Organizational policy and other factors associated with emergency medical technician seat belt use

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine factors associated with seat belt usage among Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs). METHODS: As part of biennial re-registration paperwork, nationally registered EMTs completed a survey on the safety and health risks facing Emergency Medical Services (EMS) providers. Respondents were asked to describe their seat belt use while in the front seats of an ambulance. They were categorized as "high" in seat belt use if it had been more than a year since they had not worn their seat belt or "low" in seat belt use if they had not worn their seat belt at least once within the past 12 months. A logistic regression model was fit to estimate the association between seat belt use, organizational seat belt policy, type of EMS organization worked for, EMT certification level, and the size of community where EMS work is performed. RESULTS: Of the 41,823 EMTs that re-registered in 2003, surveys were received from 29,575 (70.7%). A significant interaction between organizational seat belt policy and type of EMS organization was found to exist. Participants reporting no organizational seat belt policy had lower odds of seat belt usage when compared to individuals that do have a seat belt policy. Odds Ratios ranged from 0.20 (95% CI 0.10-0.40) for military organizations to 0.59 (95% CI 0.38-0.93) for private EMS organizations. Paramedics and those working in rural areas also had lower odds of seat belt use. CONCLUSION: Several factors were found to be associated with seat belt usage among EMTs while in the front compartment of an ambulance. However, it appears that only one, organizational policy, is a modifiable characteristic.     

Seat Belt Use in States and Territories with Primary and Secondary Laws -- United States, 2006

Problem

Motor-vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death in the United States. In the event of a crash, seat belts are highly effective in preventing serious injury and death.

Methods

Data from the 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were used to calculate prevalence of seat belt use by state and territory and by type of state seat belt law (primary vs. secondary enforcement).

Results

In 2006, seat belt use among adults ranged from 58.3% to 91.9% in the states and territories. Seat belt use was 86.0% in states and territories with primary enforcement laws and 75.9% in states with secondary enforcement laws.

Discussion

Seat belt use continues to increase in the United States. Primary enforcement laws remain a more effective strategy than secondary enforcement laws in getting motor-vehicle occupants to wear their seat belts.     

Investigation of seat belt use among the drivers of different education levels

Seat belt use habit has been investigated according to the education level of drivers. Copies of a questionnaire were distributed to 1000 participants of four different education levels. Factors such as seat belt usage habit, restricting factors and crash data have been investigated. Data have been analyzed with SPSS 15.0 software. Increased level of education leads to increased seat belt usage, lower numbers of crashes and crash severities. The factors restricting seat belt use are lack of habit, discomfort and short distance driving. The use of precaution signal and increases in comfort can increase seat belt usage. The primary and high school education on traffic safety and seat belt usage has been serving the purpose.     

Connecticut statewide sTEP wave evaluation

INTRODUCTION: Selective Traffic Enforcement Programs (sTEPs) are a proven method to change motorists' behavior. Since 1997, the Connecticut DOT's Division of Highway Safety has organized a statewide seat belt enforcement program, with sTEP waves every three or four months. To date, 28 waves have been implemented. METHOD: Pre-wave and post-wave seat belt observation surveys are conducted by both state and municipal police across the state. Survey results, as well as a summary of all enforcement activity during the wave, are submitted for evaluation. RESULTS: Connecticut seat belt use has continued to rise from one wave to the next in a predictable "saw blade" pattern. CONCLUSIONS: The data clearly demonstrate that agencies that have participated in a greater number of waves have experienced the greatest increase in belt use. Belt use has not yet plateaued and additional sTEP enforcement seems indicated. However, evidence from other states suggests that a plateau may occur somewhere in the mid 80% range. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: Should this occur, Connecticut will work toward strengthening the round the clock model, emphasizing the importance of aggressive primary enforcement.     

Seat belt use in the ambulance patient compartment by emergency medical services professionals is low regardless of patient presence,seating position,or patient acuity

Background: Inconsistent use of seat belts in an ambulance may increase the risk of injury for emergency medical services (EMS) professionals and their patients. Our objectives were to: (1) describe the prevalence of seat belt usage based on patient acuity and seat location, and (2) assess the association between EMS-related characteristics and consistent use of a seat belt. Methods: We administered a cross-sectional electronic questionnaire to a random sample of 20,000 nationally-certified EMS professionals, measuring seat belt use in each seating location of an ambulance during transport of stable, critical, or no patients. We included practicing, non-military, emergency medical technicians or higher who reported working in ambulances. We used multivariable logistic regression models to estimate the odds of consistent (≥50% of the time) use of seat belts for the rear-facing jump seat and right-sided crew bench during transport of stable and critical patients. Results: A total of 1431 respondents were included in the analysis. Patient compartment seat belt use varied with the highest use in forward-facing seats when no patient was being transported (59.8%) and lowest use in the left-side “CPR” seat with a critical patient (9.4%). Only 40.2% of respondents reported an agency policy regarding seat belt use while riding in the patient compartment. In all multivariable logistic regression models, advanced life support level certification and fewer years of experience were associated with decreased odds of consistent seat belt use. An agency seat belt policy was strongly associated with increased odds of seat belt use in the patient compartment. Conclusions: Seat belt use was low and varied by seating location and patient acuity in the patient compartment of an ambulance. Practical Applications: EMS organizations should consider primary prevention approaches of provider education, improved ambulance designs, enactment and enforcement of policies to improve seat belt compliance and provider safety.     

The effects of persistent audible seat belt reminders and a speed-limiting interlock on the seat belt use of drivers who do not always use a seat belt

Introduction: Vehicle technologies that increase seat belt use can save thousands of lives each year. Kidd, Singer, Huey, and Kerfoot (2018) found that a gearshift interlock was more effective for increasing seat belt use than an intermittent audible reminder, but interlocks may not be more effective than persistent audible reminders lasting at least 90 seconds. Method: Forty-nine part-time belt users with a recent seat belt citation who self-reported not always using a seat belt drove two vehicles for 1 week each. Thirty-three drove a Chevrolet with an intermittent audible reminder followed by either a BMW with a persistent 90-second audible reminder (n = 17) or a Subaru with an incessant audible reminder (n = 16). The other 16 participants experienced the BMW persistent reminder followed by an interlock that limited speed to 15 mph during unbelted driving. These data were combined with data from 32 part-time belt users in Kidd et al. (2018) who experienced the intermittent reminder for 2 weeks or the intermittent reminder for 1 week and a gearshift interlock the next. Results: Relative to the intermittent reminder, seat belt use was significantly increased an estimated 30% by the BMW persistent reminder, 34% by the Subaru incessant reminder, and 33% by the speed-limiting interlock. Belt use was increased an estimated 16% by the gearshift interlock, but this change was not significant. More participants circumvented the speed-limiting interlock to drive unbelted than the audible reminders. Responses to a poststudy survey indicated that interlocks were less acceptable than reminders. Conclusions: Audible reminders lasting at least 90 seconds and a speed-limiting interlock were more effective for increasing seat belt use than an intermittent audible reminder, but reminders were found more acceptable. Practical applications: Strengthening existing U.S. safety standards to require audible reminders lasting at least 90 seconds for front-row occupants could save up to 1,489 lives annually.     

炼化企业噪声危害重点岗位的调查

目的筛选出炼化企业噪声危害突出的重点岗位或装置,便于企业管理者对这些岗位或装置的人员进行重点管理和监护,推行分类分级管理,降低噪声对作业人员的危害。方法通过对近30家炼化企业的噪声检测结果超标情况与在岗期间健康监护中听力异常结果统计分析,选出噪声危害的重点岗位。结果炼化企业噪声危害较为突出,职工听力受损与现场的噪声强度呈正相关。结论炼化企业中的热电锅炉、化纤、空分空压、常减压、聚乙烯、聚丙烯、维修等是噪声危害的重点装置或岗位。     

太湖流域安吉县城绿地系统水生态服务功能

论文对太湖流域上游区域安吉县城绿地系统的水生态服务功能进行了系统研究。在资料收集和实地调查的基础上,研究将安吉绿地分为居住区及单位附属绿地、公园绿地、道路绿地和防护绿地。研究表明安吉县城绿地系统具有明显的减少地表径流和净化水质的水生态功能。2008年,安吉县城绿地系统共减少地表径流400.3×10⁴ m³;削减雨水径流污染物COD 16.0 t、TN 7.91 t、NH₄-N 0.22 t和TP 0.29 t。绿地系统的水生态服务功能与绿地面积以及植被组成相关,在安吉县城绿地系统中,总截留降水和去除污染物最多的为居住区及单位附属绿地,其次为公园绿地、道路绿地和防护绿地。     

Drivers' Assessment of Ford's Belt Reminder System

In recent model years, Ford vehicles have been equipped with a supplementary seat belt reminder system that flashes and chimes intermittently for up to 5 min if the driver is unbelted. Sound- and light-based belt reminder systems of various types are beginning to appear in the market place, and it is important to learn about their acceptance and ability to increase belt use. The present study was designed to ascertain consumer reaction and reported belt use regarding the Ford system. Personal interviews were conducted with 405 drivers of vehicles with the reminder system. Among the drivers, 67% said they had activated the belt reminder one or more times, 73% said that the last time this happened they fastened their belts, 46% said their belt use had increased since driving this vehicle, 78% said they liked the reminder system, and 79% said they wanted a reminder system like this in their next vehicle. Five percent had disabled the system. Part-time users were responsive to the reminder, for example, of those who said they currently used belts usually but not on some occasions, 70% said they fastened their seat belts the last time the reminder was activated and 76% said their belt use had increased. Five percent spontaneously mentioned the belt reminder as an especially disliked feature of their new vehicles, and 2% said their belt use had decreased since having it. The 7% of respondents who reported they used belts never or very occasionally were least responsive to the system. Overall, the Ford belt reminder system is being favorably received.     

Encouraging compliance with graduated driver licensing restrictions

PROBLEM: Although graduated driver licensing (GDL) programs have reduced the high crash rates for 16-and 17-year-old drivers, research suggests that some teenagers fail to comply with restrictions on nighttime driving and carrying passengers. METHOD: A program to encourage compliance with GDL restrictions and seat belt requirements was implemented in Guilford County, North Carolina. The program combined increased enforcement with a multi-faceted publicity campaign drawing attention to the enforcement activity. A comparison community was studied to assess whether changes over time could be reasonably attributed to the program. RESULTS: Several measures indicate that greater enforcement did occur in the intervention community and that teenagers perceived the increase. However, self-reported data and direct observations of young drivers in the intervention and comparison communities showed the program resulted in only modest changes in compliance with GDL restrictions. DISCUSSION: The program put in place the mechanisms known to produce changes in driver behavior, but these may have been insufficient to alter the behavior of the minority of teenagers (and parents) who were not already complying with restrictions. However, the modest changes in young driver behavior plus the clear changes in both actual and perceived enforcement suggest that high visibility enforcement programs merit further use and evaluation in other communities, particularly those where compliance with GDL provisions is lower than in Guilford County.