Risk factors for occupational injuries in schools among educators and support staff.

INTRODUCTION: School districts employ a large number of employees who work in educational (e.g., teachers) or other support roles, including educational assistants, custodians, food service, bus drivers, and community and recreation workers. District employees perform a wide array of job tasks and experience a wide spectrum of work-related risks and injuries. METHODS: Workers' compensation data were coupled with Minnesota Department of Education district employee denominator data to evaluate risk factors for injury and severity. Variables included district location and type, employee job classification, age, and gender. Rates of injury and rate ratios were calculated to measure comparative injury risk using negative binomial regression and 95% confidence internals. Incidence and frequency of injury cause, nature, and body part we calculated. RESULTS: Saint Paul and Minneapolis metropolitan area (versus non-metro) districts had higher risk (RR = 1.35, 95%CI = 1.18-1.54) of employee injuries. All job classifications in support roles had increased risk of injury claims versus educators, however food service (RR = 5.14, 95%CI = 4.61-5.74), custodial (RR = 3.85, 95%CI = 3.41-4.34), and transportation (RR = 4.15, 95%CI = 3.38-5.10) exhibited the highest comparative risk to educators; significant risk of lost-time injury was also present in these workers. Males and females had similar risk of injury for all claims, however males had elevated risk of lost-time injury (RR = 1.46, 95%CI = 1.26-1.69) versus females. All age groups >41-years-old exhibited increased risk of injury as compared to 31-40-year-olds. The magnitude of lost-time injury risk also increased with age. Falls and slips (29.1%), strains/sprains/ruptures (45.2%), and upper extremities (31.3%) most frequent cause, nature, and body part injured, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Characteristics of districts, schools, workers, and their jobs tasks and hazards vary. Many categories of support staff in schools have elevated risk of injury, including lost-time injury, as compared to educators. Practical Applications: Injury prevention in schools should be approached by targeting job classifications; high risk jobs can be prioritized for prevention.

Student-inflicted injuries to staff in schools: comparing risk between educators and non-educators.

OBJECTIVE: Student-inflicted injury to staff in the educational services sector is a growing concern. Studies on violence have focused on teachers as victims, but less is known about injuries to other employee groups, particularly educational assistants. Inequities may be present, as educational assistants and non-educators may not have the same wage, benefits, training and employment protections available to them as professional educators. We identified risk factors for student-related injury and their characteristics among employees in school districts. METHODS: Workers' compensation data were used to identify incidence and severity of student-related injury. Rates were calculated using negative binomial regression; risk factors were identified using multivariate models to calculate rate ratios (RR) and 95% CIs. RESULTS: Over 26% of all injuries were student-related; 8% resulted in lost work time. Special and general education assistants experienced significantly increased risk of injury (RR=6.0, CI 5.05 to 7.15; RR=2.07, CI 1.40 to 3.07) as compared with educators. Risk differed by age, gender and school district type. Text analyses categorised student-related injury. It revealed injury from students acting out occurred most frequently (45.4%), whereas injuries involving play with students resulted in the highest percentage of lost-time injuries (17.7%) compared with all interaction categories. CONCLUSION: Student-inflicted injury to staff occurs frequently and can be severe. Special education and general assistants bear the largest burden of injury compared with educators. A variety of prevention techniques to reduce injury risk and severity, including policy or environmental modifications, may be appropriate. Equal access to risk reduction methods for all staff should be prioritised.