scholarly journals Beyond Mortality: Violent Injury Surveillance Using NC DETECT ED Visit Data

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Harmon ◽  
Amy Ising ◽  
Scott Proescholdbell ◽  
Anna Waller

ObjectiveTo describe violent injuries treated in North Carolina (NC) emergency departments (EDs) and compare to deaths reported by the NC Violent Death Reporting System (NC-VDRS).IntroductionViolence-related injuries are a major source of morbidity and mortality in NC. From 2005-2014, suicide and homicide ranked as NC’s 11th and 16th causes of death, respectively. In 2014, there were 1,932 total violent deaths, of which 1,303 were due to suicide (67%), 536 due to homicide (28%), and 93 due to another mechanism of violent injury (5%). These deaths represent a fraction of the total number of violence-related injuries in NC.1 This study examined ED visit data captured by NC DETECT to identify and describe violent injuries treated in NC EDs and compare/contrast with fatalities reported by NC-VDRS.MethodsThis descriptive epidemiologic study included all NC ED visits made to a 24/7, acute-care, civilian, hospital-affiliated ED from January 1, 2012 – September 30, 2015 reported to NC DETECT with an injury mechanism code indicating a violent injury due to one of the following injury types: self-harm, assault, legal intervention, or unintentional firearm. In addition, ED visits of an undetermined intent were separately examined. Violence-related NC ED visits were classified according to definitions developed by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control for WISQARS™.2 Descriptive analyses consisted of counts, percentages, and incidence rates.ResultsFrom January 1, 2012-September 30, 2015, there were 182,385 violence-related NC ED visits captured by NC DETECT (492.1/100,000 person-years). The most common type of violent injury treated in NC EDs was assault, with 132,550 visits (357.6/100,000 person-years), followed by self-inflicted injury (41,455 visits; 111.8/100,000 person-years), unintentional firearm-related injury (5,940 visits; 15.9/100,000 person-years), and legal intervention (2,440 visits; 6.6/100,000 person-years). Twelve percent of all violence-related NC ED visits were made by children 0-17 years of age (21,876 ED visits). There were an additional 20,867 NC ED visits for injuries of an undetermined intent.Males visited a NC ED for treatment of violent injuries more often than females (550.3 versus 436.2 visits/100,000 person-years, respectively). Young adults 20-24 years of age had the highest rate of violence-related NC ED visits (1,242.9), followed by individuals aged 25-34 (997.4), 15-19 (935.3), 35-44 (635.6) and 45-54 (461.3) (visits/100,000 person-years in parentheses). Among violence-related NC ED visits, the most common mechanism of injury was struck by/against an object or person 35.0%), the most common mode of transport to the ED was private transportation (37.7%), the most common discharge disposition was discharged home from the ED (77.7%), the most common expected source of payment was self-pay (37.5%), and the most common time of visit was the evening hours of 6-11 PM (33.6%).Violence-related ED visits differed from violence-related deaths reported by the NC-VDRS. On average, there were 25 times more annual violence-related ED visits than deaths. Table 1 displays the average annual number of violence-related ED visits and deaths stratified by type of violent injury. The proportion of ED visits due to assault was greater than the proportion of deaths due to homicide, while the proportion of injuries/deaths attributable to self-inflicted injury/suicide was higher among fatalities. A comparison of the self-inflicted injury and suicide data shows that women have a higher rate of ED visits for self-harm while men have a higher rate of suicide (data not shown).ConclusionsViolence-related injuries are a common source of morbidity and mortality in NC. The annual number of violence-related ED visits exceeds the number of violence-related deaths, 25 to 1. Because there are important differences between violent injury leading to ED visits and fatalities, comparing NC DETECT surveillance with NC-VDRS fatality data expands our understanding of violent injury in NC and better informs prevention efforts.References1. Injury and Violence Prevention Branch (IVPB). North Carolina Violent Death Reporting System Annual Report 2014. Raleigh: NC. IVPB, NC DPH, NC DHHS, 2017. Available at: www.injuryfreenc.ncdhhs.gov/DataSurveillance/VDRS/2014-NC-VDRS-AnnualReport-Final.pdf.2. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC). Definitions of Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS™) Nonfatal website. NCIPC, CDC. www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/nonfatal/definitions.htm. Last updated March 21, 2007. Accessed June 21, 2017.

1996 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn A. Paxton ◽  
Laurence Slutsker ◽  
Linda J. Schultz ◽  
Stephen P. Luby ◽  
Rebecca Meriwether ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bart Hammig ◽  
Ches Jones

Problem. Chain saws are a commonly used tool with the potential to inflict severe injuries. Methods. Descriptive epidemiological estimates for emergency department (ED) visits for injuries associated with the use of a chain saw were calculated using data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System for the years 2009–2013. Results. A total of 115,895 ED visits for injuries related to the use of a chain saw occurred during the study period. Most injury visits occurred among males (95%) and persons aged 30–59 years and during the months of September through November. The main body sites injured were the hand/fingers and knee. The majority of injuries were lacerations (80%). Conclusions. Chain saw injuries present with characteristic patterns which can aid in prevention of injuries related to the use of these tools. Examination of the epidemiology of chain saw injuries will help to ascertain targeted needs for prevention and control efforts.


Author(s):  
Amira Mhuthia Adila ◽  
Nur Ramadhan ◽  
Puspa Nujulla ◽  
Putri Dwi Ardiyanti ◽  
Rina Oktavia ◽  
...  

Infections due to health services or Healthcare-Associated Infection (HAI) or known as nosocomial infections are infections that occur in patients during treatment in hospitals or other health facilities. The prevention and control of nosocomial infections is a worldwide challenge. This study aims to examine the literature, articles, or journals of research results regarding the implementation of prevention and control of nosocomial infections in hospitals. The method used is a literature review with 10 journals that were reviewed and written from 2015 to 2020, or written in the last 6 years with the keywords "Analysis of the Implementation of Nosocomial Infection Prevention and Control". The results obtained are 8 journals that have obstacles such as lack of Human Resources (HR), insufficient funds and infrastructure, there are still many officers who have not taken action according to Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), many officers have not received training, there is no incentive for officers. , there is an unbalanced workload, the reporting system is not maximized, the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is not optimal, and cough etiquette has not been carried out by officers. So it is necessary to add things that must be met such as training of officers, completing the needs (facilities and infrastructure) for officers, providing sanctions for officers when violating (not taking actions according to SOPs), providing incentives for officers, and even giving rewards for officers who obey comply SOP, especially given strict supervision from the hospital so that officers and patients do not transmit their disease to each other or other people.


2010 ◽  
Vol 71 (6) ◽  
pp. 519-525
Author(s):  
Sandra L. Martin ◽  
Scott Proescholdbell ◽  
Tammy Norwood ◽  
Lawrence L. Kupper

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 392-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anita K Kambhampati ◽  
Zachary A Marsh ◽  
Michele C Hlavsa ◽  
Virginia A Roberts ◽  
Antonio R Vieira ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Approximately 14 million children attend more than 14000 US camps every year. Shared accommodations and activities can facilitate acute gastroenteritis (AGE) outbreaks. Methods We analyzed data from the National Outbreak Reporting System on US youth camp–associated AGE outbreaks that occurred between 2009 and 2016. We also conducted a systematic literature search of youth camp–associated AGE outbreaks that have occurred around the world and a gray literature search for existing recommendations on outbreak prevention and control at camps worldwide. Results Thirty-nine US jurisdictions reported a total of 229 youth camp–associated AGE outbreaks to the National Outbreak Reporting System. Of the 226 outbreaks included in our analyses, 120 (53%) were reported to have resulted from person-to-person transmission, 42 (19%) from an unknown transmission mode, 38 (17%) from foodborne transmission, 19 (8%) from waterborne transmission, 5 (2%) from animal contact, and 2 (<1%) from environmental contamination. Among 170 (75%) outbreaks with a single suspected or confirmed etiology, norovirus (107 [63%] outbreaks), Salmonella spp (16 [9%]), and Shiga-toxin producing Escherichia coli (12 [7%]) were implicated most frequently. We identified 43 additional youth camp–associated AGE outbreaks in the literature that occurred in various countries between 1938 and 2014. Control measures identified through the literature search included camp closure, separation of ill campers, environmental disinfection, and education on food preparation and hand hygiene. Conclusions Youth camp–associated AGE outbreaks are caused by numerous pathogens every year. These outbreaks are facilitated by factors that include improper food preparation, inadequate cleaning and disinfection, shared accommodations, and contact with animals. Health education focused on proper hygiene and preventing disease transmission could help control or prevent these outbreaks.


2012 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 257-262
Author(s):  
Natalie J.M. Dailey ◽  
Tammy Norwood ◽  
Zack S. Moore ◽  
Aaron T. Fleischauer ◽  
Scott Proescholdbell

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document