Correlates of fitness for duty in hazardous materials firefighters.

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: From a statewide medical examination program, we identified firefighters who were deemed unfit for duty by attending physicians (ATTENDING FAIL, n=9) and those who would have been disqualified by the application of selected numerical criteria from the 1997 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) guidelines (NFPA FAIL, n=27) and criteria from a Medical Workshop (WORK FAIL, n=16). The subjects who were unfit for duty or failed numerical criteria were compared with those who were fit for duty and passed all objective criteria (FIT group, n=302). All subjects were given an overall morbidity rating by a board certified internist. Comparisons on two surrogate measures of fitness, VO(2) max predicted and predicted coronary heart disease (CHD) risk, were also performed. RESULTS: We found a significant tendency towards worse results (e.g. higher blood pressure or lower spirometric function) among the three FAIL groups compared with the FIT group. The FAIL groups shared only a small overlap, however, with the firefighters with the highest morbidity ratings, lowest predicted VO(2) max, and highest CHD risks. Increasing morbidity was associated with higher age, lower spirometric function, lower predicted VO(2) max, increasing cholesterol, greater BMI, and higher predicted 10 year CHD risk. CONCLUSIONS: Although the presence of a single serious or poorly controlled condition may render an individual unfit for safe performance as a firefighter, examination of our cohort suggests that multiple risk factor models or overall clinical assessments are superior means of identifying firefighters with poor health status and increased CHD risk.

Fitness for duty evaluations in hazardous materials firefighters.

We analyzed results from the medical examinations of 340 hazardous materials firefighters and applied various objective standards in simulated fitness for duty determinations. Ten percent had elevated blood pressures, 13% had far visual acuity worse than 20/30 in one or both eyes, and 38% had abnormal audiometry. The strictest standards for resting blood pressure and corrected visual acuity would have failed 2% and 1% of the cohort, respectively. For audiometry, 0%-5% of the cohort would have failed, depending on the hearing requirements set. The strictest hearing standard did not allow for corrective devices so that few failures would be reversible. Visual and audiometric testing and measurement of resting blood pressure all have significant clinical yields. Studies of simulated firefighting are needed to establish minimum hearing requirements and determine whether corrective devices can be worn safely during duty.