
1
—
„, T
—
-T- r
—
—
_
—
__
2,96U
101
2,386
130
92
2U9
6
Other
“
—
1
1
1
"
Un
cla s
s ifie d
9*
—
1*0*4
123
212
69
10
2
14
14
171
20
58
95
60
I48
11
1
—
—
1,200
1*07
783
10
5
2
3
116
61
1*8
7
—
172
—
72
9
25
—
21
—
17
r
—
26
48
-
-
Table ll* .—TTork in ju ries in h ospitals, by part o f body injured and extent o f d is a b ilit y 1953
Number o f In ju ries
Average number
o f days charged
per—
Days lo s t
or charged
Resulting in
Total
Part o f bo^y injured
Death
and
penaanentto ta l
d is a b ilit rS /
Permanentp a rtia ld lsa b ilit y
Tempo
raryto ta l
disa
b ilit y
518
1k
Nuaber
Per
cent
Total .................................. • •
li*,593
100,0
Head! T o t a l ...........................
B re(s) ...................................
Brain or sku ll • ................
O t h e r ....................... ...
1,291
381
93
817
8.9
2.6
.6
5.7
u
5
Trunk: Total ....................... ....
Chest (lu n gs), rib s • • •
B ade......................................
Abdomen • • • • • • • • •
fflLp(s) or p elv is ................
Shoulder . ....................... ....
O t h e r ..................................
5,059
8U7
2,696
759
333
392
30
3U.9
5.8
18.7
5.2
2.3
2.7
.2
(2 ) 12
8
(2 ) 2
2
35U
327
20
1
5
1
Upper extrem ities: Total • •
A r e (s )............................ •
Hnnd(s) • • • « • • • • •
F inger(s) ...........................
2:,036
838
1,671
1,527
27.8
5.8
11.5
10.5
—
-r--
Loser extrem ities: Total • •
L eg(s) ..................................
Foot (fe e t) • • • • • • •
T oe(s) • • • • • • • • • •
3,U66
1,2:38
1,663
365
23.9
9 .9
11.5
2.5
Body, general • • • • • • • •
659
U.5
U nclassified) in su fficie n t
d a t a ............... ... ......................
82
(5 ) 28
(2 )
6
9
—
2
(1)
(l)
——
—
—
—
—
MM
—
(1)
8
2
—
129
8
18
103
Tempo
raryto ta l
disa
b ilit y
Per
cent 1 /
U»,0li7
899,2U3
100.0
62
16
1,271
372
91
808
65,1M
12:,887
12:,028
36,2:99
7.U
1.7
1.6
U .l
51
39
151
1:5
10
7
22
9
U,693
512
2,676
756
328
391
30
590,706
20:6,775
79,011
39,251:
17,1^ :
8,210
332
66.7
50.6
8 .9
22
12
19
1.9
.9
<2/>
117
527
29
52
51
21
11
3,907
830
92,720:
22,107
36,20:3
3U,19U
10.5
2.5
2 :.l
3.9
23
26
22
22
13
18
13
10
k*
5k
31
19
11
17
10
5
2
1.U28
1,658
363
72,062
la , 936
25,805
U,321
8.1
U.7
2.9
.5
21
29
16
12
15
19
13
11
k
6U7
6U,U51
7.3
96
19
80
13,866
■■
1 / Percents are based on c la s s ifie d cases only*
7 / Figures in parentheses indicate the number o f perm anent-total d is a b ilitie s included,
/ Less than 0 .0 5 .
2
Disabling
in ju ry
Number
49
Table 15.—Work in ju ries in h osp ita ls, by part o f body injured and type o f h osp ita l, 1953
Part o f body injured
T o ta l......................................
Total
number
of
in ju ries
Number
Per
cent 1 /
Type o f hospital
Oeneral
hospitals
Number
Mental
hospitals
Per
cent 1/
Number
Tuberculosis
hospitals
Per
cent 1 /
Special
hospitals
Number
Per
cent 1 /
Ntanber
Per
cent 1/
lii,5S9
100.0
7,753
100.0
1*,61*1*
100.0
1,137
100.0
1,059
100.0
Heads Total .......................
®ye(s) ...............................
Brain or skull • • • . •
Other . ...........................
1,291
381
93
817
8.9
2.6
.6
5.7
571
171
51*
31*6
7.1*
2.2
.7
1*.5
538
11*6
28
361*
11.6
3.2
.6
7.8
91*
1*1
6
1*7
8.3
3.6
.5
1*.2
88
23
5
60
8.1*
2.2
.5
5.7
Trunks Total .......................
Chest (lungs^ rib s • • •
B ack ...................................
Abdomen . .......................
H ip(s) or p elv is • • • •
Shoulder ...........................
O t h e r ...............................
5,059
8U7
2,698
759
333
392
30
3U.9
5.8
18.7
5.2
2.3
2.7
.2
2,71*7
361
1,638
362
167
206
13
35.7
i*.7
21.2
1*.7
2.2
2.7
.2
1,572
300
735
300
100
126
11
33.9
6.5
15.8
6.5
2.2
2.7
.2
1*09
137
ll*6
52
39
32
3
36.2
12.1
13.0
1*.6
3.1*
2.8
.3
331
1*9
179
1*5
27
28
3
31.5
1*.7
16.9
U.3
2.6
2.7
.3
Upper extrem ities: Total •
Arn(s) ..............................
Hand(s) ...........................
F inger(s) . . . . . . .
U,036
838
1,671
1,527
27.8
5.8
11.5
10.5
2,216
1*52
968
796
28.8
5.9
12.6
10.3
1,161*
269
1*1*7
1*1*8
25.2
5.8
9.7
9.7
311
57
118
136
27.5
5.0
10.1*
12.1
31*5
60
138
11*7
32.9
5.7
13.1
li* .l
Lower extrem ities: Total •
• ...........................
Foot (fe e t) ....................
Toe(s) . ...........................
3,1*66
1,1:38
1,663
365
23.9
9.9
11.5
2.5
1,836
712
906
218
23.8
9.2
11.8
2.8
1,111*
519
502
93
2U.1
11.3
10.8
2.0
265
101*
133
28
23 J*
9.2
11.7
2.5
251
105
122
26
23.9
9.8
11.6
2.5
Body, general • • • • • • •
659
1*.5
332
U.3
21*0
5.2
52
1*.6
35
3.3
U nclassified; in su fficie n t
data • • • • • • ................
82
9
—-*
l/
—
Percents are based on c la s s ifie d cases only*
51
—
16
6
—
Table 16«—Work In ju ries in h osp ita ls, by d ivision and department and part of body in ju red , 1953
Pert o f body injured
D ivision and department
Total 1 / ....................... ...
Total
number
of
in ju
rie s 1 /
Trunk
Upper extrem ities
Lower extrem ities
Head
To
ta l 1 /
Chest
Back
Abdo
men
To
ta l y
Arm
Hand
Finger
Tot a ll/
1,671
1,527
3,1*66
Foot
Body,
gen
eral
1,1.58
1 ,6 «
659
766
1
—
H*
81*5
572
—
3
if*
lit, 595
1,291
5,059
81,7
2,696
759
1*,036
838
P rofessional care d ivision s
Total 1 / ...........................
Anesthesiology • • • •
Central supply • • • •
C lin ica l lab ora tories •
Dental ....................... •
7,681.
lU
29
188
18
755
—~
1
21
2
3 ,oia
9
12
51*
7
521*
3
2
23
1
1,701
5
7
13
3
1*17
1
2
15
1
1,721
3
9
67
7
375
1
3
10
—
71*0
- —•
3
25
2
606
2
3
32
5
1,71*6
2
1*
31
2
Electrocardiography and
electroencephalography • • • • • • • •
Medical lib ra ry • • • •
Medical records • • • •
Nursing education • • •
6
2
1*7
13
2
—
6
1
1*
2
12
1*
1
—»
5
2
2
2
5
2
1
—
—
3
1
——
2
1
13
3
—
7
2
——
6
1
Nursing service • • • •
Occupational therapy •
Outpatient • * • • • •
Pharmacy • • • • • • •
Physical therapy • • •
7,01*9
65
13
22
56
680
10
1
3
10
2,801
18
1*
6
30
1*59
1*
681*
6
2
1*
51*8
1*
1
1
1
1,621*
18
3
7
7
719
8
2
2
1*
781
9
1
1*
3
61
15
3
1*
3
6
5
Radiology • • • • • • •
S ocial service • . • .
1
9
3
1*
1
379
2
1
1
1,591
6
1
3
23
1
1
1,572
13
5
1*
7
31*0
3
1*
1
2
31
2
6
—~
22
—
2
—
10
1*
2
3
7
—
1
1
13
5
—
—
1*
15
2
—
—
7
2
327
6
—
2
1
3
—
Plant operations and maintenance d iv isio n :
Total 1 / ...........................
Pam , dairy • • • • • •
Food service and preparation . . . . . . .
Housekeeping • • • • •
Laundry • • • • • • • •
6,1*85
171
1*95
H*
1,871*
60
297
6
925
35
321*
7
2,232
1*1*
1*1*0
10
893
16
899
18
1,587
1*5
615
21*
758
16
271*
8
2,739
1,21*2
382
136
109
21
655
386
lot*
109
57
12
315
201
52
97
53
20
1,161
369
158
220
71*
37
1*76
160
61*
1*65
135
57
657
322
87
21*7
128
1*0
335
151*
30
120
51
11
Maintenance • • • • • •
Plant p rotection • • •
Power . . . ....................
Transportation . . . .
1,1*38
82
310
101*
165
5
33
ll
1*77
31
109
1*8
82
5
18
7
233
H*
1*5
27
100
6
33
8
388
15
70
20
72
138
6
25
6
178
9
29
1*
339
25
83
25
131
12
25
7
H*7
13
1*7
H*
63
6
15
—
392
1*1
135
21*
66
17
75
23
33
19
127
51*
58
12
273
32
81*
16
37
5
55
22
22
11
89
36
1*7
11
102
16
1
7
2
1*6
5
——
7
1
26
3
11
1
13
6
1
1
1*
6
1
8
——
**
35
3
—
17
1
Adm inistrative d iv isio n :
Total 1 / ...........................
Adm inistration and
c le r ic a l .......................
Purchasing and
issuing • • • • • • •
Special services • • •
Volunteer services • «
1/
—
16
10
—
Includes data not shown separately because o f in s u fficie n t space and/or in su fficie n t inform ation to cla ssify .
10
1
—
1
—
-
51
-
Table 17.— Work in ju rie s in h osp itals, by occupation and type o f h ospital, 1953
Type o f hosnital
General
hospitals
Occupation
Mental
hospitals
ftb ercu losis
hospitals
Special
hospitals
Number
of
in ju ries
Number
o f days
lo s t or
charged
Number
of
in ju ries
Number
o f days
lo s t or
charged
Number
of
in ju ries
Number
o f days
lo s t or
charged
Number
of
in ju ries
Number
o f days
lo s t or
charged
7,753
U57.653
U,61*l*
2Jl*,635
1,137
163,01*8
1,059
1*3,907
Administrator ................... .
Ambulance attendant • • • •
Ambulance d river ................
A nesthesiologist ................
Attendant, nursing
service . . . . . . . . .
11
10
19
13
988
2t*u
265
2,1*97
3
52
2
3
___
H*
___
5
1
1
28
—
2
180
iiio
36,1*06
2,560
101,805
135
26,239
222
1*»868
Auto mechanic . « • • • • •
Baker and helper • • • • .
Barber, beautician . . . .
Carpenter and helper • • •
Chauffeur, N. E« C................
9
16
1
80
17
6,085
1*06
11
U.901
6,1*11*
11
11*
10
69
a
63
1,376
1,297
!*,866
1,576
2
3
5
15
13
9
532
711
1
16
1*
__ .
—
1
179
105
C h e f ......................................
Clerk, general o ffic e « • •
C lerk-typist ................... •
C o o k ......................................
Cook's helper • • • • • • •
18
81
27
332
13
191
U,390
1,14*5
15,357
163
5
163
6
,.,r2,1*91*
72
2,651
160
1
6
1
1*9
5
50
1,239
12
3,133
51
1
1*
1
33
1*
7
61*
3
839
1*6
D ie titia n ...............................
Dishwasher • • • • • • • •
E lectricia n and helper • •
Elevator operator • • • • •
Executive housekeeper • . •
33
107
39
3l*
57
913
3,235
1,881*
6,515
2,162
6
2
23
1
21*
57
50
1,582
17
326
6
8
9
1*
6
ill*
223
139
25
380
5
6
2
7
7
H*
1*5
59
87
1*2
Farm hand ...............................
F ir e fig h te r ...........................
Fireman, stationary
b o ile r .............................. .
F loor clerk
•
Food service supervisor • •
1
6
1
151
117
7
8,115
1,251*
9
1
203
7
18
—
150
___
56
30
9
911*
2,61*0
170
31
3
3
351*
2,01*7
1,212
2
9
2
2
170
23
35
Groundskeeper . • • • • • •
Handyman • • • • • • • • •
Kitchen helper • • • • • •
Laboratory helper • • • • •
Laboratory technician • • •
1*9
236
753
30
121
6,771*
9,1*59
19,099
2,081
21,185
33
106
281
3
1*
873
3,910
9 ,3 a
27
1,227
£8
5
28
91*
—
5
1 , 2a
353
10,190
10
3U3
10,191
12,1*87
3,652
7,211
106
3
30
370
15,605
2,309
81
1*31
7
28
1*2
13
29
107
1,562
7,663
299
1*79
1*
1*0
25
1
5
13
2,372
1,552
3
87
55
5
1
3
65
1,605
1*
1
l*,2l*5
2
69
1*1
ia
1,2 32
12,809
3,511
27,986
2
1
107
55
88
1,9 53
3,263
1*
1
5
11
5
1*,800
1,200
1,305
1,291*
1*9
1*
1
20
5
2
13
5
221
60
7
T o ta l......................................
Laundry manager • • • • • «
M a id ........................... ... • •
Maintenance man, general •
Mason and brick layer • • •
Meat c u t t e r ....................... ....
n*
1*78
_
__
13
Medical lib ra ria n ................
Medical records librarian »
Nurse a i d e ...................
Nurse, p r a c t i c a l ................
Nurse, registered • • • • •
9
23
1,169
261
1,057
83,582
1
1
13
10
218
Nurse, student • • • • • •
Occupational therapist . •
Orderly
Painter and helper • • • •
Phanaacist • • • • • • • •
195
9
209
109
6
21,31*7
1,1*68
12,591*
9,606
37
1*3
27
5
1*8
—
T
1,307
21*,126
3,291
1,521*
1*3
826
—
—
1
—-
a
2
2
17
-
—
—
2 11
-1—
807
3,100
5
a
1*
5
2 , 1*93
— 52—
Table 17.—Work In ju ries in h osp itals, by occupation and type o f h ospitals, 1953—‘Continued
Type o f hospital
General
hospitals
Tuberculosis
hospitals
Mental
hospitals
Special
hospitals
Number
o f days
lo s t or
charged
Number
of
in ju ries
Number
o f days
lo s t or
charged
397
618
19*537
123
1*033
17,7li*
11
28
11
1*8
29
101
820
11*5
958
6,370
2
5
1
6
68
51*
2,1*82
1*
96
10,392
Presaer • ...............................
Seamstress, ta ilo r • . • • •
Sheet metal worker • . • • •
Social service worker • • •
Stationary engineer • • • •
1*2
38
3
1*,021
399
22
U*329
78
365
303
86
896
1
3
96
1*
12
13
6
37
~1
18
7
112
-—
5
1,509
___
2
16
79
80
—
21*
1,032
Steam fitter and helper • • .
Stenographer, secretary • •
S to re k e e p e r...........................
Stores clerk ....................... •
Telephone operator • • • • •
10
26
36
19
19
161*
1,71*5
73?
8
9
8
2Sk
1,61*7
k
k
1,235
2,1*61*
271
82
1,1*09
2
1*
3
3
2
7
2,1*13
1,213
11
20
1
3
5
9
2
37
6
19
228
57
Tray g ir l ...............................
Truck d river * • • • • • • •
W aitress, waiter • • • • • •
Wall washer • • • • • • • •
Washman, laundress ................
82
25
120
9
173
1,1*22
763
1*376
21*5
13,336
r19
116
r6,297
1,1*95
k
1*7
373
1,775
60
1*,725
1*
1*
15
1*
21*
29
17
1*56
11*9
237
Watchnan ..................................
X-ray technician • • • • • •
Other ......................................
1*5
39
122
U nclassified) in su fficie n t
inform ation • • • • • • • •
55
Occupation
Number
of
in ju ries
Physical therapist ................
Physician, surgeon, intern •
P lasterer and helper . . • •
Pltaiber and helper . • • • •
Porter « ..................................
2U
33
6
3k
k
93
Ntmber
of
in ju ries
Number
o f days
lo s t or
charged
Number
of
in ju ries
12
U
~
53
3
k
Number
o f days
lo s t or
charged
178
27
__
116
716
59
1,962
17
29
2
17
8,179
2,U93
8,103
25
1*
86
1,975
1,277
10,262
10
2
17
1,710
1,883
2,785
8
3
26
119
1,1*05
7,796
755
99
5,853
9
2,906
20
221
—
_
— 53 —
Table 18#—Work in ju ries in h osp itals, by occupation and nature o f in ju ry, 1953
Nature o f injury
Trt+.*1
number Amputa
of
tio n s,
enuc
in ju
lea
rie s
tions
Occupation
T otal • • • • • • • •
Bruises,
Burns,
contu
scalds
sions
Strains
and
sprains
Other
Un
cla s
s ifie d
3 ,5 ia
899
1,680
i,a 9 o
362
1,119
113
U,699
62
5aa
5
5
5
2
2
1
1
...
___
—
—
...
...
7
2
9
5
...
...
___
...
—.
...
C h e f...........................
Clerk, general o ffic e
C lerk-typist • • • •
Cook • • • • • • • •
Cook*s helper • • • •
20
lOU
_Tr_
D ietitian ...................
Dishwasher • • • • •
E lectricia n and
helper • • • • • • •
Elevator operator • •
Executive housekeeper
50
123
Farm hand...................
F irefigh ter • • • • •
Fireman, stationary •
flo o r c le r k ................
Food service
supervisor • • • • •
1U5
lli
117
37
—
—
29
13
16
—
5
Groundskeeper • • • •
Handyman....................
Kitchen helper . . .
Laboratory helper • •
laboratory technician
10U
1
U33
1,312
lil
li
li
—
lliO
—
Eye
ir r i
ta
tions
81i
22
33
12
178
51
3U
577
28
73
U6
9li
1
a
i
a
3
7
1,118
32
2U5
306
___
—
—
15
—
5
1
3
1
3
6
1
—
—
7
1
2
...
1
1
25
601
178
18
67
—
—
1
—
6
3
35
12
1
18
li
—
—
—
52
1
5
5
1
5
5
a
9
90
li
151
7
116
6
12
20
7
lli
a
22
15
2li
23
9
6
22
—
——
—
2
5
2
1
17
11
22
2
2
2
—
—
19
5
16
68
26^
11
86
21
299
U
9
189
7
7
—rT.
2
1j5
89
9
30
U
32
1
1L6
3
32
li
2
10
• •
12
—
5
.
•
•
•
27
—
1,358
367
—
Nurse, student • • •
Occupational
therapist • • • • •
Orderly « • • • • • •
Fainter and helper. •
Pharmacist • • • • •
Occupa
tion a l
d is
eases
.irn
----
3,327
.
•
•
•
Her
nias
19
10
21
Hi
Auto mechanic • • • •
Baker and helper • •
Barber, beautician •
Carpenter and helper.
Chauffeur, N. E. C. •
Medical librarian
M adical-recards
librarian . . .
Nurse aide • • •
Nurse, p ra ctica l
Nurse, registered
Frac
tures
1U,S93
Administrator • • • •
Ambulance attendant •
Ambulance d riv er. • •
A nesthesiologist • •
Attendant, nursing
service • • • • • •
laundry manager . . .
M a id ...........................
Maintenance man,
general • • • • • •
Mason and brick layer.
Meat cu tter ................
Cuts,
la cer
ations
lli
—
—
31
2
3
—
a5
257
13
1,1 76
1 —
2
3
3 —
7
19
5
a
___
...
...
—.
7
—-
12
6
2
26
22
a
i
9
2
,—
20
i
3
9
5
53
1
18
2
1
16
3
8
___
1
17
a
16
10
6
2a
i
i
i
27
2
Hi
7
—6
a
—
—
15
aa
132
...
10
...
3
—
—
—
7
aa
12
111
...
6
122
...
3
2
a
—
—
...
—
i
i
2
5
—
2
13
1
...
3
1
15
19
1
8
7
a
2
15
1
8
33
a
3
3
...
—
—
3
5
5
3
1
3
6
1
-—
1
29
2
2
1
a
a
—
1
—
6
26
20
8
—
——
6
—
1
6
2
31
12
3
1
80
2
__
2
ao
—
21
1
a
1
2
9
—
—
2 ...
2
29
5
130
283
a
1
6
a
10
50
3
2
22
10
11
172
—-
2
26
3
5
mnTlm
5
5a
1
—
7
9
—
7
i
i
8
—
a
2
a9
—
62
6
36
i
—
—
1
1
1
3
—
5
—
1
...
5
8
—
...
3
2
12
328
17
1,1»8U
7
3a
3lil
39
21
108
83
3
72
92
—
55
11
158
5
20
32
207
2U6
1
iiO
18
39
11
a
50
2
77
—
a
38
239
173
13
1
13
28
35
a
1
11
...
2
7
136
53
—
—
—
6
—
8
6
—
2
96
3
15
16
2
3 —
16
15
8
19
—
—
13
18
—
...
637
156
51il
5
a
i
6
__
1
—
59
15
5a
8
10
—-
-
54
-
Table 18*—Work In ju ries in h osp itals, by occupation and nature o f in ju ry , 1953—-Continued
Occupation
Physical th erap ist, •
Physician, surgeon,
intern .......................
P lasterer and helper.
Plumber and helper. •
Porter .......................
Tr«+J»T
number Amputa
tio n s,
of
in ju
enuc
rie s
lea
tion s
h9
—
Nature o f in ju ry
B ruises,
Burns,
contu
scalds
sions
Cuts,
la cer
ations
2
9
h
Frac
tures
Her
nias
2
Occupa
tion a l
d is
eases
1
Eye
ir r i
ta
tion s
2
3
,
6
17
28
1
10
7U
15
11
3
3
23
16
2
1
-—
16
5
18
2
1
2
3
h
2
l
3
11
11
6
6
2
2
1
3
8
7
-9
2
3
2
U
9 —
5
3
2
7
2
3
2
U
Strains
and
sprains
2k
70
18
95
5U7
___
—1
2
10
3
11
117
Prosser . . . . . . .
Seamstress, t a ilo r . •
Sheet metal worker. •
S ocial serv ice worker
Stationary engineer •
5o
57
16
13
167
1
1
——
—
7
Steam fitter and
helper • • • • • • •
Stenographer,
secretary • • • • •
Storekeeper • • • • •
Stores clerk • . • •
Telephone operator. •
21
—
U2
52
35
27
__
1
—
—
—
Tray g ir l • • • • • •
Truck d river • • • •
W aitress, w aiter. • •
Wall w asher................
Waslaoan, laundress. •
90
65
280
35
273
,—
—
2
—
2
22
1U
71*
2
68
15
2
38
—35
10
28
3
28
9
10
37
1
30
Watchman • • « • • *
X-ray technician • •
Other • • • • • • • •
88
U8
251
1
2
26
5
5U
U
—
12
U
3
28
9
9
31
5
—
3
8
20
3
79
U nclassified] insuf
fic ie n t inform ation.
183
3
38
11
32
18
7
15
1
31*
—
U*
—
Hi
7
2
12
62
2
2
u
U2
5 —
8 -—
2
1
3 —
25 15
—
15
26
2
6
31
—
1
1
12
2
8
5
16
5
5
1
8
18
7
25
165
—1
—
6
8
15
5
5
Ii5
—
2
__
—
—
—
—
2
1
5
—
2
•Ml
1
2
—
1
—
6
18
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
u
1*
—-
—
12
21
12
5
_.
1
1
—
__
-—
—
—
1
1
u
22
20
77
3
59
28
—
Other
Un
cla s
s ifie d
22
—
—
2
11
—
13
3
6
1
11
1
—
—
2
22
Table 19.—Work in ju ries in h ospitals, by occupation and part o f body injured, 1953
Part o f body injured
Total
number
of
in ju
Head
ries 1 /
To
ta l 1 /
Chest
T o t a l..............................
lit,59?
Administrator ...............
Ambulance attendant • .
Ambulance d river • . .
A nesthesiologist . . .
Attendant, nursing
service . . . . . . .
19
10
21
ll*
Occupation
Back
To
ta l 1 /
Arm
Hand
Finger
To
ta l 1 /
Leg
Foot
Body,
gen
eral
1,527
3,1*66
1,1*38
1,663
659
3
2
1
-__
__
1
2
___
1*
_
1
___
—___
770
367
355
11*9
__
2
1
12
5
2
2
1
11
8
__
1
—
6
—
5,059
81*7
2,698
759
1*,036
838
1,671
7
1*
11
8
.. ,
2
2
3
5
7
5
M
||ir
1
1
_
2
2
5
1*
1
2
2
1
1
—1
1
1*00
1,21*8
230
615
228
71*6
_
Auto m echanic................
Baker and helper . . .
Barber, beautician . .
Carpenter and helper •
Chauffeur, N. E. C.
•
22
33
12
178
51
2
1
1
23
2
11
10
2
38
28
2
1
8
3
15
17
C h e f ..............................
Clerk, general o ffic e .
C lerk-typist ...............
C o o k ..............................
Cook's h e lp e r ...............
20
1QU
3l*
577
28
2
10
1*
21*
—
6
35
11
116
6
-- r
7
1
18
1
D ietitian .......................
Dishwasher ...................
E lectricia n and helper
E levator operator .
Executive housekeeper .
50
123
73
1*6
2
7
12
8
9k
k
10
27
15
9
25
Farm hand.......................
F irefigh ter ...................
Fireman, stationary . .
F loor c l e r k ...................
Food service supervisor
11*5
Hi
117
57
16
11
2
13
8
—
Groundskeeper ...............
Handyman .......................
Kitchen helper . . . .
Laboratory helper . . .
Laboratory technician .
Id*
1*33
1,312
la
li*0
Laundry manager . . . .
M a id ...............................
Maintenance man, gene r a l ..............................
Mason and bricklayer .
Meat cu tter ...................
Lower extrem ities
Abdo
men
6
1*
1
1,291
3,327
Upper extrem ities
Trunk
307
2
2
265
8
5
1
1
_—
8
3
1*
5
6
16
3
—
58
1
3
7
3
28
H*
1*
16
6
59
3
1
1*
1
22
2
5
18
3
250
15
1
7
1
63
6
2
7
1
87
5
2
1*
1
100
1*
3
39
15
na
7
12
6
56
3
2
21*
9
72
1*
1*
2
1
1*1*
—
1*
1*
1
1*
5
10
9
1*
13
1
6
1
1
1
15
60
22
H*
29
1*
6
6
5
7
5
30
7
5
11*
6
21*
9
1*
8
20
20
16
12
31
8
11
6
5
15
12
8
7
1*
H*
3
8
7
1
1*
1*6
5
38
10
7
1*
1
8
3
26
3
17
1*
5
7
10
l
—
1*0
2
29
6
3
10
—
10
2
1
H*
2
7
3
1
16
—
12
1
1
1*3
5
29
11
6
21
—
10
2
17
5
17
6
1*
8
1*5
70
7
13
33
11*9
318
11
1*7
2
21*
55
1*
16
21
71*
11*8
3
H*
7
37
1*9
3
15
23
101*
563
18
1*3
3
23
92
6
3
12
51*
230
7
17
8
1*7
21a
5
23
30
119
513
3
23
H*
1*5
112
—
11
11
51
159
3
11
10
15
1*6
1
H*
25
601
1
111*
11*
153
1
27
7
71
2
10
1*
196
1
38
1
97
2
61
1*
178
2
81
2
81
2
29
178
18
67
16
3
5
61
7
11
10
1
2
30
5
6
11
3
2
53
2
ia
8
22
2
11
23
23
1*0
5
7
12
1*
1
21
1
3
7
1
2
k
—
7
5
8
2
—
12
2
-i .
1*
__
__
2
1
1
1*
27
1,358
367
1,1*81*
1*
91
29
122
1*
582
11*9
593
2
66
15
101*
2
396
99
31*7
—
51
13
57
7
333
88
209
3
63
17
72
3
162
38
131
1
108
33
96
9
306
82
363
5
128
33
11*1*
1*
151*
1*0
186
3
la
18
87
Nurse, student . . . .
Occupational therapist
Orderly ...........................
Painter and helper . •
Pharmacist ...................
2l*6
38
239
173
13
21*
6
13
22
1
76
12
11*5
66
1*
23
1*
16
H*
—
1*2
6
93
32
3
7
—
22
10
—
70
9
37
1*3
2
11
1
1*
9
1
25
1*
22
23
1
31*
1*
11
11
51
7
33
35
6
22
1*
16
15
2
25
3
12
15
3
21*
1*
8
6
...
k
—
Medical lib ra ria n . . .
M edical-records lib r a r t a n ..............................
Nurse aide ...................
Nurse, p ra ctica l . . •
Nurse, registered . . .
See footnote at end o f ta b le.
.
—
1
8
~
6
H*
6
82
7
7
3
2
2
171*
—
— 56—
Table 19 .—’ fork in ju ries in h ospitals, by occupation and part o f body injured, 1953—Continued
Part o f body injured
Occupation
Total
number
of
in ju
ries 1 /
Trunk
Head
To
ta l 1 /
Upper extrem ities
Chest
Back
Abdo
men
To
ta l 1 /
Arm
Hand
Lower extrem ities
Finger
To
ta l 1 /
Leg
Foot
Physical therapist . .
Physician, surgeon,
intern .......................
P lasterer and helper .
Plumber and helper . .
Porter . . . ...............
1*9
9
21*
17
2
5
2
3
9
3
5
70
18
95
51*7
9
3
15
55
39
8
30
229
15
2
3
27
13
3
18
119
8
2
5
52
7
2
23
139
2
1*
1
7
59
1
1
8
55
8
5
20
107
1
2
7
32
6
2
8
1*9
Presser .......................
Seamstress, ta ilo r . •
Sheet metal worker • .
S ocial service worker
Stationary engineer •
50
57
16
13
167
3
9
1*
2
17
8
5
5
3
61
1
2
3
3
3
16
7
2
8
16
_____
7
11
1*
5
1*3
2
3
2
12
2
7
2
5
23
Steamfit t e r and helper
Stenographer, secret a r y ...........................
Storekeeper ...............
Stores clerk ...............
Telephone operator . .
21
1*2
52
55
27
1
1*
2
1*
Tray g ir l ...................
Truck driwer ...............
W aitress, w aiter . . .
Wall w a s h e r ...............
Washman, laundress . .
90
65
280
15
273
Watchman.......................
X-ray technician . . •
Other ...........................
U nclassified; in s u ffi
cien t inform ation . •
____
—
8
25
8
1*
_____
16
32
27
2
3
39
3
1
6
H*
21
16
8
5
2
1
3
6
13
10
1
B, „
5
1*
8
9
8
9
1*
8
16
1
15
17
22
83
5
73
1*
2
15
—
8
9
11*
UU
l
37
3
1*
5
1
17
36
H*
97
6
107
88
1*8
251
5
1
15
32
27
97
9
5
20
10
18
50
7
3
11
183
13
56
19
20
8
3
1*
_____
8
—
1
_____
27
—
Body,
gen
eral
1
6
—
7
12
M, ,
5
1
15
—
19
1
1*
1
7
3
2
2
1
2
5
5
7
1*
3
3
2
16
17
9
5
8
11
1*
3
7
2
1*
2
1*
3
25
1
27
21*
6
1*3
2
W*
8
5
29
3
36
30
20
71*
2
68
8
6
33
___
31
20
11
35
2
25
3
1
8
1
9
19
6
57
1
1
12
8
1*
19
10
1
26
27
11
72
15
3
30
12
1*
36
5
2
9
55
12
15
28
1*1
19
16
8
3
5
—
_____
—
_____
—
1 / Includes data not shown separately.
☆ U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1958 O - 458249
7
1
3
1
—
1
REPORTS ON WORK INJURIES ANI ACCIDENT CAUSES
Annual Reports or Work I n ju r ie s : A c o lle c tio n o f basic w ork-injury data fo r
each year, presenting n atio n al average injury-frequency and se v e r ity rates
fo r each of the major in d u stries in the United S ta tes*
Individual e s ta b lis h
ments may evaluate th e ir own inju ry records by comparison with these d ata.
B u lle tin
11 L
1137
1098
6
Work In ju rie s in the United S tates
Work In ju rie s in the United S tates
Work In ju rie s in the United S tates
Price
During 1952 ..................... 3C cents*
During 1951 • • , • •
25 cen ts*
During1 9 5 C ......................... 25 cen ts*
In ju rie s and Accident Causes: Intensive stu d ies o f the frequency and
s e v e r ity o f work in ju r ie s , the kinds o f in ju r ie s , types o f a c cid e n ts, and/or
causes o f accidents in sele c te d major in d u str ie s:
B u lle tin
1190
117h
1139
Price
Woodworking Circular-Saw A c c i d e n t s ............................................. U5
In ju rie s and Accident Causes in WarehousingOperations. . U0
In ju rie s and Accident Causes in the Manufacture
of
................................ 35
Paperboard C o n ta in e r s ............................
1110
In ju rie s and Accident Causes in Carpentry Operations.
. • 35
1079
In ju rie s and Accident Causes in Pluinbing Operations • • • 25
1036 In ju ries and Accident Causes in the Manufacture o f Pulp
and Paper .......................................................................... ........................... 30
1023 In ju rie s and Accident Causes in the Manufacture o f Clay
Construction Products ........................................................................... 30
962 In ju rie s and Accident Causes in T e x tile Dyeing and
F i n i s h i n g .......................................... .... ......................................... .... . . U$
88b
In ju rie s and Accident Causes in the Brewing Industry. , . 15
855
In ju rie s and Accident Causes in the Slaugntering and
Meatpacking Industry, 1 9 U 3 .............................................................15
S p e cia l S eries No, 5 In ju rie s to Crewmen on Inland Waterways , • • 20
BLS Report No. 28 In ju ry Rate V ariations in the B oilersh op Products Industry, 1951 • • • • • .............................
**
BLS Report No. 62 Injury Rates in the Fluid-M ilk Industry, 1952. • * *
BLS Report No. 83 In ju rie s and Injury Rates in Water-Supply
U t i l i t i e s , 1953
................................................................. * *
BIS Report No. 101 Work In ju rie s in the Canning and Preserving
Industry, 1952 .....................................................................
**
BIS Report No.lOU In ju rie s and Injury Rates in the B ottled S o f t Drink Industry, 1 9 5 b .......................................... ....
**
BIS Report N o.125 In ju rie s and Injury Rates in the Fabricated
S tru ctu ral S te e l and Ornamental Metalwork
Industry, 1 9 5 U ............................ ......... ................................* *
cents*
cen ts*
cents*
cen ts*
cents*
cen ts*
cen ts*
cen ts*
cents*
cents*
cents*
*For sa le by Superintendent o f Documents at prices in d ica te d . How to
order p u b lic a tio n s: Address your order to the Superintendent o f Documents,
Washington 25, D. C ., with remittance in check or money order. Currency sent
at sen d er's r i s k . Postage stamps not a ccep tab le.
Publications can be purchased a lso at the follow in g BIS Regional O ffic e s :
3b l Ninth A v e ., New York 1 , N. Y .; 105 W. Adams S t . , Chicago 3 , 111
630
Sansome S t . , San Francisco 1 1 , C a l i f . j 18 Oliver S t . , Boston 1 0 , M ass.; and
5C Seventh S t . , N. E . , A tla n ta 23, Ga.
.5
**Free— address request to Bureau o f Labor S t a t i s t i c s , U. S . Department
o f Labor, Washington 25, D. C.
@FedFRASER