Electrical injury in construction workers: a special focus on injury with electrical power.

BACKGROUND: Electrical injury in construction workers due to contact with overhead power lines accounts for an important cause of admission at the emergency department. Due to lack of specific treatment options for this type of injury, prevention remains the mainstay of management. AIMS: Our study aimed to demonstrate the characteristics of electrical injury in construction workers among one of the largest Iranian population at a burn care hospital. METHODS: Through a retrospective review of hospital data base, patients with electrical injuries admitted to Motahari hospital in Tehran, Iran between March 2011 and June 2012 were included for analysis. Patients were divided into construction workers and other patients. Primary characteristics and final outcomes were then compared between the 2 study groups. RESULTS: Of 202 patients included in this study, 105 patients (52%) were construction workers and 97 patients (48%) constituted the remainder. There was significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of mean age, gender, and average burn size. In contrast, mean duration of hospitalization and mortality rate did not differ significantly between the 2 study groups (p>0.05). Contacts with over head power-lines accounted for the most common mechanism of injury. There was significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of place of injury and electrical current power. However, total cost of treatment did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (p>0.05). Frequency of severe complications was higher in construction workers and this group underwent more invasive procedures such as limb amputation and fasciotomy. CONCLUSION: The most common mechanism of electrical injuries in construction workers is due to contact with over head high voltage power-lines at workplace. This type of electrical injury is associated with higher use of fasciotomy, flap and limb amputation.

Etiology of work-related electrical injuries: a narrative analysis of workers' compensation claims.

The purpose of this study was to provide new insight into the etiology of primarily nonfatal, work-related electrical injuries. We developed a multistage, case-selection algorithm to identify electrical-related injuries from workers' compensation claims and a customized coding taxonomy to identify pre-injury circumstances. Workers' compensation claims routinely collected over a 1-year period from a large U.S. insurance provider were used to identify electrical-related injuries using an algorithm that evaluated: coded injury cause information, nature of injury, "accident" description, and injury description narratives. Concurrently, a customized coding taxonomy for these narratives was developed to abstract the activity, source, initiating process, mechanism, vector, and voltage. Among the 586,567 reported claims during 2002, electrical-related injuries accounted for 1283 (0.22%) of nonfatal claims and 15 fatalities (1.2% of electrical). Most (72.3%) were male, average age of 36, working in services (33.4%), manufacturing (24.7%), retail trade (17.3%), and construction (7.2%). Body part(s) injured most often were the hands, fingers, or wrist (34.9%); multiple body parts/systems (25.0%); lower/upper arm; elbow; shoulder, and upper extremities (19.2%). The leading activities were conducting manual tasks (55.1%); working with machinery, appliances, or equipment; working with electrical wire; and operating powered or nonpowered hand tools. Primary injury sources were appliances and office equipment (24.4%); wires, cables/cords (18.0%); machines and other equipment (11.8%); fixtures, bulbs, and switches (10.4%); and lightning (4.3%). No vector was identified in 85% of cases. and the work process was initiated by others in less than 1% of cases. Injury narratives provide valuable information to overcome some of the limitations of precoded data, more specially for identifying additional injury cases and in supplementing traditional epidemiologic data for further understanding the etiology of work-related electrical injuries that may lead to further prevention opportunities.

Thermal burn and electrical injuries among electric utility workers, 1995-2004.

This study describes the occurrence of work-related injuries from thermal-, electrical- and chemical-burns among electric utility workers. We describe injury trends by occupation, body part injured, age, sex, and circumstances surrounding the injury. This analysis includes all thermal, electric, and chemical injuries included in the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Occupational Health and Safety Database (OHSD). There were a total of 872 thermal burn and electric shock injuries representing 3.7% of all injuries, but accounting for nearly 13% of all medical claim costs, second only to the medical costs associated with sprain- and strain-related injuries (38% of all injuries). The majority of burns involved less than 1 day off of work. The head, hands, and other upper extremities were the body parts most frequently injured by burns or electric shocks. For this industry, electric-related burns accounted for the largest percentage of burn injuries, 399 injuries (45.8%), followed by thermal/heat burns, 345 injuries (39.6%), and chemical burns, 51 injuries (5.8%). These injuries also represented a disproportionate number of fatalities; of the 24 deaths recorded in the database, contact with electric current or with temperature extremes was the source of seven of the fatalities. High-risk occupations included welders, line workers, electricians, meter readers, mechanics, maintenance workers, and plant and equipment operators.

An analysis of the implications of a magnetic field threshold limit value on utility work practices.

This article examines the implications of a 10 gauss (G) occupational threshold limit value (TLV) on the work practices of a utility that must maintain and repair 500 and 230 kV transmission lines. Three work practices are compared: bare-handed work with live lines (the current practice at the example utility), use of hot sticks, and de-energizing lines prior to work. Bare-handed work with live lines leads to occasional exceedances of the 10 G TLV. Use of hot sticks and de-energizing lines eliminate these exceedances, but they do so at a price. Both practices increase the job duration and, as a result, may increase occupational injury risks. The annual costs for the current live-line, bare-handed practice is approximately $175,000. Use of hot sticks increases this annual cost of maintenance and repair by 30 to 55%. De-energizing lines can increase annual costs by $4 million to $14 million, due to the need for adding additional electricity generation during the planned outages. De-energizing lines also increases the risk to service reliability slightly.

Economic impact of injuries associated with electrical events.

The employees injured as a result of an electrical event are younger and less experienced than a peer control group selected at random. The average cost of injuries associated with electrical events to industry is $49,823 plus the costs of unaccounted for expense factors.