Occupational and environmental risk factors for falls among workers in the healthcare sector
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Falls are a leading cause of occupational injury for workers in healthcare, yet the risk factors of falls in this sector are understudied. Falls resulting in workers' compensation for time-loss from work from 2004-2007 for healthcare workers in British Columbia (BC) were extracted from a standardised incident-reporting database. Productive hours were derived from payroll data for the denominator to produce injury rates; relative risks were derived through Poisson regression modelling. A total of 411 falls were accepted for time-loss compensation. Compared to registered nurses, facility support workers (risk ratio (95% CI) = 6.29 (4.56-8.69)) and community health workers (6.58 (3.76-11.50)) were at high risk for falls. Falls predominantly occurred outdoors, in patients' rooms and kitchens depending on occupation and sub-sector. Slippery surfaces due to icy conditions or liquid contaminants were a leading contributing factor. Falls were more frequent in the colder months (January-March). The risk of falls varies by nature of work, location and worker demographics. The findings of this research will be useful for developing evidence-based interventions. STATEMENT OF RELEVANCE: Falls are a major cause of occupational injury for healthcare workers. This study examined risk factors including occupation type, workplace design, work setting, work organisation and environmental conditions in a large healthcare worker population in BC, Canada. The findings of this research should contribute towards developing evidence-based interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it