Workplace Protection Factor Measurements on Powered Air-Purifying Respirators at a Secondary Lead Smelter – Test Protocol

AIHAJ ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 236-241 ◽  
Author(s):  
WARREN R. MYERS ◽  
MICHAEL J. PEACH ◽  
JOAN ALLENDER
1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Spear ◽  
J. Bootland ◽  
J. Dumond ◽  
C. Lloyd

AIHAJ ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 45 (10) ◽  
pp. 681-688 ◽  
Author(s):  
W.R. MYERS ◽  
M.J. PEACH ◽  
K. CUTRIGHT ◽  
W. ISKANDER

2000 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 235-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terry M. Spear ◽  
James DuMond ◽  
Carrie Lloyd ◽  
James H. Vincent

Author(s):  
Christine Parrish ◽  
Carole Roth ◽  
Brooke Roberts ◽  
Gail Davie

Abstract Background: Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is recognized as the signature injury of the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet there remains limited understanding of the persisting cognitive deficits of mTBI sustained in combat. Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) have traditionally been responsible for evaluating and treating the cognitive-communication disorders following severe brain injuries. The evaluation instruments historically used are insensitive to the subtle deficits found in individuals with mTBI. Objectives: Based on the limited literature and clinical evidence describing traditional and current tests for measuring cognitive-communication deficits (CCD) of TBI, the strengths and weaknesses of the instruments are discussed relative to their use with mTBI. It is necessary to understand the nature and severity of CCD associated with mTBI for treatment planning and goal setting. Yet, the complexity of mTBI sustained in combat, which often co-occurs with PTSD and other psychological health and physiological issues, creates a clinical challenge for speech-language pathologists worldwide. The purpose of the paper is to explore methods for substantiating the nature and severity of CCD described by service members returning from combat. Methods: To better understand the nature of the functional cognitive-communication deficits described by service members returning from combat, a patient questionnaire and a test protocol were designed and administered to over 200 patients. Preliminary impressions are described addressing the nature of the deficits and the challenges faced in differentiating the etiologies of the CCD. Conclusions: Speech-language pathologists are challenged with evaluating, diagnosing, and treating the cognitive-communication deficits of mTBI resulting from combat-related injuries. Assessments that are sensitive to the functional deficits of mTBI are recommended. An interdisciplinary rehabilitation model is essential for differentially diagnosing the consequences of mTBI, PTSD, and other psychological and physical health concerns.


2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 5-11
Author(s):  
E. Randolph Soo Hoo ◽  
Stephen L. Demeter

Abstract Referring agents may ask independent medical evaluators if the examinee can return to work in either a normal or a restricted capacity; similarly, employers may ask external parties to conduct this type of assessment before a hire or after an injury. Functional capacity evaluations (FCEs) are used to measure agility and strength, but they have limitations and use technical jargon or concepts that can be confusing. This article clarifies key terms and concepts related to FCEs. The basic approach to a job analysis is to collect information about the job using a variety of methods, analyze the data, and summarize the data to determine specific factors required for the job. No single, optimal job analysis or validation method is applicable to every work situation or company, but the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission offers technical standards for each type of validity study. FCEs are a systematic method of measuring an individual's ability to perform various activities, and results are matched to descriptions of specific work-related tasks. Results of physical abilities/agilities tests are reported as “matching” or “not matching” job demands or “pass” or “fail” meeting job criteria. Individuals who fail an employment physical agility test often challenge the results on the basis that the test was poorly conducted, that the test protocol was not reflective of the job, or that levels for successful completion were inappropriate.


Diabetes ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 1571-P
Author(s):  
BERT B. LITTLE ◽  
ROBERT F. REILLY ◽  
BRAD WALSH

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document